Tag Archives: court access

27 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Shortened Coverage

Today due to an opposition led hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. We have compiled the following summary from media sources as well as through conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Application for Privileged Communication with the Accused, Adjournment of Proceedings

On March 24, 2013 Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Today the Tribunal allowed the Defense’s request for privileged communication with the Accused, scheduling Abdur Razzaq, Sishir Monir and Gholam Azam to meet on 30 March from 10 am to 1 pm.

The Defense was scheduled to continue their Closing Arguments today, addressing the legal issues based on Charges 1 to 4. However, Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq was not present and a junior Defense attorney requested two days of adjournment for the senior lawyer due to personal difficulties. Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the prayer. The Tribunal allowed the adjournment prayer but imposed costs of Thaka 5,000 on the absent lawyer.

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 23

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. the Economist – Reply from Respondent
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Hearing of Request for Police Escort, Prosecution Witness 23

Today Mustafizur Rahman, counsel for the named respondents in the contempt proceedings against the Economist, submitted their reply and the Tribunal fixed 24 April 2013 for a hearing. The South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist and the Chief Editor of the London based weekly were named in contempt proceedings that the Tribunal initiated on 6 December 2012. The Tribunal issued a notice asking them to show cause why action for interference with the ongoing trials and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the publication of alleged skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin.

Today the Tribunal also heard arguments from Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, in support of his application for police protection coming to the Tribunal during hartal (strike) days. The advocate submitted that he represents Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak Ali, and Abdul Alim. Hena stated that he is does not belong to any political party and comes to court in a professional context. He further submitted that on his way to the Tribunal he has been followed and threatened in offensive language by people outside the court. Because he resides far away from the Tribunal and has to cross several areas to come to the Tribunal, Hena stated that it is unsafe and troublesome for him to attend proceedings during hartal days.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon agreed with the Defense application and stated that if the provisions of law (he did not make it clear which law) allowed Prosecution counsel to receive police protection then Defense Counsel should be similarly assisted. The Tribunal verbally allowed the Defense application and asked Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon to communicate the Tribunal’s approval to the police. The Tribunal also scheduled 27 March as the date for passing its order regarding this application.

After hearing the Defense application, the Tribunal then turned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23, Bano Gopal Dash. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 27 March 2013.

Continue reading

24 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Defense Application for Police Protection

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Defense Counsel Application for Police Protection to and from the Tribunal

Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Additionally, the Defense concluded the closing arguments on factual issues. Arguments continued for 5 days and addressed Prosecution and Defense witnesses as well as Charge 5. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until 27 March 2013, when Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present the Defense arguments on legal issues and Charges 1 to 4.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, filed an application seeking police protection for coming to the Tribunal during days when hartals or other political unrest present security concerns. He requested that his car be accompanied by full time uniformed police gunman. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing of the petition for tomorrow and adjourned the proceedings until then.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam- Defense Closing Arguments
Prosecution Witness 16 – The Investigating Officer
The Defense read out different paragraphs from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 16. Mizanul Islam submitted that during the cross-examination the witness was asked whether Gholam Azam had a direct connection with the local Peace Committee but was only able to refer to Exhibit-57, the Daily Pakistan dated 16 April 1971. The Defense noted that the contents of Exhibit-57 do not answer the question. The article discusses the formation of a 21 member executive committee within the Peace Committee and states its purpose as bringing back normalcy at the direction of the Central Peace Committee. On cross-examination the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find any direction or order bearing the signature of Gholam Azam. The witness also admitted that there was no resolution which designated Gholam Azam the power to cancel or suspend any local level Peace Committee. The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer was unable to specify who had authority within the Peace Committee to issue directions or orders to the local level committees. The Investigating Officer claimed that directions and orders from the Central Peace Committee were communicated to the local level Peace Committees by newspapers, television and radio broadcast. He further testified that the local level Peace Committees were bound to follow the directions. However, the Defense noted that the witness had admitted that he did not know the broadcasting range of Dhaka television stations and acknowledged that due to poor communication there was often a delay in orders reaching newspapers in remote areas such as Taknaf and Tetulia. The witness also admitted that he had no evidence as to whether the Daily Shangram or the Daily Paigam was distributed in Patuakhali (a remote area). Continue reading

