Tag Archives: hearsay evidence

14 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Closing Arguments, Prosecution Rebuttal

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the seventh day of the Defense’s Closing Arguments in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case. The Tribunal had instructed the Defense yesterday that they needed to conclude their arguments within the first hour of today’s session. After the Defense completed their arguments the Prosecution presented its rebuttal. The Tribunal then closed the case pending judgment.  Continue reading →

13 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 24

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case the Prosecution called Prosecution witness 24, Bhagirath Chandra Barman, to testify. After the completion of the examination-in-chief the Tribunal scheduled his cross-examiantion for 16 June 2013. Barman testified as an eye-witness.

Examination-in-Chief
He is a relative of multiple victims. He provided his personal his details. He then stated that Alim was the chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which he claimed was an auxiliary force to the Pakistani Army. He stated that Alim was assisted by the Pakistani Army and the local Peace Committee members in committing the killings.

The witness stated that on a Monday, approximately in the second week of the Bengali month of Boishakh,1971, the Pakistani Armi entered the village of Kadipur accompanied by local Peace Committee members. Upon seeing them arrive the witness claimed he ran towards his home and then attempted to escape towards the north along with his family members. However, before they could manage to escape, members of the Peace Committee and the Pakistani Army surrounded them.  The witness stated that around 50 to 55 people of the local community were gathered near the bank of a pond located to the east of the witness’s house. The pond is locally known as “Dom Pukur.” The witness stated that the Peace Committee members then segregated the men from the women and took them to the slant of the pond. 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 →