Category Archives: Trial of Md. Kamaruzzaman

Weekly Digest Issue 6: February 24-28

We apologize that we are slightly behind in our weekly digests of the proceedings. Due to limited staff and unforeseen obstacles, including hartals, we have had some delays in our coverage. Our daily summaries are up to date and we hope to have our weekly digests up to date shortly as well. Thank you for your patience.

Please find below our Weekly Digest Issue 6, covering the week of February 24-28. This week was dominated by the announcement of the verdict in Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee on 28 February 2013, in which Sayedee was found guilty of 8 charges and sentenced to death. For a detailed report on the Judgment against Sayedee please see our Special Issue Report, available here.

In addition to issuing the Sayedee Judgment, Tribunal 1 also continued to hear the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case, and the Prosecution submitted Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain. Tribunal 2 heard proceedings in the Kamaruzzaman, Abdul Alim and Mujahid cases, as well as contempt proceedings.

The Weekly Digest is accessible here: Weekly Digest, Issue 6 – Feb 24-28

 

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat Leaders, Adjournment for Kamaruzzaman

21 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin and Other Jamaat Leaders
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

Prosecutor Mohammad Ali started the day’s submission expressing his deep sadness at the death of President Zillur Rahman, the Honorable President of Bangladesh. Stating that the country mourns at his departure, the prosecutor proposed that the court observes two minutes of silence in his honor. In response, the judges expressed their sadness and commented that all present in the courtroom mourn with the nation. However, they said that as an independent entity of the judiciary, it is not possible for them to observe the silence without some steps or instruction coming from the Honorable Chief Justice.

The court then called the contempt proceedings against Mr Selim Uddin and other Jamaat party leaders. Defense counsel for the politicians had filed applications Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam requesting the court to dispense of the requirement that they appear in person. The counsel submitted that all of them have highest regards for the court and is not being able to comply with the court’s order solely by reason of security issues. The court rejected the applications stating that the two Jamaat leaders who have not yet appeared are now fugitives and such submission will not dispense with the requirement of personal appearance. The Tribunal fixed the next hearing for 10 April 2013. 

Finally, the defense sought time to produce defense witness in Kamaruzzaman’s case claiming that the witness could not appear due to illness. The court fixed Sunday 24 March 2013 as the next date for hearing the witness. The Tribunal stated that if the Defense again fails to produce their witness they will begin hearing closing arguments.

20 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Adjournement in Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid, Alim Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman – Extension of Time for Production of DW
  2. Chief Prosecuor vs. Mujahid: Adjournment
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Abdul Alim: Cross-Examination of PW 13

The case against Mujahid was listed for the hearing of the Defense review application and for the examination of the prosecution witness. However, the Defense counsel requested adjournment of court due to the death of one attorney’s mother. The Prosecution did not object to the same and the court adjourned the matter till Sunday, 24 March 2013.

In the Kamaruzzman case the Defense also sought additional time as the Defense witness could not be presented before the court. The Defense counsel said that they could not produce the witness because travel into Dhaka from Sherpur was not possible due to the hartals. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for one day and ordered that the witness be produced on 21 March 2013. At this point, the Tribunal expressed its dissatisfaction for the repeated requests for additional time from the D, particularly with regard to the timely production of Defense witnesses. The Defense argued often granted the Prosecution similar adjournments, and had even given 24 days of additional time for the production of PW-12. Thus they argued that there is an imbalance between the court’s attitudes toward the two parties and that the Defense were being prejudiced. The Tribunal rejected this argument and stated that because the onus to establish an independent case lies with the Prosecution and not the Defense, the Tribunal granted the Prosecution additional time. They said the Defense cannot be allowed to delay the proceeding by referring to such examples.

Finally, in the case Abdul Alim, the defense cross-examined PW-13. Prosecution witness 13 is the nephew of PW 2 Laily Begum and is the grand child of martyr Doctor Abul Kashem, who according to the Prosecution’s case was killed on 25July 1971 in Kuthibari at the instruction of Abdul Alim. The witness was examined by the prosecution on Sunday, 17 March 2013.

Continue reading →

11 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination of PW 12, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 12
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – Examination of Defense Witness 3

Today’s proceedings started with Abdul Alim’s case. 64 years old Mosammad Laily Begum gave her testimony in support of prosecution’s case as PW-12. She testified that she was 23 in 1971 and described how her father, local homeopathy doctor Abdul Kashem, was taken from his house in Kuthibari, Jaipurhat and later killed by the Pakistani Army on 25th July 1971. Her testimony supports Charge 12. The Defense began its cross-examination, which is to be resumed the following day.

