Category Archives: Tribunal 2

24 April 2013: ICT-2 daily Summary – Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 17

Today our researchers were unable to attend proceedings due to a nation-wide hartal. Our coverage is compiled from media sources as well as conversations with the Prosecution and the Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Prosecution witness 17, Accused Present

The prosecution called for Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar to give testimony as PW-17 in the case against Abdul Alim. The witness is a resident of Akkelpur in Jaipurhat and gave evidence mainly in support of Charge 6.

The witness stated that the first week of May 1971 he heard that the Pakistani Army took three people into their custody from amongst fourteen to fifteen people who were hiding in the house of Bhatsha Union Parishad chairman Mr Syed Ali. The group was allegedly fleeing to India because of the war. The remaining people from the group were handed over to the Akkelpur Peace Committee and detained in the waiting room of Akkelpur Railway Station. The witness testified that during the three days of detention there, various Razakars assured the detainees that they would be free to go if Mr. Alim ordered them to be released the same. The prosecution witness testified that he heard this information from locals in the area.

The witness stated that the detainees were later shot by the Pakistani Army near Bakjana station after few members of Razakar forces, including Makbur Kabiraj, Moti Chairman and Boor Bakhth, delivered them to the army. One Mozammel Hossain was the only survivor.

23 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abul Alim Prosecution Witness 16

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 16, Accused Present

The Prosecution called Mr AKM Mahbubur Rahman to testify as Prosecution Witness 16.  Mahbubur is a local businessman, who is the nephew of victims allegedly killed on 26 May 1971. The witness testified in support of Charge 7, alleging that Alim was involved with the Pakistani army in the killing. Mahbubur stated that the Accused was a leading figure of the Peace Committee, and that he helped to form an anti-liberation force in Jaipurhat and Panchbibi. This auxiliary force, known as Rajakar Bahini, apprehended and delivered unarmed civilians and supporters of Bangladeshi independence to the Pakistan Army. They also committed arson and looting.

Mahbubur stated that on 26th May 1971 the Pakistan Army raided their home in Nowda village, based on information collected by two Rajakars, Ahmed Bihari and Rashid Bihari. The witness and his elder brother Bazlur Rahman hid but were able to see the incident. With the assistance of Ahmed and Rashid, who announced that the Army was there to restore peace, the witnesses’ uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar, Yunus Uddin Sardar  and Ilias Uddin Sarder were taken into the custody of the Pakistani Army. Mahbubur testified that his cousin Abul Kashem Sardar went to attempt to get the men released. The witness said that Abul Kashem was advised by some Peace Committee members to talk to Abul Alim about the matter.  Upon returning from Alim’s Peace Committeee office in Shaon Lal Bazla’s Godighor, Kashem said that Alim denied to release the victims because they were suspected of being affiliated with the freedom fighters. The witness said that he and others heard gunshots coming from Kali Shaha’s pond in the evening at around 6:30 p.m. The family knew that the detainees had been shot to death.

After the incident, Mahbubur said that he and his family fled to India and only returned after independence. The witness said that they later disinterred their bodies from the mass grave near Kali Shaha’s pond and reburied them following appropriate burial rituals.

22 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17, Investigation Officer

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid – Cross-Examination of Prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer.

The Defense continued their cross-examination of prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. At at the end of yesterday’s session the Tribunal instructed Defense to conclude their cross-examination of the Investigation Officer today, 22nd April, 2013.

The Defense asked the witness about the investigation procedure, his findings regarding Mujahid’s position within the Islami Chatra Shangho, the presence of Mujahid’s name in any of documentary evidence, and Mujahid’s alleged whereabouts after the war.

The witness said that his investigation showed that Mujahid went on to hiding after the war, but did not leave Bangladesh. He hid at his maternal uncle’s house. The witness also said that Mujahid separated himself from all forms of political affiliation until the political transformation in 1975 after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The witness admitted said that Mujahid’s name is not found among the lists naming Rajakars, Al-Badrs, Al-Shams or Peace Committee members that have been submitted into evidence. However, he reiterated that his investigation revealed that the accused was the President of the East Pakistan Islami Chatra Shongho beginning in October  and continuing until 16th December 1971. Therefore he asserted that Mujahid had participated in Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide as an Al-Badr Commander.

