Tag Archives: crimes against humanity

20 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Khalilur Rahman, Prosecution witness 8. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 21 May 2013.

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1. The Tribunal then adjourned until tomorrow.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Prosecution Witness 8
Khalilur Rahman, Prosecution witness 8, testified in support of Charge 6. Under the Charge it is alleged that on 27 November 1971 Nizami and members of the Razakars and Pakistani military raided the house of Dr Abdul Awal and other adjacent houses in Dhulaura village. The charge further alleges that after the Pakistani army left, Nizami and his accomplices caught 22 survivors who they killed at the bank of the Ishamoti River. Nizami is charged for his involvement in murder as a Crime Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act and section 4(1) and 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in-Chief
Khalilur Rahman testified that in the middle of June he left for India to receive training as a freedom fight. He testified that he returned to Sujanagar, of Pabna, Bangladesh and stayed there 2 or 3 days. After that, at 12 or 12:30 on 27 November 1971, the witness said he took shelter at the house of Dr Abdul Awal located in Dhulaura village in the jurisdiction of Sathia police station. Khalilur testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of Army boots. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation force coming towards their house (where they took shelter). He testified that then he opened a North-facing door and went outside. He testified that then he began hearing the sounds of shooting people moving. He heard someone yelling at people to put their ‘hands up.’ Continue reading →

16 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Prosecution presented their key legal arguments in the case against Mujahid. Prosecutor Afroz addressed a range of legal issues in conjunction Charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. A written outline of the arguments was provided as reference for the Tribunal. The Defense counsel objected because the cover photograph of the outline showed numerous skulls. The Defense argued that such a picture is unnecessary, inappropriate and prejudicial. The Prosecution disagreed, claiming that there is nothing in the law or rules of procedure prohibiting such photographs. The judges agreed with the Prosecutor’s submission, adding that such a photograph will neither be detrimental nor advantageous to the case against the accused and will have no impact on the judicial process.

Prosecutor’s Arguments:
The Prosecution presented arguments on the following issues:

  1.  Legal argument on the absence of victims’ dead body.
  2. Legal argument on ‘extermination ‘ in contrast to ‘murder’.
  3. The doctrine of superior responsibility and how it has been established by the evidence admitted.
  4. Evaluation of documentary evidences and further evaluation of the charges.

The Actus Reus of Murder and Necessity of Victim’s Body as Evidence (relevant to Charges 1 and 5)
The Prosecution began by emphasizing that the bodies of the victims in Charges 1 and 5 were recovered. She argued that the actus reus, of murder requires that the Prosecution prove that the killing itself occurred. Where the body is not found or recovered the killing remains unproved, resulting in the failure of the Prosecution’s case. In this case, Prosecutor Afroz argued that the Defense cannot claim that the actus reus in Charges 1 and 5 has not been proven by reason of failure to find the body of the victims. Continue reading →

13 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35, AKM Yusuf Bail Hearing

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecuto vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of AKM Yusuf

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 34, Dijoy Krishno Chowdhury. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because he did not assert any allegations against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

The pre-trial stage of the case against AKM Yusuf continued and the Tribunal heard the Defense’s bail application, fixing tomorrow for passing its order. Continue reading →

13 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 19

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Prosecution heard testimony from Prosecution witness 19 in the case of Abdul Alim. The witness described being detained and tortured by the Pakistani Army during the war in 1971. However, the witness did not make any incriminating statements about Alim. Because the witness was not making statements regarding alim the Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta requested that the Tribunal declare Prosecution witness 19 to be a hostile witness. The Tribunal granted the request and allowed the Prosecutor to effectively cross-examine the witness. At the end of the questioning the Prosecutor alleged that the witness was either intimidated by the Defense and their supporters or bribed to conceal the truth. The Defense did not cross-examine the witness, but commented that the witness is s stating truth of his own free will.

