Category Archives: Tribunal 2

3 Jan 2013: Kamaruzzaman Retrial Application Hearing

Chief of Prosecution vs. Kamaruzzaman
Tribunal 2 heard the Defense’s application to recall the order taking cognizance of the charges against Kamaruzzaman and to order a full and complete retrial by a new and reformed bench. The Defense’s arguments focused on the following issues:

  • Issue of bias, breach of natural justice, and the necessity of retrial following the Skype controversy.
  • Public opinion and perception of judicial fairness, independence and neutrality of ICT-2 is an essential aspect of fair trial.
  • Doctrine of procedural bias and its relevance to the instant case.
  • Admissibility of evidence obtained through impropriety or illegality.
  • Contempt proceedings issued against Dr. Ziauddin for attempting to obstruct the independent proceedings of the Court.

Key Arguments of the Defense

Perceived Bias Jeopardizes Fair Trial
The Defense asserted that the present bench of Tribunal 2, with the presence of Judge Shahinul Islam, should not try the instant case and there should be a complete retrial based on the perception that he may have been influenced while working in close proximity with the former chairman of ICT-1 Mr Justice Mohammad Nizamul Haque, who resigned following the Skype controversy. The Defense did not allege that actual bias was present, but focused on the importance of perceived neutrality and independence on the part of the judiciary in order to insure fair trial. The Defense stated that even if the record of the Skype conversations was illegally obtained or the contents are untrue (though they noted there has been no such allegation), the public confidence on all associated with the instant benches of ICT has been adversely affected, requiring a retrial to uphold the legitimacy of the entire trial. They cited the judicial maxim “justice need not only be done but be seen to be done”. In the event that the judiciary or a particular trial is perceived to involve bias or breach of natural justice, The Defense argued there should be rearrangement in the Bench. The Defense drew an analogy to the case Re Pinochet (1999) HL, involving the trial of Senator Pinochet who was the head of State of Chile from 1973 until 1990 for various crimes against humanity. In this case, the House of Lords unanimously opined that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that the  presence of Lord Hoffmann sitting in judgment could give rise to the appearance of bias because his wife worked for Amnesty International and he served as a Chairman for the organization and the organization had intervened and effectively become a party to the litigation. Counsel for Senator Pinochet submitted that such links gave rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed member of the public that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased. Giving importance to the possibility of such perception, their Lordships held that it was appropriate to direct a re-hearing of the appeal before an entirely different committee that shall neither include Lord Hoffmann nor the others who had already expressed their conclusion of the points at issue.

Reply by the Prosecution
The prosecution argues that the Skype conversations are material obtained through hacking, which in itself is a crime, and therefore should be considered inadmissible.

Secondly, the Prosecution alleged that the focus on the Skype conversations and their initial leak is a part of a plot to attack the sanctity of the tribunal and disrupt the proceedings. They urged the Tribunal not to allow any such interference, implying that they should deny applications for retrial based on the skype controversy. The Prosecution noted that one of its own members (Prosecutor Saiful Islam) was also referred to in the Skype conversation and that the Prosecution Counsel will soon take appropriate actions. What kind of action they plan to take was not specified.

Conclusions of Tribunal 2
Having heard the Defense’s application and the reply of the Prosecution, Tribunal 2 stated issued its order. It noted that it is agreed that people’s perception of justice and the tribunal is very important to upholding the reliability of the orders of the tribunal. However, the application for retrial based on the perception of there being bias is not appropriate.

Tribunal 2 rejected the application by stating that it is not maintainable under law as no provision exists  in the rules of procedure for the ICT that allow for an order of retrial. Additionally, the tribunal noted that Judge Shahinul Islam was never a judge at Tribunal 1, he was only the then acting Registrar for the ICT. Therefore the allegation that he could be biased by the actions of the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 are unfounded. Furthermore, the Skype conversations, if at all true, reflect the dislike of the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin towards Judge Shahinul Islam, which further exemplifies that he was not a part of any bias or collusion etc. Finally, the decision to take cognizance of the charges against Kamaruzzaman was not taken by the single former chairman of ICT-1, but by the entire bench upon consultation with each other. This decision is based on the presentation of evidence and formal charges by the Prosecution and was not influenced by bias. Therefore the application for retrial based on alleged bias is without merit and must be rejected.

Notes Regarding the Demeanor of the Court
The Defense Counsel expressed discomfort in presenting the application and making submissions alleging biasness. Proceedings were polite and apologetic.

The judges agreed on the general point of the public’s negative impression on the role of the tribunals following the Skype controversy, but the Tribunal was firm in denying the possibility of any actual bias whatsoever or finding any legal basis for such an allegation.

