Category Archives: Tribunal 2

6 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution witness 18

Today due to a major ongoing protest called by Hefazat-e-Islami our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. While not officially considered a hartal, the protest resulted in severe unrest throughout the city and security conditions were extremely precarious. The government deployed an entire platoon of Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) to the International Crimes Tribunal so as to ensure high security at the courts’ premises. The Tribunal was empty mostly empty today as both counsel and researchers were unable to attend the court. Our coverage of the days proceedings are gathered primarily from media sources.

At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the judges of Tribunal-2 expressed their dissatisfaction with the failure of Dhaka Metropolitan Police to comply with the court order instructing them to provide the Alim with adequate security on his way to and from the court. The issue of lack of security of the Accused was brought to the Tribunal’s attention after the Daily Star published an article regarding the matter yesterday.

The court then addressed the only case listed for the day, Chief Prosecutor v Abdul Alim. Prosecution witness 18, Mostafizur Rahman, testified before the Tribunal. He described how his father and others were detained and later killed by the Pakistani Army. He also claimed that the Accused was the Chief of the local Peace Committee and Razakar forces in Jaipurhat. After the witness’ examination-in-chief the Tribunal adjourned the case until 07.05.2013 when the defense will cross-examine PW-18.

Prosecution Witness 18
Mostafizur Rahman, the son of alleged victim Ilias Uddin Sarder, testified as Prosecution witness 18. He stated that on 26 May 1971 at around 11 am., the Pakistani Army accompanied by Peace Committee and Razakar members came to his uncle’s house. The witness said that he went hid himself in a nearby bush along with his cousin Mahbubur Rahman (PW-16), Bazlar Rahman and other villagers. Soon after, two Biharis named Ahmed Koshai and Rashid announced that the Army had come to form the Peace Committee and therefore everyone present should return to their respective homes. The witness said that they went back to his house but his father Ilias Uddin Sardar, uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar and Yunus Uddin Sardar, and some other elderly people were then taken away by the Pakistani Army. The witness said that his cousins Mahbubur and Bazlar secretly followed and foun out that Ilias, Yusuf, Yunus and others were detained at the Balighata Union Parishad office, which was then being used as a camp by the Army and Razakar forces.

The witness said that three Peace Committee members advised the witness’ cousin, Abul Kashem Sardar, to go to Abdul Alim for help in getting their relatives released. Abul Kashem Sardar went to Alim and requested their release. The witness testified that Alim told his cousin that they would not be released because they supported the independence movement. The witness’ cousin informed him of this when he returned home that day. At around 6:30pm the same day the witness testified that he heard gunshots from a nearby location that was used by the Pakistani Army as a killing site. The witness and others presumed that it was their family members who were being killed. He stated that they then fled the country. He stated that they returned to Bangladesh following independence and that he gathered information of the precise spot where the killing had taken place. He said that he unearthed his family members’ bodies from the mass grave in order to rebury them with proper funeral rituals.

5 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first Defense witness in the Mujahid case. The witness is the youngest son of Mujahid and testified as a formal witness, exhibiting various documents before the Tribunal in support of the Defense case. After the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witness the Tribunal asked the Defense whether they plan to call any additional Defense witnesses. Defense counsel stated that they are unable to determine which witness to choose because the Tribunal has limited them to two witnesses in order to avoid unnecessary delay. The judges stated that this may be beneficial to the Defense because defense witnesses in previous cases have actually caused harm to the Defense’s case. The Tribunal then adjourned for the day till lunch.

After lunch, the overall security of the court area significantly deteriorated due to a mass protest by the Hefazat-e-Islam group in the Paltan Area in Dhaka. Our researchers therefore left the Tribunal at that time.

Defense Witness 1

Examination-in-Chief
The witness is a formal witness who exhibited the following documentary evidence: Continue reading →

Weekly Digest, Issue 12: April 7-11

This week Tribunal 1 continued to hear the Defence’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case. The Defence concluded their coverage of Charges 3 and 4, and requested one additional day to complete their arguments. The Defence however did not attend proceedings during hartal days. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the testimony of Prosecution witness 25. Additionally, the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain and both Parties submitted their arguments regarding the impending of indictment of Hossain.

In Tribunal 2 the Defence for Ali Ahsan Mohadded Mujahid began their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer. The case of Kamaruzzaman was repeatedly scheduled for the Defence’s Closing Arguments. However, the Senior Defence counsel did not attend on hartal days and therefore the case was adjourned until the following week. In the case against Abdul Alim the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witnesses 14 and 15.

It should be noted that hartals were called for the 8, 9, 10, and 11th of April. Due to security concerns our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. Therefore our coverage of those days is compiled from media sources as well as discussion with the Defence and Prosecution.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 12 – April 7-11

9 May 2013: Kamaruzzaman Guilty Verdict

Tribunal 2 of the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh has found Kamaruzzaman guilty on 5 of 7 charges. He was found guilty on charges 1,2,3,4 and 7, acquitted of charges 5 and 6. He has been sentenced to death based on charges 3 and 4. The Tribunal noted that charges 1 and 7 carried a life sentence, while he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under charge 2. All the charges were for direct involvement and complicity in Crimes Against Humanity.

