Tag Archives: documentary evidence

25 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ATM Azharul Islam Cognizance of Charges, Mir Qasem Ali Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam
  2. Pre-trial Proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali

Today in pre-trial proceedings against suspect ATM Azharul Islam the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an order taking cognizance of the Formal Charge and numbered the case as ICT BD Case No 5 of 2013. The Tribunal also directed the Prosecution to supply the Defense with all of the documents on which the Prosecution intends to rely, as well as the full list of proposed witnesses by the end of the day. They scheduled 18 August for hearing arguments regarding framing of the charges.

The Tribunal also heard an application filed by Alim’s Defense counsel requesting medically appropriate transportation of the suspect to and from the Tribunal. The Defense submitted that the ATM Azharul Islam suffers from back pain but is transported by prison van. The Prosecution objected saying that if such accommodation was made available to all it would create difficulties for the jail authorities due to the shortage of health friendly vehicles. The Tribunal passed an order directing the jail authority to provide ATM Azharul Islam health friendly vehicle if such vehicle is available to the prison authority.

In the pre-trial proceedings against suspect Mir Qasem Ali the Tribunal heard a Defense application seeking adjournment. The Defense submitted that they need privileged communication with their client Mir Qasem Ali. The Defense also requested legible copies of some Prosecution documents. The Tribunal rejected the request for adjournment but scheduled 28 July and 1 August from 10 am to 1 pm for privileged communication between the Defense and their client. They also directed the Prosecution to supply legible copies of the concerned documents if possible. They then heard the Prosecution’s submissions regarding the proposed charges against Ali.

The Prosecution submitted that until 6 November 1971, Mir Qasem Ali was the secretary of the Islami Chhatra Shangho Chittagong division. Between 6 November and 16 December 1971 they claimed that the Accused was also the general secretary of the Provincial Committee of the Islami Chhatra Shangho. They alleged that Mir Qasem was ‘Al-Badr high command.’ Most of the crimes allegedly committed under the leadership of Qasem Ali of took place at Dalim Hotel. The Prosecution briefly read out the 14 charges proposed against Mir Qasem Ali and stated that they had submitted the investigation report, a book titled ‘Muktijudder Potovumi’ vol- 1 and 2, witness statements, map of the place of occurrence, photos, and CDs in support of the charges. The charges are proposed under sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(g), and 3(2)(h), indicating allegations of crimes against humanity; attempt, abetment or conspiracy; and complicity. The proposed charges are also framed indicating sections 4(1) and 4(2) as the relevant modes of liability, encompassing joint criminal liability and command responsibility respectively. Among the 14 charges proposed, charges 11 and 12 are for murder while the rest are for confinement, abduction, torture and other inhumane acts.

21 July 2013 ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury DW 3 cross-examination; Nizami PW 14

Today the Tribunal hear matter in the following cases:

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

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Prosecution completed cross-examining Defense Witness 3, Qayyum Reza Chowdhury. The Tribunal also heard an application filed by Defense requesting the admission of 55 additional documents. Having heard both sides the Tribunal passed an order. The  Defense then verbally requested adjournment and Tribunal  set 23 July for examination-in-chief of Defense Witness 4.

In the Moborak Hossain case today was fixed for the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Abdul Malek, who is to testify in support of charge 5. However, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 22 July 2013.

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 14, Abdus Salim Latif, who testified in support of charges 7 and 9. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until tomorrow, 22 July 2013. Continue reading

8 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 33 and 34

Due to scheduled vacation our researcher did not attend proceedings today. The following coverage has been gathered from media sources.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. 1.     Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case the Prosecution called two additional formal witnesses, PW-33 and PW-34, to testify regarding documents seized by the Investigation Officer and listed in the seizure list. Prosecution witness 33, Mr Anisur Rahman, is a librarian with the Investigation Agency designated to probe the facts of alleged war crimes Prosecution witness 34, Mr Nabibur Rahman, is the Commander of Akkelpur Upazila Command of the Bangladesh Muktijuddha Shanshad (a Union of Freedom Fighters of Bangladesh). He testified regarding the submission of a book titled ‘Muktijuddhe Jaipurhat’ (Jaipurhat in the war of liberation) which appears in the seizure list. Both witnesses presented the relevant documents and stated that the Investigation Officer had seized the documents from them. They did not discuss the contents of the exhibited documents. The Tribunal then scheduled 11 July for the testimony of the Investigation Officer. 

