Tag Archives: documentary evidence

24 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Defense Application for Police Protection

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Defense Counsel Application for Police Protection to and from the Tribunal

Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Additionally, the Defense concluded the closing arguments on factual issues. Arguments continued for 5 days and addressed Prosecution and Defense witnesses as well as Charge 5. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until 27 March 2013, when Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present the Defense arguments on legal issues and Charges 1 to 4.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, filed an application seeking police protection for coming to the Tribunal during days when hartals or other political unrest present security concerns. He requested that his car be accompanied by full time uniformed police gunman. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing of the petition for tomorrow and adjourned the proceedings until then.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam- Defense Closing Arguments
Prosecution Witness 16 – The Investigating Officer
The Defense read out different paragraphs from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 16. Mizanul Islam submitted that during the cross-examination the witness was asked whether Gholam Azam had a direct connection with the local Peace Committee but was only able to refer to Exhibit-57, the Daily Pakistan dated 16 April 1971. The Defense noted that the contents of Exhibit-57 do not answer the question. The article discusses the formation of a 21 member executive committee within the Peace Committee and states its purpose as bringing back normalcy at the direction of the Central Peace Committee. On cross-examination the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find any direction or order bearing the signature of Gholam Azam. The witness also admitted that there was no resolution which designated Gholam Azam the power to cancel or suspend any local level Peace Committee. The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer was unable to specify who had authority within the Peace Committee to issue directions or orders to the local level committees. The Investigating Officer claimed that directions and orders from the Central Peace Committee were communicated to the local level Peace Committees by newspapers, television and radio broadcast. He further testified that the local level Peace Committees were bound to follow the directions. However, the Defense noted that the witness had admitted that he did not know the broadcasting range of Dhaka television stations and acknowledged that due to poor communication there was often a delay in orders reaching newspapers in remote areas such as Taknaf and Tetulia. The witness also admitted that he had no evidence as to whether the Daily Shangram or the Daily Paigam was distributed in Patuakhali (a remote area). Continue reading →

11 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination of PW 12, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 12
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – Examination of Defense Witness 3

Today’s proceedings started with Abdul Alim’s case. 64 years old Mosammad Laily Begum gave her testimony in support of prosecution’s case as PW-12. She testified that she was 23 in 1971 and described how her father, local homeopathy doctor Abdul Kashem, was taken from his house in Kuthibari, Jaipurhat and later killed by the Pakistani Army on 25th July 1971. Her testimony supports Charge 12. The Defense began its cross-examination, which is to be resumed the following day.

In the Kamaruzzaman case the Defense conducted the examination-in-chief of Defense witness 3, Mr Hasan Iqbal. The witness is the 33 year old son of the accused. Additionally in the Kamaruzzaman  case the Prosecution requested the names of upcoming Defense witnesses in order to do perform background checks on them. However, the Defense refused to provide names, telling the Tribunal that their witnesses are constantly intimidated, threatened and are even under the risk of being abducted. Therefore they said they are unable to disclose the names of upcoming defense witnesses in advance. The Prosecution objected and claimed that they are the ones suffering from real security concerns and had to worry about attacks by extremists. The stated that these concerns cannot change the course of justice. The judges also claimed that they have received threatening text messages from those attempting to dictate verdicts but said such interference should not and will not change anything. They held that there is no mandatory requirement that the Defense disclose its witnesses’ names in advance of testimony.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
The Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 12, Laily Begum, the daughter of victim Doctor Abul Kashem. The witness testified that in 1971 she had four sons and two daughters and was 23 years old. She stated that her father, Abul Kashem, organized the Jaipurhat Shongram Parishad after being inspired by the speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 7 March,1971. She stated that on 20April 1971, her father went to her husband Mokbul Hossain’s house in Jamalpur village of Jaipur, at around 8 p.m. He told her that people of the Shongram Parishad went to Abdul Alim’s house to catch him, but Alim managed to flee from the back door. The witness also said that her father stayed at her husband’s house for few days. Later on 23rd July, she was taken to her father’s house in Debipur Village in Kazipara.

Laily Begum further testified that on 24 July 1971 at around 3 a.m. many Rajakars, AL-Badr and armed Pakistani army members surrounded their house. They knocked at her father’s door when and her brother Nazrul Islam went out to speak to them. Four army, Al-Badr and Rajakar members entered her father’s room and said that he had been summoned by Abdul Alim. When her father showed reluctance to go, they held him by his hair and pulled him out. The witness said her neice begged them not to take her grandfather but to they did not listen. The witness testified that she and her brother followed the group who took her father in the dark.