In the Kamaruzzaman case the Defense conducted the examination-in-chief of Defense witness 3, Mr Hasan Iqbal. The witness is the 33 year old son of the accused. Additionally in the Kamaruzzaman  case the Prosecution requested the names of upcoming Defense witnesses in order to do perform background checks on them. However, the Defense refused to provide names, telling the Tribunal that their witnesses are constantly intimidated, threatened and are even under the risk of being abducted. Therefore they said they are unable to disclose the names of upcoming defense witnesses in advance. The Prosecution objected and claimed that they are the ones suffering from real security concerns and had to worry about attacks by extremists. The stated that these concerns cannot change the course of justice. The judges also claimed that they have received threatening text messages from those attempting to dictate verdicts but said such interference should not and will not change anything. They held that there is no mandatory requirement that the Defense disclose its witnesses’ names in advance of testimony.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
The Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 12, Laily Begum, the daughter of victim Doctor Abul Kashem. The witness testified that in 1971 she had four sons and two daughters and was 23 years old. She stated that her father, Abul Kashem, organized the Jaipurhat Shongram Parishad after being inspired by the speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 7 March,1971. She stated that on 20April 1971, her father went to her husband Mokbul Hossain’s house in Jamalpur village of Jaipur, at around 8 p.m. He told her that people of the Shongram Parishad went to Abdul Alim’s house to catch him, but Alim managed to flee from the back door. The witness also said that her father stayed at her husband’s house for few days. Later on 23rd July, she was taken to her father’s house in Debipur Village in Kazipara.

Laily Begum further testified that on 24 July 1971 at around 3 a.m. many Rajakars, AL-Badr and armed Pakistani army members surrounded their house. They knocked at her father’s door when and her brother Nazrul Islam went out to speak to them. Four army, Al-Badr and Rajakar members entered her father’s room and said that he had been summoned by Abdul Alim. When her father showed reluctance to go, they held him by his hair and pulled him out. The witness said her neice begged them not to take her grandfather but to they did not listen. The witness testified that she and her brother followed the group who took her father in the dark.

She testified that Abul Kashem was kept in Teghor Bridge Rajakar camp before being taken to Jaipurhat Rail Station blindfolded with his hands tied. The next morning at around 8 a.m., she said he was taken to Shownla Bajlal godi ghor (sitting room) to be presented before the Peace Committee chairman Abdul Alim. The witness testified that she returned to her house which is 1.5 K.M. away and later went back to the godi ghor along with her other family members.

The following day at around 3 p.m., one Rajakar, Atiqullah Bihari, came to their house and said that if Major Aksar was given Taka 5,000 (five thousand), he would let her father go. Accordingly,  they gave him the money to secure her father’s release. After sometimes, Atiq Bihari came back to inform that Abul Kashem is going to be taken to Kuthibari to be shot to death as per the command of their “boss” Abdul Alim. After sometime, one Mr Shiraj who was the cook in Peace Committee’s camp came and said that her father’s eyes were gouged out and teeth broken before being brutally killed. Laily Begum testified that this took place on 25th July, 1971 in Kuthibari, where he was buried.

The witness testified that in November 1972 her father’s body was exhumed from his grave in Kuthibari and was brought to her family’s home in Debipur for re-burial. The witness said that she saw many bullet shots on the chest of her father’s body. The witness identified the accused and said that she wants justice.

Cross-examination
The Defense counsel asked the witness whether she knew that her brother filed a case in 1972 complaining about their father’s killing. The witness at first replied “yes.” However, the Prosecution counsel Rana Das Gupta instantaneously intervened and asked her to listen to the question carefully before replying. The witness then changed her answer and said that she did not know about any such case being filed by her brother. The defense counsel strongly objected to the intervention and the court said that the prosecutor should not interfere. However, her latter statement was recorded in the testimony.

The defense then asked whether the witness’s son is currently in jail serving a sentence of life imprisonment. Upon hearing the question, the witness became upset and said that he was serving a 10 years imprisonment but that he had nothing to do with her testimony in the instant case.

Cross-examination is scheduled to continue.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
The Defense called Mohammad Hasan Iqbal as Defense witness 3. He is the son of accused Abdul Alim and works in the Research Cell of Diganta Television. The Defense asked him to exhibited 17 defense documents for the court’s perusal. These documents pertain to variety of issues including background of the accused, a list of Rajakars and war criminals as published in some books and newspapers, documents regarding the Liberation War in Sherpur and other documents that undermine the credibility of a few of Prosecution witnesses. 

The Tribunal barred the Defense from exhibiting a few official documents because they had not been authenticated by authorized persons. The court disallowed the documents because it said they had not been properly authenticated. The defense objected and said that they have collected the documents unofficially because no government official would provide them with the documents in official capacity out of fear of losing their job and fear of being accused of collaborating with alleged war criminals. The court rejected this argument and reasoned that if unattested documents were admitted, other unreliable evidence would also have to be allowed, ultimately rendering the court’s conclusions questionable.

