Tag Archives: credibility

22 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mobarak Hossain Adjournment, Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 14

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Moboarak Hossain
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the  Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal was scheduled to hear the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Abdul Malek, who testified in support of charge 5. However, Hossain’s Defense counsel was absent when the item was called before the bench. After waiting half an hour the Tribunal stated that the Defense’s absence was unsatifisfactory. They passed an order scheduling the 28 July for the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 7, instead of fixing a date for the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Abdul Malek.

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense completed the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 14, Abdus Salim Latif, who testified in support of charges 7 and 9. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the case until 24 July 2013. Continue reading →

4 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Scheduled Hearing of Charges, Abdul Alim Cross-Examination of PW 11

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial stages against AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the pre-trial proceedings against AKM Yusuf the Tribunal passed an order stating that it would begin hearing the charges against the accused. Defense counsel Tajul Islam informed the Tribunal that they had only just received the AKM Yusuf’s brief and requesting additional time to prepare upon receiving client instruction. The Tribunal then scheduled the Charge Hearing for 14 July 2013.  AKM Yusuf, a Jamaat-e-Islami political leader, was arrested on 12 May 2013. Tribunal 1 initially took cognizance of the allegations against Yusuf, and the case was then transferred to Tribunal 2.

The Tribunal then turned to the Alim case where they allowed the Defense to recall Prosecution witness 11 for cross-examination. The initial examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 11 was conducted in the absence of Defense counsel. The Defense had requested an adjournment on several occasions (17, 25, and 27 February 2013) due to the inability of the defense counsel to attend the court proceedings for miscellaneous reasons. The Tribunal denied these applications and allowed the examination-in-chief of the witness to take place without Defense presence. The witness has been recalled based on a defense application arguing that recalling the witness was necessary for the interest of justice.

Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 11 Cross-Examination
The Defense’s cross-examination aimed at undermining the reliability of the evidence and the credibility of the witness. In particular, they implied that the witness could not have identified Alim as being connected with the alleged charges and that he did not know Alim during the war. They alleged that the witness was not even in Bangladesh. 

The witness stated that he has 3 brothers and 4 sisters and they all lived together in the same house in 1971. He does not know when the Pakistani Army invaded Jaipurhat. He stated that he did not go to Jaipurhat Sadar road during the 1971 war and also never went to Alim’s house before or during war or  during the war. He stated that he was unable to remember when the Pakistani Army first entered in Khetlal area and could not say if there was an Army Brigade headquarters in Khetlal. The witness further stated that he does not know how many army camps were there but heard that there was one army camp, though he could not say where it was located. 

The Defense asked the witness how many members there were in the Jaipurhat Peace Committee or who its secretary was at that time. He said that probably someone named Abdul Sardar was the Chairman of Khetlal Peace Committee, but he could not name the the Secretary. He said he did not know how many members were in the Jaipurhat Peace Committee. The witness stated that the house of Saidur Rahman, who he had referred to in his previous testimony, is located in Mandal Para about 300 yards south-west of the witness’ house. He testified that he did visit Saidur Rahman’s house before the war of liberation. The witness testified that Saidur Rahman had 4 brothers and 1 sister and his father is the late Esharat Ullah Mandal.

The witness stated that he studied at Kalai Moinuddin High School, whose Principal was Qazi Talibur Rahman. His confirmed his date of birth (as it appears on his SSC certificate) as 1 July 1955. He said he was not a voter during the 1970 General Election. The witness acknowledged that he did not file a case regarding the murder of his family but said he was not sure whether anyone else from his family filed a case. The Defense noted that the late Badol’s brother, Biswanath Dev, filed a case against 6 persons in 1972. They suggested that the witness was intentionally pretending not to know about this case because Abdul Alim is not accused in that case. The witness denied the suggestion.

The witness then stated that he was not present during the meeting between Alim, other Peace Committee members and Major Afzal. He claimed that he did not know whether there were news reports about the meeting.

The witness said he did not show to the Investigation Officer the bush where the alleged incident took place. He described the area around his house. He stated the distance between his house and Hazunza Har is about 2 to 2.5 km. There are two villages in between, Harunza Hat to Khetlal is 3 to 4 Km of distance. There is a mosque in the South-West of the witness’s house after which there lies a Hindu village. 

The witness acknowledged that he does not have any documentary evidence to show that Alim was the Chairman of local Peace Committee or a Rajakar member, but he reiterated that he had heard that Alim held those positions. He denied that Abbas Ali Khan was the actual Chairman. The witness said that he does not know whether the Razakars had a uniform or dress code. He denied the Defense’s suggestion that there was no bush near his house in 1971 and that he was not actually in Bangladesh at the time. He said that he does not know about any village named Turipara near Alim’s house.

