Tag Archives: ICT 1

16 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mueen Uddin and Khan Charges, Alim Cross Examination of PW 24

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1.  Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury Mueen Uuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Prosecution read out the charges against Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan, and the Tribunal fixed June 24, 2013, as the date for delivering the Charge Framing Order.  In the Alim case, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena concluded the cross examination of Prosecution witness 24. The Prosecution will call its 25th witness on June 17, 2013. Continue reading →

13 June 2013 ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross Examination PW 41, Abdus Sobhan Pre-Trial

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of Abdus Sobhan

In the Chowdhury case, the Defense concluded the cross-examination of Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. The Tribunal also heard an application submitted by Prosecution requesting the Tribunal to reject the Defense’s list of 1153 witnesses. The Prosecution argued that the list did not comply with Rule 51A (1) and did not specify the particulars of which witnesses would testify as to which charges, or on which points the Defense intended to examine the witness. The Prosecution also argued that list repeated the name of certain witnesses. The Defense countered that the list is short considering the political career of the Accused. They stated that while some names are similar, they are not repetitions.

The Tribunal verbally granted the Prosecution’s application with modification. They limited the Defense to 5 witnesses. The Defense objected, stating that there are 23 charges against the accused and that 41 prosecution witnesses testified against CHowdhury. They argued that being limited to 5 witnesses would prejudice their case. The Tribunal did not respond to their objection.The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until Monday, 17 July 2013, even if, Defense prayed for more time.

In the ongoing investigation of Abdus Sobhan, the Prosecution submitted their progress report and sought additional time. Tribunal allowed the prayer and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 14 July 2013.  Continue reading →

12 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

 In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued its cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 41. Defense questioned the witness to numerous contradictions found between the witness statements that he recorded and the testimony of those witnesses before the Tribunal.  The Defense implied that many key accusations made by the witnesses were not made originally to the Investigation Officer and that they were later supplied by the Prosecution. Today the Defense highlighted contradictions betwee the statements of Prosecution witnesses 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow.

11 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Chowdhury Cross-Examination PW 41

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of Md Nurul Islam, the Investigation Officer and Prosecution witness 41. Defense counsel Fakhrul Islam filed an application to declare the paper cuttings exhibited by the Prosecution as inadmissible alleging that these paper cuttings have been tampered with and are not authentic. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 12 June, 2013.

The Tribunal was scheduled to hear matters in the case against Mobarak Hossain. However, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of that case until Sunday, 16 June 2013.

Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer, PW 41
The Defense continued its cross-examination of the Investigation Officer. They asked whether he collected any documents such as the death certificate from the Union Council regarding the death of the victims of this case. Witness replied that he had submitted paper cuttings, the Register of the Case, First Information Report and witness statements as proof of these deaths. The Defense asked the Investigation Officer about different persons who the Prosecution has alleged were present at the time of the alleged incidents. The Defense asked whether the Investigation Officer interviewed these individuals. Regarding Charge 8, the Defense asked the Investigation Officer whether he interviewed Momtaz Khanom, Abu Naser Chowdhury Prokash Dulal and Sheikh Fazlul Haque during the investigation. He replied that he did not interview any of them.

The Defense drew the Investigation Officer’s attention to contradictions between the the witness statements recorded by him and the testimony of those witnesses before the Tribunal. They specifically asked about contradictions in the statements of Prosecution witnesses 1 – 6.

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 →