3 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 41, the Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 4 June, 2013.

Cross Examination of Prosecution Witness 41
The Defense asked the witness when he joined the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), about his post, and whether he had worked in the CID in Chittagong. The witness answered that he joined the CID in July 1996 as a sub-inspector but did not work in the CID in Chittagong. The Defense asked the witness about his personal details, including his school and his education. The Defense asked the witness who, in 1971, held certain police posts in Chittagong. The witness answered that he did not investigate that. The Defense also asked the witness who, in 1971, held the post of Officer-in-Chief of the Hathazari, Boalkhali, Kotoali and Rawzan police stations. The witness answered that he cannot recall whether or not he investigated that. The Defense asked the witness whether he had interrogated any member of the police was held a post in 1971, or investigated the GDE and EUD records of the cases of these police stations. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he investigated the record of the documents regarding the people who were killed in these police stations in 1971, or the looting which took place in these police stations in 1971. The witness answered that he did not investigate into these matters.

The Defense asked the witness about the complaint petitioner. The witness answered that he is the complaint petitioner. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury had been a member of a political party before 1978. The Defense also asked whether the witness had interrogated any leader of any political party regarding Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s political identity before 1978. The witness answered that he did not have documents showing Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s involvement with a political party before 1978, and that he did not interrogate any leader regarding this matter but he investigated the matter locally. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was not a student of any school, college or university located in Chittagong. The witness admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness whether he knew that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury lost his mother at an early age, and that Chowdhury’s father married again after his mother’s death and owned her property. The witness answered that he heard that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury had a second marriage, but did not know whether Salauddin Qader Chowdhury lost his mother at an early age. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided in Chittagong in 1971. The witness answered that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided with his father Fazlul Qader Chowdhury in 1971. The Defense then claimed that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury had three houses in Bangladesh, including one located in Dhanmondi, Dhaka, and another house in Pakistan. The Defense repeated the question again, asking whether the witness had any documents showing that in 1971 Salauddin Qader resided in Chittagong. The witness answered that he had documents, which were the GR register of the Zilla Police Court, two copies of Complaints, reports of the Court Inspector and fortnightly reports and newspaper cuttings. The Defense claimed that the name Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was not on the list of voters before 1979. The witness answered that he did not know. The Defense claimed that the Complaints and the GR register were recorded in 1972. Witness admitted that, but added that the incidents discussed in those complaints took place in 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971, several cases were filed against the Pakistani Army for killing, mass killing and looting. The witness answered that he did not receive any records regarding these matters, and that is why he did not know. The Defense claimed that the witness is not telling the truth, even if he is aware of the fact. The witness answered that this is not true. The Defense asked the witness whether he had recorded any interview with any witness showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury resided in Goods Hill, Chittagong in 1971, or interviewed anyone who resided near Goods Hill. The witness answered that this information is in the testimony of different witness.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had seized any newspaper from 1971 showing Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s relation with the Pakistani Army. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense asked the witness whether he had any document showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury had any involvement with the Muslim League Convention in 1971, or any documents showing that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury attended any meeting with his father Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The witness answered that he did not have any such documents. The Defense claimed that there are many examples available in the world showing that the son and father are supporters of two different political parties. The witness admitted that such examples are available, but added that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was a follower of his father, and that is why he later on was involved with the politics of the Muslim League. The witness further said that from the police reports, it was evident that Salauddin Qader Chowdury was a candidate of the Convention Muslim League. The Defense asked the witness whether he had verified this information with the Election Commission. The witness answered that he had not. The Defense claimed that the police report was a fake report created on the instruction of the witness. The witness denied the suggestion.

2 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin  and others                                                     
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: Defense  Closing Arguments

Tribunal-2 heard contempt proceedings against Selim Uddin and his fellow Jamaat-e-Islam leaders Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam Khan. Selim Uddin, through his lawyer Tajul Islam, provided an unconditional apology to the Tribunal for his derogatory remarks and did not attempt to justify them. Defense counsel Tajul Islam submitted that Selim Uddin did not intend to disrespect the Tribunal. After hearing the apology the Tribunal fixed 9 June 2013 for passing their final order. The two other contemnors Rafiqul and Hamidur again failed to appear before the Tribunal or to submit any explanation of their comments through legal counsel.

After lunch, Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq resumed his Closing Arguments on behalf of Ali Ahsan Mujahid. The Defense discussed the various legal aspects of case along with some of the evidentiary matters regarding the alleged leadership position held by the Accused within Al-Badr, which is a key factual matter in the charges against him. The Defense additionally addressed the following:

  1. Probative value of the documentary evidences.
  2. Defective charges and the lack of specific allegation therein.
  3. Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act and imposing liability for superior / command responsibility. Continue reading →

2 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Nizami PW 10, Mubarak Hossain PW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10. Thereafter, the Defense requested time to prepare for cross-examination, alleging that the Prosecution informed them about PW-10 just before the beginning of today’s proceedings (normally the Prosecution informs the Defense about the witness who is going to testify on the day before, so that Defense can prepare). The Tribunal allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 June, 2013.

In the Mubarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Md Rafiqul Islam, Prosecution Witness 3, who testified in support of charge no 3. Thereafter, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted cross-examination. After the conclusion of the cross-examination, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June, 2013. Continue reading →

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today Defense counsel Abdur Razzak began his portion of the Closing Arguments in the case of Mujahid. Although he had previously been designated to cover only the legal aspects of the case, he also discussed evidentiary and factual issues as well, particularly issues pertaining to documentary evidence.

The Defense also informed the Tribunal that because the senior Defense team is also appearing before the Appellate Division in conjunction with the Qader Molla case appeal, they would need the Tribunal to accommodate the Defense’s schedule (in particular Mr. Razzak’s schedule). He said that he would only be able to present arguments in the Mujahid case in the afternoon. The Tribunal agreed to accommodate the Defense counsel as far as possible.

Closing Arguments
The Defense noted that the book “Al-Badr” is the primary documentary evidence relied upon by the Prosecution to establish that Mujahid held a leadership position in the Al-Badr forces during the 1971 war period.

The counsel stated that the book refers to the speech of the ’Nezam’ (Head/leader) of Al-Badr, given the night before Pakistan surrendered on 16th December 1971. The counsel submitted that this is the worst possible form of hearsay evidence as there is no reference as to who recalled and reported the meeting, who gave the description of the meeting, when and where such an interview was taken and how the contents of the speech of the ‘Nezam’ could be authenticated. The Defense submitted that without knowing this information, the evidence cannot be relied upon in reaching any conclusion regarding Mujahid’s position within the Al-Badr forces or his alleged guilt. Because the book amounts to anonymous hearsay it cannot be relied upon. Continue reading →

29 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Hartal Coverage

29 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – (Hartal Coverage)

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage has been gathered from the press and from conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

The contempt proceedings against Dhaka Jamaa-e-Islami party leader Selim Uddin appeared in the daily cause list but were deferred until 2 June 2013 for further hearing. The court then adjourned for the day.