The Defense alleged that the witness is providing fabricated evidence before the Tribunal at the instruction of the Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council. The judges objected and stated that this suggestion would not be recorded as it is aggravating towards religious groups. The Defense also alleged that Alim was in hiding during the war.

20 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Cross Examination of PW 26

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

Defense counsel Hena conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 26 in the Alim case, who had testified in his examination-in-chief before the Tribunal yesterday, June 29. Defense counsel mainly directed his line of questioning towards the credibility of the witness, suggesting that the testimony of the witness was maliciously fabricated with the support of the Prosecution.

Cross Examination of PW 26
The witness, Jogen Chandra Pal, stated that Jugipara is not in the east of Palpara, but instead in the south-east of Palpara. The witness stated that Kolipara is a Muslim area, and that it is not true that Palpara and Jugipara are both Hindupara. The witness was not sure about the number of Muslim families who resided in Kolipara in 1971. He stated that there were approximately 40-50 Muslim houses. He also said that Shonarpara is not in the north of Palpara, and that part of the Dom pond, the alleged site of the incident in question, was in Koroi village and part of it was in Kadipur village. The witness testified that Koroi Kadipur had no school in 1971. He also stated that there was no road to the south of the Dom pond but an open field, and that no suitable road for vehicles exited on the east side of the pond as well.

In reply to a question from Defense counsel, the witness stated that he does not know whether Alim was a reputable lawyer in 1971 or not. He does not also know if there was a Hindu area in Turipara beside Alim’s house. He does not remember the date when the Pakistani Army entered Jaipurhat area or who the Secretary of the Peace Committee in Jaipurhat was at that time. He is also unable to recall the name of the President or Secretary of the Peace Committee in his own local area or the name of his local Union Parishad Chairman or ward Member.

On the day of the alleged incident, the witness’s mother and sisters were in his house. The witness stated that Ajit Mohond, Prosecution witness 25, had his house to the east of his house, around 200-300 yards away. In reply to a question posed by the Defense, the witness stated that the flag he claimed to have seen was on green cloth. He does not remember if the same flag was present in all schools or offices at that time. The witness stated that he does not know if it is currently present in Mazar or Dorga (graveyards of Islamic preachers, where flags with the moon and star are commonly seen). He also stated that he had not heard about the Zaker Party (a Bangladeshi political party that has a flag with the moon and star as its party flag).

The witness said that there was no one with him in the place where he was hiding, and that it was a jungle. He did not show the site to the Investigation Officer. The witness stated that the people who told the witness that the looted materials were taken to Alim’s rice mill are now deceased. The witness then said that he does not remember whether Alim was a lawyer or ever owned a rice mill. The witness recalled that there were about 30-35 houses belonging to Hindus in his area in the Koroi Palpara village, and that the nearby Rajbongshi village also had 25-30 Hindu houses. The Investigation Officer did visit the Dom pond. The witness then denied giving an interview to the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee.

The witness further stated that Krishna “Doctor”, Shibu Tormuja’s parents and siblings, and many others are now dead, while the rest currently live in India. The witness said that he did not file any case after independence. He went to India via the Shiala border and returned to Bangladesh through the Hili border.

The Defense counsel then noted that the witness had not recounted much of the testimony he gave before the Tribunal to the IO during the investigation phase. The witness stated that he does not remember whether Alim was the president of the Peace Committee in Jaipurhat. He contradicted himself by also saying that it is not true that Alim was not the President of Peace Committee.

Agreeing with the suggestion of the Defense counsel, the witness said that it is true that there was no jungle in his village, but that there were some bushes. He said that it is not true that there was no graveyard.

Finally, the Defense counsel suggested that the witness was only saying what the Prosecution had asked him to say. The Defense argued that the witness was giving fabricated evidence. The witness denied all such suggestions put forward to him.

19 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testifies as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today, 19 June 2013, Tribunal continued hearing the testimony of the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense witness 1, for the third consecutive day. The witness began by expressing his belief regarding the difference between perception and reality. The Prosecution objected that such testimony is speculative and that a witness may only give testimony based on fact. Thereafter, The Tribunal continued to allow Chowdhury’s statements regarding his beliefs to be recorded but noted the Prosecution’s objection. The Prosecution argued that the witness’ testimony  should be be confined to the time frame relevant to the charges, namely the span of 26 March to 16 December 1971. The Defense countered that if the Prosecution could cite any rule or section of the Act which limits the content of a deposition, they would respect the rule. 

Continue reading →

12 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

 In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued its cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 41. Defense questioned the witness to numerous contradictions found between the witness statements that he recorded and the testimony of those witnesses before the Tribunal.  The Defense implied that many key accusations made by the witnesses were not made originally to the Investigation Officer and that they were later supplied by the Prosecution. Today the Defense highlighted contradictions betwee the statements of Prosecution witnesses 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow.