Tag Archives: credibility

5 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41, Islam Contempt Proceeding

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Contempt Proceedings against Fakhrul Islam

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense completed the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of charge no 15. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 6 June 2013.

The Tribunal also fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing on the potential contempt proceeding against Fakhrul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense continued to cross-examine Prosecution witness 10 about the incident of 17 November 1971. The Defense asked the witness what time the alleged incident took place, where the witness was when it occurred, and how far away he was from the alleged location of the incident. The witness replied that on November 17 at about 01:10 am, freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot School, and that he was in the adjacent area of the CO office, which is now the Union Council, and was 100-150 yards away from the school.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that on 7 December 1971, while freedom fighters were gathered for a meeting at the police station beside the Pailot School camp, they were attacked. He stated that  at that time they were unarmed. The Defense previously asked the witness where the freedom fighters were based between 17 November and 7 December. The witness answered that they were occupying the police station beside the Sathia Pailot School. The Defense claimed that the freedom fighters who took possession of the police station were armed. The witness then admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness about the incident of 7 December 1971: specifically whether anyone other than him was injured, how many people were gathered there, how many rounds of bullets were fired, and whether the witness had personally seen any Razakar members. The witness answered that other than him, no one was injured on that day. The witness testified that 150 or 200 people were gathered at the time of the incident, but could not say how many rounds of bullet were fired.

The Defense asked the witness about the head of the local Peace Committee. The witness testified that he heard that Jobbar is the President of the Peace Committee. Previously in answer to a question, the witness had replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’ commander Mukul took the 14 Razakars detained after the operation of 17 November to Sahjadpur on boats. The Defense alleged that Jobbar, whom the witness identified as President of Peace Committee, was the father of a freedom fighter commander named Mukul. The witness denied that suggestion, but said that the freedom fighter Mokbul Hossen Mukul was the son of the Peace Committee President Jobbar. The witness did not clarify whether there were two freedom fighters with the name Mukul, or only one. The witness testified that Jobbar was an activist in the Muslim League.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had read any newspaper between 1971 and 1975 which stated that in 1971 Nizami had attended a program or given a speech in Pabna. The witness replied that he had heard that Nizami gave speeches in different meetings, but claimed he had not seen this information in a newspaper because lived in remote areas. The Defense then asked the witness numerous questions to demonstrate that the witness did not reside in remote areas throughout this entire period.  The Defense claimed that in the last part of August 1971 freedom fighters detained Nizami and took him to the Chor areas. The witness answered that he had not heard this. The Defense claimed that the witness, when he came to Dhaka to testify before the Tribunal, was provided with a copy of the interview which he had given to the Investigation Officer. The witness admitted this. The Defense stated that the witness came from his home with the intention to testify against Nizami, and that his identification of the Accused was meaningless given there is only one person in the dock who could be the defendant. The witness agreed with this. The Defense claimed that a Razakar named Mahtab resided in the witness’s house in 1971. The witness claimed that he could not remember such a person. The Defense alleged that the witness was falsely claiming not to have any memory of Mahtab. The witness denied the allegation.

The Defense claimed that the witness, in his initial interview with the Investigation Officer, did not provide key details which he later testified to at trial. In particular, the Defense claimed that the witness did not claim that he and Nizami were classmates in Boalmari Madrassa; that in May 1971, the school was closed to set up a Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot High School; or that the witness observed the inauguration program from a distance and learned about the decisions of the meeting from attendees. The Defense also claimed that the witness, in his initial interview, did not recount the alleged incident of 7 December during which unarmed freedom fighters were allegedly attacked at the police station beside the Pailot School, or that the witness was shot in his left eye and became unconscious.  The Defense claimed that the witness likewise did not say that the followers of Nizami, Abdus Sobhan and Ishaq attacked the local Hindu community and looted their houses, and that the wife of Shunil Joardar was raped in her husband’s presence and then committed suicide out of shame. The witness denied all of these allegations.

