Tag Archives: genocide

28 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 5

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami – Cross Examination of PW 5

Today the Defense in the Nizami case concluded their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Tribunal then adjourned the case  until 30 April 2013.

Nazim Uddin Khattab testified in support of Charge no 4 which alleges that Motiur Rahman Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murder, rape, looting and destruction of property in the village of Karajma. The Charges are framed as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Cross-examination
During the examination-in-chief, Nazim Uddin Khattab had testified that he received training as a freedome fighter for the Liberation War and regarding the UPR camp. Defense Counsel Mizanul Islam asked him who was in charge of the camp. Khattab replied Major Ibrahim and Habildar Ali Akbar were responsible. The Defense suggested that UPR was established at the request of Abu Sayed after the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces, as well as the Peace Committee. Khattab denied the suggestion and testified that before the camp was set up in the area before the formation of the Razakar and Al-Badr forces or the Peace Committee. The Defense asked how long after the UPR camp was established the Peace Committee, Razakar f and Al-Badr forces were formed. Khattab was unable to provide a timeline. The Defense again asked him when he first heard about the Peace Committee . Khattab replied that he first heard about the three groups before 19 April 1971. Previously during the Proesecuiton’s examination-in-chief Khattab had claimed that the Union Board Chairman Khoda Box was Chairman of the Peace Committee and a leader of Muslim League. The Defense suggested that Major Ibrahim arrested Khoda Box. Khattab denied the suggestion.

During the examination-in-chief Khattab had also testified regarding an individual named Rofikun Nabi Bublu, .stating that he had gone into hiding after the Liberation War. In response to the Defense’s questions he said that he did not know whether Rofikun’s father, Shiraj, was a doctor but noted that his title was doctor. Khattab denied the Defense’s suggestion that Shiraj practiced in Bera as a doctor. Continue reading →

25 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 5, Chowdhury, PW 30

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Prosecution Witness 5, Accused Present
  2.  Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness  30, Accused Present

Today in the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Defense began their cross-examination, which continued until the lunch break. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 28 April 2013.

In the Chowdhdury case Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. The witness testified in support of Charge 4 which alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murders, rapes, looting and destruction of properties as Crimes Against Humanity  under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami: Prosecution witness 5
Examination-in-Chief
Nazim Uddin Khattab testified that on the morning of 25 April 1971 he saw Motiur Rahman Nizami with Rafikun Nabi Bablu, Asad, Afzal, Moslem, Shukur and Siraj doctor attending a meeting at the Union Board Office. He said that after half an hour the meeting concluded and everyone exited the meeting room. Rofikun Nobi Bablu began yelling and verbally insulting the witness and others who were with him. Bablu was angry at them for voting in favor of Boat (the symbol of the Awami League) in 1970 and for supporting the Awami League. The witness further testified that Nizami told them that if they left the village they would assume that they were joining the freedom fighters and their family members would be killed. If they stayed in the village he said no one would be harmed.

Continue reading →

24 April 2013: ICT-2 daily Summary – Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 17

Today our researchers were unable to attend proceedings due to a nation-wide hartal. Our coverage is compiled from media sources as well as conversations with the Prosecution and the Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Prosecution witness 17, Accused Present

The prosecution called for Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar to give testimony as PW-17 in the case against Abdul Alim. The witness is a resident of Akkelpur in Jaipurhat and gave evidence mainly in support of Charge 6.

The witness stated that the first week of May 1971 he heard that the Pakistani Army took three people into their custody from amongst fourteen to fifteen people who were hiding in the house of Bhatsha Union Parishad chairman Mr Syed Ali. The group was allegedly fleeing to India because of the war. The remaining people from the group were handed over to the Akkelpur Peace Committee and detained in the waiting room of Akkelpur Railway Station. The witness testified that during the three days of detention there, various Razakars assured the detainees that they would be free to go if Mr. Alim ordered them to be released the same. The prosecution witness testified that he heard this information from locals in the area.

The witness stated that the detainees were later shot by the Pakistani Army near Bakjana station after few members of Razakar forces, including Makbur Kabiraj, Moti Chairman and Boor Bakhth, delivered them to the army. One Mozammel Hossain was the only survivor.

24 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Qasem Ali, Contempt Proceedings, Chowdhury Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30.

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mir Quasem Ali : Investigative Report
  2. Contempt Proceedings against The Economist
  3. Chief Prosecutior vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30

The Prosecution  submitted its progress report regarding the investigation into Mir Qasem Ali. They requested an additional two-weeks to prepare the Formal Charge. The Tribunal scheduled the submission for 9 May 2013.

In  the ongoing contempt proceedings against the Economist, Barrister Mustafizur Rahman Khan sought two weeks additional time on behalf of the Defendants. The Tribunal fixed 14 May for hearing the reply of the South Asian Bureau Chief and Chief Editor.

Today the Prosecution also conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 29, Shubol , and  Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. Thereafter, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena began the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 29. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 25 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witness 29 and 30
Prosecution Witness 29
Today the Prosecution called witness 29, Shubol. The witness testified in support of Charge 2 which alleges that Salauddin was involved in the murder of Poncha Bala Sharma, Shunil Sharma, Joti Lal Sharma, Dulal Sharma and Dr Makhon Lal Sharma and in the injury of Joyonta Kumar Sharma. It is alleged that these acts of murder and injury were committed with the intent to destroy the members of the Hindu religious group in whole or in part ,which was considered Genocide under section 3(2)(c)(i) and 3(2)(c)(ii). Continue reading →

23 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abul Alim Prosecution Witness 16

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 16, Accused Present

The Prosecution called Mr AKM Mahbubur Rahman to testify as Prosecution Witness 16.  Mahbubur is a local businessman, who is the nephew of victims allegedly killed on 26 May 1971. The witness testified in support of Charge 7, alleging that Alim was involved with the Pakistani army in the killing. Mahbubur stated that the Accused was a leading figure of the Peace Committee, and that he helped to form an anti-liberation force in Jaipurhat and Panchbibi. This auxiliary force, known as Rajakar Bahini, apprehended and delivered unarmed civilians and supporters of Bangladeshi independence to the Pakistan Army. They also committed arson and looting.

Mahbubur stated that on 26th May 1971 the Pakistan Army raided their home in Nowda village, based on information collected by two Rajakars, Ahmed Bihari and Rashid Bihari. The witness and his elder brother Bazlur Rahman hid but were able to see the incident. With the assistance of Ahmed and Rashid, who announced that the Army was there to restore peace, the witnesses’ uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar, Yunus Uddin Sardar  and Ilias Uddin Sarder were taken into the custody of the Pakistani Army. Mahbubur testified that his cousin Abul Kashem Sardar went to attempt to get the men released. The witness said that Abul Kashem was advised by some Peace Committee members to talk to Abul Alim about the matter.  Upon returning from Alim’s Peace Committeee office in Shaon Lal Bazla’s Godighor, Kashem said that Alim denied to release the victims because they were suspected of being affiliated with the freedom fighters. The witness said that he and others heard gunshots coming from Kali Shaha’s pond in the evening at around 6:30 p.m. The family knew that the detainees had been shot to death.

After the incident, Mahbubur said that he and his family fled to India and only returned after independence. The witness said that they later disinterred their bodies from the mass grave near Kali Shaha’s pond and reburied them following appropriate burial rituals.