3 Jan 2013: Cross-Examination of PW 11 in Mujahid Case

Chief of Prosecution vs. Mujahid
The Defense conducted the cross examination of Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, Prosecution Witness 11. The 82 year old witness had previously testified against Mujahid, providing testimony supporting  Charge 2 for abetting and substantially contributing to the actual commission of offense of persecution as crime against humanity and genocide. He stated that Mujahid was the leader of Islami Chatra Sangha and subsequently became the head of Al-Badar Bahini. The witness alleged that Mujahid, accompanied by one Hammad Moulana, 8-10 non-Bengalees, and a Mr. Ishaque went along with the Pakistani Army and launched an attack directed against Hindu populated villages such as Baidyadangi, Majhidangi, and Baladangi. The charge further alleges that they killed 50 to 60 Hindus by gun fire and by setting fire to their houses, and that they carried out these actions with the intent to persecute and destroy the Hindu Community.

The Defense focused its cross-examination on questions designed to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence and undermine the credibility of the witness, leading to an inference that he could not have identified the accused to be connected with the alleged charges because he did not know him during the liberation war.

  • The witness was asked during his cross-examination about his school, Yasin Muslim Hight School, Tepakhola (presently named as Government Yasin College) and about the Head Masters / Principals thereof during different regimes.
  • The Defense asked about the presence of Razakaars in the witness’ locality during the liberation war. He commented that his areas of Dicrichor, Chor Horiram and Gazirtech had none.
  • The witness was asked about the number of areas in Faridpur city named “Komlapur”and answered that there were three, namely, Komlapur, Kuthibari Komlapur and Chorkomlapur.
  • He was asked about the character of Mr Maolana Abdul Ali, the father of the accused, and testified to the affirmative in regard to his piousness, being an Imam and Islamic scholar, and that he was released upon the instruction of Bangabandhu  Sheikh Mujibur Rahman following the arrest in the post-liberation period.
  • He stated that he was not aware about the number of children Maolana Ali had, their education details and that he did not personally know the accused Mr Mujahid at all. He remembers seeing him only once, in the local Sadar Hospital, but admitted that he saw him only from the back side.

3 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary

Cases heard during session:       
1. Qader Molla –  Hearing of Defense Application for Reconsideration of Denial of Right to Call Additional Witnesses
2. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid  – Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness #11
3. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman   – Hearing of Application for retrial

  • Qader Molla: Defense counsel requested a later hearing date for the review application filed earlier on behalf of Kader Mullah seeking reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision denying permission to produce additional defense witnesses. This request was immediately denied orally, along with a request for two hours of time to enable the Senior Counsel to appear. The Tribunal required the Defense to make its submissions instantaneously. The Tribunal then rejected the review application reasoning that the ICT rules of procedure contain no provision to allow additional witnesses. Only the Prosecution has the power to call additional witnesses. The Tribunal opined that the Defense’s application was the same as one that had been rejected earlier and that the Defense was attempting to cause delays in the proceeding. The rejection was accompanied by a sanction of 10,000 BDT imposed on the Defense for submitting repetitive applications.
  • Mujahid:  Prosecution witness PW-11, Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad was cross examined by the defense counsel, whose core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated upon the coaching by the Prosecution and that he neither knew the accused, nor was he capable of recognizing him.
  • Kamaruzzaman: The Court heard at length the application filed on behalf of Muhammad Kamaruzzam to recall the order taking cognizance of charges against him and for a full and complete retrial. The argument for retrial was based on the allegation that the Tribunal has the appearance of being biased due to the leak of the Skype and email conversations between the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 and an outside legal scholar, Dr. Ziauddin of Brussels. The Defense supported their argument that the appearance of bias is grounds for retrial by relying on international precedent.  The court denied the application and firmly stated that there was no such possibility of biasness. The Tribunal further condemned the content of the Skype and email conversations and passed an order suo moto  requiring Dr. Ziaduddin to explain, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, why contempt proceedings shall not be brought against him for his Skype conversations with the former chairman of ICT-1.  Prosecution witness PW-16 who was present expressed his inability to give testimony on that day due to his sudden illness.

2 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary – Alim, Kamaruzzaman

The Tribunal heard arguments in two matters:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness #8
2. Contempt Proceedings Against Suranjit Sengupta – a government minister

The cross-examination of Beauty Khanam, eighth prosecution witness in the case against Abdul Alim, was completed. The case wa then adjourned until January 15th. Out of court, Defense Counsel for Kamaruzzaman submitted an application for retrial to the Registrar.

Cross Examination of Prosecution Witness #8 Completed in the Case of Abdul Alim
Ahsanul Haq Hena and AEM Khalilur Rahman, Alim’s counsels, cross-examined Beauty, daughter of a martyr subeder major. She testified that the Shanti [Peace] Committee and members of the Razakars had acted upon Abdul Alim’s order and had killed her father in Joypurhat because he was fighting against the Pakistani army.

