Tag Archives: Bangladesh War Crimes

8 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination-in-Chief of PW 25 and 26

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury and Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman. After recording their testimony the Tribunal adjourned proceedings in the case until tomorrow, 9 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 25
The Tribunal first heard testimony from Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury, a former freedom fighter. He testified that one morning at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin, house tutor of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury, had been taken by Shamsu, a UP chairman of the nearby village, the Pakistani army and others. The witness stated that as a freedom fighter he tried to find out Saleh Uddin’s whereabouts and learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s home at Goods Hill. Abu Taher also testified that he had planned to rescue Saleh Uddin, but that the plan was not practically possible. Therefore he went to the leaders of the Muslim League in his village, Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi, and asked them to help rescue Saleh Uddin. He testified that in the next day Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi went to Goods Hill at about 10 or 11 am and were able to bring him back. The witness testified that after Saleh Uddin returned he told them that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and others beat him because he would not reveal the whereabouts of freedom fighters. Abu Taher testified that Saleh Uddin removed his Panjabi (long loose shirt) to show the injuries he had sustained. The witness stated that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 26
Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman, testified that Saleh Uddin had been staying at the house of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury as a house tutor. Solaiman stated that at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Goods Hill by Shamsu, the Pakistani Army, and some Razakars. He testified that Harun, a student of Saleh Uddin, found out about his teacher’s abduction and went to Goods Hill along with Badsha Miah Saudagar and Shamsul Huda Maizha Miah. The witness said they were able to bring back Saleh Uddin from Goods Hill. Solaiman testified that after Saleh Uddin’s return, Solaiman and others went to visit Saleh Uddin and that he stated in front of everyone present that he had been persecuted based on the decision of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Solaiman testified that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

7 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 the Defense continued their Closing Arguments, addressing Charge 3 for incitement and Charge 4 for complicity.

After the lunch break Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzak requested an additional working day in order to complete the Defense’s summing up. By mentioning “working day,” the Defense implied a non-hartal day. This week hartals have been called for Monday through Thursday.  The Defense does not attend the Tribunal during hartal days.

Charge 3:
Incitement to Commit Genocide
The Defense addressed each count of incitement contained within Charge 3. First, the Defense argued that none of Gholam Azam’s statements were designed to instigate or prompt others to attack or destroy members of any national, religious, ethnic or racial group. Considering the context of censorship surrounding news reports, the testimony of both Prosecution and Defense witnesses and submitted Exhibits, it is clear that none of  Gholam Azam’s statements, when interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning, were directed against members of the Hindu community, the Bengali civilian population or supporters of the Awami League. Secondly, the Defense argued that the Charge Framing Order does not adequately specify how Gholam Azam prompted, provoked or instigated criminal action, nor has the Prosecution brought any evidence on record to show that an identified perpetrator was so instigated, prompted or provoked. Thirdly, the Prosecution has made no attempt to establish that Gholam Azam had the required intention to destroy Hindus, members of the Awami League or the Bengali civilian population. Similarly, the Prosecution failed to prove that through his statements Gholam Azam intended to create genocidal intent amongst members his audience. Therefore the Defense stated that the Prosecution did not prove essential elements of the alleged crime.

Continue reading →