She testified that Abul Kashem was kept in Teghor Bridge Rajakar camp before being taken to Jaipurhat Rail Station blindfolded with his hands tied. The next morning at around 8 a.m., she said he was taken to Shownla Bajlal godi ghor (sitting room) to be presented before the Peace Committee chairman Abdul Alim. The witness testified that she returned to her house which is 1.5 K.M. away and later went back to the godi ghor along with her other family members.

The following day at around 3 p.m., one Rajakar, Atiqullah Bihari, came to their house and said that if Major Aksar was given Taka 5,000 (five thousand), he would let her father go. Accordingly,  they gave him the money to secure her father’s release. After sometimes, Atiq Bihari came back to inform that Abul Kashem is going to be taken to Kuthibari to be shot to death as per the command of their “boss” Abdul Alim. After sometime, one Mr Shiraj who was the cook in Peace Committee’s camp came and said that her father’s eyes were gouged out and teeth broken before being brutally killed. Laily Begum testified that this took place on 25th July, 1971 in Kuthibari, where he was buried.

The witness testified that in November 1972 her father’s body was exhumed from his grave in Kuthibari and was brought to her family’s home in Debipur for re-burial. The witness said that she saw many bullet shots on the chest of her father’s body. The witness identified the accused and said that she wants justice.

Cross-examination
The Defense counsel asked the witness whether she knew that her brother filed a case in 1972 complaining about their father’s killing. The witness at first replied “yes.” However, the Prosecution counsel Rana Das Gupta instantaneously intervened and asked her to listen to the question carefully before replying. The witness then changed her answer and said that she did not know about any such case being filed by her brother. The defense counsel strongly objected to the intervention and the court said that the prosecutor should not interfere. However, her latter statement was recorded in the testimony.

The defense then asked whether the witness’s son is currently in jail serving a sentence of life imprisonment. Upon hearing the question, the witness became upset and said that he was serving a 10 years imprisonment but that he had nothing to do with her testimony in the instant case.

Cross-examination is scheduled to continue.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
The Defense called Mohammad Hasan Iqbal as Defense witness 3. He is the son of accused Abdul Alim and works in the Research Cell of Diganta Television. The Defense asked him to exhibited 17 defense documents for the court’s perusal. These documents pertain to variety of issues including background of the accused, a list of Rajakars and war criminals as published in some books and newspapers, documents regarding the Liberation War in Sherpur and other documents that undermine the credibility of a few of Prosecution witnesses. 

The Tribunal barred the Defense from exhibiting a few official documents because they had not been authenticated by authorized persons. The court disallowed the documents because it said they had not been properly authenticated. The defense objected and said that they have collected the documents unofficially because no government official would provide them with the documents in official capacity out of fear of losing their job and fear of being accused of collaborating with alleged war criminals. The court rejected this argument and reasoned that if unattested documents were admitted, other unreliable evidence would also have to be allowed, ultimately rendering the court’s conclusions questionable.

On cross-examination the Prosecution suggested that the was willing to do anything to save his father and is prepared to conceal the truth to achieve that aim. The witness replied that he will do all lawful things necessary to save his father but would not conceal truth. The Tribunal then intervened saying that the witness cannot be asked this type of question in front of the court just because he has come to give testimony in support of his father.  No further questions were asked.

The following documents were entered into evidence:

