Weekly Digest Issue 11: March 31- April 4

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

This week Tribunal 1 dealt with the Motiur Rahman Nizami, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, and Gholam Azam cases. In the case against Nizami the Defence cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal heard both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Gholam Azam’s Defence counsel continued their Defence Closing Arguments, addressing the conspiracy allegations under Charge 1, as well as legal arguments on incitement. Proceedings were delayed by hartals and the absence of Defense counsel.

In Tribunal 2, the Court heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, during which they addressed evidentiary issues including hearsay, and legal arguments about the standard of complicity and under the doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Due to the hartal on 2 April, ICT 2 convened only briefly to allow the Prosecution to complete their examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case. On 3rd April the Defence began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, addressing factual issues in Charges 1-3 and responding to the legal issues raised by the Prosecution during their Closing Arguments.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

30 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 31, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 31, Accused Present

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Accused Present

Today the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon, in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Shujit testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges Genocide and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity. The case was then adjourned until 2 May 2013. In the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The witness testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges murder as a Crime Against Humanity. The Defense began their cross-examination but did not complete their questioning before the end of the day. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 2 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Shujit Mohazon testified as Prosecution witness 31 in support of Charge 6. Chowdhury is accused of  committing offense of Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Cross-Examination
The Defense began by asking Shujit Mohazon about his profession. Shujit stated that he he is a shopkeeper and received his trade license from the Union Council. The Defense suggested that the Mohazon name is known as being involved with determining interest rates in Chitagong. The witness said he did not know anything about such business.

The Defense then asked the witness about Bozlur Rahman road. Shughit that the road was visible from his house but that he did not see any army vehicles on the road on the day of the incident on that day.

Continue reading →

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →