27 Feb 2013: Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Sayedee Verdict for the 28th

This is a brief summary of today’s proceedings. A more detailed post will follow.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee

The Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments for the  8th consecutive day. The Prosecution submitted his arguments in support of Charge 5, torture and murder of Sub Inspector of Police Siru Miah as a Crime against Humanity.  This concluded the Prosecution’s arguments based onthe  charges. Thereafter Prosecutor Zead-al-Malum sought adjournment and Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of Ghulam Azam until March 3, 2013.

Today the Sayedee case appearedas Item 2 on the cause list. After hearing the Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case the Chairman of Tribunal 1, ATM Fazle Kabir, stated that on January 29, 2013 the Tribunal had completed hearing Closing arguments in the Sayedee case and the case had been under consideration awaiting verdict since then. He announced that the Final Judgment has been prepared and Tribunal will deliver its verdict tomorrow, February 28, 2013.

This will be the third  judgment issued by the International Crimes Tribunal, the first to be issued by Tribunal 1. It follows the verdicts in the Kalam Azad and Qader Molla cases.

It should be noted that after the announcement of the impending verdict, Jamaat-e-Islami has called a hartal (strike) for tomorrow in protest of what they expect to be an unfair verdict against Sayedee, a party leader. In light of the energy behind the ongoing Shabagh movement (which was sparked by the sentence given in the Qader Molla case and is unified around calling for the death penalty against alleged war criminals) and opposition to the trials by Jamaat-e-Islami, there is potential for significant demonstrations and violence tomorrow.

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 (Accused Present)

The counsel representing M K Anwar filed a written explanation, as requested by the Tribunal, on behalf of the veteran BNP policy maker and stated that his client has the highest regard for the court and that his statements were misplaced and misinterpreted by the newspaper report. MK Anwar had allegedly made comments that the government is staging the ongoing trials of the alleged war criminals as a mechanism of vengeance against the leaders of its opposition parties. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta sought time for further hearing of the matter, stating that the prosecution will place its submissions after evaluating the written explanation filed on behalf of the opposite party. The matter fixed for hearing on 28 February 2013.

Counsel for the Jamaat leaders Mr Selim Uddin,  Mr Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Mr Rafiqul Islam sought adjournment of the matter for another week, stating that they could not appear by reason of unavoidable circumstances. The three leaders were ordered to personally appear before Tribunal-2 after contempt proceedings commenced against them following their comments about the tribunal during a public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. The prosecution strongly objected to their absence and stated an arrest warrant should be issued against each. The judges stated that the absent politicians must be personally present before the court on Sunday 3 March 2013 or face severe consequences.

Mr Kamaruzzaman’s case was adjourned until Sunday, 3 March 2013.

Finally, the cross-examination of Mr Shakti Shaha, PW-13 of the case against Mujahid was resumed by the Defenes and continued for the rest of the day.  The core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated and is based on coaching by the Prosecution. It was suggested that the witness lives and works in India permanently. It is the Defense’s case that the witness never saw the accused and is a false witness who in reality is an Indian passport holder coming to Bangladesh illegally to give oral evidence. The Defense noted that he gave his previous statements to the Investigating Officer in India and claimed that this was because he is in fact an Indian resident. The Defense further suggested that the witness’ description of what he saw from the top of the tree (allegedly the participation of Mujahid and his associates in the killing of the witness’ father) is not only untrue and fabricated but also impossible and impracticable.

Continue reading →

ICT’s Legal Conclusions: Trial in Absentia

Trial in Absentia:
The first verdict issued by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was in the case of Kalam Azad, a case that was held in absentia. It is alleged that Kalam Azad fled to Pakistan so as to avoid trial. Trial in absentia is a rare occurrence in international criminal law. While such trials were conducted during the Nuremberg trials, contemporary courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone have not allowed such trials.

Tribunal 2 addressed the issue of trial in absentia in its Final Judgment in the Kalam Azad case. This is a summary of their conclusions. Continue reading →

26 Feb 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Disposition on Defense Applications, Prosecution Closing Arguments

Defense Applications
On 17 February 2013 Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed three applications. One application was for permission to either call General Sir Jack Deverell and Professor William Schabas as expert witnesses, depose these witnesses via video link, or to submit their expert reports into evidence pursuant to Rule 46A of the International Rules of Procedure 2010. Defense also filed another application for bail. On 20 February 2013 Tribunal heard these two applications along with another application filed by the Defense requesting permission inspect the record of orders. Today (26 February 2013) passed order regarding these three applications.

Regarding the application for two foreign witnesses Tribunal passed an order rejecting the application and stated that Tribunal already expressed its views at the time of recording of evidence. Tribunal further stated that the recording of evidence has already been completed and the case is now at the stage of Closing Arguments. The court did allow the Defense to submit the expert witness reports though it was unclear whether they would be accepted as exhibits or simply for reference by the Judges.

The Tribunal rejected the bail application, which was filed on medical grounds, stating that Gholam Azam has received adequate medical attention and that the nature of the charges against him and the stage of the trial do not allow for him to be set free on bail. The Tribunal further directed the authorities at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University to take all necessary steps to provide him proper treatment.

Regarding the inspection of record of orders Tribunal stated that a Defense Counsel will be allowed to inspect the record for an hour in front of two bench officers.

Closing Arguments
Thereafter, Tribunal heard the closing arguments of Prosecution side for 7th consecutive day. Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted arguments in support of Charge No 4 (complicity) incidents 13 through 23 counts. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until February 27, 2013.  Continue reading →

25 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Prosecution Closing Arguments (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain (Accused Not Present)

In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s closing arguments for the 6th consecutive day. Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted arguments in support of Charge 3 (incitement) from counts 26 to 28 and Charge 4 (complicity) for counts 1 through 13. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until February 26, 2013.

The Prosecution submitted the Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain but the matter was not argued or presented in open court. Continue reading →