Tag Archives: Delay

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

Examination-in-Chief
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 →

11 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Adjournment

Due to an ongoing nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following brief summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman

Today the Tribunal adjourned the Kamaruzzaman case for the fourth consecutive day due to the absence of the senior Defense counsel. The Defense stated that the senior counsel were unable to attend due to personal difficulties resulting from the hartal.  The Chairman of the Tribunal reiterated that the Defense has been granted the right to use law enforcement if necessary on Hartal days. The judges stated that absence amounts to obstruction of the judicial process. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that given the present political situation, hartals are becoming more frequent. Therefore the Tribunal cannot continue to adjourn proceedings and would close the Defense’s case if they fail to attend on upcoming hartal days. 

11 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak Hossain Investigation, Gholam Azam Adjournment

Due to an ongoing nation-wide  hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Investigation of Mubarak Hossain
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

Today Ahsanul Huq Hena, senior Defence counsel for Mubarak Hossain, submitted the Defense’s request for the discharge of his client from the case. The Defense also requsted bail. Prosecutor Zahed Imam opposed the bail prayer. After hearing both sides the Tribunal scheduled 23 April for the passing of its order.

In the Gholam Azam case the Defense requested an adjournment until Monday, 15 April, because senior Defence counsel Abdur Razzaq was unable to attend due to “personal difficulty.” Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the prayer. The Tribunal passed an order scheduling 15 April for the Defense’s Closing Arguments. The order stated that further requests for time extensions would not be allowed under any circumstances.

10 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 15, Kamaruzzaman Adjournment

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman

Examination in Chief of Alim Prosecution Witness 15
In the Alim case the Prosecution called Prosecution witness 15, Mozammel Hossain. The witness is allegedly the survivor of an assault mission in Jaipurhat. The witness testified that at least 22 Awami League supporters were killed during the and assault conducted by the Pakistani Army during the 1971 Liberation War. Hossain stated that the Pakistani Army acted based on a list of targets provided by the Accused, Abdul Alim, who happened to be a veteran Muslim League leader and Peace Committee member at that time.  The witness claimed that the alleged list contained his name. He said that the attack was directed against local Awami League supporters at the time. Hossain alleged that such supporters were first taken from their village mosque to the nearby village of Birala where they were lined up. People whose names did not appear on the list were released while the rest were taken to Chakpahananda village. There they were tortured and killed. The witness was one of the survivors.  While describing the atrocities the witness showed the court scars from his injuries.

Kamaruzzaman Adjournment due to Absence of Defense During Hartal
Kamaruzzaman’s case was also listed in the daily cause list. Mr Abdur Razzaq, the senior Defense counsel for the accused was again absent due to the ongoing hartal. A junior counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused informed the Tribunal that the senior counsel is unable to attend proceedings on hartal days.  The case was therefore adjourned.