Category Archives: Tribunal 2

7 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summary due to Hartal

A Hartal was announced for today, 7 March 2013. Due to security concerns our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. We have compiled the following brief summary from media coverage and communication with the Defense and Prosecution.

TRIBUNAL 1

7 March 2013
Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
A Junior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam sought adjournment. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum objected to the request and requested that the Tribunal fix the date for pronouncing the verdict without continuing with the Defense’s Closing Arguments. The Tribunal accepted the Defense’s request and adjourned the Gholam Azam case until March 10, 2013.

TRIBUNAL 2

7 March 2013
[We are compiling Tribunal 2’s Summary and will post it here as soon as it is complete.]

6 March 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings Against Jamaat Leaders, Kamaruzzaman DW 1

6 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 1
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat leadership – Selim Uddin and others (Accused not present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman : Examination of DW 1

Defense counsel for the Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam said they were unable to produce their clients before the tribunal and that they that they had not been able to communicate to their clients the tribunal’s order requiring their attendance. Upon being asked by the tribunal about what may be done, the learned counsels said that they have no option but to surrender their vokalatnama, (the power as appointed advocates of the opposite parties) as it is not possible for them to continue representing the three Jamaat leaders. The tribunal asked the counsels to submit a written application to this effect and accepted their prayer of withdrawal as appointed advocates. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta submitted that an arrest warrant against the absent leaders should be issued by the Tribunal. He further stated that the opposition parties are intentionally disregarding the Tribunal’s order, showing their disrespect and lack of confidence in the institution.  The Tribunal thenissued an arrest warrant against the three leaders under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure read with Section 22 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. They noted that the court had granted time to the leaders on four previous occasions, repeatedly asking for their presence, but with no response. The Tribunal directed the Inspector General of Police to take necessary steps to secure the arrest of the Jamaat trio on or before 21 March 2013.

The Tribunal then moved on to the case against Muhammad Kamaruzzaman. The Defense called its first witness, Md. Arshed Ali, the son of a martyr Ekabbor Ali. After being examined by Defense counsel the Prosecution started its cross-examination. In his testimony Ali described how his father and many others were killed by the Pakistani Army on 10th Srabon of the Bangla calendar during the 1971 Liberation War in Shohagpur, Benupara and Kakorkandi area of Sherpur.   Cross-examination is scheduled to continue on 7 March 2013.

Courtroom Dynamics
During the examination-in-chief of the defense witness, there was an intense argument between Defense counsel Kafil and two of the Tribunal-2 judges: Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge Shahinur Islam. The argument started when the Defense objected to Judge Shahinur Islam asking questions to the witness. The Defense reacted by saying that he should be allowed to question his witness without interruptions. The Chairman said that contempt proceedings under Section 11(4) of the 1973 Act could be taken against the Defense counsel for similar behavior in future. The Defense counsel at one point said that he would withdraw himself and not continue before the Tribunal. After moments of silence, the situation calmed down after the Defense counsel offered his apology and the judges said that the court is a place to maintain decorum. Questioning was then resumed without any further incident. 

Continue reading →

3 – 4 March 2013: ICT 1 and 2 Daily Summary – Brief Summaries Due to Hartal

A three day hartal has been called in Bangladesh. For safety reasons our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. We have compiled the following brief summary from media coverage and communication with the Defense and Prosecution.

TRIBUNAL 1 SUMMARY

3 March 2013
Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali

On March 3, 2013 Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted the progress report of the Investigation of Mir Quasem Ali and sought two months time to submit the formal charge. The Tribunal fixed April 24 for the submission of the formal charge.

Quasem Ali was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal during the hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Defense sought adjournment on behalf of Gholam Azam. Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum opposed the petition. The Tribunal rejected the Defense petition and asked the Prosecution to continue their Closing Arguments. Thereafter the Prosecution submitted their the Closing Arguments for the 9th day.

4 March 2013:
Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury
March 4 was fixed for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 21; however, Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum submitted that the Prosecution could not produce the witness today. Thereafter the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s case until 12 March 2013.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury was brought to the ICT but was not produced before the Tribunal.

 Contempt Proceedings against the Economist
On December 6, 2012 Tribunal 1 issued a notice asking them the Economist to show cause why contempt charges should not be brought against South Asian bureau chief Adam Roberts and the chief editor of the London based weekly. The Tribunal accused them of interfering with the ongoing trial and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the alleged Skype controversy. The Economist was initially asked to reply within three weeks. On 3 February 2013 the Tribunal fixed 4 March 2013 for the submission of the Economist’s reply. On 4 March 2013 Barrister Mustafizur Rahman submitted that he has not yet received the written reply from his clients and sought two weeks additional time to submit the reply. The Tribunal accepted his prayer and fixed 25 March 2013 for the next hearing.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
The Prosecution placed their arguments on legal points in the Gholam Azam case and completed their Closing Arguments. Thereafter, the Tribunal asked the Defense to begin their closing arguments, but no senior defence counsel was present at the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel sought one week adjournment for preparation, however, the Tribunal fixed 7 March 2013 for Defence closing arguments.

TRIBUNAL 2 SUMMARY
[We are compiling a summary of events in Tribunal for this week and will post information once it is complete]

Weekly Digest, Issue 5: February 17-21

This week Tribunal 1 heard matters in the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases. In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard arguments regarding a number of Defense applications, including requests to depose further witnesses and another request for bail. They began hearing the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments, as scheduled on 17 February. In Chowdhury, the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 10, part of which was conducted by Chowdhury himself. In the Nizami case, the Tribunal heard an application from the Prosecution requesting permission to submit additional documents and the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness 2, Zahir Uddin Jalal.

Tribunal 2 covered the Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid cases. The Tribunal also rejected an application for review of its final judgment in the Qader Molla case. In Kamaruzzaman, the Tribunal granted a request from the Prosecution to limit the Defense to four witnesses in support of their case. They also heard the ongoing cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 18. In the Mujahid case, the Tribunal heard the examination of Prosecution witness 13, Shakti Shaha. The Tribunal also dealt with contempt proceedings against Ahmed Ziauddin (linked to the Skype controversy) and leaders of the Dhaka City Unit of Jamaat-e-Islami.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 5 – Feb 17-21

27 Feb 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Adjournment and Fine

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Defense Petition for Time and Adjournment (Accused Present)

The Defense for Alim submitted a time petition before the Tribunal-2 requesting an adjournment of the case until Sunday, 3 March 2013. The Defense counsel said that the two other senior counsels engaged in the case are currently unavailable, one by reason of his illness and the other because of personal difficulty. The Tribunal Chairman commented that in the interest of justice the Tribunal must grant additional time when counsel is unable to appear because of personal difficulty. However, he stated that such absences cannot continue frequently and continuously. The delay should be compensated by cost implications. Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta submitted that the Defense should pay a cost of Taka 50,000 (fifty thousand), so as to communicate a message to everyone that causing delay will come with burdensome consequences.

The Tribunal adjourned the case until Sunday, requiring the Defense counsel to pay a total of Taka 2,000. The court said that this shall be paid from the counsel’s own pocket and the client should not pay or bear any burden. The Defense counsel said the fine would be paid and apologized for the unwanted delay in the proceedings.