Tag Archives: ICT

26 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 11, Chowdhury Rejection of Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Motiur Rahman Nizami case, the Defense conducted the cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness 11, Shamsul Haque alias Nannu. Nannu testified in support of charges 2 and 15. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 27 June. In the Chowdhury case passed an order in response to the three Defense applications presented yesterday, 24 June 2013. The Tribunal was scheduled to continue hearing the testimony of Chowdhury, who took the stand as Defense witness 1. However, the Defense requested adjournment due to illness of the Accused. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case fixing 30 June 2013 for recording the testimony of the Defense witness. Continue reading →

24 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mueen Uddin and Khan Charge Framing Order

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

Today, Tribunal formally read out its Charge Framing Order against the Accused Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan, who are being tried in absentia for their alleged roles during Bangladesh’s War of Liberation in 1971. Both the Accused are outside of Bangladesh and have not appeared before the Tribunal, with Uddin believed to be in London and Ashrafuzzaman in New York. On June 16, 2013, the prosecution read out its formal charges before the Tribunal, and alleged that Mueen Uddin was the “operation-in-charge” of Al-Badr, while Ashrafuzzaman acted as its chief executor. Both of the Accused are thus alleged to have directly participated in the killing of Bengali intellectuals and professionals who were brutally targeted between the 10th and 15th of December, 1971, including journalist Dr. Shahidullah Kaiser. Many individuals were allegedly abducted and tortured by the Accused.

ICT-2 took cognizance of the case after the Prosecution, in the last week of April 2013, pressed charges for crimes under the ICT Act of 1973 against the two Accused. On May 12, 2013, the police submitted an official report to the Tribunal, noting that the two Accused could not be arrested as they resided outside of Bangladesh, Mueen Uddin in the United Kingdom and Ashrafuzzaman in the United States. Having received this report from the police, the Tribunal issued an order to its Registrar’s Office to publish an advertisement in two widely-circulated national dailies requesting the two Accused to appear before the Tribunal within 10 days of its publication, and stating that failure to do so would lead to trial-in-absentia. On May 22, 2013, the Prosecution informed the Tribunal that notices had been published on May 14, 2013 in the Daily Janakantha, and on May 15, 2013 in the Daily Star, asking the Accused to submit to the Tribunal with 10 days of publication. The advertisements did not lead the Accused to appear. Finally, on May 27, 2013, ICT-2 noted that the two Accused have absconded, and accordingly ordered their trial to commence in absentia. Abdus Shukur Khan and Salma Hye Tuni, two advocates of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, were appointed by the Tribunal to serve as counsels to defend both of the Accused.

After hearing the proposed charges were read out by the Prosecution on June 16, 2013, the Tribunal fixed today as the date for to read out the Charge Framing Order. Justice Obaidul Hassan, the Chairman of Tribunal 2, read out the Charge Framing Order in the presence of his fellow Justices Mozibur Rahman Mia and Shahinur Islam.

The full Charge Framing Order is available here: Charge Framing Order for Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

24 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testimony and Defense Applications

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today in the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard three petitions filed by Defense. The first petition requested review of the June 13th order limiting the Defense to 5 witnesses. The second requested adjournment of the case until the terms of reference are disposed off in the Abdul Qader Mollah case at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The third application requested that Serial No. 31 of the seizure list be designated as illegal. After hearing arguments from both parties the Tribunal fixed 26 June for passing its order. Thereafter, Tribunal heard the testimony of Defendant Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense witness 1, for the sixth day and adjourned the proceedings of the case until 26 June 2013. Continue reading →

23 June 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Testifies as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Tribunal heard the fifth day of testimony from Defendant Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, testifying as Defense witness 1. The witness testified that political persecution is an occupational hazard for politicians in Bangladesh, more so for politicians with a populist image and holders of elective office. He testified that during the Caretaker Government’s rule following the military coup of January 2011 (popularly known as 1/11), many politicians were persecuted through theof  filing spurious charges aimed at debarring them from elections or holding elective office. Chowdhury stated that the current persecution of populist leaders is only a continuation of similar objective pursued by the 1/11 “bandits,” i.e. to debar populist politicians from contesting elections.  Continue reading →

20 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Cross Examination of PW 26

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

Defense counsel Hena conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 26 in the Alim case, who had testified in his examination-in-chief before the Tribunal yesterday, June 29. Defense counsel mainly directed his line of questioning towards the credibility of the witness, suggesting that the testimony of the witness was maliciously fabricated with the support of the Prosecution.

Cross Examination of PW 26
The witness, Jogen Chandra Pal, stated that Jugipara is not in the east of Palpara, but instead in the south-east of Palpara. The witness stated that Kolipara is a Muslim area, and that it is not true that Palpara and Jugipara are both Hindupara. The witness was not sure about the number of Muslim families who resided in Kolipara in 1971. He stated that there were approximately 40-50 Muslim houses. He also said that Shonarpara is not in the north of Palpara, and that part of the Dom pond, the alleged site of the incident in question, was in Koroi village and part of it was in Kadipur village. The witness testified that Koroi Kadipur had no school in 1971. He also stated that there was no road to the south of the Dom pond but an open field, and that no suitable road for vehicles exited on the east side of the pond as well.

In reply to a question from Defense counsel, the witness stated that he does not know whether Alim was a reputable lawyer in 1971 or not. He does not also know if there was a Hindu area in Turipara beside Alim’s house. He does not remember the date when the Pakistani Army entered Jaipurhat area or who the Secretary of the Peace Committee in Jaipurhat was at that time. He is also unable to recall the name of the President or Secretary of the Peace Committee in his own local area or the name of his local Union Parishad Chairman or ward Member.

On the day of the alleged incident, the witness’s mother and sisters were in his house. The witness stated that Ajit Mohond, Prosecution witness 25, had his house to the east of his house, around 200-300 yards away. In reply to a question posed by the Defense, the witness stated that the flag he claimed to have seen was on green cloth. He does not remember if the same flag was present in all schools or offices at that time. The witness stated that he does not know if it is currently present in Mazar or Dorga (graveyards of Islamic preachers, where flags with the moon and star are commonly seen). He also stated that he had not heard about the Zaker Party (a Bangladeshi political party that has a flag with the moon and star as its party flag).

The witness said that there was no one with him in the place where he was hiding, and that it was a jungle. He did not show the site to the Investigation Officer. The witness stated that the people who told the witness that the looted materials were taken to Alim’s rice mill are now deceased. The witness then said that he does not remember whether Alim was a lawyer or ever owned a rice mill. The witness recalled that there were about 30-35 houses belonging to Hindus in his area in the Koroi Palpara village, and that the nearby Rajbongshi village also had 25-30 Hindu houses. The Investigation Officer did visit the Dom pond. The witness then denied giving an interview to the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee.

The witness further stated that Krishna “Doctor”, Shibu Tormuja’s parents and siblings, and many others are now dead, while the rest currently live in India. The witness said that he did not file any case after independence. He went to India via the Shiala border and returned to Bangladesh through the Hili border.

The Defense counsel then noted that the witness had not recounted much of the testimony he gave before the Tribunal to the IO during the investigation phase. The witness stated that he does not remember whether Alim was the president of the Peace Committee in Jaipurhat. He contradicted himself by also saying that it is not true that Alim was not the President of Peace Committee.

Agreeing with the suggestion of the Defense counsel, the witness said that it is true that there was no jungle in his village, but that there were some bushes. He said that it is not true that there was no graveyard.

Finally, the Defense counsel suggested that the witness was only saying what the Prosecution had asked him to say. The Defense argued that the witness was giving fabricated evidence. The witness denied all such suggestions put forward to him.