  1. Kamaruzzaman’s certificate of Master of Arts (Journalism) issued by Dhaka University. He completed his masters in the year 1975 [Exhibit-C, from Volume-1, page 7].
  2. Kamaruzzaman’s HSC certificate. He was a candidate of 1971 batch.  [Exhibit-C1, from Volume-1, page 11].
  3. Dr S.M. Jahangir Alam, Ekattorer Juddhaporadhider Taalika (List of war criminals of seventy one); published in February 2009 [Exhibit-D, from Volume-2, pages 1-66].
  4. Dr M A Hasan, Juddhaporadh Gonohotta o Bichar er Onneshon; published in May 2001 [Exhibit-E, Volume-3, page 1-13].
  5. Weekly digest published from Sherpur named “Sherpur Shomoy” dated 26.12.2008 [Exhibit-E1, Volume-3, pages 38].
  6. Daily Amar Desh issue of 17.09.2010 [Exhibit-E2, Volume-3, pages 39].
  7. Khurshid Alim Shagor, Ronangoney  Muktishena 197; pages 305 and 306.  These pages contain details of the death of MMajor Aiyub.
  8. Muntasir Mamun, Ekatturer Bijoy Gatha. Pages 30,31,54,55 of the book describes the war that took place in Mymensingh and Sherpur region [Exhibit E4, Volume 3, pages 321,322].
  9. Md Abdul Shukur’s book regarding war in Mymensingh [Exhibit E5].  
  10. Bangladesher Shaddhinota Juddho Dolilpotro, Volume 10. Pages 457, 458, 462, 463 talks about the death of Major Aiyub and about prosecution witness Jahurul Haque Munshi taking letters to the camps [Exhibit-E6, Volume 3, pages 551, 552, 554].
  11. Newspaper Alo’r Michil ey issue of January 2005 in which nothing about Kamaruzzaman’s presence in Jamalpur PTI camp is found [Exhibit-F, Volume-4, pages 1-11].
  12. “The Pakistan Army 1966-1971”, pages 160-162 which contains information about prosecution witness Jahurul Haque Munshi’s hospitality to the Pakistan army and exchanging letters.
  13. M Hamidullah Khan Bir Protik (Sector Commander of 1971), Ekatturer Uttar Ronangon (published in 2005), pages 264, 265 [Exhibit-G1, Volume-4, page 95].
  14.  Appointment order dated 29.10.2011 of Nur Nobi Khan Nasim, the son of Prosecution witness Monowar Hossain Khan Mohon [Exhibit-G2, Volume-4, page-107].
  15.  Photocopy of Gazzetter notification dated May 14, 2005; name of PW Ziaul Islam is not there as a freedom fighter even though he claimed to be one [Exhibit-G3, Volume-8, pages 140-151].
  16.  Photocopy of PW Mohon Munshi’s Salary Sheet [Exhibit-G4, Volume-4, page-159].
  17. Major General KM Shofiullah Bir Uttam, “Bangladesh at war”, page 195 containing information of war in Kamlapur from 31st July-1st August [Exhibit G5, Volume-4, page 181].

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader, MK Anwar; Kamaruzzaman Examnation of DW 1 and 2

10 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Jamaat leader Selim Uddin (Present), Daily Shongram (warning made to present journalist), and MK Anwar (Not Present),
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid : Order of three applications and examination of prosecution witnesses  (Accused Not Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Cross-Examination of Defense witness 1, Direct and Cross-Examination of Cross-Examination Defense Witness 2 (Accused Present)
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim : Adjourned Due to Illness of Prosecution Witness

Today the Tribunal dealt with ongoing contempt proceedings against Jamaat leaders, MK the Daily Shongram, and MK Anwar. In the Mujahid case the Tribunal disposed of three Defense applications and then heard the direct examination of Prosecution witnesses 14, 15 and 16, all of whom are expert witnesses regarding documentary and historical evidence. In the Kamaruzzaman case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Defense witness 1, and both direct and cross-examination of Defense witness 2. Finally, in the case of Abdul Alim the Tribunal allowed an adjournment due to the illness of the Prosecution witness scheduled to testify.

Continue reading →

26 Feb 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Disposition on Defense Applications, Prosecution Closing Arguments

Defense Applications
On 17 February 2013 Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed three applications. One application was for permission to either call General Sir Jack Deverell and Professor William Schabas as expert witnesses, depose these witnesses via video link, or to submit their expert reports into evidence pursuant to Rule 46A of the International Rules of Procedure 2010. Defense also filed another application for bail. On 20 February 2013 Tribunal heard these two applications along with another application filed by the Defense requesting permission inspect the record of orders. Today (26 February 2013) passed order regarding these three applications.

Regarding the application for two foreign witnesses Tribunal passed an order rejecting the application and stated that Tribunal already expressed its views at the time of recording of evidence. Tribunal further stated that the recording of evidence has already been completed and the case is now at the stage of Closing Arguments. The court did allow the Defense to submit the expert witness reports though it was unclear whether they would be accepted as exhibits or simply for reference by the Judges.

The Tribunal rejected the bail application, which was filed on medical grounds, stating that Gholam Azam has received adequate medical attention and that the nature of the charges against him and the stage of the trial do not allow for him to be set free on bail. The Tribunal further directed the authorities at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University to take all necessary steps to provide him proper treatment.

Regarding the inspection of record of orders Tribunal stated that a Defense Counsel will be allowed to inspect the record for an hour in front of two bench officers.

Closing Arguments
Thereafter, Tribunal heard the closing arguments of Prosecution side for 7th consecutive day. Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted arguments in support of Charge No 4 (complicity) incidents 13 through 23 counts. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until February 27, 2013.  Continue reading →

25 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Prosecution Closing Arguments (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain (Accused Not Present)

In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s closing arguments for the 6th consecutive day. Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon submitted arguments in support of Charge 3 (incitement) from counts 26 to 28 and Charge 4 (complicity) for counts 1 through 13. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until February 26, 2013.

The Prosecution submitted the Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain but the matter was not argued or presented in open court. Continue reading →