Legal Conclusions from Kamaruzzaman Judgment

We are pleased to present our fourth Special report on the third verdict issued by Tribunal 2.

Special Issue # 4: Legal Conclusions from Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman

This special report provides a detailed summary of the legal conclusions made by the International Crimes Tribunal in its fourth verdict, the Judgment of Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013. All seven Charges leveled against Kamaruzzaman alleged direct involvement in Crimes Against Humanity, or in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Tribunal found Kamaruzzaman guilty of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity for Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6.  This special report focuses on the legal conclusions within the Judgment, particularly on the Tribunal’s decisions concerning evidentiary standards, the definition and elements of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, and the doctrine of Command Responsibility. For more information on the procedural history of the case and the factual findings of the Tribunal please refer to our initial report on the case, Special Issue #2: Kamaruzzaman Verdict. The legal conclusions expressed in this report are a summary and restatement of those found in the Tribunal’s verdict, for the benefit of those interested in following the work of the ICT.  The interpretations of law described herein do not necessarily reflect the institutional views of the Asian International Justice Initiative or its researchers.

29 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – contempt proceedings, Ahsrafuzzaman Khan and Mueen Uddin PW 5 and 6.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Prosecution Witness Jahir Uddin Jalal
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

The Tribunal revisited the contempt proceedings against Jahir Uddin Jalal, who is accused of attacking a member of the Defense outside of the High Court. The Tribunal previously passed an order on the matter cautioning against his behavior without concluding that he in fact had attacked the Defense counsel. Jalal contested the order and stated that his lawyer had been acting without his consent in approving of such an order. The Tribunal therefore recalled the order and is rehearing the matter.  Jalal’s newly appointed counsel, Mr Kamrul Islam Siddiqui, made submissions on his behalf. Mr Abdur Razzak appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Defense counsel member Munshi Ahsan Kabir. The Tribunal heard both parties and then passed an order asking the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to carry out an enquiry into the alleged incident.

Next the Tribunal turned the Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin case, in which they recorded the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 5 and the examination of Prosecution witness 6.

Continue reading →

29 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

 At the beginning of today’s proceedings the Tribunal summarily rejected an application for adjournment filed yesterday by the Defense requesting additional time for approval from the Chief Justice for High Court judge Shamim Hasnain to testify in the Chowdhury case. The Prosecution then continued with its Closing Arguments for the second consecutive day, addressing charges 3, 4, 5 and 6. Arguments will continue tomorrow. Continue reading →

28 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain

In the Chowdhury case the Prosecution began their Closing Arguments, addressing charges 1, 2 and 3. The Defense also filed an application seeking adjournment stating that Shamim Hasnain is willing to testify in the case and has requested permission to do so from the Chief Justice. They requested adjournment until approval is granted. The Defense also attached a letter sent by Salman F Rahman (one of the proposed DWs) to the registrar in which the potential witness stated that he is currently out of the country, has fallen ill and has been instructed by his doctors to recover prior to traveling. The Tribunal responded that if it decided the application merited hearing it would appear in the cause list the next day.

In the case against Mobarak Hossain today was scheduled for the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 7. However, due to the Closing Arguments in the Chowdhury case the Tribunal rescheduled the witness’ testimony for 12 August. Continue reading →

25 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against Abdul Alim. the Prosecution called the Investigation Officer, Mr ZM Altafur Rahman, as Prosecution witness 35. The Investigation Officer testified about his findings and stated that the accused played a central role in committing atrocities as the Chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which acted as an auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army.  He referred to documentary evidence collected during the investigation as being incriminating of Alim. These documents include several books that have been exhibited in addition to documents and newspapers seized by the Investigation Officer and enumerated on the Seizure List. Cross-examination was scheduled for a later date.

Demeanor of the Court
A junior member of the Defense informed the Tribunal that senior counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, who has been cross-examining the witnesses, is ill. The Defense requested a long adjournment until Hena is able to fully recover. The Tribunal was critical of the request and noted that this sort of delay, on a regular basis, is tantamount to obstruction of justice. The Tribunal noted that there have been frequent requests for adjournment based on  either the illness of a Defense counsel or that of the Accused. They stated that such requests will not be entertained and that the Defense must complete the cross-examination between 29 July to 1 August 2013. The Judges stressed that the trial will continue at its pace without such delays, save in exceptional instances.