Administrative Matters
The Tribunal granted the Defense’s request for privileged communication with their client and stated they would allow two designated Defense counsel to visit Mujhaid in prison on 28 April 2013. The Tribunal also stated that the Prosecution should be prepared to begin their Closing Arguments if the Defense fails to produce their witnesses. They reiterated that delay of the trial process would not be allowed.

21 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following matters:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin and Others Jamaat Leaders
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: Cross examination of Investigating Officer, Accused Present

Proceedings before Tribunal 2 began with contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman, Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam.  Selim Uddin was arrested on 8 March 2013 under an arrest warrant issued by the Tribunal on 6 March. Today the Tribunal passed an order against the parties, stating that the submitted written explanation for the allegedly contemptuous behavior was not satisfactory. Therefore proceedings under Section 11(4) of the ICT Act are issued against the accused. Defense counsel Tajul Islam, who had earlier been appointed as counsel to the four Jammat leaders, was not present in the court during the session. The Tribunal scheduled the next hearing on the matter for 9 May 2013, and stated that any further submissions, explanations or observations must be filed before that date.

The Tribunal then resumed hearing the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq . The Defense continued to highlight the various procedural flaws in the investigation process and the underlying deficiencies in the investigation’s findings.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid
Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer
The Defense resumed its questioning and asked whether the witness went to Chorfasion as part of his investigation. The witness replied that he did not visit the area. He asserted that another Investigation Officer, Nur Hossain, investigated the case against Abul Kalam Azad. He acknowledged that some of the witnesses in that case are also witnesses in the case against Mujahid. The Investigation Officer stated that he interviewed them separately.

The witness stated that he began his investigation in Dhaka on 5 December 2010. He first visited the Daily Jugantor office, which is the office of witness Mahbub Kamal, in the Notre Dame College area. The witness stated that the area is called Arambag. The Defense objected and said it is not called Arambag and suggested that the Investigating Officer does not actually know the location.  The witness said he did not go anywhere else as part of the investigation.  Continue reading →

18 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Rescheduling of PW 16, Accused Present
  2. Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid : Cross-examination of PW 17, Accused Present

Today the Prosecutor in the case against Abdul Alim, Mr Rana Das Gupta, requested an adjournment of the case until the 22nd or 23rd of April, due to difficulties in producing Prosecution witness 16. He stated that the witness had encountered difficulty in reaching Dhaka and therefore was not present. Defense counsel, Mr Ahsanul Huq Hena, added that the 23rd would be appropriate as it has been announced as a hartal day and it is unlikely that the Defense counsel in other cases will appear. The Tribunal agreed and scheduled 23 April 2013 for the next hearing.

The Tribunal then turned to the case against Mujahid, in which the Defense resumed its cross-examination of  Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. The Defense’s core line of questioning aimed at highlighting the various procedural flaws in the investigation process and underlying deficiencies that undermine the reliability of the officer’s findings.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid: Cross-Examination of PW 17
The witness testified that he went to Gopinath Shaha’s house at 11 a.m. He confirmed that Gopinath Shaha’s three siblings, Khirodh Shaha, Shakti Shaha (PW-13), and Kanon Bala live in India. The Investigating Officer admitted that Prosecution witness 13, Shakti Shaha, periodically comes to Bangladesh and that this fact was not included in the statement of Gopinath Shaha.

The Defense suggested that during the investigation it was discovered that Gopinath had previously filed a case regarding his father’s death. They alleged tat this fact was being concealed because Mujahid’s name was among the accused in the prior case. The Investigating Officer denied the allegations. He admitted that he did not determine the date of Shakti Shaha’s last visit to Bangladesh prior to the witness’ date of testimony. Continue reading →