Tag Archives: evidence

5 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 10, Chowdhury PW 41, Islam Contempt Proceeding

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Contempt Proceedings against Fakhrul Islam

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense completed the cross-examination of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10, who testified in support of charge no 15. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June 2013. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 6 June 2013.

The Tribunal also fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing on the potential contempt proceeding against Fakhrul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
Cross Examination of PW 10
The Defense continued to cross-examine Prosecution witness 10 about the incident of 17 November 1971. The Defense asked the witness what time the alleged incident took place, where the witness was when it occurred, and how far away he was from the alleged location of the incident. The witness replied that on November 17 at about 01:10 am, freedom fighters attacked the Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot School, and that he was in the adjacent area of the CO office, which is now the Union Council, and was 100-150 yards away from the school.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that on 7 December 1971, while freedom fighters were gathered for a meeting at the police station beside the Pailot School camp, they were attacked. He stated that  at that time they were unarmed. The Defense previously asked the witness where the freedom fighters were based between 17 November and 7 December. The witness answered that they were occupying the police station beside the Sathia Pailot School. The Defense claimed that the freedom fighters who took possession of the police station were armed. The witness then admitted that.

The Defense asked the witness about the incident of 7 December 1971: specifically whether anyone other than him was injured, how many people were gathered there, how many rounds of bullets were fired, and whether the witness had personally seen any Razakar members. The witness answered that other than him, no one was injured on that day. The witness testified that 150 or 200 people were gathered at the time of the incident, but could not say how many rounds of bullet were fired.

The Defense asked the witness about the head of the local Peace Committee. The witness testified that he heard that Jobbar is the President of the Peace Committee. Previously in answer to a question, the witness had replied that he heard that the freedom fighters’ commander Mukul took the 14 Razakars detained after the operation of 17 November to Sahjadpur on boats. The Defense alleged that Jobbar, whom the witness identified as President of Peace Committee, was the father of a freedom fighter commander named Mukul. The witness denied that suggestion, but said that the freedom fighter Mokbul Hossen Mukul was the son of the Peace Committee President Jobbar. The witness did not clarify whether there were two freedom fighters with the name Mukul, or only one. The witness testified that Jobbar was an activist in the Muslim League.

The Defense asked the witness whether he had read any newspaper between 1971 and 1975 which stated that in 1971 Nizami had attended a program or given a speech in Pabna. The witness replied that he had heard that Nizami gave speeches in different meetings, but claimed he had not seen this information in a newspaper because lived in remote areas. The Defense then asked the witness numerous questions to demonstrate that the witness did not reside in remote areas throughout this entire period.  The Defense claimed that in the last part of August 1971 freedom fighters detained Nizami and took him to the Chor areas. The witness answered that he had not heard this. The Defense claimed that the witness, when he came to Dhaka to testify before the Tribunal, was provided with a copy of the interview which he had given to the Investigation Officer. The witness admitted this. The Defense stated that the witness came from his home with the intention to testify against Nizami, and that his identification of the Accused was meaningless given there is only one person in the dock who could be the defendant. The witness agreed with this. The Defense claimed that a Razakar named Mahtab resided in the witness’s house in 1971. The witness claimed that he could not remember such a person. The Defense alleged that the witness was falsely claiming not to have any memory of Mahtab. The witness denied the allegation.

The Defense claimed that the witness, in his initial interview with the Investigation Officer, did not provide key details which he later testified to at trial. In particular, the Defense claimed that the witness did not claim that he and Nizami were classmates in Boalmari Madrassa; that in May 1971, the school was closed to set up a Razakar camp at Sathia Pailot High School; or that the witness observed the inauguration program from a distance and learned about the decisions of the meeting from attendees. The Defense also claimed that the witness, in his initial interview, did not recount the alleged incident of 7 December during which unarmed freedom fighters were allegedly attacked at the police station beside the Pailot School, or that the witness was shot in his left eye and became unconscious.  The Defense claimed that the witness likewise did not say that the followers of Nizami, Abdus Sobhan and Ishaq attacked the local Hindu community and looted their houses, and that the wife of Shunil Joardar was raped in her husband’s presence and then committed suicide out of shame. The witness denied all of these allegations.

The Defense claimed that the incidents of 17 November and 7 December 1971 did not take place, and that the witness collected his salary regularly from his school in person. The witness denied these claims. The Defense claimed that the son of the witness received a job with BTV upon the recommendation of Abu Sayed during the tenure of the last Awami League government. The witness admitted that his son received a job, but denied that it was on the recommendation of Abu Sayed. The Defense alleged that the witness received his job in Upozilla Counsil Primary School on the condition that he testify against Nizami. The witness replied that this was not true.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Cross Examination of PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about different exhibits, including Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 36, and 39. The Defense claimed that all of the newspaper headings had been altered by computer. The Defense claimed that the witness, during the investigation, did not search for the name of the reporter who collected the information and did not search for information about who was arrested alongside Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The Defense claimed that the report is not original and is a modified scanned copy altered using Adobe Illustrator. The witness denied that. The witness testified that he did not scan or compose the newspapers, and the person who did these things is not a witness in this case. Regarding Exhibit-15, Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate to find the name of the original reporters, and that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s name was added by modification of the scanned copy.