4 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Prosecution completed their cross-examination of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense witness 1. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 8 July 2013.

During his examination-in-chief, Chowdhury claimed that he is Chittagonian by birth. The Prosecution stated that the he born to a Bengali Muslim family on 13 March 1949 in Bohira village under Rawjan police station. The witness denied, clarifying that he born in a Muslim family in the Chittagong town under Kotoali police station, not in a Bengali family. The Prosecution alleged that Chowdhury’s mother tongue is Bangla. He denied this as well, claiming that his first language is Chatgia, the local language of Chittagong. The Prosecution asked the witness whether this language has an alphabet which he affirmed.

During his examination-in-chief Chowdhury also claimed that Chittagong has never historically been part of Bengal. The Prosecution asked the witness about Resolution-7, dated 19 July 1905, from a book titled The Partition of Bengal, which they claimed showed that Chittagong was part of Bengal even in 1905. The resolution referred to a proposal to form a new province consisting of Chittagong, Dacca (now Dhaka), Rajsahi of Bengal and Malda, Hill Tipperah, Asam and Darjeeling . The Prosecution read out from the book and asked the witness whether these statements are written in this book. The witness answered yes. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he read the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and is aware of its content, to which he replied affirmatively. The Prosecution then claimed that Chittagong was clearly part of Bengal even before the birth of Chowdhury’s father and had no distinct identity as claimed by Chowdhury. They alleged that the Defendant is intentionally denying history and providing false information before the Tribunal. The witness denied the allegation and added that there is nothing in the Act stating that distinct identity must be recognized by Act. Continue reading

3 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Hartal Brief Coverage: AKM Yusuf Transfer of Documents, Alim PW 32

Today due to a nationwide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Coverage of the following cases has been gathered from media sources as well as through conversation with both the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against AKM Yusuf documents pertaining to the allegations against him were formally transferred from Tribunal 1 to Tribunal 2. Tribunal 2 also directed the Gazipur jail authorities to transport the Mr. AKM Yusuf in an appropriate vehicle given his health condition. The direction was given after Mr Saifur Rahman, Defense counsel for the Accused, informed the Tribunal that the accused was brought to the court in a microbus as opposed to a prison van despite the fact that he is seriously ill.

The Tribunal then moved to the case against Abdul Alim and recorded the testimony of Prosecution witness 32, Mr Rafiqul Islam Raju, who is the Advertisement Manager of the Bogra-based Daily Bangladesh. The witness is a formal witness who exhibited two issues of his newspaper dated 17 January 1971 and 23 January 1971.  Both newspaper issues were seized by the Investigation Officer during the investigation into the current case.  The Defense summarily conducted the cross-examination of the witness. The court then scheduled 4 July 2013 for the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 11, who is being recalled following an application by the Defense.

2 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testimony and Cross-Examination

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain

Today in the Chowdhury case  the Defense concluded the examination in chief of Defense witness 1, the Defendant. The case was then adjourned until 4 July 2013.  The Tribunal had scheduled Prosecution witness 5 to testify in the case against Mobarak Hossain. However, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 3 July 2013.  Continue reading

30 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Alim PW 28 and 29

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceeedings vs. Jahir Uddin Jalal
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The counsel of contemnor Mr Jahir Uddin Jalal, who allegedly attacked defense counsel Mr Munshi Ahsam Kabir was not present in the court when the case was called for. The accused-contemnor and Prosecution witness himself stood before the Tribunal and requested a short pass-over of the matter until the arrival of his counsel. The Tribunal then went on to hear the case against Mr Abdul Alim. The Prosecution examined Prosecution witnesses 28 and 29, both of whom work at the Bangladesh Muktijuddho Jadughor (Bangladesh War of Liberation Museum) and who provided testimony as formal witnesses exhibiting seizure list documents.

After the conclusion of the witness testimony, Mr Monsur Rashid appeared before the tribunal on behalf of Jahir Uddin Jalal. He argued that the allegations brought against his client pertaining to the assault of a Defense attorney are ficticious. He argued that the Jalal was not in the vicinity/area where the alleged incident purportedly took place. Therefore he concluded that either this is a case of mistaken identification or it is merely a strategic tactic being used by the defense to harass the Prosecution witness or divert attention away from the regular cases pending. The counsel apologized before the Tribunal for his delay in the morning and stated that there was some delay at the security clearance in the tribunal’s entry gate. The judges were very critical about the counsel’s delay as this was the second time that he appeared late. Continue reading