4 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Defense Closing Arguments

Today Defense counsel Imran Siddiq continued presenting the Defense’s Closing Arguments. He added some additional arguments regarding the impact of censorship on the reliability of documentary evidence and then addressed Charge 3 which is for Incitement to commit crimes under section 3(2) of the ICT act of 1973.

Censorship
The Defense added some points to the arguments they submitted regarding censorship on 3 April. Imran submitted that a conviction cannot be solely based on newspaper reports where the newspaper reports have not been collaborated. The Defense submitted that it is evident from Exhibit-EK that the Chief Martial Law Administrator imposed restrictions on newspapers through the Martial Law Regulation no 77, prohibiting printing or publishing any news which is calculated to prejudicially affect the integrity or solidarity of Pakistan. The Defense argued that Prosecution Exhibit 3, a news report published in the daily Shangram 19 June 1971, shows that Gholam Azam called for the withdrawal of censorship restrictions. Imran also noted that Defense witness 1 testified that during 1971 the Martial Law Authority imposed censorship on mass media by official notification. The Defense pointed to pages 62 and 84 of the book Muktijuddho: Bibhinno Dristikon Theke, by Sadruddin, stated that due to censorship news received from East Pakistan was very limited and unreliable. The Defense further noted that the book Ami Mujib Bolsi, by Krtittibas Ojha, states that censorship was imposed on newspapers, radio and television were not allowed to publish without prior permission regarding the contents from the relevant authority. Continue reading →

3 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – Defense Closing Arguments

The Defense began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case. Counsel addressed details pertaining to Charge 1 and the allegations of Kamaruzzaman’s involvement in the torture and killing of Bodiuzzaman. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses 4 and 6, both of whom provided hearsay evidence. Additionally the Defense highlighted inconsistencies between each witness’ courtroom testimony and their previous statements to the Investigation Officer. The Defense argued that in order for hearsay evidence to be viewed as credible and reliable it should be consistent and supported by circumstantial evidence. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the Prosecution’s case for Charge 1 give rise to substantial doubt as to the guilt of the Accused.

Abdur Razzaq, the senior Defense counsel for the Accused, also addressed legal questions arising from the Prosecution’s case including admissibility and probative value of hearsay evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence, whether the statement of one hearsay witness can satisfactorily corroborate another, and whether corroboration is required. In the course of their submissions the Defense referred to and analysed judicial precedents from the ICTY and the ICTR and rebutted arguments made by Prosecutor Tureen Afroz on 31 March 2013. The Defense also referred to the text Archbold: International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence and some domestic cases.

The Defense stated that their final arguments would take a total of four days. They requested that the court accommodate their proposed timeline.

Charge 1
Evidentiary and Factual Arguments
The first Charge against Kamaruzzaman pertains to the killing of Badiuzzaman. The charge is supported only by the testimony of Prosecution witnesses 4, Fakir Abdul Mannan, and 6, Dr Md Hasanuzzaman, both of whom are hearsay witnesses.  The Defense argued that there are fundamental discrepancies between the two witnesses’ testimonies and the findings of the Investigation Officer. The Defense stated that these discrepancies and inconsistencies go to the very root of the Prosecution’s case. The testimony of these witnesses has been used to establish the Prosecution’s allegations about the purpose of Badiuzzaman’s visit to Ahammed Member’s House at Badiu where he was abducted, the presence of Pakistan Army at the time of abduction, Ahammed Member’s position during the Liberation War, the mode of Badiuzzaman’s arrest, and the identification of Kamaruzzaman.

Continue reading →

3 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Application and Closing Arguments

Today Defense counsel for Gholam Azam filed an application seeking the recall of yesterday’s order, citing the interest of justice. Yesterday, 2 April 2013, the Tribunal passed an order directing the Defense to conclude their Closing Arguments by 4 April 2013. The Defense argued that compelling them to conclude their Closing Arguments would seriously prejudice the Accused because they would be unable to adequately present the case.

The Defense requested an additional four days instead of the two currently allotted. Senior Defense counsel stated that he cannot make himself available on hartal days. He noted that the other courts of the country, from the magistrate level to the Supreme Court, do not convene on hartal days. Razzaq further stated that though he is supporter of a political party, he appears before the Tribunal solely as an advocate and has refrained from making any political statements over the last 3-4 years.

After making his submissions Tribunal 2 granted Razzaq permission to leave in order to appear before Tribunal 2.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the prayer and submitted that the application should be rejected summarily.

Defense Closing Arguments
Defense counsel Imran Siddiq continued the submission of Closing Arguments on behalf of Gholam Azam. He argued regarding the legal requirements of the charge of conspiracy, planning and incitement.

Conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity
Imran Siddiq submitted that section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act of 1973 does not describe the elements of the crime which the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Given the silence of the Statute on this matter, it is therefore necessary to look to Customary International Law in order to assess whether the Prosecution has sufficiently proved its case.

Imran stated that in order to convict the Accused of conspiracy to commit Crimes Against Humanity, the Prosecution must prove that i) there was an attack ii) the attack was widespread or systematic iii) the attack was directed against a civilian population iv) the attack was committed on national, political, ethical, racial or religious grounds and v) Gholam Azam acted with the knowledge of the attack. He cited to the ICTR case of Ntagerura (Trial Chamber), 25 February 2004, para 698.

Continue reading →

2 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Hartal, Mujahid Prosecution Witness, Kamaruzzaman Closing Arguments

Today due to security concerns relating to the hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mohammed Kamaruzzaman

Due to the hartal Tribunal 2 convened only for a brief session of an hour and a half.  The examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case was completed. The witness affirmed his prior testimony regarding his investigation findings that the accused acted as the President of Faridpur District Islami Chatra Shangha (ICS) during the pre-liberation and Liberation War periods. The witness also stated that the Accused later became the President of Islami Chatra Shangha’s Dhaka Unit, subsequently becoming Secretary and then President of East Pakistan ICS. The witness also submitted further documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The witness is scheduled to be cross-examined by the Defense on 7 April 2013.  

Kamaruzzaman’s case was also listed in the day’s daily cause list. The learned Senior Advocate for the defense Barrister Abdur Razzaq previously informed the tribunal that he would present the Defense’s Closing Arguments, and had therefore requested accommodation of his schedule as he his also representing Gholam Azam in Tribunal 1. Today Razzaq was not present due to the Hartal. Although the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for the day due to his absence, it was stressed that the Tribunal would terminate the Defense’s arguments if counsel continues to be absent. In such an event, the Tribunal stated the Defense would only be entitled to submit written arguments. Unlike Tribunal 1, no cost sanction for non-attendance has been imposed on the senior counsel by Tribunal 2. 

2 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Please note that today was a hartal and due to security concerns our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following brief summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

Today was scheduled for the conclusion of the Defense’s Closing Arguments on legal points. Abdur Razzaq, Senior Defense Counsel for Gholam Azam was not present before the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel member filed an application for adjournment on the grounds that the senior Defense members were facing personal difficulties. The junior also noted that the Defense had tried to pay the costs imposed by the Tribunal upon them on 27 March, but were unable due to a problem with the server of the concerned bank’s online network. He stated that they tried to pay another two times and so today sent a clerk to pay the cost directly.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the application for adjournment. Prosecutor Turin Afroz submitted that the cost imposed does not reflect the value of the labor and time of judges, lawyers, officials and others which she claimed are being wasted because of the Defense counsel’s absence. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 3 April 2013. The Tribunal also passed an order directing the Defense counsels to finish the legal arguments by 4 April and noted that failure to do so would effectively terminate the Defense counsel’s Closing Arguments.