The Defense claimed that the incidents of 17 November and 7 December 1971 did not take place, and that the witness collected his salary regularly from his school in person. The witness denied these claims. The Defense claimed that the son of the witness received a job with BTV upon the recommendation of Abu Sayed during the tenure of the last Awami League government. The witness admitted that his son received a job, but denied that it was on the recommendation of Abu Sayed. The Defense alleged that the witness received his job in Upozilla Counsil Primary School on the condition that he testify against Nizami. The witness replied that this was not true.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about different exhibits, including Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 36, and 39. The Defense claimed that all of the newspaper headings had been altered by computer. The Defense claimed that the witness, during the investigation, did not search for the name of the reporter who collected the information and did not search for information about who was arrested alongside Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The Defense claimed that the report is not original and is a modified scanned copy altered using Adobe Illustrator. The witness denied that. The witness testified that he did not scan or compose the newspapers, and the person who did these things is not a witness in this case. Regarding Exhibit-15, Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate to find the name of the original reporters, and that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s name was added by modification of the scanned copy.

 The Defense asked the witness about the source of Exhibit 10. The witness answered that the source was PPI, but did not clarify what the abbreviation means. The Defense claimed that the first line of the report is not clear and that the report does not contain the name of the Accused. The witness replied that the report discusses the son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. Defense asked the witness about whether, following receipt of the report, he searched for the driver’s name, address, driving license, or other record of the driver’s death. The witness replied that he asked Siraj Uddin, Kazi Nurul Afsar, ANM Mahbub, and Fazlul Huq Bhuiyan about these things, but did not get any information. The Defense asked the witness whether he searched any local Chittagong newspaper for this information. The witness answered that he went to the offices of different local newspapers but did not receive the original as  copies of every issue of the newspapers are not available in the local newspaper offices. The Defense asked the witness who the editor of the Azadi newspaper was at the time of publication, when the witness went to the local office, and whom the witness spoke with while there. They aimed to cast doubt by indicating that the witness did not actually go to the office. The Defense asked the witness whether any case was filed regarding the death of the driver and injury of the Accused. The witness answered that he did not investigate that matter. The witness denied that the news was manipulated in bad faith.

Regarding Exhibit-36, the Defense claimed that Kawsar Sheikh was not the Assistant Librarian when the witness seized the reports. The witness replied that he wrote down what they said regarding their posts. The Defense claimed that the witness seized the Exhibits from Mobarak, and gave the main copies under Mobarak’s custody. The Defense asked the witness whether any requisition was served to make Mobarak appear as a witness. The witness answered that he did not serve any such requisition. The Defense claimed that all the paper cuttings and the seizure list are paper transactions and have been faked. Witness replied that this is not true. The Defense claimed that Exhibit 39 is also a paper transaction and fake and that all of the seized documents have been fabricated. The witness also denied that allegation. The Defense noted that Exhibits 6 through 23 do not contain the name of the Accused. The Defense asked the witness about the profession of the Accused. The witness replied that before 26 March, the Accused was a student, and that from 26 March to 20 September the Accused was involved in the commission of crimes against humanity.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Fakhrul Islam
On 30 December 2012, Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, filed a petition seeking an order clarifying that the Tribunal judges were not party to any of the Skype conversations that formed the controversy resulting in the resignation of former Chairman of Tribunal 1, Nizamul Hoq. On 3 January 2013, in order to avoid contempt proceedings, Ahsanul Huq Hena, another defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, prayed that the Tribunal consider the petition as ‘not pressed’ and offered an unconditional apology. On 14 January 2013, the Tribunal issued a notice asking Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, why contempt proceedings should not be issued against him. Today, 5 June 2013, the Tribunal fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing.  

28 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Closing Arguments, Contempt Proceedings vs. PW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid –  Defense Closing Arguments
  2. Contempt Proceedings Against Jahir Uddin Jalal, Prosecution Witness 2

The Defense in the Mujahid case addressed Charge-7, covering its evidentiary aspects before making overall closing statements regarding the investigation process and the case in general. The Closing Arguments were primarily led by Defense counsel Munshi Ahsan Kabir who had been released from the hospital following an alleged assault on him by Jahir Uddin Jalal, Prosecution witness 2.

