Tag Archives: Defense Closing Arguments

7 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments, Qasem Ali Pre Trial

 Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Qasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Tribunal was scheduled to hearing the Defense’s application for dismissal of the charges against Mir Qasem Ali. However, senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzak requested adjournment saying that after being granted privileged communication with Qasem Ali, the Defense had only 48 hours to prepare for the hearing. Additionally, the Defense noted that the Prosecution had only just served the Defense the type written copies of the illegible documents, numbering 38 pages. The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 18 August 2013.

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena again sought adjournment saying that he is still sick. He further stated that due to Eid his junior was on leave. Without anyone to assist him he said it would be difficult for him to continue. The Tribunal denied the request again saying that they cannot adjourn the case due to the personal problems or illness of a Defense counsel when there is another Defense counsel (Fakhrul Islam) available in the same case. Thereafter, Ahsanul Huq Hena continued the Defense’s Closing Arguments for the fourth day. After his submission Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 12 August 2013 and asked Defense to conclude the Closing Arguments on that day.  Continue reading

5 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense continued presenting its Closing Arguments for the third day. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 7 August 2013. Tomorrow, 6 August is a government holiday.

Statements under section 19(2)
The Defense argued that Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973 can be used arbitrarily due to its construction. Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973 states that the Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement recorded by a Magistrate or Investigation Officer being a statement made by any person who, at the time of the trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the Tribunal considers unreasonable. The Defense argued that the word used in this section is ‘may’ which means this section is discretionary and there may be some exceptions. The section also used the words ‘any person’ and is not specific about the maker of the statement. The Defense remarked that where the statement is recorded by a Magistrate the statement is to be signed by the declarant and accompanied by a memorandum, similarly to Bangladesh’s Criminal Procedure Code. However, Section 19(2) allows for statement made to the Investigation Officer to be admitted into evidence, despite the fact that these statements are not signed by the declarant. The Defense argued that, under Bangladeshi law, statements made to the police, and therefore to the Investigation Officer, carry no value and should not be admitted into evidence.  The Defense therefore asserted that the open ended nature of Section 19(2) shows that there is scope for its misuse.   Continue reading

4 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena presented the second day of their Closing Arguments.

The Defense argued there is no link between Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and any political party or auxiliary force that was involved in atrocities during the 1971 war. The Defense referred to the testimony of the Investigation Officer who asserted that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, was the associate of the ruling party of Pakistan and that Fazlul supported the Pakistani occupation forces and assisted them and directly or indirectly committed crimes with his followers. The Investigation Officer additionally claimed that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was inspired by his father’s political ideology and with the help of Pakistani occupation forces he and his followers also directly or indirectly committed mass killings and Crimes Against Humanity in Chittagong. The Defense argued that one cannot assume that sons always follow the ideology of their fathers. They argued that the Investigation Officer failed to present evidence in support of his claims. There is no document to show that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury followed the political ideology of his father or participated in the election campaign of his father. Continue reading

1 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments Begin

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

Today in the Nizami case Prosecution witness 16 was scheduled to testify. However, the Prosecution failed to produce the witness and requested adjournment. The Tribunal allowed the request and fixed 11 August for recording the testimony of Prosecution witness 16.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena sought adjournment until Sunday, 4 August 2013, saying that he is sick. The Tribunal said that they cannot adjourn the case because of one Defense attorney’s illness when another Defense counsel is available in the same case. Thereafter, Ahsanul Huq Hena began the Defense’s Closing Arguments. Continue reading

Special Report Issue #3: Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam Case Summary

This special report provides a detailed overview of the factual and legal arguments presented by the Prosecution and Defense in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam. Arguments in the case were completed on 17 April 2013 and the case is currently awaiting verdict from Tribunal 1. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each count within each distinct charge, as well as the general arguments made by both parties. Once the Tribunal issues its verdict, we will publish a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment.

For the full report please go here: Special Issue No. 3 – Gholam Azam Case Summary