Tag Archives: Hearsay

16 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Prosecution Closing Arguments

The Prosecution presented their key legal arguments in the case against Mujahid. Prosecutor Afroz addressed a range of legal issues in conjunction Charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. A written outline of the arguments was provided as reference for the Tribunal. The Defense counsel objected because the cover photograph of the outline showed numerous skulls. The Defense argued that such a picture is unnecessary, inappropriate and prejudicial. The Prosecution disagreed, claiming that there is nothing in the law or rules of procedure prohibiting such photographs. The judges agreed with the Prosecutor’s submission, adding that such a photograph will neither be detrimental nor advantageous to the case against the accused and will have no impact on the judicial process.

Prosecutor’s Arguments:
The Prosecution presented arguments on the following issues:

  1.  Legal argument on the absence of victims’ dead body.
  2. Legal argument on ‘extermination ‘ in contrast to ‘murder’.
  3. The doctrine of superior responsibility and how it has been established by the evidence admitted.
  4. Evaluation of documentary evidences and further evaluation of the charges.

The Actus Reus of Murder and Necessity of Victim’s Body as Evidence (relevant to Charges 1 and 5)
The Prosecution began by emphasizing that the bodies of the victims in Charges 1 and 5 were recovered. She argued that the actus reus, of murder requires that the Prosecution prove that the killing itself occurred. Where the body is not found or recovered the killing remains unproved, resulting in the failure of the Prosecution’s case. In this case, Prosecutor Afroz argued that the Defense cannot claim that the actus reus in Charges 1 and 5 has not been proven by reason of failure to find the body of the victims. Continue reading →

6 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 33

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: PW 33

Mahmud Ali, Prosecution Witness 33, testified in support of charge no 20, in which Salauddin Qader Chowdhury is charged with committing confinement, torture and murder as Crimes Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena cross-examined the witness. After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until May 13, 2013

Prosecution Witness 33
Examination-in-Chief
Mahmud Ali testified that he was a farmer in 1971. He testified that in the last part of July Razakars from the CO Office found Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai. When the Razakars attempted to detain Ekhlas, Ekhlas jumped into a pond. The Razakars detained him from the pond and took him to the Razakar camp located at CO office. Mahmud testified that the Razakars then took him to home of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury at Goods Hill. He claimed that Ekhlas was tortured there and subsequently died. 2 or 3 days later Ekhlas’s father brough his son’s body back for burial. Mahmud testified that he attended the Janaza (last prayer) for Ekhlas and that his body was buried in the bank of the pond. Mahmud acknowledged that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Cross-Examination
The Defense then cross examined the witness, first asking about his personal details, his siblings, father’s profession, etc. Defense asked the witness how far his house was from CO office and the alleged place of incident. The Defense also asked questions about the alleged place from where Ekhlas was detained by the Razakars with the aim to cast doubt on his testimony by showing that he was not familiar with the CO office and or the alleged crime site. The Defense implied that the witness could not have been present when Ekhlas was detained.

The Defense next asked the witness numerous questions about Goods Hill and Akubdandi, where Ekhlas resided in 1971, aiming to show that the witness was unfamiliar with those sites as well. Defense asked him whether he could name anyone still living who also attended the Janaza for Ekhlas. The Witness claimed that no one is left alive now. The Defense asked how old Ekhlas was in 1971 and where he studied at that time. They implied that the witness did not know the victim at all and was fabricating his testimony. The witness answered that Ekhlas was 16 or 17 years of age and was a student of matriculation when he died. Mahmud affirmed his prior testimony that he saw Ekhlas being chased and subsequently detained by the Razakars, and that he witnessed the victim being taken to the CO office. Mahmud admitted that he did not witness Ekhlas being taken to Goods Hill from the CO office.

The Defense alleged that Mahmud’s courtroom testimony introduces new allegations not included in his original statement to the Investigating Officer. They alleged that he did not tell the Investigating Officerthat the alleged incident took place in front of the shop of Kokai or that he himself witnessed the alleged incident. The Defense claimed that the Pakistani Army detained Ekhlas while he was throwing grenade. The Defense also denied thatEkhlas jumped into the pond. They further asserted that the Razakars had not yet been formed in July 1971. The Defense also suggested that the Pakistani Army sent Ekhlas to Chittagong Medical College Hospital. The witness denied each of these assertions.

The Defense additionally asserted that in his initial interview the witness did not tell the Investigating Officer from whom he heard that Ekhlas was taken to Goods Hill. The witness answered that the Investigating Officer did not ask. The Defense also claimed that he did not originally allege that Razakars came out from CO Office and apprehended Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai, that Ekhlas jumped into a pond, or that Razakars took him to the Razakar camp located at the CO office. The Defense also stated the witness did not inform the Investigating Officer of the location of the victim’s burial site. The witness answered that he included all these details in his initial interview. The witness said he could not recall the specific date and month when Ekhlas was buried. He stated that he knew Salauddin Quader Chowdhury from 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin was studying in Pakistan and could not have met Mahmud Ali. They also alleged that Mahmud never Ekhlas that he was giving false testimony in a false case for financial benefit. The witness denied these allegations.

Weekly Digest Issue 11: March 31- April 4

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

This week Tribunal 1 dealt with the Motiur Rahman Nizami, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, and Gholam Azam cases. In the case against Nizami the Defence cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal heard both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Gholam Azam’s Defence counsel continued their Defence Closing Arguments, addressing the conspiracy allegations under Charge 1, as well as legal arguments on incitement. Proceedings were delayed by hartals and the absence of Defense counsel.

In Tribunal 2, the Court heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, during which they addressed evidentiary issues including hearsay, and legal arguments about the standard of complicity and under the doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Due to the hartal on 2 April, ICT 2 convened only briefly to allow the Prosecution to complete their examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case. On 3rd April the Defence began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, addressing factual issues in Charges 1-3 and responding to the legal issues raised by the Prosecution during their Closing Arguments.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  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 →