Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

State-appointed defense counsel for Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, Ms. Salma Hye Tuni initiated her closing submissions in the case against Mueen and Ashraf.

Counsel noted that since her client is being tried in absentia, it was not possible for her to obtain any instruction from her client. Accordingly, she could not secure any defense witnesses to testify on her client’s behalf. However, she did rely upon portions of an exclusive interview her client gave to Al-Jazeera given earlier this year, in July.

Counsel did not seek to deny that the fact of the matter that Bengali intellectuals had been rounded up and killed in a brutal fashion in December of 1971. However, although evidence had shown that these killings were administered by Al-Badr forces, Counsel denied the involvement of Mueen with Al-Badr, and submitted that the Accused could not be held responsible for the events in question.  Continue reading →

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

Prosecutor Haider Ali concluded the Prosecution closing arguments in the case against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. In his concluding remarks, he sought the highest punishment of death sentence for both the Accused.

Prosecutor Haider Ali submitted that the series of events regarding the targeted abduction and killing of Bangalee intellectuals on the eve of Bangladesh’s victory in the nine months war against Pakistan is not disputed. However, in order to link these events to the Accused on trial, Counsel devoted some portion of his time today to highlighting discernible patterns and similarities between the abductions alleged in Charges 1 thru 11. The Prosecution argued that exhibited documentary evidence, including books and contemporaneous newspapers, corroborated by witness testimony, indicated that this targeted killing had been administered and executed systematically by Al-Badr paramilitary forces. Counsel further submitted that the Prosecution has successfully shown that Al-Badr death squad included Chowdhury Mueen Uddin as the Operation-in-Charge and Ashrafuzzaman Khan as Chief Executor. The Prosecutor argued that it was not necessary to prove that the Accused had given the specific instructions or orders for the targeted killing, because this could be deduced from circumstantial evidence. Continue reading →

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

Prosecutor Shahidur Rahman Prosecutor continued closing submissions in the case against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. The two Accused are being tried jointly in absentia.  They are being represented by State-appointed defense counsels. The Accused Mueen is believed to be in London, while Ashrafuzzaman lives in New York. Counsel reviewed the testimony of each of the witnesses whose testimony the Prosecution wished to rely upon in support of the charges against the Accused. Continue reading →

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

Prosecutor Shahidur Rahman began his closing submissions by reviewing background and procedural details of the case against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. The two accused are being tried jointly in absentia.  They are being represented by State-appointed defense counsels. The Accused Mueen is believed to be in London, while Ashrafuzzaman lives in New York.

Prosecution Shahidur Rahman began his submission with the historical background of the cases, prompting the Bench to asked the Prosecution not to re-iterate the general historical backgrounds of Bangladesh’s Liberation War in 1971, of which the court was already aware and had already given its findings in Judgments previously delivered. The Court urged counsel to briefly enumerate only the extraordinary facts particularly relevant for this case.  Continue reading →