Tag Archives: complicity

1 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments Begin

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today in the Nizami case Prosecution witness 16 was scheduled to testify. However, the Prosecution failed to produce the witness and requested adjournment. The Tribunal allowed the request and fixed 11 August for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 16.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena sought adjournment until Sunday, 4 August 2013, saying that he is sick. The Tribunal said that they cannot adjourn the case because of one Defense attorney’s illness when another Defense counsel is available in the same case. Thereafter, Ahsanul Huq Hena began the Defense’s Closing Arguments. Continue reading

30 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Khokon Pre-Trial, Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-Trial Proceedings against Zahid Hossain Khokon
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

On 18 July the Tribunal took cognizance of the charges proposed against Zahid Hossain Khokon and issued a warrant for his arrest. Today the Tribunal passed an order under Rule 31 instructing the relevant authorities to publish notice of the warrant in the Daily Jonokontho and the Daily Star asking Zahid Hossain Khokon to appear before the Tribunal by 14 August 2013.

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Prosecution made its Closing Arguments for the third consecutive day. The Prosecution presented their arguments on Charges 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 17. On 24 July the Tribunal passed an order allotting the 3 days to the Prosecution for their Closing Arguments, with an additional day allotted for the Prosecution’s reply to the Defense’s Closing Arguments. However the Prosecution had not completed their submissions by the end of today’s session and requested two additional days. The Tribunal granted them only one additional day, asking that they complete their presentation by tomorrow, 31 July 2013.  Continue reading

29 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

 At the beginning of today’s proceedings the Tribunal summarily rejected an application for adjournment filed yesterday by the Defense requesting additional time for approval from the Chief Justice for High Court judge Shamim Hasnain to testify in the Chowdhury case. The Prosecution then continued with its Closing Arguments for the second consecutive day, addressing charges 3, 4, 5 and 6. Arguments will continue tomorrow. Continue reading

28 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Chowdhury case the Prosecution began their Closing Arguments, addressing charges 1, 2 and 3. The Defense also filed an application seeking adjournment stating that Shamim Hasnain is willing to testify in the case and has requested permission to do so from the Chief Justice. They requested adjournment until approval is granted. The Defense also attached a letter sent by Salman F Rahman (one of the proposed DWs) to the registrar in which the potential witness stated that he is currently out of the country, has fallen ill and has been instructed by his doctors to recover prior to traveling. The Tribunal responded that if it decided the application merited hearing it would appear in the cause list the next day.

In the case against Mobarak Hossain today was scheduled for the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 7. However, due to the Closing Arguments in the Chowdhury case the Tribunal rescheduled the witness’ testimony for 12 August. Continue reading

25 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ATM Azharul Islam Cognizance of Charges, Mir Qasem Ali Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam
  2. Pre-trial Proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali

Today in pre-trial proceedings against suspect ATM Azharul Islam the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order taking cognizance of the Formal Charge and numbered the case as ICT BD Case No 5 of 2013. The Tribunal also directed the Prosecution to supply the Defense with all of the documents on which the Prosecution intends to rely, as well as the full list of proposed witnesses by the end of the day. They scheduled 18 August for hearing arguments regarding framing of the charges.

The Tribunal also heard an application filed by Alim’s Defense counsel requesting medically appropriate transportation of the suspect to and from the Tribunal. The Defense submitted that the ATM Azharul Islam suffers from back pain but is transported by prison van. The Prosecution objected saying that if such accommodation was made available to all it would create difficulties for the jail authorities due to the shortage of health friendly vehicles. The Tribunal passed an order directing the jail authority to provide ATM Azharul Islam health friendly vehicle if such vehicle is available to the prison authority.

In the pre-trial proceedings against suspect Mir Qasem Ali the Tribunal heard a Defense application seeking adjournment. The Defense submitted that they need privileged communication with their client Mir Qasem Ali. The Defense also requested legible copies of some Prosecution documents. The Tribunal rejected the request for adjournment but scheduled 28 July and 1 August from 10 am to 1 pm for privileged communication between the Defense and their client. They also directed the Prosecution to supply legible copies of the concerned documents if possible. They then heard the Prosecution’s submissions regarding the proposed charges against Ali.

The Prosecution submitted that until 6 November 1971, Mir Qasem Ali was the secretary of the Islami Chhatra Shangho Chittagong division. Between 6 November and 16 December 1971 they claimed that the Accused was also the general secretary of the Provincial Committee of the Islami Chhatra Shangho. They alleged that Mir Qasem was ‘Al-Badr high command.’ Most of the crimes allegedly committed under the leadership of Qasem Ali of took place at Dalim Hotel. The Prosecution briefly read out the 14 charges proposed against Mir Qasem Ali and stated that they had submitted the investigation report, a book titled ‘Muktijudder Potovumi’ vol- 1 and 2, witness statements, map of the place of occurrence, photos, and CDs in support of the charges. The charges are proposed under sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(g), and 3(2)(h), indicating allegations of crimes against humanity; attempt, abetment or conspiracy; and complicity. The proposed charges are also framed indicating sections 4(1) and 4(2) as the relevant modes of liability, encompassing joint criminal liability and command responsibility respectively. Among the 14 charges proposed, charges 11 and 12 are for murder while the rest are for confinement, abduction, torture and other inhumane acts.

4 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments and Prosecution Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

The Defense  completed their closing arguments before Tribunal 2 in the case of Mujahid,  discussing the evidentiary issues and the required elements for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).

The Required Mental State for Liability Under Joint Criminal Enterprise
The Defense continued their arguments from the previous day and addressed the required mental state, or mens rea, for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). Referring to paragraph 228 of the Tadic (Appeals Judgment) the Defense Imran submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove the requisite mental state for liability under JCE as they have presented no evidence to establish that Mujahid intended to take part in a common plan or design with any member of Al-Badr or othered armed group for the purpose of committing a crime. The Defense argued that there is no evidence on record showing that Mujahid even had knowledge of an alleged common plan or design. Referring to the allegation that the accused said “usko hotao” (take him away) to his men, referring to a detainee, the Defense argued that these mere words do not prove the mental state of intent and knowledge required for JCE-1, as that type of JCE requires material participation by the Accused. Continue reading

3 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today the Defense continued their closing arguments in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid. They completed their arguments regarding the requirement of effective control by the Accused in order establish liability under Command Responsibility. They also emphasized doubt pertaining to particular charges due to inconsistent witness testimony. The Defense argued that the required mens rea, or mental state, has not been proven in the instant case. Finally the Defense submitted arguments regarding the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) under international law.  Continue reading