Tag Archives: expert witness

26 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case, the Prosecution called the Cataloguer of the Bangladesh Press Institute as its first seizure list witness to formally exhibit various documents. However, the judges noted that the name of the person appearing as PW 27 is not on the list of Prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the judges opined that it would go against procedural practice of the Tribunal to allow the witness to give testimony despite not being included in the list of witnesses. The Tribunal adjourned for an hour, asking the prosecutor, Rana Das Gupta, to immediately submit an application praying for the addition of a witness.

The Tribunal then resumed after an hour of recess. Prosecutor Gupta submitted that this was an unintentional and mistaken omission on the part of the Prosecution, and requested that the Tribunal afford him an opportunity to rectify this mistake allowing the application. He stated that some of the names of seizure list witnesses were on a separate list already on record, with the exception of three witnesses. The application was allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the examination of PW 27 took place. PW 27, in the course of his testimony, exhibited various Prosecution documents for the Tribunal’s consideration. Defense counsel Hena then conducted a  brief cross-examination. Continue reading →

2 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 30 and 31

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The prosecution in Alim’s case called Md Mobarak Hossain, the Chief Librarian of Bangla Academcy, and Md Azabuddin Miah, the Assistant Librarian, to give testimony as Prosecution witnesses 30 and 31 respectively. The testimony of both witnesses was formal and brief and used to verify documents submitted into evidence by the Prosecution. The Defense conducted a very brief cross-examination of the witnesses as well. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of Prosecution witness 32 for 3 July 2013.

Prosecution witness 30: Chief Librarian of Bangla Academy
The Prosecution asked the Md Mobarak Hossain about the documentary evidence he provided to the Investigation Officer. The witness stated that Mr Altafur Rahman, the Investigation Officer for the case, visited the ‘Journal Section’ of Bangla Academy to collect various reports of daily newspaper issues from the 1971-1972 periods. He seized newspapers including the Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sangram, Doinik Bangla, Daily Pakistan, Doinik Purbadesh, and the Daily Azad. The witness stated that the Investigation Officer collected made photocopies of the original, leaving the original with the Bangla Academy.

Cross-examination
On cross-examination the Defense asked the witness who is in charge of the Journal Section of Bangla Academy. In reply, the witness stated that there is no separate officer for the journal section and that the entire library including the journal section is under the supervision of the Chief Librarian. The Defense then drew the witness’ attention  to the exhibited seizure list submitted by the Prosecution. They noted that the  the list does not bear the witness’ name or signature. The witness stated that the materials had been seized from Bangla Academy and not from his personal custody and therefore his name required to appear on the seizure list.  The Defense then questioned the authenticity of the collected reports. The witness finally stated that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents exhibited.

Prosecution witness 31: Assistant Librarian of Bangla Academy
Md Azabuddin Miah testified that he is a subordinate officer under Prosecution witness 30, working as the Assistant Librarian at the Bangla Academy. He testified that he was present when Prosecution witness 30 gave the exhibited newspapers to the Investigation Officer and affirmed the statements of Md Mobarak Hossain. No new statement was made. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness.