Tag Archives: Delay

26 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Order On Defense Application

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

Today Tribunal 2 rejected a review application filed by the Defense on behalf of AKM Yusuf seeking review of the Charge Framing Order.  Only two members of the bench were present, Justice Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Md Shahinur Islam. Jointly they issued an order summarily rejecting the petition by reason of the Defense’s delay in submitting the application. The Tribunal did not accept the Defense’s argument that the delay in filing the application was due to a delay in obtaining a certified copy of the original Charge Framing Order. No other cases were listed in the court ‘s daily cause list and Chairman of Tribunal 2, Justice Obaidul Hassan, is currently on leave. The Tribunal then adjourned for the day.

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

25 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against Abdul Alim. the Prosecution called the Investigation Officer, Mr ZM Altafur Rahman, as Prosecution witness 35. The Investigation Officer testified about his findings and stated that the accused played a central role in committing atrocities as the Chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which acted as an auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army.  He referred to documentary evidence collected during the investigation as being incriminating of Alim. These documents include several books that have been exhibited in addition to documents and newspapers seized by the Investigation Officer and enumerated on the Seizure List. Cross-examination was scheduled for a later date.

Demeanor of the Court
A junior member of the Defense informed the Tribunal that senior counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, who has been cross-examining the witnesses, is ill. The Defense requested a long adjournment until Hena is able to fully recover. The Tribunal was critical of the request and noted that this sort of delay, on a regular basis, is tantamount to obstruction of justice. The Tribunal noted that there have been frequent requests for adjournment based on  either the illness of a Defense counsel or that of the Accused. They stated that such requests will not be entertained and that the Defense must complete the cross-examination between 29 July to 1 August 2013. The Judges stressed that the trial will continue at its pace without such delays, save in exceptional instances.

24 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order, Khan and Mueen Uddin PW 5, Alim PW

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim 

Today Tribunal began by hearing a bail application on behalf of AKM Yusuf. The Defense presented arguments both regarding the necessity of bail, and the insufficiency of the charges proposed against AKM Yusuf by the Prosecution. They argued that the suspect should be discharged as the allegations against him are malafide and inspired by political motivations. The Tribunal also heard the Prosecution’s response. They  scheduled 1 August for issuing their order regarding bail and the potential framing of charges against the suspect. They instructed the jail authorities to submit a report on the availability of their medical facilities and their ability to meet the needs of the suspect while in custody.

The Tribunal then turned to the case of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin in which the Prosecution  called Prosecution witness 5 to testify in support of Charge 6. As the trials are being conducted in absentia,  state appointed Defense counsel Shukur Khan and Tuny will be allowed to conduct the cross examination at a later date on behalf of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin respectively.

In the Alim case the Tribunal rejected an application from the Defense requesting additional time due to the illness of senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena. A junior Defense attorney stated that Hena is physically unwell and is undergoing treatment at the United Hospital. The Tribunal was critical of the delayed application and stated that it would briefly begin the examination of the Investigation Officer and would continue  it the following day. Thus the tribunal very briefly started recording the examination of the Io, but then fixed 25 July 2013 as the date for recording his entire testimony. Continue reading

23 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal was scheduled to hear the examination-in-chief of Defense Witness 4. However, the Defense filed two applications, one for adjournment in order to produce Defense witnesses 4 & 5, and another requesting the Tribunal to accept an affidavit from the mother of Shamim Hasnain (one of the 5 proposed Defense witnesses) into evidence.

The Defense submitted that Shamim Hasnain is willing to depose. Shamim Hasnain is a judge of the High Court and has requested leave from his institution to testify before the Tribunal. He and the Defense are awaiting for the Chief Justice’s approval. In light of the pending request, the Defense requested adjournment of the case until 28 July.

The Defense additionally informed the Tribunal that Salman F Rahman, one of the 5 proposed Defense witnesses, has fallen sick while traveling to Mecca. They submitted that he would be available after Ramadan to provide testimony before the Tribunal and requested that his testimony be scheduled accordingly. The Prosecution opposed the prayer saying that the application is being filed in order to delay the proceedings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order stating that the application for adjournment was is supported by any evidence and that the Tribuna would give a last chance for the production of the Defense witness by fixing 24 July as the deadline to produce Defense witnesses 4 and 5.

Regarding the second application, the Defense submitted that the mother of Shamim Hasnain has provided a worn affidavit regarding Salauddin Qader Chowdhury’s alibi that he was in Pakistan in 1971. The Prosecution opposed the application saying that in this stage of Trial there is no scope to file any affidavit before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, Tribunal rejected the application stating that Shamim Hasnain is one of the proposed Defense witness and likely to depose before the Tribunal.

5 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first Defense witness in the Mujahid case. The witness is the youngest son of Mujahid and testified as a formal witness, exhibiting various documents before the Tribunal in support of the Defense case. After the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witness the Tribunal asked the Defense whether they plan to call any additional Defense witnesses. Defense counsel stated that they are unable to determine which witness to choose because the Tribunal has limited them to two witnesses in order to avoid unnecessary delay. The judges stated that this may be beneficial to the Defense because defense witnesses in previous cases have actually caused harm to the Defense’s case. The Tribunal then adjourned for the day till lunch.

After lunch, the overall security of the court area significantly deteriorated due to a mass protest by the Hefazat-e-Islam group in the Paltan Area in Dhaka. Our researchers therefore left the Tribunal at that time.

Defense Witness 1

The witness is a formal witness who exhibited the following documentary evidence: Continue reading

18 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Rescheduling of PW 16, Accused Present
  2. Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid : Cross-examination of PW 17, Accused Present

Today the Prosecutor in the case against Abdul Alim, Mr Rana Das Gupta, requested an adjournment of the case until the 22nd or 23rd of April, due to difficulties in producing Prosecution witness 16. He stated that the witness had encountered difficulty in reaching Dhaka and therefore was not present. Defense counsel, Mr Ahsanul Huq Hena, added that the 23rd would be appropriate as it has been announced as a hartal day and it is unlikely that the Defense counsel in other cases will appear. The Tribunal agreed and scheduled 23 April 2013 for the next hearing.

The Tribunal then turned to the case against Mujahid, in which the Defense resumed its cross-examination of  Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. The Defense’s core line of questioning aimed at highlighting the various procedural flaws in the investigation process and underlying deficiencies that undermine the reliability of the officer’s findings.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid: Cross-Examination of PW 17
The witness testified that he went to Gopinath Shaha’s house at 11 a.m. He confirmed that Gopinath Shaha’s three siblings, Khirodh Shaha, Shakti Shaha (PW-13), and Kanon Bala live in India. The Investigating Officer admitted that Prosecution witness 13, Shakti Shaha, periodically comes to Bangladesh and that this fact was not included in the statement of Gopinath Shaha.

The Defense suggested that during the investigation it was discovered that Gopinath had previously filed a case regarding his father’s death. They alleged tat this fact was being concealed because Mujahid’s name was among the accused in the prior case. The Investigating Officer denied the allegations. He admitted that he did not determine the date of Shakti Shaha’s last visit to Bangladesh prior to the witness’ date of testimony. Continue reading