The full Judgment may be viewed here: Kamaruzzaman Full Judgment

Profile of Mohammad Kamaruzzaman
The Prosecution alleged that Kamaruzzaman, who in 1971 was 19 years of age, established the paramilitary force of Al-Badr in the district of Mymensingh. The force is thought to have committed genocide, killings, rape, looting, arson and enforced deportation throughout the region in collaboration with the Pakistani Army. Kamaruzzaman was the President of Islami Chhatra Shibir, the student branch of Jamaat-e-Islami, during the war. He was appointed as Joint Secretary of the Dhaka City Jamaat-e-Islami in 1981 and served as Publicity Secretary for the party between 1983 and 1991. He became Assistant Secretary General in 1992.

Procedural History
Investigation into Kamaruzzaman’s involvement in the commission of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide during the liberation war began with a formal probe on 21 July 2011. He was arrested in conjunction with the case on 2 August 2011. The Prosecution submitted their proposed Formal Charge on 15 May, and the case was subsequently transferred from ICT-1 to ICT-2. Tribunal 2 took cognizance of the charges on 31 January 2012 and issued the Charge Framing Order indicting Kamaruzzaman on 4 June 2012. The trial began on 2 July 2012. The Prosecution called 18 witnesses in support of their case. The Defense was limited by the Tribunal to 5 witnesses. Witness testimony was completed on 24 March 2013. Closing Arguments were complete on 16 April 2013. The verdict comes just over three weeks after the termination of proceedings.

The Charges: The Charges in red indicate a guilty verdict. See here for the Original Charge Framing Order.

  1. Murder, Torture and Other Inhuman Acts as Crimes Against Humanity and Complicity in Such Crimes: for leading a group of Al-Badr in abducting civilian Badiuzzaman who was tortured and then killed. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act. Sentenced to life imprisonment
  2. Inhuman Acts as Crimes Against Humanity and Complicity in Such Crimes:  Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for attacking, forcibly shaving and whipping Syed Abdul Hannan, the Principal of Sherpur College. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act.
  3. Murder as a Crime Against Humanity and Complicity in Such a Crime:  Sentenced to death for advising and facilitating members of Al-Badr and Razakars in the massacre and rape of unarmed civilians in Shohagpur. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act. Some media sources have stated that Kamaruzzaman was convicted of Genocide under Charge 3. This is incorrect, the Charge Framing Order alleges murder as a Crime Against Humanity and the Charge was not amended to Genocide.
  4. Murder as a Crime against Humanity and Complicity in Such a Crime: Sentenced to death for the shooting of Golam Mostafa and Abul Kasem at Serih Bridge, causing the death of Golam Mostafa. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act.
  5. Murder as a Crime against Humanity and Complicity in Such a Crime: Acquitted for the abduction and torture of Md. Liakat Ali and Mujibur Rahman Janu, and their ultimate murder behind the Ahammad Nagar UP office. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act.
  6. Murder as a Crime against Humanity and Complicity in Such a Crime: Acquitted for the abduction of Tunu and Jahangir and subsequent torture and death of Tunu. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act.
  7. Murder as a Crime against Humanity and Complicity in Such a Crime: Sentenced to life imprisonment for accompanying members of Al-Badr on a raid of the house of Tepa Mia in Golpajan Road the ultimate killing of six other unarmed civilians with a bayonet. Charged under Section 3(2)(a)(h) of the ICT Act.

Legal Conclusions:
The Judgment followed closely the legal conclusions made in Tribunal 2’s Judgments against Kalam Azad Bachu and Qader Molla, as well as Tribunal 1’s decision against Delwar Hossain Sayedee. However, this case also addressed in detail the role of Jamaat-e-Islami in the commission of atrocities during the liberation war. There is some thought that this verdict could be used as the basis for banning the current Jamaat-e-Islami as a political party. A writ is currently pending before the High court requesting that the party be banned.

The full Judgment may be viewed here: Kamaruzzaman Full Judgment

Additionally, we will be publishing an in depth report on the factual and legal conclusions contained in the verdict. Please check this website for updates.

Weekly Digest Issue 11: March 31- April 4

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

This week Tribunal 1 dealt with the Motiur Rahman Nizami, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, and Gholam Azam cases. In the case against Nizami the Defence cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal heard both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Gholam Azam’s Defence counsel continued their Defence Closing Arguments, addressing the conspiracy allegations under Charge 1, as well as legal arguments on incitement. Proceedings were delayed by hartals and the absence of Defense counsel.

In Tribunal 2, the Court heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, during which they addressed evidentiary issues including hearsay, and legal arguments about the standard of complicity and under the doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Due to the hartal on 2 April, ICT 2 convened only briefly to allow the Prosecution to complete their examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case. On 3rd April the Defence began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, addressing factual issues in Charges 1-3 and responding to the legal issues raised by the Prosecution during their Closing Arguments.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4