Tag Archives: documentary evidence

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today Defense counsel Abdur Razzak began his portion of the Closing Arguments in the case of Mujahid. Although he had previously been designated to cover only the legal aspects of the case, he also discussed evidentiary and factual issues as well, particularly issues pertaining to documentary evidence.

The Defense also informed the Tribunal that because the senior Defense team is also appearing before the Appellate Division in conjunction with the Qader Molla case appeal, they would need the Tribunal to accommodate the Defense’s schedule (in particular Mr. Razzak’s schedule). He said that he would only be able to present arguments in the Mujahid case in the afternoon. The Tribunal agreed to accommodate the Defense counsel as far as possible.

Closing Arguments
The Defense noted that the book “Al-Badr” is the primary documentary evidence relied upon by the Prosecution to establish that Mujahid held a leadership position in the Al-Badr forces during the 1971 war period.

The counsel stated that the book refers to the speech of the ’Nezam’ (Head/leader) of Al-Badr, given the night before Pakistan surrendered on 16th December 1971. The counsel submitted that this is the worst possible form of hearsay evidence as there is no reference as to who recalled and reported the meeting, who gave the description of the meeting, when and where such an interview was taken and how the contents of the speech of the ‘Nezam’ could be authenticated. The Defense submitted that without knowing this information, the evidence cannot be relied upon in reaching any conclusion regarding Mujahid’s position within the Al-Badr forces or his alleged guilt. Because the book amounts to anonymous hearsay it cannot be relied upon. Continue reading →

29 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Coverage, Chowdhury Applications and PW 41

 Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is gathered from media sources and conversations with both the Defense and the Prosecution.

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Tribunal issued its order on the three applications filed by the Prosecution and the two applications filed by the Defense on 28 May 2013. Today the Tribunal passed an order accepting four of the proposed eight out-of-court Prosecution witness statements submitted by the Prosecution under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973. Among these four witnesses three are dead and one has been determined to have left for India. The Tribunal rejected the Prosecution’s petition to submit additional documents. They accepted the petition to correct the mistake made in the Charge Framing Order. The Tribunal rejected both the Defense’s applications.

Today the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution witness 41, the Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. Thereafter, the Defense sought additional time for preparation. The Tribunal adjourned the case until Monday, 3 June 2013.

28 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Applications, Mubarak Hossain PW 2

28 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Applications, Mubarak Hossain PW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard three applications filed by Prosecution. The first one was for the acceptance of eight out-of-court Prosecution witness statements that were recorded by the Investigation Officer as evidence under section 19(2) of the ICT Act. The second application was a request for the admission of some additional documents under section 9(4) of the ICT Act . The third application requested correction of a clerical mistake in the Charge Framing Order. The Tribunal also heard two Defense applications. The first one requested the recall Order 17, which was passed on 13 March 2012. The second application requested that two Prosecution witnesses be recalled. recalling two Prosecution witnesses. Salauddin Qader Chowdhur was absent in the Tribunal when Tribunal heard the applications due to illness. He came to the Tribunal after the lunch break and stayed a few of minutes. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case for the day in consideration of his illness.

In the Mubarak Hossain case, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 2, Khodaza Begum. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 2 June, 2013 Continue reading →

Special Report Issue 2: Detailed Summary of Kamaruzzaman Case and Verdict

We are pleased to release our second Special Issue Report on the Verdict in the Kamaruzzaman case. For a full pdf of the report please read here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

This special report provides a detailed summary of the International Crimes Tribunal’s fourth verdict, the Judgment in Chief Prosecutor vs. Md. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013 and was the third verdict to be issued by Tribunal 2. We have attempted to distill the major conclusions expressed by the Tribunal into a digestible format. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each distinct charge, general arguments made by both parties, and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. For the sake of length we have focused this report on the factual and charge specific findings within the Judgment. We will be publishing a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment that have particular bearing on the ongoing proceedings. This report does not critically analyze the legal merits of the Judgment. It is presented simply in order to facilitate broader access to and understanding of the ICT’s proceedings and conclusions.