Beauty had already been cross-examined briefly on several other days, but not for long on each occasion. At one stage of yesterday’s cross-examination, the witness expressed discontent over Hena when he repeated the same questions he and his colleagues had asked her earlier.

The tribunal requested the Defence to decide among themselves who would ask what questions.

Contempt Proceedings Against Suranjit Sengupta
Upon his request, The tribunal then extended time  for Suranjit Sengupta, a minister without portfolio, until January 14 to explain his comments regarding the date verdicts in the cases pending with the tribunal could be expected.

On December 24, the tribunal on its own motion issued the show-cause notice on Suranjit following a report in a Bangla daily. Suranjit was quoted in the report as saying, “Verdict of 14 identified war criminals has already been finalised. Trial of these 14 war criminals would be completed anytime within 2013.”

Defense Counsel files Application for Retrial on behalf of Kamaruzzaman
The Defense filed an application on behalf of Accused Muhammad Kamaruzzaman for a retrial based on Skype and email communications between the former Chairman of Tribunal 1 and foreign legal expert Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin that allegedly show collusion between the prosecution and the judges as well as pressure from the executive branch of the government to provide verdicts before December 17 of last year.

The case against Kamaruzzaman is in ongoing and the Prosecution is presenting its case-in-chief. Fifteen prosecution witnesses have so far testified in the case against Kamaruzzaman. The Defense told the media that they are preparing  retrial petitions in the cases of the three other accused: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, Abdul Quader Mollah and Abdul Alim, all of which are pending in Tribunal 2. The Defense asserted that the Skype and email conversations show that the formal charges of the first eight cases pending with the two tribunals were prepared by Dr. Ahmed Ziauddin and his associates and came from Brussels.

The Defense told the media that they were not alleging any direct involvement in the controversy on the part of the judges of tribunal 2, however they claim that the appearance of bias prejudices their clients cases and so they see fit to file the petition.

The Defense cited the authority of the Tribunal under §46 (A) of ICT  rules of procedure to pass orders in the furtherance of “the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process.”

Trial Coverage Begins

The War Crimes Studies Center has been in the process of establishing a research and observation project covering the International Crimes Tribunal in Dhaka. Our goal is to provide factual and objective coverage of the ongoing trial proceedings. The tribunal currently does not have an official website or spokesperson, and current accurate information regarding the trials is difficult to access. We hope that this blog can fill this gap and provide useful information to the diplomatic community, academics, those working in the field of international criminal law, victims and other interested parties.

Over the past two months WCSC has worked to establish the logistical framework for our project. In order to introduce ourselves and explain our goals we have been meeting with court officials, the prosecution and defense teams, journalists and other civil society members as well as conducting legal research regarding both international and Bangladeshi legal practice. Additionally, we have hired a team of local Bangladeshi lawyers to conduct daily observation and translation of the proceedings.

Unfortunately we have faced a number of obstacles that have slowed our progress and delayed the launch of our daily reporting. The recruitment process for our local team was carried out cautiously and thoroughly as it is of the utmost importance that our team be able to neutrally assess the proceedings and accurately translate from Bangla into English. Additionally, our recruitment process has been prolonged by court requirements that our researchers go through an extensive background security check. This process took three weeks for one researcher and was still ongoing for another when the candidate decided that, due to concerns about prejudice to his future career, he could not continue to work with us. This meant that we had to again begin the recruitment process for a local Bangladeshi lawyer. We continue to work with the court and are now waiting for the approval of our second candidate. While we understand the the security concerns we regret the long duration of the background check and the intimidating impact that it potentially has on qualified candidates selected by our organization.

An additional factor in the delay of our publications has been our restricted access to official court documents. The tribunal has thus far declined to provide us with certified copies of court orders, including the charge framing orders (indictments). They have cited the ICT Act of 1973, stating that there is no specific provision in the act entitling 3rd parties to request and obtain certified copies of documents. We have been directed to obtain these documents instead from  the Prosecution, Defense or from journalists. Despite our urging that our neutrality and objectivity is dependent on our access to official documents the court thus far has not been willing to rethink its position. Therefore, we have had to use additional time to obtain necessary documents and to verify their accuracy.

Despite these obstacles we have been attending proceedings and preparing materials for publication. We have now published overview charts of the cases in Tribunal I and Tribunal II that contain current and accurate information about the status of the trials and which will be updated on a daily basis. In the coming weeks we will be publishing brief summaries on each of the cases, timelines for each trial, as well as links to key documents in each of the trials. Additionally, we will begin publishing daily summaries of the proceedings in Tribunal 1 and Tribunal II. We hope that these materials will be useful to you and we look forward to feedback and questions that can help us make this website more effective.

Thank you for your patience.