Prosecution Witness 19
Abed Hossain testified as Prosecution witness 19. He stated that on 18 June 1971, he was picked up by the Pakistani Army from the yard of a local mosque situated in his village or Chakbarkat Sonarpara, Jaipurhat district. He asserted that it was the Pakistani army who carried out the operation and detained many others along with him. He stated that the Pakistani army then tortured him while he was in custody. He thought that as many as 22 people were killed by the army, although he managed to survive.

During the examination in chief, the witness made no mention of Abdul Alim and thus did not support the Prosecution’s claim that the Accused was involved in the witness’ detention and torture. Even after repeated questioning by the Prosecutor the witness failed to identify any factor showing the involvement of the Accused in his abduction and torture. He also did not implicate Alim in the detention, torture or killing of any other person. The witness highlighted that the atrocities were committed mainly by the Pakistani Army.

The Prosecution then received permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross-examine him. During the cross-examination, the prosecutor Rana Das Gupta alleged that the witness was either politically motivated, financially manipulated or otherwise intimidated into changing his testimony.

The Prosecution asked whether the witness was a supporter of any political party and which political party the witness voted for in the last parliamentary election. The judges quickly interrupted and condemned this line of questioning, saying that such questioning would not be tolerated. The judges affirmed that the witness may vote for anyone of his choice and will never be expected to disclose his choices before the Tribunal. The cross-examination was then concluded by the prosecutor with the suggestion that the witness is concealing the involvement of the accused by reason of intimidation or corruption.

The Defense did not conduct a separate cross-examination of the witness and merely stated that the witness was voluntarily testifying and was stating the truth. 

12 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Prosecution Closing Arguments, Moinuddin and Khan Pre-Trial

Due to a national hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. Our coverage is therefore gathered from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid
  2. Pre-trial of Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The Prosecution continued Closing Arguments in the Mujahid case. They began addressing the evidentiary aspects of the case and Charges 1 and 2.

Under Charge 1 Mujahid is accused of the abduction and subsequent murder of Mr Seraj Uddin Hossain, who was the then Executive Editor of the Daily Ittefaq. Mujahid is charged with abduction and murder as Crimes Against Humanity, under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act. Prosecution witness 4 testified in support of the charge. It is additionally alleged that Mr. Chowdhury Moinuddin and Mr Ashrafuzzaman Khan, who have recently been separately indicted, partnered with Mujahid, members of Al-Badr and the Pakistani Army in the commission of these crimes.

Charge 2 alleges that Mujahid commited persecution as a Crime Against Humanity and Genocide in conjunction with attacks committed in Baidyadangi, Majhidangi and Baladanga. He is charged under section 3(2)(a) and Section 3(2)(c) of the ICT Act. Prosecution witnesses 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 supported the allegations within Charge 2. It is alleged that Mujahid committed the alleged crimes with the assistance and participation of Abul Kalam Azad, Hammad Maolana, Gofur Rajakar, Jahangir Razakar, Kalu Bihari and other members of the Pakistani Army, the Razakars, Al-Badr, the Peace Committee and members of the Bihari community.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury Moinuddin and Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan
The Tribunal also addressed the cases against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan. The Police submitted an official report stating that they had been unable to arrest the accused because they are out of country, Moinuddin residing in the United Kingdom and Ashrafuzzaman in the United States. The Tribunal then issued an order to the Office of the Registrar requesting them to publish an advertisement in two widely circulated national dailies asking the two Accused to appear before the Tribunal within 10 days of its publication, failing which a trial-in-absentia will be conducted.

Administrative Issues:
Brussels based legal expert Ahmed Ziauddin who allegedly conducted inappropriate Skype conversations regarding the proceedings with the former Chairman of Tribunal 1, submitted his response to contempt proceedings against him in compliance with the Tribunal 2’s order of 3 January 2013. The submission was received by the Registrar of the ICT through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The matter will soon appear in the Daily Cause List of the Tribunal for further order.