After lunch, the Tribunal took up the issue of the alleged assault and heard the Defense’s application for contempt proceedings to be brought against the witness Jalal. After hearing the application the court ordered of contempt proceeding against the witness to begin 5 June 2013. They issued a notice that Jalal must submit his written explanation by that date. Continue reading →

2 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 32, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Chowdhury  case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 32, Basanti Ghosh. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because she did not allege that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was involved in the mass killing committed in Unsattar para. The then Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 6 May 2013.

In the Nizami case the Defense filed two applications. The first requested medical treatment for Motiur Rahman Nizami and the second sought admission of additional documents as exhibitis. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of the applications for Sunday, 5 May. The Defense also concluded cross-examining Prosecution witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 12 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness 32
Today the Prosecution called Basanti Gosh as Prosecution witness 32. She is the wife of victim Momoranjon Gosh and testified in support of Charge 6. This charge alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in-Chief
Basanti testified that in 1971 (did not specify date) a Pakistani military officer and a Bengali came to her house and captured his husband Monoranjon Gosh. She testified that she tried to make the two men free her husband but that the military officer beat her. She stated that her husband was taken to Khitish Mohazon’s home where he was lined up along with other prisoners and killed. She did not specify how he was killed. She testified that after two days her husband’s brother brought Monoranjon’s body back. She testified that her husband’s name is listed among the names of victims on the memorial   monument that now marks the site.

Cross-examination
The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because she did not identify Salauddin Qader Chowdhury as being involved in the alleged crimes. Continue reading →

30 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 31, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 31, Accused Present

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Accused Present

Today the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon, in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Shujit testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges Genocide and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity. The case was then adjourned until 2 May 2013. In the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The witness testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges murder as a Crime Against Humanity. The Defense began their cross-examination but did not complete their questioning before the end of the day. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 2 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Shujit Mohazon testified as Prosecution witness 31 in support of Charge 6. Chowdhury is accused of  committing offense of Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Cross-Examination
The Defense began by asking Shujit Mohazon about his profession. Shujit stated that he he is a shopkeeper and received his trade license from the Union Council. The Defense suggested that the Mohazon name is known as being involved with determining interest rates in Chitagong. The witness said he did not know anything about such business.

The Defense then asked the witness about Bozlur Rahman road. Shughit that the road was visible from his house but that he did not see any army vehicles on the road on the day of the incident on that day.

Continue reading →

23 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 28

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs SalauddinQader Chowdhury: Cross Examination of PW 28, Accused Present
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs MobarakHossain: Charge Framing Order, Accused Present

Today Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury concluded the cross-examinination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit.

The Tribunal also issued the official Charge Framing Order against Mobarak Hossain. They rejected the Defense’s request for acquittal and also rejected an application for bail. Mubarak Hossain submitted a plea of not guilty. The Tribunal scheduled the opening of the trial for 16 May 2013. Additionally the court requested that the Prosecution and Defense submit their proposed witness lists on 16 May as well.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of Prosecution Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit, was cross-examined by the Defense. His examination in-chief took place on the 22 April.

The Defense began by asking whether Poritosh or his brothers had filed a case before or after the Liberation War regarding the alleged killing of his father. Poritosh replied that he did not know if anyone he or anyone else had filed such a case at the Rawzan Police Station. He testified that the  Rawzan Police Station is about half a kilometer from his house. He could not say whether his father visited the Police Station before he was killed. He testified that after 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army went to Rawzan but could not give an exact date.

The Defense then asked him questions about his job as a teacher at RABM high school. He testified that the head master of his school was Abdur Rashid. He stated that when he left the school in 1971  he did not submit the resignation letter or application for leave. He claimed that there were no students from Palit Para or Biswash Para in his school. He testified that his house was about 10 kilometers from the school. He stated that while he was a teacher he also worked as the house tutor for Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s son, Abu Bakar. He acknowledged that Abu Bakar is still living. He stated that he knew the neighbors and that he stayed ab Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s house for over a year. He testified that he did not inform anyone when he left Abul Kashem’s house in 1971.

The Defense asked Poritosh to describe the trip between the scene of the killing and where his family was hiding. He testified that along the road there were shops on both sides of the road, and the houses of wealthy and important people. He admitted that he did not attempt to tell anyone about the killing on his way back. However, he claimed that others were aware of the incident, though he could not say how people heard about it. Continue reading →