On cross-examination the Prosecution suggested that the was willing to do anything to save his father and is prepared to conceal the truth to achieve that aim. The witness replied that he will do all lawful things necessary to save his father but would not conceal truth. The Tribunal then intervened saying that the witness cannot be asked this type of question in front of the court just because he has come to give testimony in support of his father.  No further questions were asked.

The following documents were entered into evidence:

  1. Kamaruzzaman’s certificate of Master of Arts (Journalism) issued by Dhaka University. He completed his masters in the year 1975 [Exhibit-C, from Volume-1, page 7].
  2. Kamaruzzaman’s HSC certificate. He was a candidate of 1971 batch.  [Exhibit-C1, from Volume-1, page 11].
  3. Dr S.M. Jahangir Alam, Ekattorer Juddhaporadhider Taalika (List of war criminals of seventy one); published in February 2009 [Exhibit-D, from Volume-2, pages 1-66].
  4. Dr M A Hasan, Juddhaporadh Gonohotta o Bichar er Onneshon; published in May 2001 [Exhibit-E, Volume-3, page 1-13].
  5. Weekly digest published from Sherpur named “Sherpur Shomoy” dated 26.12.2008 [Exhibit-E1, Volume-3, pages 38].
  6. Daily Amar Desh issue of 17.09.2010 [Exhibit-E2, Volume-3, pages 39].
  7. Khurshid Alim Shagor, Ronangoney  Muktishena 197; pages 305 and 306.  These pages contain details of the death of MMajor Aiyub.
  8. Muntasir Mamun, Ekatturer Bijoy Gatha. Pages 30,31,54,55 of the book describes the war that took place in Mymensingh and Sherpur region [Exhibit E4, Volume 3, pages 321,322].
  9. Md Abdul Shukur’s book regarding war in Mymensingh [Exhibit E5].  
  10. Bangladesher Shaddhinota Juddho Dolilpotro, Volume 10. Pages 457, 458, 462, 463 talks about the death of Major Aiyub and about prosecution witness Jahurul Haque Munshi taking letters to the camps [Exhibit-E6, Volume 3, pages 551, 552, 554].
  11. Newspaper Alo’r Michil ey issue of January 2005 in which nothing about Kamaruzzaman’s presence in Jamalpur PTI camp is found [Exhibit-F, Volume-4, pages 1-11].
  12. “The Pakistan Army 1966-1971”, pages 160-162 which contains information about prosecution witness Jahurul Haque Munshi’s hospitality to the Pakistan army and exchanging letters.
  13. M Hamidullah Khan Bir Protik (Sector Commander of 1971), Ekatturer Uttar Ronangon (published in 2005), pages 264, 265 [Exhibit-G1, Volume-4, page 95].
  14.  Appointment order dated 29.10.2011 of Nur Nobi Khan Nasim, the son of Prosecution witness Monowar Hossain Khan Mohon [Exhibit-G2, Volume-4, page-107].
  15.  Photocopy of Gazzetter notification dated May 14, 2005; name of PW Ziaul Islam is not there as a freedom fighter even though he claimed to be one [Exhibit-G3, Volume-8, pages 140-151].
  16.  Photocopy of PW Mohon Munshi’s Salary Sheet [Exhibit-G4, Volume-4, page-159].
  17. Major General KM Shofiullah Bir Uttam, “Bangladesh at war”, page 195 containing information of war in Kamlapur from 31st July-1st August [Exhibit G5, Volume-4, page 181].

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader, MK Anwar; Kamaruzzaman Examnation of DW 1 and 2

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader Selim Uddin (Present), Daily Shongram (warning made to present journalist), and MK Anwar (Not Present),
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid : Order of three applications and examination of prosecution witnesses  (Accused Not Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Cross-Examination of Defense witness 1, Direct and Cross-Examination of Cross-Examination Defense Witness 2 (Accused Present)
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim : Adjourned Due to Illness of Prosecution Witness

Today the Tribunal dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders, MK the Daily Shongram, and MK Anwar. In the Mujahid case the Tribunal disposed of three Defense applications and then heard the direct examination of Prosecution witnesses 14, 15 and 16, all of whom are expert witnesses regarding documentary and historical evidence. In the Kamaruzzaman case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Defense witness 1, and both direct and cross-examination of Defense witness 2. Finally, in the case of Abdul Alim the Tribunal allowed an adjournment due to the illness of the Prosecution witness scheduled to testify.

Continue reading →