Tag Archives: cross-examination

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →

29 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Witness 31

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution witness 31

Today the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon. The Tribunal then heard the beginning of the Defense’s cross-examination. They then adjourned the case until tomorrow as per the request of the Defense, who stated that they needed additional time to prepare questions regarding the factual issues because the Prosecution had only informed them this morning that the witness would appear today.

Prosecution Witness 31
The Prosecution called Shujit Mohazon, son and brother to two alleged victims, as prosecution witness 31. Shujit Mohazon testified in support of Charge no 6. Charge 6 was alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i) and  3(2)(3 )(ii); and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in Chief
Shujit Mozajon testified that he is the son of Jogesh Chandra Mohazon and Harilata Mohazon. He was 11years old in 1971. He stated that on 13 April1971 he along with his father, Jogesh Chandra and brother, Ranjit Mohazon, were sitting on their veranda when they heard the sounds of crowds yelling the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad.’ He testified that the Pakistani army and some Bengalis arrived and entered their house. Being afraid, Shujit said that he hid himself next to the Gola (a barrel for storing rice) in their kitchen. From his hidden position he saw his father and brother be taken to the bank of Khitish Chandra’s pond. Continue reading →

28 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 5

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami – Cross Examination of PW 5

Today the Defense in the Nizami case concluded their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Tribunal then adjourned the case  until 30 April 2013.

Nazim Uddin Khattab testified in support of Charge no 4 which alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murder, rape, looting and destruction of property in the village of Karajma. The Charges are framed as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Cross-examination
During the examination-in-chief, Nazim Uddin Khattab had testified that he received training as a freedome fighter for the Liberation War and regarding the UPR camp. Defense Counsel Mizanul Islam asked him who was in charge of the camp. Khattab replied Major Ibrahim and Habildar Ali Akbar were responsible. The Defense suggested that UPR was established at the request of Abu Sayed after the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces, as well as the Peace Committee. Khattab denied the suggestion and testified that before the camp was set up in the area before the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces or the Peace Committee. The Defense asked how long after the UPR camp was established the Peace Committee, Razakar f and Al-Badr forces were formed. Khattab was unable to provide a timeline. The Defense again asked him when he first heard about the Peace Committee . Khattab replied that he first heard about the three groups before 19 April 1971. Previously during the Proesecuiton’s examination-in-chief Khattab had claimed that the Union Board Chairman Khoda Box was Chairman of the Peace Committee and a leader of Muslim League. The Defense suggested that Major Ibrahim arrested Khoda Box. Khattab denied the suggestion.

During the examination-in-chief Khattab had also testified regarding an individual named Rofikun Nabi Bublu, .stating that he had gone into hiding after the Liberation War. In response to the Defense’s questions he said that he did not know whether Rofikun’s father, Shiraj, was a doctor but noted that his title was doctor. Khattab denied the Defense’s suggestion that Shiraj practiced in Bera as a doctor. Continue reading →

25 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Cross-Examination PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution Witness 17
  2. Submission of Formal Charges against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The case against Abdul Alim was the lone case scheduled in Tribunal 2 for today. Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena very briefly cross-examined Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar who gave testimony against the accused as Prosecution witness 17.

Additionally, the Prosecution submitted Formal Charges and related documents against Mr. Chowdhury Moinuddin and Mr. Ashrafuzzaman Khan. 16 charges have been proposed by the Prosecution against these two new accused, both of whom live outside of Bangladesh.

The Defense suggested did not attempt to discredit the witness’ prior testimony in a targeted manner. They alleged that the Abdul Alim never went to Akkelpur during in 1971. Despite the Defense’s suggestions the witness affirmed his statement that the Razakars said that detainees could be released only with permission from Alim. The witness said that Alim gave a short speech in Akkelpur in Suleman Kabiraz’s Mill ghor. He said that the Accused warned those present that their land was part of Pakistan and that agents from India would not be tolerated.

After this brief examination the court adjourned for the day.

25 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 5, Chowdhury, PW 30

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Prosecution Witness 5, Accused Present
  2.  Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness  30, Accused Present

Today in the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Defense began their cross-examination, which continued until the lunch break. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 28 April 2013.

In the Chowdhdury case Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. The witness testified in support of Charge 4 which alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murders, rapes, looting and destruction of properties as Crimes Against Humanity  under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami: Prosecution witness 5
Examination-in-Chief
Nazim Uddin Khattab testified that on the morning of 25 April 1971 he saw Motiur Rahman Nizami with Rafikun Nabi Bablu, Asad, Afzal, Moslem, Shukur and Siraj doctor attending a meeting at the Union Board Office. He said that after half an hour the meeting concluded and everyone exited the meeting room. Rofikun Nobi Bablu began yelling and verbally insulting the witness and others who were with him. Bablu was angry at them for voting in favor of Boat (the symbol of the Awami League) in 1970 and for supporting the Awami League. The witness further testified that Nizami told them that if they left the village they would assume that they were joining the freedom fighters and their family members would be killed. If they stayed in the village he said no one would be harmed.

Continue reading →