Category Archives: Trial of AKM Yusuf

18 November 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mir Quasem Ali, Defense Motions and Opening Statements again delayed; AKM Yusuf, PW-8

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Quasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

ICT-2 heard two separate Defense applications today, filed on behalf of accused Mir Quasem Ali. One sought disclosure of Prosecution documents, and the second sought disclosure of further details about Prosecution witnesses. The Tribunal granted the former but not the latter. The Prosecution then sought adjournment of the case until 10 December.  The Court directed the Prosecution to provide the Defense copies of all the documents pertinent to their motion on or before 25 November 2013.

In the case against AKM Yusuf, the Tribunal recorded the examination-in-chief of PW-8, and the Defense began cross-examination before retiring for the day. The testimony of PW-8 supports Charges 10, 11, and 13 faced by the Accused. Continue reading →

14 November 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary– AKM Yusuf PW-4 and PW-5

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

Today the Tribunal recorded the cross-examination of PW-4 and the examination-in-chief of PW-5 in the case against AKM Yusuf.  The Defense also began cross-examination of PW-5.  They did not complete this before the end of today’s session, so it  was scheduled to be completed on 17 November 2013. The Tribunal adjourned until that date. Continue reading →

13 November 2013: ICT-2 – Hartal Coverage of AKM Yusuf

This was the fourth day of a countrywide Hartal enforced by the BNP-led-18-party opposition alliance. Due to security concerns, our researcher was unable to travel to Court, and has since been unable to secure information about whether Court was in session or not. Nonetheless, it may be noted that today had been fixed as the date for recording the examination0in-chief of PW-4 in the AKM Yusuf case.

12 November 2013: ICT-2 – Hartal Coverage of AKM Yusuf

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

This was the third day of the 84-hours countrywide Hartal enforced by the BNP-led-18-party opposition alliance. The following coverage was compiled from direct communication with Court officials, parties to the proceedings, and news coverage of the day’s events.

The case of AKM Yusuf appeared in the daily cause list for ICT-2, and the Court was scheduled to record the testimony of PW-4. However, the Defense Counsel for the Accused was unable to appear in the court due to the hartal. Accordingly, the Court adjourned for the day without any progress. Nonetheless, the judges of ICT-2 very strongly informed junior defense counsel present that the court could not sit idle for the ongoing hartals and blockades led by the opposition. The judges condemned the repeated absence of the senior defense counsels on hartal days while the members of the Prosecution team remained present in the Court. The Bench warned the Defense that this delay tactic would not be tolerated anymore and that the Tribunal would proceed in the absence of the Defense counsel if they choose to remain absent on hartal days.

The Tribunal then fixed 13 November 2013 as the date for recording PW-4’s testimony in the AKM Yusuf case.

7 November 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mir Quasem Ali, Order transferring case back to ICT-1 for review; AKM Yusuf, PW-3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Quasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

Tribunal 2 passed an order today, sending the case of Mir Quasem Ali back to Tribunal 1 for disposal of an application filed on behalf of the Defense seeking review of the Charge Framing Order. The Charge Framing Order had been passed by Tribunal 1 on 5 September, 2013. The case was later transferred by Tribunal 1, propio motu, to Tribunal 2 on 30 September 2013. It appeared that a copy of the review application was never received by Tribunal 2 with the case records sent to them from Tribunal 1. Defense stressed that they had indeed filed the application on 17 September 2013, and the Prosecution acknowledged receipt of a copy of the same. Accordingly, the judges of Tribunal 2 were of the opinion that, since the Charge Framing Order had been passed by Tribunal 1, the review petition challenging the Charge Framing Order should also be heard and discharged by the same court. Accordingly, ICT-2 resolved to send the case records back to ICT-1. The case records will be transferred to ICT-1, exclusively for the purpose of reviewing the application.  The case will thereafter be sent back to Tribunal 2 for the commencement of trial. Continue reading →