15 July 2013: Gholam Azam Found Guilty – Sentenced to 90 years

Today Tribunal 1 issued its second verdict in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam. It is the second verdict issued by Tribunal 1 and the fifth verdict issued by the International Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal found Gholam Azam guilty of all five charges against him.

The Charges and the Verdict:

  • Charge 1: Six Counts of Conspiracy to Commit Crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act. Found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  • Charge 2: Three Counts of Planning to Commit Crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act. Found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
  • Charge 3: Twenty-eight counts of Incitement to Commit Crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act. Found guilty and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
  • Charge 4: Twenty-tree counts of Complicity in Crimes under Section 3(2) of the ICT Act. Found guilty and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
  • Charge 5: Murder and Torture as Crimes against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act. The Charge alleged that Gholam Azam directed Peyara Miah, a member of the Peace Committee, to kill Siru Mia and his son because they were freedom fighters. Found guilty and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.

The Tribunal noted that it took Gholam Azam’s age (he is 91 years old) and ill health into account when determining his sentencing. They stated that he would serve the terms of imprisonment consecutively, guaranteeing that he will die in jail.

Charges 1-4 alleged that Gholam Azam was liable either under Section 4(1), which provides for a form of constructive liability (where, when a crime is committed by several persons, each will be liable as if he was the sole perpetrator), and Section 4(2), which provides for liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility. Charge 5 alleged direct individual responsibility for murder and torture, and does not mention any of the forms of liability enumerated under Section 4 of the Act.

From comments made during the Tribunal’s announcement of its verdict, it appears that for Charges 1-4 Gholam Azam was found guilty on the basis of Command Responsibility. The Prosecution had argued that Gholam Azam, as the Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami, controlled the organizational framework of Islami Chatra Sangha and played the pivotal role in forming the Shanti (Peace) Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams. Therefore they claimed that he was liable for all of the crimes committed by the members of those groups. They further alleged that Gholam Azam exercised Command Responsibility over the members of the Shanti (Peace) Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams, and that, even though he was a civilian, Gholam Azam had influence over the Pakistani Army. The Defense disagreed that Section 4(2) could be applied to Gholam Azam because he was a civilian and they claimed that the Doctrine of Command Responsibility is applicable only to leaders of military and auxiliary forces.

For a detailed discussion of the Gholam Azam case and the evidence presented by both parties please refer to our Special Report: Special Issue No. 3 – Gholam Azam Case Summary

Additionally, we will be posting the judgment here on our website once we receive the official copy from the court. We will also publish summary of the Tribunal’s legal conclusions once we have reviewed the Judgment in full.

14 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Charge Hearing

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial stage of AKM Yusuf case 

Today Tribunal 2 heard the proposed charges against AKM Yusuf from the Prosecution. They shcheduled 18 July 2013 for the hearing of the Defense’s reply, following which the Charge Framing Order will be passed. After the Prosecution concluded its hearing on the charge framing, the Defense submitted an application requesting privileged communication with the Defendant who is being held in pre-trial detention. .The request was granted. Although the Defense also requested two days additional time for case preparation prior to communication with the Accused, the Tribunal emphasized the need to deal with the cases expeditiously and scheduled the meeting for 17 July 2013, from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. Two members of the Defense team will meet AKM Yusuf in jail for privileged communication.

14 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Verdict Tomorrow, Abdus Sobhan Investigation Report, Mobarak Hossain PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Investigation of Abdus Sobhan
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

In the investigation of Abdus Sobhan the Prosecution submitted a progress report and requested additional time. The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 19 August 2013.

In the Mobarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Abdul Malek, Prosecution Witness 6, who testified in support of charge 5. Thereafter, Defense Counsel sought time saying that Defense were not informed about the witness earlier. The Tribunal granted the request and the adjourned proceedings in the case until 16 July 2013.

Today, 14 July 2013, the Gholam Azam case was included in the cause list as item 4. The Tribunal passed an order stating that the judgment of this case has been prepared and will be issued tomorrow, 15 July 2013. Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzak informed the Tribunal that Gholam Azam is ill and requested permission for him to remain at the hospital tomorrow where he has received treatment throughout his detention. The Tribunal refused the request, stating that it is the right of the Accused to hear the judgment against him.

11 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Alim Adjournment

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Again Prosecution Witness, Jahir Uddin Jalal
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

 Both the contempt proceedings against Prosecution witness Jahir Uddin Jalal and the Alim case appeared in the daily cause list for Tribunal 2 today. In the contempt proceedings against Jahir Uddin Jalal, the Prosecution witness was represented by Advocate Monsur Rashid who submitted a written explanation denying all allegations. Jalal, alias Bicchu, allegedly attacked Defense lawyer Munshi Ahsan Kabir near the high court. Mujahid was briefly hospitalized after the alleged attack but was soon released. The petitioner and alleged victim sought additional time to review Jalal’s explanation before responding. The Tribunal scheduled further hearing of the matter for 21 July 2013.

After the contempt proceedings were scheduled, the Defense for the Alim case also filed a petition seeking time and adjournment for the day. There was no objection from the Prosecution and the Tribunal adjourned the case until 17 July 2013. 

11 July 2013: ICT-1 Nizami PW 13 Cross-Examination

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the Nizami case the Defense Counsel concluded the cross-examination of Shamoli Nasrin Chowdhury, Prosecution Witness-13. She testified in support of Charge 16. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the case until 21 July 2013.

Cross-Examination of PW 13
The Defense continued their questioning, asking the witness about the case which was filed earlier regarding the killing of Alim and disposed of by a district court. They noted that Nizami was not an accused in that case. The Defense asked Shamoli who the complainant of that case was. She replied that she does not know. The witness admitted that she heard that all of the accused in that case were acquitted. The Defense asked the witness whether she testified in that case. She replied that she did not. The Defense then asked the witness whether she gave a statement to the Investigation Officer (IO) of that case. The witness replied that she was interviewed by the IO but could not say whether that constituted a statement or not. Then she stated that she wasn’t certain whether the person who interviewed her was the IO or not, but made it clear that the person came from the police station. The Defense claimed that the accused of that case was acquitted while Bangabondhu was President of Bangladesh, and that at that time there was no organization called Jamaat-e-Islami or Islami Chhatra Shangho. The witness admitted that. Defense asked the witness whether there was any appeal against the decision of that case. The witness replied that she did not file any appeal as they she was not a Party in that case. Defense asked the witness whether she searched for the reason behind the acquittal of the accused and whether she knew Zahir Uddin Jalal, one of the witnesses of that case. The witness replied that she did not. Continue reading →