Tag Archives: genocide

10 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal Coverage, Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor v.s Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. Our coverage is gathered from media sources and from discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. 

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued their cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 11 June, 2013.

Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer, PW 41
The Defense asked the witness about Exhibit-32/3, a certified photocopy of the General  Register of a prior case filed regarding the incidents also alleged in this case.  The Defense claimed that charge sheet of that case did not contain the name of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury or Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. The Defense also asked the witness about Exhibit- 32/4 a case filed by Anil Boron Dor (PW-22). The Defense claimed that the witness did not investigate other persons accused in that case, though they were alleged to be responsible for the same incidents. Continue reading →

Special Report Issue #3: Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam Case Summary

This special report provides a detailed overview of the factual and legal arguments presented by the Prosecution and Defense in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam. Arguments in the case were completed on 17 April 2013 and the case is currently awaiting verdict from Tribunal 1. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each count within each distinct charge, as well as the general arguments made by both parties. Once the Tribunal issues its verdict, we will publish a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment.

For the full report please go here: Special Issue No. 3 – Gholam Azam Case Summary

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 →

2 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Nizami PW 10, Mubarak Hossain PW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Tofazzal Hossain, Prosecution Witness 10. Thereafter, the Defense requested time to prepare for cross-examination, alleging that the Prosecution informed them about PW-10 just before the beginning of today’s proceedings (normally the Prosecution informs the Defense about the witness who is going to testify on the day before, so that Defense can prepare). The Tribunal allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 June, 2013.

In the Mubarak Hossain case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Md Rafiqul Islam, Prosecution Witness 3, who testified in support of charge no 3. Thereafter, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted cross-examination. After the conclusion of the cross-examination, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June, 2013. Continue reading →

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Defense Closing Arguments

30 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid

Today Defense counsel Abdur Razzak began his portion of the Closing Arguments in the case of Mujahid. Although he had previously been designated to cover only the legal aspects of the case, he also discussed evidentiary and factual issues as well, particularly issues pertaining to documentary evidence.

The Defense also informed the Tribunal that because the senior Defense team is also appearing before the Appellate Division in conjunction with the Qader Molla case appeal, they would need the Tribunal to accommodate the Defense’s schedule (in particular Mr. Razzak’s schedule). He said that he would only be able to present arguments in the Mujahid case in the afternoon. The Tribunal agreed to accommodate the Defense counsel as far as possible.

Closing Arguments
The Defense noted that the book “Al-Badr” is the primary documentary evidence relied upon by the Prosecution to establish that Mujahid held a leadership position in the Al-Badr forces during the 1971 war period.

The counsel stated that the book refers to the speech of the ’Nezam’ (Head/leader) of Al-Badr, given the night before Pakistan surrendered on 16th December 1971. The counsel submitted that this is the worst possible form of hearsay evidence as there is no reference as to who recalled and reported the meeting, who gave the description of the meeting, when and where such an interview was taken and how the contents of the speech of the ‘Nezam’ could be authenticated. The Defense submitted that without knowing this information, the evidence cannot be relied upon in reaching any conclusion regarding Mujahid’s position within the Al-Badr forces or his alleged guilt. Because the book amounts to anonymous hearsay it cannot be relied upon. Continue reading →