Tag Archives: Charge Framing Order

16 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mueen Uddin and Khan Charges, Alim Cross Examination of PW 24

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

The Prosecution read out the charges against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan, and the Tribunal fixed June 24, 2013, as the date for delivering the Charge Framing Order.  In the Alim case, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena concluded the cross examination of Prosecution witness 24. The Prosecution will call its 25th witness on June 17, 2013. Continue reading →

28 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Applications, Mubarak Hossain PW 2

28 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Applications, Mubarak Hossain PW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard three applications filed by Prosecution. The first one was for the acceptance of eight out-of-court Prosecution witness statements that were recorded by the Investigation Officer as evidence under section 19(2) of the ICT Act. The second application was a request for the admission of some additional documents under section 9(4) of the ICT Act . The third application requested correction of a clerical mistake in the Charge Framing Order. The Tribunal also heard two Defense applications. The first one requested the recall Order 17, which was passed on 13 March 2012. The second application requested that two Prosecution witnesses be recalled. recalling two Prosecution witnesses. Salauddin Qader Chowdhur was absent in the Tribunal when Tribunal heard the applications due to illness. He came to the Tribunal after the lunch break and stayed a few of minutes. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case for the day in consideration of his illness.

In the Mubarak Hossain case, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 2, Khodaza Begum. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 2 June, 2013 Continue reading →

Special Report Issue 2: Detailed Summary of Kamaruzzaman Case and Verdict

We are pleased to release our second Special Issue Report on the Verdict in the Kamaruzzaman case. For a full pdf of the report please read here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

This special report provides a detailed summary of the International Crimes Tribunal’s fourth verdict, the Judgment in Chief Prosecutor vs. Md. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013 and was the third verdict to be issued by Tribunal 2. We have attempted to distill the major conclusions expressed by the Tribunal into a digestible format. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each distinct charge, general arguments made by both parties, and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. For the sake of length we have focused this report on the factual and charge specific findings within the Judgment. We will be publishing a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment that have particular bearing on the ongoing proceedings. This report does not critically analyze the legal merits of the Judgment. It is presented simply in order to facilitate broader access to and understanding of the ICT’s proceedings and conclusions.

Kamaruzzaman was found guilty on 5 of 7 Charges, specifically Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. All of the Charges alleged direct commission of Crimes Against Humanity or, in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Prosecution additionally argued that Kamaruzzaman could be found liable under the doctrine of Command Responsibility under Section 4(2). However, he was convicted solely of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity under Section 4(1) of the Act.  On the basis of Charges 3 and 4 he was sentenced to death. The Tribunal noted that charges 1 and 7 merited a life sentence, while Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under charge 2. All lesser sentences were merged into the death sentence.

Please read the entire report here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →

28 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Charge Framing Order to be Issued Against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury Moinuddin – Scheduling of Charge Framing Order
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan – Scheduling of Charge Framing Order

 Tribunal 2 was briefly in session today. They scheduled Thursday, 2 May 2013, for issuing the Charge Framing Orders against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. Both are charged with the killing of Bangladeshi intellectuals during the eve of Bangladesh’s victory on 16 December 1971. The Prosecution submitted the proposed Formal Charge to the Tribunal on 25 April 2013. The 16 Charges allege the Accused killed at least 18 intellectuals between 10 December and 15 December 1971, amounting to Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

AIJI is in the process of obtaining copies of the Charge Framing Orders and will post them on our website once they are available.