Tag Archives: genocide against political group

4 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments and Prosecution Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

The Defense  completed their closing arguments before Tribunal 2 in the case of Mujahid,  discussing the evidentiary issues and the required elements for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).

The Required Mental State for Liability Under Joint Criminal Enterprise
The Defense continued their arguments from the previous day and addressed the required mental state, or mens rea, for liability under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). Referring to paragraph 228 of the Tadic (Appeals Judgment) the Defense Imran submitted that the Prosecution has failed to prove the requisite mental state for liability under JCE as they have presented no evidence to establish that Mujahid intended to take part in a common plan or design with any member of Al-Badr or othered armed group for the purpose of committing a crime. The Defense argued that there is no evidence on record showing that Mujahid even had knowledge of an alleged common plan or design. Referring to the allegation that the accused said “usko hotao” (take him away) to his men, referring to a detainee, the Defense argued that these mere words do not prove the mental state of intent and knowledge required for JCE-1, as that type of JCE requires material participation by the Accused. 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 →

1 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami –cross-examination of PW 3
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – examination of PW 24
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam –Defense Closing Arguments

Defense Counsel for  Motiur Rahman Nizami concluded their cross-examination of Prosecution witness- 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. The Tribunal scheduled the next hearing of the case for 15 April 2013.  In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Thereafter, Defense counsel cross-examined the witness. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings in the Chowdhury case until 4 April 2013.  In the afternoon the Tribunal heard Abdur Razzaq, senior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam, present the Defense’s Closing Arguments based on Charge 1 for conspiracy. The Tribunal then adjourned the Gholam Azam case until tomorrow, 2 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 3
The Defense cross-examined Rustom Ali Mollah, Prosecution witness 3. The witness testified that Tarek Khan Mojlish was 7 to 8 years younger than him. He said that Zohir Uddin Jalal is also younger than him but he could not specify by how many years. Rustom testified that he crossed the Bosila river by himself, on his way to Vayaspur and Rampur. He traveled alone and met Zohir Uddin Jalal, a freedom fighter who went by the name Jalal. The witness said that he did not meet with any other freedom fighters before meeting with Jalal. Additionally, he claimed that he did not meet any other freedom fighters during the war. He testified that he continues to live in the same house that he occupied during the Liberation War.

Continue reading →

27 Jan 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Sayedee Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mir Qasem Ali: Application for Medical Transport of Accused (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee: Resubmission of Defense Closing Arguments (Accused Present)

Defense Counsel for Mir Qasem Ali filed an application requesting health specialized transport to and from the Tribunal for their client.

Abdur Razzaq, Senior Defense Counsel for Delwar Hossain Sayedee, continued submitting closing arguments on legal points for the 2nd consecutive day. He addressed issues of delay in prosecution, malafide intention of the prosecution, and the elements of the crimes as defined under International Customary Law. 

Continue reading →