 The Defense asked the witness about the source of Exhibit 10. The witness answered that the source was PPI, but did not clarify what the abbreviation means. The Defense claimed that the first line of the report is not clear and that the report does not contain the name of the Accused. The witness replied that the report discusses the son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. Defense asked the witness about whether, following receipt of the report, he searched for the driver’s name, address, driving license, or other record of the driver’s death. The witness replied that he asked Siraj Uddin, Kazi Nurul Afsar, ANM Mahbub, and Fazlul Huq Bhuiyan about these things, but did not get any information. The Defense asked the witness whether he searched any local Chittagong newspaper for this information. The witness answered that he went to the offices of different local newspapers but did not receive the original as  copies of every issue of the newspapers are not available in the local newspaper offices. The Defense asked the witness who the editor of the Azadi newspaper was at the time of publication, when the witness went to the local office, and whom the witness spoke with while there. They aimed to cast doubt by indicating that the witness did not actually go to the office. The Defense asked the witness whether any case was filed regarding the death of the driver and injury of the Accused. The witness answered that he did not investigate that matter. The witness denied that the news was manipulated in bad faith.

Regarding Exhibit-36, the Defense claimed that Kawsar Sheikh was not the Assistant Librarian when the witness seized the reports. The witness replied that he wrote down what they said regarding their posts. The Defense claimed that the witness seized the Exhibits from Mobarak, and gave the main copies under Mobarak’s custody. The Defense asked the witness whether any requisition was served to make Mobarak appear as a witness. The witness answered that he did not serve any such requisition. The Defense claimed that all the paper cuttings and the seizure list are paper transactions and have been faked. Witness replied that this is not true. The Defense claimed that Exhibit 39 is also a paper transaction and fake and that all of the seized documents have been fabricated. The witness also denied that allegation. The Defense noted that Exhibits 6 through 23 do not contain the name of the Accused. The Defense asked the witness about the profession of the Accused. The witness replied that before 26 March, the Accused was a student, and that from 26 March to 20 September the Accused was involved in the commission of crimes against humanity.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Fakhrul Islam
On 30 December 2012, Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, filed a petition seeking an order clarifying that the Tribunal judges were not party to any of the Skype conversations that formed the controversy resulting in the resignation of former Chairman of Tribunal 1, Nizamul Hoq. On 3 January 2013, in order to avoid contempt proceedings, Ahsanul Huq Hena, another defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, prayed that the Tribunal consider the petition as ‘not pressed’ and offered an unconditional apology. On 14 January 2013, the Tribunal issued a notice asking Fakhul Islam, Defense counsel of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, why contempt proceedings should not be issued against him. Today, 5 June 2013, the Tribunal fixed 12 August as the date for the next hearing.  

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 →

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 →

7 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Defense continued their Closing Arguments, addressing Charge 3 for incitement and Charge 4 for complicity.

After the lunch break Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzak requested an additional working day in order to complete the Defense’s summing up. By mentioning “working day,” the Defense implied a non-hartal day. This week hartals have been called for Monday through Thursday.  The Defense does not attend the Tribunal during hartal days.

Charge 3:
Incitement to Commit Genocide
The Defense addressed each count of incitement contained within Charge 3. First, the Defense argued that none of Gholam Azam’s statements were designed to instigate or prompt others to attack or destroy members of any national, religious, ethnic or racial group. Considering the context of censorship surrounding news reports, the testimony of both Prosecution and Defense witnesses and submitted Exhibits, it is clear that none of  Gholam Azam’s statements, when interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning, were directed against members of the Hindu community, the Bengali civilian population or supporters of the Awami League. Secondly, the Defense argued that the Charge Framing Order does not adequately specify how Gholam Azam prompted, provoked or instigated criminal action, nor has the Prosecution brought any evidence on record to show that an identified perpetrator was so instigated, prompted or provoked. Thirdly, the Prosecution has made no attempt to establish that Gholam Azam had the required intention to destroy Hindus, members of the Awami League or the Bengali civilian population. Similarly, the Prosecution failed to prove that through his statements Gholam Azam intended to create genocidal intent amongst members his audience. Therefore the Defense stated that the Prosecution did not prove essential elements of the alleged crime.

Continue reading →

3 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – Defense Closing Arguments

The Defense began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case. Counsel addressed details pertaining to Charge 1 and the allegations of Kamaruzzaman’s involvement in the torture and killing of Bodiuzzaman. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses 4 and 6, both of whom provided hearsay evidence. Additionally the Defense highlighted inconsistencies between each witness’ courtroom testimony and their previous statements to the Investigation Officer. The Defense argued that in order for hearsay evidence to be viewed as credible and reliable it should be consistent and supported by circumstantial evidence. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the Prosecution’s case for Charge 1 give rise to substantial doubt as to the guilt of the Accused.

Abdur Razzaq, the senior Defense counsel for the Accused, also addressed legal questions arising from the Prosecution’s case including admissibility and probative value of hearsay evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence, whether the statement of one hearsay witness can satisfactorily corroborate another, and whether corroboration is required. In the course of their submissions the Defense referred to and analysed judicial precedents from the ICTY and the ICTR and rebutted arguments made by Prosecutor Tureen Afroz on 31 March 2013. The Defense also referred to the text Archbold: International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence and some domestic cases.

The Defense stated that their final arguments would take a total of four days. They requested that the court accommodate their proposed timeline.

Charge 1
Evidentiary and Factual Arguments
The first Charge against Kamaruzzaman pertains to the killing of Badiuzzaman. The charge is supported only by the testimony of Prosecution witnesses 4, Fakir Abdul Mannan, and 6, Dr Md Hasanuzzaman, both of whom are hearsay witnesses.  The Defense argued that there are fundamental discrepancies between the two witnesses’ testimonies and the findings of the Investigation Officer. The Defense stated that these discrepancies and inconsistencies go to the very root of the Prosecution’s case. The testimony of these witnesses has been used to establish the Prosecution’s allegations about the purpose of Badiuzzaman’s visit to Ahammed Member’s House at Badiu where he was abducted, the presence of Pakistan Army at the time of abduction, Ahammed Member’s position during the Liberation War, the mode of Badiuzzaman’s arrest, and the identification of Kamaruzzaman.

Continue reading →