Tag Archives: credibility

Weekly Digest 10: March 24-28

We apologize for the delay in publishing this week’s digest.

The Tribunal was in recess on 26 March 2013 in honor of Bangladesh’s independence day. Additionally, opposition parties declared hartals on the 27th and 28th of March. Therefore our coverage of those days is gathered from media sources as well as discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. Our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days due to security concerns.

Tribunal 1:
Proceedings in Tribunal 1 continued to center on the Defense’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case this week, with counsel completing their submissions regarding factual issues and Charge 5. Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present arguments on legal issues and Charges 1-4 next week. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witnesses 22 and 23. Additionally, The Tribunal heard Chowdhury’s Defense application for police escort to the Tribunal on hartal days.

Tribunal 2:
Tribunal 2 dealt with two cases this week. In the Kamaruzzaman case, Defense witness 5 completed providing testimony, and the Prosecution began Closing Arguments. The Tribunal also heard testimony from Prosecution witness 17, the Investigating Officer, in the Mujahid case.

Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 10 – March 24-28

15 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman: Final Defense Closing Arguments

The Defense for Muhammad Kamaruzzaman presented the last of their Closing Arguments for the case. Defense counsel Ehsan Siddique began the submission on behalf of the Accused, Kamaruzzaman. Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq appeared and informed the Tribunal that he would resume his portion of the submission after the lunch break. The Defense highlighted five weaknesses of the Prosecution’s case: 

  •  Evidentiary weakness of Charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
  • Contradictory witness testimony 
  • Inconsistencies between courtroom witness testimony and original statements to the Investigating Officer
  • Credibility issues
  • Failure to Fulfill Requirements of Doctrine of Command Responsibility

Defense counsel Ehsan began his submission with arguments on further legal points involved in Charge-2. He then addressed inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness testimony and documentary evidence submitted in support of Charges-3, 5, 6, and 7.

After lunch, Abdur Razzaq made some final closing remarks regarding Charge 2 before turning to Charge 4.  He identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of the relevant witnesses. The Defense argued that the Prosecution has primarily relied on oral evidence and did not produce a lot of documentary evidence. Razzaq stated that given numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses leaves too much doubt for a conviction to be justified. The Defense claimed that Kamaruzzaman has been targeted solely because of his political affiliations.

Charge-2:
Definition of “Other Inhumane Acts” as Crimes Against Humanity
Defense counsel Ehsan Siddique claimed that the charge of complicity in Charge-2 has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the term “other inhumane acts” is not a catch-all category and cannot be used to include any type of action not otherwise enumerated within the statute. He cited to the ICTR Trial Chamber’s decision in The Prosecutor v Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, para 583, states that the category should not be utilized by the Prosecution as an all-encompassing, “catch-all” term.

Continue reading →

9 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses 25 and 26

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The senior Defense Counsel for Chowdhury completed the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury, and Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman. See here for coverage of their examination-in-chief. Once the cross-examination was completed the Tribunal adjourned the case until 17 April 2013.

Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 25
The Defense questioned Abu Taher Chowdhury about personal details such as his schooling, national ID card, and memory of the location of the homes of UP Chairman Shamsu and Motaleb Chowdhury.  He was also asked about the victim, Saleh Uddin. He stated that in 1971 Saleh Uddin was a student of Chittagong University, but he did not know what year of studies the victim had completed at that time. The witness also could not say whether Saleh Uddin was a resident student at Alaol Hall of the Chittagong University or not.

The Defense asked Abu Taher about the political situation in 1971. He testified that he did not know whether the Muslim League was divided into three parts in 1971: the Kaiyum Muslim League, Council Muslim League and Convention Muslim League. He claimed that Shamsu Miah, Badsha Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi Maizha Miah  were supporters of the Muslim League but did not know whether they supported the Kaiyum Muslim League in particular. The witness could not say whether Sultan Miah was the head of the Kaiyum Muslim League at that time. Continue reading →

8 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination-in-Chief of PW 25 and 26

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury and Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman. After recording their testimony the Tribunal adjourned proceedings in the case until tomorrow, 9 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 25
The Tribunal first heard testimony from Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury, a former freedom fighter. He testified that one morning at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin, house tutor of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury, had been taken by Shamsu, a UP chairman of the nearby village, the Pakistani army and others. The witness stated that as a freedom fighter he tried to find out Saleh Uddin’s whereabouts and learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s home at Goods Hill. Abu Taher also testified that he had planned to rescue Saleh Uddin, but that the plan was not practically possible. Therefore he went to the leaders of the Muslim League in his village, Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi, and asked them to help rescue Saleh Uddin. He testified that in the next day Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi went to Goods Hill at about 10 or 11 am and were able to bring him back. The witness testified that after Saleh Uddin returned he told them that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and others beat him because he would not reveal the whereabouts of freedom fighters. Abu Taher testified that Saleh Uddin removed his Panjabi (long loose shirt) to show the injuries he had sustained. The witness stated that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 26
Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman, testified that Saleh Uddin had been staying at the house of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury as a house tutor. Solaiman stated that at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Goods Hill by Shamsu, the Pakistani Army, and some Razakars. He testified that Harun, a student of Saleh Uddin, found out about his teacher’s abduction and went to Goods Hill along with Badsha Miah Saudagar and Shamsul Huda Maizha Miah. The witness said they were able to bring back Saleh Uddin from Goods Hill. Solaiman testified that after Saleh Uddin’s return, Solaiman and others went to visit Saleh Uddin and that he stated in front of everyone present that he had been persecuted based on the decision of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Solaiman testified that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

4 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman: Defense Closing Arguments

The day’s proceeding began with a Defense application for permission to meet with the Accused at the Kashimpur Jail. The Tribunal granted the application and allocated two hours (10:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.) on Sunday 7 April 2013 as the tentative date for two members of the Defense counsel to meet with Kamaruzzaman.

Following the defense application, senior Defense counsel for Kamaruzzaman, Abdur Razzaq, continued with the Closing Arguments on the legal issues pertaining to the charge of complicity in the commission of Crimes Against Humanity. The Defense also discussed the evidentiary aspects of Charge 3, which alleges Kamaruzzaman’s involvement the massacre and rape committed at Shohagpur. Razzaq also submitted arguments relating to Charge 2, which alleges the inhuman treatment of pro-liberation intellectual Syed Abdul Hannan. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of the relevant witnesses and between their testimony and prior statements to the Investigating Officer.

Complicity in Commission of Crimes Against Humanity
The counsel cited the ICTY Trial Chamber case of Tadic (more specifically paragraph 688 and 689 of the judgment) to claim that the crime of complicity requires intent, defined as awareness of the act coupled with a conscious decision to participate by planning, instigating, ordering, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Therefore the Prosecution must prove that the Accused participated in a way that contributed to the commission of the illegal act. The counsel further referred to the I.L.C. Draft Code’s legal findings in the Nuremberg cases whereby it concluded that an Accused may be found culpable if it is proved that he “intentionally commits such a crime” or, if he “knowingly aids, abets or otherwise assists, directly and substantially, in the commission of such a crime.”

The Defense argued no evidence has been given to show that Kamaruzzaman knowingly acted in a way that substantially and directly contributed to the commission of a crime. The Prosecution has failed to prove that Kamaruzzaman had the requisite intent of awareness or knowledge that crimes would be committed or were planned. Nothing has been presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he assisted, instigated, facilitated, or aided and abetted the commission of the alleged offences. Continue reading →