Tag Archives: Closing Arguments

17 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary- Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 20

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Gholam Azam: Hearing of 3 Applications, Beginning of Prosecution Closing Arguments (Accused not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of PW 20 (Accused Present)

In the case of Gholam Azam the Tribunal heard three applications filed by the Defense regarding the presentation of further defense witnesses, permission to produce expert foreign witnesses, and a request for bail. The Tribunal rejected the first application and said it was not necessary to address the second two applications at this time. At that point they instructed the Prosecution to begin its Closing Arguments. Chief Prosecution Gholam Arief Tipo began with the historical background of the Liberation War. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Gholam Azam’s case until tomorrow, February 18th.

In the afternoon the Tribunal heard the conclusion of the Defense’s cross-examination of Sheikh Morshed Anwary, prosecution witness 20. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury himself conducted the end of the cross-examination. Continue reading →

29 Jan 2013: ICT-1 – Sayedee Prosecution’s Final Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam: Defense request for adjournment (Accused not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Qasem Ali: Announcement of date for submission of formal charges or progress report
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee: Prosecution’s Reply to Defense Closing Arguments (Accused Present)
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Rejection of review applications and hearing of application to allow Chowdhury to attend Parliament

Today the Defense Counsel for Gholam Azam sought adjournment for the day. The request was allowed and the case was adjourned for the day.

In the case against Mir Qasem Ali, which is still in the investigation stage, the Tribunal fixed March 3, 2013 for the submission of either the Formal Charge or a Progress Report of the investigation.

In the Sayedee case the Prosecution finished its reply to the Defense’s closing arguments and requested the death penalty. Thereafter, Tribunal officially closed the case, announcing that the case would be under consideration until verdict was issued. The Tribunal will give notice to both the Prosecution and Defense as to when the Judgment will be ready.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal rejected the Defense’s application, filed January 24, requesting contempt proceedings to be issued against the Daily Jugantor, its editor and publisher Salma Islam, and staff reporter Swapan Dash Gupta.  The Tribunal also summarily rejected two review applications filed by the Defense requesting review of two orders. They reasoned that the applications for review were not filed within 7 days of the orders, dated 3 December 2012 and 14 January 2013 respectively, and were therefore barred. The Defense also filed an application requesting that Chowdhury be allowed to attend a session of Parliament. The Tribunal heard the application and fixed January 30, 2013 for passing its order.

Continue reading →

21 January 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Sayedee, Golam Azam, Nizami

The the verdict in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Kalam Azad was read out by the Chairman of ICT-2 in the ICT-1 room. Therefore Tribunal 1 did not convene until 12:30 and adjourned early at 1:30pm.

Today Tribunal 1 heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee: Resubmission of Defense Closing Arguments (Accused was Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Golam Azam, Nizami, Sayedee: Order on application for review (Golam Azam and Nizami were not present)

Continue reading →

20 January 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Defense Application for Removal of Chief Prosecutor; Contempt Proceedings vs. Ziauddin (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Delwar Hossain Sayedee: Defense Resubmission of Closing Arguments (Accused Present)

The Tribunal passed and order in response to the two defense applications seeking the removal of prosecutor Zead al-Malum. They additionally took note of the request by Chowdhury’s Defense counsel for contempt proceedings against Ziauddin (in connection with the Skype controversy). In the Sayedee case the Defense counsel filed two applications for review of orders rejecting previous applications made regarding 1) opportunity to inspect process and summons orders made for witness statements made under section 19(2) – providing for out-of-court statements made to the Investigating Officer to be admitted into evidence without the live testimony of the witness, and 2) recall of two witnesses. The Defense also noted a lack of access to documents submitted by the Prosecution.Thereafter, Mizanul Islam Defence Counsel of Delwar Hossain Sayedee began placing Closing Arguments for that case.

The Tribunal said that Motiur Rahman Nizami and Salauddin Quader Chowdhury’s cases will be heard before the court on January 23, 2013.

Continue reading →

17 Jan 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Sayedee Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Tribunal heard the following case:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossein Sayedee

On behalf of the Prosecution, Haider Ali submitted the Prosecution’s final arguments, addressing Charges 17-19.

Haider Ali began by reading out the  Daily Jonokontho dated 5 March 2001 (Ext-08) regarding incident at Sajuddin Poshari and the killing of Fayzur Rahman (charge 5) and Aziz; the looting of shops in Bipod Shaha, Modon Shaha and Makhon Shaha; and general allegations of looting, burning houses, torturing people, forced conversion of Hindus, and killing of Hindus. He read out Exhibit -48,  the Daily Azad , dated 3 February 1972 relating to Charge 18. He read out Exhibit-12, the Daily Shamakal, and  Exhibit-46, a newspaper dated 17 July 2010; as well as Exhibit  47 dated 14 April 2001.

He then focused on the individual charges and the prosecution’s evidence in support of each one. Continue reading →