Kamaruzzaman was found guilty on 5 of 7 Charges, specifically Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. All of the Charges alleged direct commission of Crimes Against Humanity or, in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Prosecution additionally argued that Kamaruzzaman could be found liable under the doctrine of Command Responsibility under Section 4(2). However, he was convicted solely of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity under Section 4(1) of the Act.  On the basis of Charges 3 and 4 he was sentenced to death. The Tribunal noted that charges 1 and 7 merited a life sentence, while Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under charge 2. All lesser sentences were merged into the death sentence.

Please read the entire report here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

21 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Chowdhury PW 40, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Nizami case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness  8, Khalilur Rahman, who testified in support of Charge 6. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 26 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Kawser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, who testified regarding documents collected by the Investigation Officer. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena then conducted the cross-examination.

In the Mubarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 22 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-examination
The Defense asked Prosecution witness 8, Khalilur Rahman, about  Dhulaura village, its location, where the witness stayed before entering the village, the location where he allegedly found the corpses of those killed, the location of the banyan tree in which he hid, etc. These questions were aimed at undermining the witness’ version of events and casting doubt on the assertion that he was actually present during the commission of the alleged crimes. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw any Pakistani Army members before 27 November 1971. He answered that he had seen them in Dhaka, but could not remember when between 25 March and 16 December 1971 he visited Dhaka. The Defense asked what the intention was behind going to Dhulaura village. He answered that his group went in order to meet with the freedom fighters of the village. Specifically he named Nizam Uddin Chairman, but he could not identify the location of Nizam Uddin’s freedom fighters’ camp.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of the army approaching. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation forces coming towards the house. The Defense claimed that at 3:30 in the morning it would have been too dark to recognize anyone through the window, particularly given there was no electricity in the area. The witness answered that there was moonlight. The Defense asserted that this was impossible given it was after Eid-ul-Fiter and the moon set at 1:23 am. Additionally they noted that the weather at that time was foggy, further undermining the witness’ testimony.

The Defense claimed that his initial interview with the Investigation Officer the witness did not acknowledge that Mazed was alive, and that he did not claim that he saw Nizami with other Razakars and members of the Pakistani Army. The Defense also claimed that the Witness did not originally allege that he saw members of the Pakistani Army enter a house with two young women. Additionally they stated that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that he knew Nizami before the Liberation War or that Nizami’s house was just 1 kilometer away from the witness’ house. The witness denied these suggestions and claimed that he had stated all these things during his initial interview.  TheDefense asked the witness about books written by Zohirul Huq Bishu and Rezaul Karim and claimed that the witness read the books and used them for his testimony. The witness denied the suggestion.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury
Kawser Shaikh, the official book-sorter of the divisional government library, testified as Prosecution witness 40. He testified as to the contents of documents being entered into evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.

Examination-in-Chief
Kowser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, exhibited photocopies of two news reports published in the Daily Pakistan in 1970, nine news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1970 and 17 news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1971.

Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that on 10 March 2011 when the newspaper cuttings were seized from the divisional government library the witness did not hold the post of ‘Assistant Librarian in Charge.’  The Witness admitted that he did not hold that title and added that he was the book sorter. The Defense claimed that all  the headings (heading, date, paper name) of the exhibited newspaper reports (Exhibit 37, 38/1 to 38/25) are computer composed and that the reports were scanned. The witness admitted that the headlines were generated via computer and the reports scanned. The Defense claimed that the editor of the Daily Ajadi newspaper ran against Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury) in the election of 1970.

Chief Prosecutor vs Mubarak Hossain
Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that Rina Begum filed Case No. 26 against Mubarak Hossain in the Akhaura police on 28 May 2007. They stated that the witness also testified against Mubarak Hossain in that case as Prosecution witness 4. The Defense noted that Mubarak was acquitted in that case. The witness denied giving any testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The Defense asked if the witness knew that in Mubarak Ali had been acquitted on appeal. The witness said he did not know anything about the case. The Defense also claimed that the witness, as a non-commission officer following the Pakistan Military Rules, cannot obtain leave more than three months at a time. Witness denied this suggestion.