Tag Archives: Alim

25 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against Abdul Alim. the Prosecution called the Investigation Officer, Mr ZM Altafur Rahman, as Prosecution witness 35. The Investigation Officer testified about his findings and stated that the accused played a central role in committing atrocities as the Chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which acted as an auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army.  He referred to documentary evidence collected during the investigation as being incriminating of Alim. These documents include several books that have been exhibited in addition to documents and newspapers seized by the Investigation Officer and enumerated on the Seizure List. Cross-examination was scheduled for a later date.

Demeanor of the Court
A junior member of the Defense informed the Tribunal that senior counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, who has been cross-examining the witnesses, is ill. The Defense requested a long adjournment until Hena is able to fully recover. The Tribunal was critical of the request and noted that this sort of delay, on a regular basis, is tantamount to obstruction of justice. The Tribunal noted that there have been frequent requests for adjournment based on  either the illness of a Defense counsel or that of the Accused. They stated that such requests will not be entertained and that the Defense must complete the cross-examination between 29 July to 1 August 2013. The Judges stressed that the trial will continue at its pace without such delays, save in exceptional instances.

24 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order, Khan and Mueen Uddin PW 5, Alim PW

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim 

Today Tribunal began by hearing a bail application on behalf of AKM Yusuf. The Defense presented arguments both regarding the necessity of bail, and the insufficiency of the charges proposed against AKM Yusuf by the Prosecution. They argued that the suspect should be discharged as the allegations against him are malafide and inspired by political motivations. The Tribunal also heard the Prosecution’s response. They  scheduled 1 August for issuing their order regarding bail and the potential framing of charges against the suspect. They instructed the jail authorities to submit a report on the availability of their medical facilities and their ability to meet the needs of the suspect while in custody.

The Tribunal then turned to the case of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin in which the Prosecution  called Prosecution witness 5 to testify in support of Charge 6. As the trials are being conducted in absentia,  state appointed Defense counsel Shukur Khan and Tuny will be allowed to conduct the cross examination at a later date on behalf of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin respectively.

In the Alim case the Tribunal rejected an application from the Defense requesting additional time due to the illness of senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena. A junior Defense attorney stated that Hena is physically unwell and is undergoing treatment at the United Hospital. The Tribunal was critical of the delayed application and stated that it would briefly begin the examination of the Investigation Officer and would continue  it the following day. Thus the tribunal very briefly started recording the examination of the Io, but then fixed 25 July 2013 as the date for recording his entire testimony. Continue reading

4 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Khan and Mueen Uddin PW 9, Alim cross-examination of Investigation Officer

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

Tribunal 2 recorded the testimony of Prosecution witness 9 in the case against Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, both of whom are being tried in absentia. Both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination were completed on this day. The testimony of Prosecution witness 9 supports Charge 11 against the accused, pertaining to the killing of physician Dr Alim Chowdhury.

The court also made some progress in the case against Abdul Alim as it continued to record the cross-examination of ZM Altafur Rahman, the Investigation Officer for the case. So far, the Defense counsel has directed their line of questioning at highlighting inconsistencies in the investigation procedures followed by the Investigation Officer. The Tribunal adjourned Alim’s case until 5th August, 2013. Continue reading

11 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Alim Adjournment

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Again Prosecution Witness, Jahir Uddin Jalal
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

 Both the contempt proceedings against Prosecution witness Jahir Uddin Jalal and the Alim case appeared in the daily cause list for Tribunal 2 today. In the contempt proceedings against Jahir Uddin Jalal, the Prosecution witness was represented by Advocate Monsur Rashid who submitted a written explanation denying all allegations. Jalal, alias Bicchu, allegedly attacked Defense lawyer Munshi Ahsan Kabir near the high court. Mujahid was briefly hospitalized after the alleged attack but was soon released. The petitioner and alleged victim sought additional time to review Jalal’s explanation before responding. The Tribunal scheduled further hearing of the matter for 21 July 2013.

After the contempt proceedings were scheduled, the Defense for the Alim case also filed a petition seeking time and adjournment for the day. There was no objection from the Prosecution and the Tribunal adjourned the case until 17 July 2013. 

9 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Application for Admission of Statements under Section 19(2)

Today due to scheduled vacation our researcher was unable to attend proceedings. The following coverage was gathered from media sources.

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Tribunal heard an application from the Prosecution requesting that statements previously made by a few witnesses to the Investigation Officer be admitted into evidence under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act. Section 19(2) allows for unsworn statements made by witnesses to the Investigation Officer to be admitted where the witness is deceased or unavailable. The Prosecutor informed the Tribunal that four Prosecution Witnesses who were supposed to testify against Abdul Alim have been “missing” since May 2013. The witnesses who cannot be found are Mr Nurul Islam, Mr Abul Khayer Sarkar, Mr Fazlur Rahman and Mr Matiur Rahman. The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that admitting the statements would not be lawful and would have prejudicial effect against the accused as the defense would be deprived of the right to cross-examine the missing witnesses.

The rejection of the application is out of step with the Tribunal’s previous decisions. Previously, the Tribunal has accepted the similar requests from the Prosecution with regard to five other prosecution witnesses who were also unavailable to give testimony. Two, ,Mr Dulu Talukdar and Akramuddin died in 2011; two others, Mr Shirajul Haque and Shamsul Huda Chowdhury, are physically unfit to give testimony before the tribunal and one Krishna Kumar Bajla, currently resides in India where his wife is receiving medical treatment. The Tribunal noted that it would not be unjust to allow the statements of the deceased and witnesses who are unavailable due to illness or for being out of the country be considered as evidence, as their case is distinct from the ones who are merely suspected of being missing.

 The Defense counsel Mr. Tajul Islam objected regarding the acceptance of the statements of the two deceased witnesses, stating that the two died long before submission of the witness list. The Defense accused the Prosecution of intentionally keeping the names of those two witnesses on the list despite knowing about their death. However this argument did not change the Tribunal’s conclusion.