Tag Archives: cross-examination

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 23

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. the Economist – Reply from Respondent
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Hearing of Request for Police Escort, Prosecution Witness 23

Today Mustafizur Rahman, counsel for the named respondents in the contempt proceedings against the Economist, submitted their reply and the Tribunal fixed 24 April 2013 for a hearing. The South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist and the Chief Editor of the London based weekly were named in contempt proceedings that the Tribunal initiated on 6 December 2012. The Tribunal issued a notice asking them to show cause why action for interference with the ongoing trials and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the publication of alleged skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin.

Today the Tribunal also heard arguments from Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, in support of his application for police protection coming to the Tribunal during hartal (strike) days. The advocate submitted that he represents Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak Ali, and Abdul Alim. Hena stated that he is does not belong to any political party and comes to court in a professional context. He further submitted that on his way to the Tribunal he has been followed and threatened in offensive language by people outside the court. Because he resides far away from the Tribunal and has to cross several areas to come to the Tribunal, Hena stated that it is unsafe and troublesome for him to attend proceedings during hartal days.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon agreed with the Defense application and stated that if the provisions of law (he did not make it clear which law) allowed Prosecution counsel to receive police protection then Defense Counsel should be similarly assisted. The Tribunal verbally allowed the Defense application and asked Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon to communicate the Tribunal’s approval to the police. The Tribunal also scheduled 27 March as the date for passing its order regarding this application.

After hearing the Defense application, the Tribunal then turned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23, Bano Gopal Dash. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 27 March 2013.

Continue reading →

20 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Adjournement in Kamaruzzaman and Mujahid, Alim Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman – Extension of Time for Production of DW
  2. Chief Prosecuor vs. Mujahid: Adjournment
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Abdul Alim: Cross-Examination of PW 13

The case against Mujahid was listed for the hearing of the Defense review application and for the examination of the prosecution witness. However, the Defense counsel requested adjournment of court due to the death of one attorney’s mother. The Prosecution did not object to the same and the court adjourned the matter till Sunday, 24 March 2013.

In the Kamaruzzman case the Defense also sought additional time as the Defense witness could not be presented before the court. The Defense counsel said that they could not produce the witness because travel into Dhaka from Sherpur was not possible due to the hartals. The Tribunal adjourned the matter for one day and ordered that the witness be produced on 21 March 2013. At this point, the Tribunal expressed its dissatisfaction for the repeated requests for additional time from the D, particularly with regard to the timely production of Defense witnesses. The Defense argued often granted the Prosecution similar adjournments, and had even given 24 days of additional time for the production of PW-12. Thus they argued that there is an imbalance between the court’s attitudes toward the two parties and that the Defense were being prejudiced. The Tribunal rejected this argument and stated that because the onus to establish an independent case lies with the Prosecution and not the Defense, the Tribunal granted the Prosecution additional time. They said the Defense cannot be allowed to delay the proceeding by referring to such examples.

Finally, in the case Abdul Alim, the defense cross-examined PW-13. Prosecution witness 13 is the nephew of PW 2 Laily Begum and is the grand child of martyr Doctor Abul Kashem, who according to the Prosecution’s case was killed on 25July 1971 in Kuthibari at the instruction of Abdul Alim. The witness was examined by the prosecution on Sunday, 17 March 2013.

Continue reading →

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 (Accused Present)

The counsel representing M K Anwar filed a written explanation, as requested by the Tribunal, on behalf of the veteran BNP policy maker and stated that his client has the highest regard for the court and that his statements were misplaced and misinterpreted by the newspaper report. MK Anwar had allegedly made comments that the government is staging the ongoing trials of the alleged war criminals as a mechanism of vengeance against the leaders of its opposition parties. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta sought time for further hearing of the matter, stating that the prosecution will place its submissions after evaluating the written explanation filed on behalf of the opposite party. The matter fixed for hearing on 28 February 2013.

Counsel for the Jamaat leaders Mr Selim Uddin,  Mr Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Mr Rafiqul Islam sought adjournment of the matter for another week, stating that they could not appear by reason of unavoidable circumstances. The three leaders were ordered to personally appear before Tribunal-2 after contempt proceedings commenced against them following their comments about the tribunal during a public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. The prosecution strongly objected to their absence and stated an arrest warrant should be issued against each. The judges stated that the absent politicians must be personally present before the court on Sunday 3 March 2013 or face severe consequences.

Mr Kamaruzzaman’s case was adjourned until Sunday, 3 March 2013.

Finally, the cross-examination of Mr Shakti Shaha, PW-13 of the case against Mujahid was resumed by the Defenes and continued for the rest of the day.  The core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated and is based on coaching by the Prosecution. It was suggested that the witness lives and works in India permanently. It is the Defense’s case that the witness never saw the accused and is a false witness who in reality is an Indian passport holder coming to Bangladesh illegally to give oral evidence. The Defense noted that he gave his previous statements to the Investigating Officer in India and claimed that this was because he is in fact an Indian resident. The Defense further suggested that the witness’ description of what he saw from the top of the tree (allegedly the participation of Mujahid and his associates in the killing of the witness’ father) is not only untrue and fabricated but also impossible and impracticable.

Continue reading →

20 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Kamaruzzaman Limitation of Defense Witnesses and Cross-Examination of PW 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat Dhaka City Unit
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Limitation of Defense Witnesses, Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18 (Accused Present)

Today counsel for Jamaat’s Assistant Secretary General of the Dhaka city unit and a Central Executive member of the party appeared and requested ten weeks additional time to allow the accused to appear in court to respond to the contempt charges against them. The judges stated that ten weeks adjournment is unacceptable and they saw no reason why the defendants could not present themselves before the court in compliance with the order. The court then fixed 26 February 2013 as the next date for the matter and stated that the two implicated leaders, Selim Uddin and Hamidur Rahman Azad, must personally appear in the court on that day. The Tribunal initiated contempt proceedings against the two Jamaat leaders by suo-moto order because of comments allegedly made during public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. Selim Uddin allegedly commented in public that the tribunal should not exist anymore, while Azad allegedly threatened the start of a civil war if the Tribunal delivered an unfavorable verdict.

The court then moved to the Kamaruzzaman case and passed its order pertaining to the Prosecution’s application under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure, read with Section 11(3) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973, seeking to limit the number of defense witnesses to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceeding. The Tribunal granted the Prosecution’s request and limited the Defense to four witnesses. They stated that only four witnesses would be necessary to support the Defense’s plea of alibi. The Chairman of Tribunal-2 said the defense bears no other burden to prove or disprove the case. The Tribunal asked the defense counsel to provide the prosecution with the names of such witnesses in the earliest opportunity.

The Tribunal then continued hearing the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18, the Investigating Officer Abdul Razzaq.

Continue reading →

17 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary- Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 20

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Gholam Azam: Hearing of 3 Applications, Beginning of Prosecution Closing Arguments (Accused not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of PW 20 (Accused Present)

In the case of Gholam Azam the Tribunal heard three applications filed by the Defense regarding the presentation of further defense witnesses, permission to produce expert foreign witnesses, and a request for bail. The Tribunal rejected the first application and said it was not necessary to address the second two applications at this time. At that point they instructed the Prosecution to begin its Closing Arguments. Chief Prosecution Gholam Arief Tipo began with the historical background of the Liberation War. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the Gholam Azam’s case until tomorrow, February 18th.

In the afternoon the Tribunal heard the conclusion of the Defense’s cross-examination of Sheikh Morshed Anwary, prosecution witness 20. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury himself conducted the end of the cross-examination. Continue reading →