Tag Archives: documentary evidence

19 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – PWs 37, 38 and 39

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Chapala Rani, Prosecution witness-37; Md Ersadul Haque, Prosecution Witness-38 and Mollah Abdul Hye, Prosecution witness 39. Thereafter, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted cross-examination. After the conclusion of the cross-examination Tribunal adjourned the case until 21 May 2013.

Prosecution Witness 37
Chapala Rani, the sister-in-law of victims Beni Madhab and Tarapada and daughter of victim Shatish Paul, testified as Prosecution witness 37. She testified in support of Charge 6 which alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i) and 3(2)(3)(ii), as well as deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Examination-in-Chief
Chapala Rani, testified that a day before Chaitra Sankranti (last day of Bangla year) in 1971 the Pakistan Army raided their area. At that time she was inside her house. The Pakistani Army knocked on the door of every house and gathered the villagers on the bank of the pond, owned by Shatish Mohazon who is the brother of Khitish Mohazon. Chapala said she and the others were crying. Her brother-in-law Beni Madhab tried to reassure them, saying that the Chairman Makbul and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury were present. However, she said that at that moment they (she did not specify who) opened fire on the villagers. Chapala testified that she became unconscious and her brothers-in-law Beni Madhab and Tarapada and her father Shatish Paul died. Continue reading →

16 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Prosecution presented their key legal arguments in the case against Mujahid. Prosecutor Afroz addressed a range of legal issues in conjunction Charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. A written outline of the arguments was provided as reference for the Tribunal. The Defense counsel objected because the cover photograph of the outline showed numerous skulls. The Defense argued that such a picture is unnecessary, inappropriate and prejudicial. The Prosecution disagreed, claiming that there is nothing in the law or rules of procedure prohibiting such photographs. The judges agreed with the Prosecutor’s submission, adding that such a photograph will neither be detrimental nor advantageous to the case against the accused and will have no impact on the judicial process.

Prosecutor’s Arguments:
The Prosecution presented arguments on the following issues:

  1.  Legal argument on the absence of victims’ dead body.
  2. Legal argument on ‘extermination ‘ in contrast to ‘murder’.
  3. The doctrine of superior responsibility and how it has been established by the evidence admitted.
  4. Evaluation of documentary evidences and further evaluation of the charges.

The Actus Reus of Murder and Necessity of Victim’s Body as Evidence (relevant to Charges 1 and 5)
The Prosecution began by emphasizing that the bodies of the victims in Charges 1 and 5 were recovered. She argued that the actus reus, of murder requires that the Prosecution prove that the killing itself occurred. Where the body is not found or recovered the killing remains unproved, resulting in the failure of the Prosecution’s case. In this case, Prosecutor Afroz argued that the Defense cannot claim that the actus reus in Charges 1 and 5 has not been proven by reason of failure to find the body of the victims. Continue reading →

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35 and 36

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 35, Kamal Uddin and Prosecution witness 36, Ezab Uddin Mia.

Prosecution Witness 35
Kamal Uddin provided hearsay testimony in support of charge no 19. The charge alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed murder, abduction, confinement and torture as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Continue reading →

22 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17, Investigation Officer

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid – Cross-Examination of Prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer.

The Defense continued their cross-examination of prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. At at the end of yesterday’s session the Tribunal instructed Defense to conclude their cross-examination of the Investigation Officer today, 22nd April, 2013.

The Defense asked the witness about the investigation procedure, his findings regarding Mujahid’s position within the Islami Chatra Shangho, the presence of Mujahid’s name in any of documentary evidence, and Mujahid’s alleged whereabouts after the war.

The witness said that his investigation showed that Mujahid went on to hiding after the war, but did not leave Bangladesh. He hid at his maternal uncle’s house. The witness also said that Mujahid separated himself from all forms of political affiliation until the political transformation in 1975 after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The witness admitted said that Mujahid’s name is not found among the lists naming Rajakars, Al-Badrs, Al-Shams or Peace Committee members that have been submitted into evidence. However, he reiterated that his investigation revealed that the accused was the President of the East Pakistan Islami Chatra Shongho beginning in October  and continuing until 16th December 1971. Therefore he asserted that Mujahid had participated in Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide as an Al-Badr Commander.

Administrative Matters
The Tribunal granted the Defense’s request for privileged communication with their client and stated they would allow two designated Defense counsel to visit Mujhaid in prison on 28 April 2013. The Tribunal also stated that the Prosecution should be prepared to begin their Closing Arguments if the Defense fails to produce their witnesses. They reiterated that delay of the trial process would not be allowed.

17 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Prosecution’s Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Request for Adjournment
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs, Gholam Azam: Prosecution’s Reply to Defense Closing Arguments, Defense Rebuttal

Because today was fixed for the Prosecution’s reply in the Gholam Azam case, Ahsanul Huq Hena, Defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, requested adjournment of the Chowdhury case until 21 April 2013. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for the day and scheduled the case to be heard tomorrow, 18 April 2013.

Today in the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s reply to the Defense’s Closing Arguments. Prosecutors Sultan Mahmud Simon, Turin Afroz and Haider Ali submitted arguments. After the completion of Prosecution’s submissions the Defense was given 25 minutes for their rebuttal. After hearing both sides the Tribunal officially took the case under consideration awaiting verdict.

Prosecution’s Reply
Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon began by arguing that counsel for the Accused had presented only one theory of defense, being that Gholam Azam had supported Pakistan during the Liberation War with the purpose of maintaining the unity of Pakistan. Simon questioned whether such support could be considered lawful after Bangladesh’s declaration of independence on 26 March 1971. The Prosecution submitted that the Tribunal must consider the entirety of the case against Gholam Azam in light of the historical events of 1971. He submitted that Prosecution proved each element of the alleged crimes through sufficient oral and documentary evidence. The Prosecution also asserted that paragraph 6 of the Formal Charge discussed the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Prosecutor Simon read out sections 9, 10, 16 and 19 of the ICT Act of 1973 and talked about judicial notice.

The Tribunal Chairman asked whether the Prosecution had exhibited the documents (including some reports published in international media regarding the atrocities committed in Bangladesh in 1971) referred to in the Formal Dharge. The Prosecution replied that seven books had been submitted and that the Tribunal had been asked to take them under judicial notice. The Defense dissented and claimed that the Prosecution did not exhibit the documents that the Tribunal is specifically requesting.

The Prosecution argued that Gholam Azam supported Pakistan despite being aware of the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army on 25 March 1971. Prosecutor Simon referred to ‘Jibone Ja Dekhalm’ (Exhibit-H) and also submitted that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces were known internationally at the time. The Prosecution claimed that the Defense failed to produce a single document showing that Gholam Azam criticized the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces. Prosecutor Simon claimed that this proves Gholam Azam’s involvement in and support for the atrocities.  Continue reading →