24 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman DW 5, Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

The day’s proceedings started later than usual because the Defense witness scheduled to testify in Kamaruzzaman’s case was not initially allowed to enter the tribunal premises in a car. The Defense Counsel accompanying him was adamant that the witness would not get out to walk because of the prior incident in which a Defense witness was allegedly abducted outside the Tribunal. After the situation was resolved the Tribunal heard Defense witness 5 provide direct testimony and allowed the Prosecution to conduct their cross-examination.

After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Chief Prosecutor began their Closing Arguments in the case.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Testimony of Defense Witness 5
Mr Abdur Rahim, Defense witness 5, testified before the Tribunal. During his direct examination, the witness testified that he is the son of Late Didar Ali and is a permanent resident, living in Mymensingh District. He is an elderly businessman of the locality. He claimed to have been a freedom fighter during the Liberation War and the General Secretary of Shecchashebok Bahini  (Volunteer Forces) formed after the Liberation War. Mr. Rahim testified that he never heard Kamaruzzaman’s name referenced in connection to the Al-Badr or Rajakar forces in Mymensingh District.

Continue reading

Weekly Digest: Issue 4 – February 10-14, 2013

This week’s digest details the ongoing progress of the Gholam Azam, Nizami, and Chowdhury cases in Tribunal 1. The Tribunal also heard matters regarding the ongoing investigations against Abdus Shobhan and Mubarak Hossain. In the Gholam Azam case the Prosecution completed its cross-examination of Defense witness 1 and the Tribunal scheduled February 17th for Closing Arguments, despite requests from the Defense for more time to produce additional witnesses. In the Chowdhury case the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17 took place in-camera, and direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses 19 and 20 was completed. The Nizami case experienced delays, as Defense counsel were unable to reach the Tribunal due to ongoing violence in the Palton neighborhood of Dhaka (where their offices are located).

Tribunal 2 heard the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer in the Kamaruzzaman case, who appeared in Court as Prosecution witness 18. In the  Mujahid case The Defense also cross-examined Prosecution witness 1. In the Abdul Alim the Defense cross-examined prosecution witness 10. The Tribunal additionally granted additional time to Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir to respond to contempt proceedings against him.

Read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 4 – Feb 10-14

13 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Failure to Produce DW 2, Nizami Absence of Defense Counsel

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Gholam Azam – examination of defense witness 2 (Accused not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami – inability of defense to attend due to violence (Accused Not Present)

The Tribunal was scheduled to hear the examination of Defense witness 2 in the Gholam Azam case. However, the Defense was unable to produce the witness and claimed that the witness had a fever and another witness had been detained in a separate case. The Defense requested adjournment.

The Tribunal was also scheduled to hear matters in the Nizami case. However, due to ongoing violence in Dhaka, senior Defense counsel Mizanul Islam was unable to reach the Tribunal. The Defense requested adjournment for the day.

Continue reading

13 Feb 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim cross-examination of PW 10, Kamaruzzaman Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness (Accused Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Hearing of applications  (Accused Present)

The court started the day’s proceedings with Mr Abdul Alim’s case wherein the prosecution witness PW-10, Mr Abu Sayeed Joarder was cross-examined by the Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena. He previously testified in support of Charge-11 – murder as a crime against humanity in relation to allegedly directing an attack on the civilian population. The Defense counsel’s line of questioning aimed to undermine the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony.

The court then moved to the case against Muhammad Kamaruzzaman and heard two separate applications regarding access to documents. Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned due to the Defense counsel’s inability to reach the Tribunal because of ongoing violence in Dhaka.

Continue reading