22 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of Prosecution Witness 28

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit. The witness is the son of an alleged victim of the Accused.

Prosecution Examination-in-Chief
The witness first provided personal details about his education and where he lives.  He testified that in 1971 he was 27 years old and a teacher at the R.A.B.M High School in Rangunia, Chittagong. He testified that on 25 March 1971 there was widespread political unrest in the country and activists from the Muslim League in his area torched and looted houses of the Hindu community and additionally raped many women.

At the time his father worked writing GDs, Complaints and Diaries. Around 10 or 11 April 1971 his father decided that the family should seek shelter at Khetro Mohon Biswash’s home, which was 3 or 4 miles away from their house. The father remained at their home.

Poritosh testified that on 14 April 1971, after the death of the Principal of Kundashori, Notun Chandra Shing, he went to visit his father and asked him to leave the house and return to Biswash’s home with Poritosh. His father refused to leave. The witness testified that after that he saw Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, along with members of the Pakistani Army, come to the house. He testified that he hid himself in a bush and watched as  Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and Panjabi soldiers engaging in an altercation with his father. At one point the witness alleged that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury shouted to the soldiers “that person is dangerous, kill him!” Poritosh testified that after hearing this the Panjabi soldiers told his father to go into the house, but when he turned the soldiers shot him two times in the back. His father fell and the soldiers then covered him with two blankets which they covered with some sort of chemical powder and lit on fire. The witness stated that once the soldiers left to inform his family members about his father’s death. They later left the country for India because they felt unsafe. Continue reading →

21 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following matters:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. Selim Uddin and Others Jamaat Leaders
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: Cross examination of Investigating Officer, Accused Present

Proceedings before Tribunal 2 began with contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman, Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam.  Selim Uddin was arrested on 8 March 2013 under an arrest warrant issued by the Tribunal on 6 March. Today the Tribunal passed an order against the parties, stating that the submitted written explanation for the allegedly contemptuous behavior was not satisfactory. Therefore proceedings under Section 11(4) of the ICT Act are issued against the accused. Defense counsel Tajul Islam, who had earlier been appointed as counsel to the four Jammat leaders, was not present in the court during the session. The Tribunal scheduled the next hearing on the matter for 9 May 2013, and stated that any further submissions, explanations or observations must be filed before that date.

The Tribunal then resumed hearing the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq . The Defense continued to highlight the various procedural flaws in the investigation process and the underlying deficiencies in the investigation’s findings.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid
Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer
The Defense resumed its questioning and asked whether the witness went to Chorfasion as part of his investigation. The witness replied that he did not visit the area. He asserted that another Investigation Officer, Nur Hossain, investigated the case against Abul Kalam Azad. He acknowledged that some of the witnesses in that case are also witnesses in the case against Mujahid. The Investigation Officer stated that he interviewed them separately.

The witness stated that he began his investigation in Dhaka on 5 December 2010. He first visited the Daily Jugantor office, which is the office of witness Mahbub Kamal, in the Notre Dame College area. The witness stated that the area is called Arambag. The Defense objected and said it is not called Arambag and suggested that the Investigating Officer does not actually know the location.  The witness said he did not go anywhere else as part of the investigation.  Continue reading →

21 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard both the direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 27, Dr. A.K.M Shafiullah. Shafiullah was first a medical student and later the Assistant Registrar at the Chittagong Medical College in 1971.

Prosecution’s Examination-in-Chief
The witness testified that he obtained his medical degree from Chittagong Medical College in 1970 and that he joined to Surgical Unit 1 of the Chittagong Medical College as an institutional trainee. He became a medical officer in the same ward in July of 1971, and in August was assigned to the post of Assistant Register. He testified that toward the end of September he received a call around 10pm that he was needed urgently at the hospital. He arrived at the ward within half an hour and found army, police and others there. He further testified that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, was seriously injured. According to his recollection Chowdhury was wounded in the leg and and received primary treatment at the hospital, staying 3 or 4 days. The witness said that he later heard that Salauddin was taken to Dhaka or outside of the country for better treatment. He stated that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Defense’s Cross-Examination of Witness 27
The Defense began by questioning the witness about his personal details, including where he lived during his employment at the hospital and the location of his home district. They then asked him about his work at the hospital. Shafiullah testified that he is aware of the rules and regulations for the admission of an injured at the medical college hospital. He testified about the staff hierarchy at the hospital and identified the director in 1971 as Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel. He named the Principal, Head of Medicine and Head of Surgery in 1971. Continue reading →

18 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Rescheduling of PW 16, Accused Present
  2. Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid : Cross-examination of PW 17, Accused Present

Today the Prosecutor in the case against Abdul Alim, Mr Rana Das Gupta, requested an adjournment of the case until the 22nd or 23rd of April, due to difficulties in producing Prosecution witness 16. He stated that the witness had encountered difficulty in reaching Dhaka and therefore was not present. Defense counsel, Mr Ahsanul Huq Hena, added that the 23rd would be appropriate as it has been announced as a hartal day and it is unlikely that the Defense counsel in other cases will appear. The Tribunal agreed and scheduled 23 April 2013 for the next hearing.

The Tribunal then turned to the case against Mujahid, in which the Defense resumed its cross-examination of  Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. The Defense’s core line of questioning aimed at highlighting the various procedural flaws in the investigation process and underlying deficiencies that undermine the reliability of the officer’s findings.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid: Cross-Examination of PW 17
The witness testified that he went to Gopinath Shaha’s house at 11 a.m. He confirmed that Gopinath Shaha’s three siblings, Khirodh Shaha, Shakti Shaha (PW-13), and Kanon Bala live in India. The Investigating Officer admitted that Prosecution witness 13, Shakti Shaha, periodically comes to Bangladesh and that this fact was not included in the statement of Gopinath Shaha.

The Defense suggested that during the investigation it was discovered that Gopinath had previously filed a case regarding his father’s death. They alleged tat this fact was being concealed because Mujahid’s name was among the accused in the prior case. The Investigating Officer denied the allegations. He admitted that he did not determine the date of Shakti Shaha’s last visit to Bangladesh prior to the witness’ date of testimony. Continue reading →

18 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 4

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami: Cross-Examination of Prosecution witness 4

Today the Defense concluded the cross-examining of Prosecution witness 4, Habibur Rahman Habib. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 25 April 2013.  The Tribunal had scheduled the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 27 in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case for today. However, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 21 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-Examination of PW 4
Today the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 4, former freedom fighter Habibur Rahman Habib.

Habib testified that he and about 15 or 16 members of his freedom fighter group were present when a group of Razakars were captured in September. He stated that he did not know what happened to the detained Razakars after they were handed over to their unit commander. He could not remember any of the Razakars names, except for one Shorab and Shitu. The witness claimed that 17 or 18 Razakars were detained in total from Dublia in Chortarapur Union. Habib said that their unit commander Shahid Selim was present when these Razakars were detained. He did not see any of the Razakars after the Liberation War because they were killed after being detained. He acknowledged that during the Liberation War he did not see Motiur Rahman Nizami. The witness claimed that he first saw Nizami at Nogorbari Hat when he was elected as a Member of Parliament after the war. Habib said that he did not talk with Motiur Rahman Nizami before or after the Liberation War or when Nizami was minister.

Continue reading →