Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
Today Prosecutor Zead Al Malum submitted the progress report of the investigation into ATM Azharul Islam and sought and additional two months time. The Tribunal granted the prayer and fixed 30 June for the submission of the next progress report or the Formal Charge.
In the Investigation of AKM Yusuf the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge to the ICT Registrar.
The Tribunal was in recess today.
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
Today due to a major ongoing protest called by Hefazat-e-Islami our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. While not officially considered a hartal, the protest resulted in severe unrest throughout the city and security conditions were extremely precarious. The government deployed an entire platoon of Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) to the International Crimes Tribunal so as to ensure high security at the courts’ premises. The Tribunal was empty mostly empty today as both counsel and researchers were unable to attend the court. Our coverage of the days proceedings are gathered primarily from media sources.
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the judges of Tribunal-2 expressed their dissatisfaction with the failure of Dhaka Metropolitan Police to comply with the court order instructing them to provide the Alim with adequate security on his way to and from the court. The issue of lack of security of the Accused was brought to the Tribunal’s attention after the Daily Star published an article regarding the matter yesterday.
The court then addressed the only case listed for the day, Chief Prosecutor v Abdul Alim. Prosecution witness 18, Mostafizur Rahman, testified before the Tribunal. He described how his father and others were detained and later killed by the Pakistani Army. He also claimed that the Accused was the Chief of the local Peace Committee and Razakar forces in Jaipurhat. After the witness’ examination-in-chief the Tribunal adjourned the case until 07.05.2013 when the defense will cross-examine PW-18.
Prosecution Witness 18
Mostafizur Rahman, the son of alleged victim Ilias Uddin Sarder, testified as Prosecution witness 18. He stated that on 26 May 1971 at around 11 am., the Pakistani Army accompanied by Peace Committee and Razakar members came to his uncle’s house. The witness said that he went hid himself in a nearby bush along with his cousin Mahbubur Rahman (PW-16), Bazlar Rahman and other villagers. Soon after, two Biharis named Ahmed Koshai and Rashid announced that the Army had come to form the Peace Committee and therefore everyone present should return to their respective homes. The witness said that they went back to his house but his father Ilias Uddin Sardar, uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar and Yunus Uddin Sardar, and some other elderly people were then taken away by the Pakistani Army. The witness said that his cousins Mahbubur and Bazlar secretly followed and foun out that Ilias, Yusuf, Yunus and others were detained at the Balighata Union Parishad office, which was then being used as a camp by the Army and Razakar forces.
The witness said that three Peace Committee members advised the witness’ cousin, Abul Kashem Sardar, to go to Abdul Alim for help in getting their relatives released. Abul Kashem Sardar went to Alim and requested their release. The witness testified that Alim told his cousin that they would not be released because they supported the independence movement. The witness’ cousin informed him of this when he returned home that day. At around 6:30pm the same day the witness testified that he heard gunshots from a nearby location that was used by the Pakistani Army as a killing site. The witness and others presumed that it was their family members who were being killed. He stated that they then fled the country. He stated that they returned to Bangladesh following independence and that he gathered information of the precise spot where the killing had taken place. He said that he unearthed his family members’ bodies from the mass grave in order to rebury them with proper funeral rituals.
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:
Mahmud Ali, Prosecution Witness 33, testified in support of charge no 20, in which Salauddin Qader Chowdhury is charged with committing confinement, torture and murder as Crimes Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena cross-examined the witness. After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until May 13, 2013
Prosecution Witness 33
Examination-in-Chief
Mahmud Ali testified that he was a farmer in 1971. He testified that in the last part of July Razakars from the CO Office found Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai. When the Razakars attempted to detain Ekhlas, Ekhlas jumped into a pond. The Razakars detained him from the pond and took him to the Razakar camp located at CO office. Mahmud testified that the Razakars then took him to home of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury at Goods Hill. He claimed that Ekhlas was tortured there and subsequently died. 2 or 3 days later Ekhlas’s father brough his son’s body back for burial. Mahmud testified that he attended the Janaza (last prayer) for Ekhlas and that his body was buried in the bank of the pond. Mahmud acknowledged that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.
Cross-Examination
The Defense then cross examined the witness, first asking about his personal details, his siblings, father’s profession, etc. Defense asked the witness how far his house was from CO office and the alleged place of incident. The Defense also asked questions about the alleged place from where Ekhlas was detained by the Razakars with the aim to cast doubt on his testimony by showing that he was not familiar with the CO office and or the alleged crime site. The Defense implied that the witness could not have been present when Ekhlas was detained.
The Defense next asked the witness numerous questions about Goods Hill and Akubdandi, where Ekhlas resided in 1971, aiming to show that the witness was unfamiliar with those sites as well. Defense asked him whether he could name anyone still living who also attended the Janaza for Ekhlas. The Witness claimed that no one is left alive now. The Defense asked how old Ekhlas was in 1971 and where he studied at that time. They implied that the witness did not know the victim at all and was fabricating his testimony. The witness answered that Ekhlas was 16 or 17 years of age and was a student of matriculation when he died. Mahmud affirmed his prior testimony that he saw Ekhlas being chased and subsequently detained by the Razakars, and that he witnessed the victim being taken to the CO office. Mahmud admitted that he did not witness Ekhlas being taken to Goods Hill from the CO office.
The Defense alleged that Mahmud’s courtroom testimony introduces new allegations not included in his original statement to the Investigating Officer. They alleged that he did not tell the Investigating Officerthat the alleged incident took place in front of the shop of Kokai or that he himself witnessed the alleged incident. The Defense claimed that the Pakistani Army detained Ekhlas while he was throwing grenade. The Defense also denied thatEkhlas jumped into the pond. They further asserted that the Razakars had not yet been formed in July 1971. The Defense also suggested that the Pakistani Army sent Ekhlas to Chittagong Medical College Hospital. The witness denied each of these assertions.
The Defense additionally asserted that in his initial interview the witness did not tell the Investigating Officer from whom he heard that Ekhlas was taken to Goods Hill. The witness answered that the Investigating Officer did not ask. The Defense also claimed that he did not originally allege that Razakars came out from CO Office and apprehended Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai, that Ekhlas jumped into a pond, or that Razakars took him to the Razakar camp located at the CO office. The Defense also stated the witness did not inform the Investigating Officer of the location of the victim’s burial site. The witness answered that he included all these details in his initial interview. The witness said he could not recall the specific date and month when Ekhlas was buried. He stated that he knew Salauddin Quader Chowdhury from 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin was studying in Pakistan and could not have met Mahmud Ali. They also alleged that Mahmud never Ekhlas that he was giving false testimony in a false case for financial benefit. The witness denied these allegations.
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following matters;
1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
The Tribunal heard arguments from the Defense regarding two petitions filed on 2 May 2013. The first requested medical treatment for Motiur Rahman Nizami and the second sought admission of additional documents as exhibits.
A Junior Defense counsel submitted that Motiur Rahman Nizami suffers from diabetes and arthritis which have recently increased due to his journey from Dhaka to Chittagong (he is also accused of another case filed in Chittagong). Therefore he requested access to physiotherapy. The Tribunal granted the petition and requested the jail authorities to provide him treatment in Hospital when necessary.
The Defense then submitted arguments in support of their request to exhibit additional documents showing media interviews given by Prosecution witness 6, Shahjahan Ali. Prosecutor Mir Iqbal Hossain opposed the petition and submitted that section 9(5) of the ICT Act 1973, allowing for the admission of such documents, is only applicable at the time of commencement of trial not in this stage of proceedings. Thereafter, Tribunal rejected the petition.
The Bangladesh Trial Observer 