Tag Archives: ICT

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 →

24 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Qasem Ali, Contempt Proceedings, Chowdhury Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30.

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Mir Quasem Ali : Investigative Report
  2. Contempt Proceedings against The Economist
  3. Chief Prosecutior vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witnesses 29 and 30

The Prosecution  submitted its progress report regarding the investigation into Mir Qasem Ali. They requested an additional two-weeks to prepare the Formal Charge. The Tribunal scheduled the submission for 9 May 2013.

In  the ongoing contempt proceedings against the Economist, Barrister Mustafizur Rahman Khan sought two weeks additional time on behalf of the Defendants. The Tribunal fixed 14 May for hearing the reply of the South Asian Bureau Chief and Chief Editor.

Today the Prosecution also conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 29, Shubol , and  Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. Thereafter, Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena began the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 29. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 25 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Prosecution Witness 29 and 30
Prosecution Witness 29
Today the Prosecution called witness 29, Shubol. The witness testified in support of Charge 2 which alleges that Salauddin was involved in the murder of Poncha Bala Sharma, Shunil Sharma, Joti Lal Sharma, Dulal Sharma and Dr Makhon Lal Sharma and in the injury of Joyonta Kumar Sharma. It is alleged that these acts of murder and injury were committed with the intent to destroy the members of the Hindu religious group in whole or in part ,which was considered Genocide under section 3(2)(c)(i) and 3(2)(c)(ii). Continue reading →

23 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 28

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs SalauddinQader Chowdhury: Cross Examination of PW 28, Accused Present
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs MobarakHossain: Charge Framing Order, Accused Present

Today Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury concluded the cross-examinination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit.

The Tribunal also issued the official Charge Framing Order against Mobarak Hossain. They rejected the Defense’s request for acquittal and also rejected an application for bail. Mubarak Hossain submitted a plea of not guilty. The Tribunal scheduled the opening of the trial for 16 May 2013. Additionally the court requested that the Prosecution and Defense submit their proposed witness lists on 16 May as well.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of Prosecution Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit, was cross-examined by the Defense. His examination in-chief took place on the 22 April.

The Defense began by asking whether Poritosh or his brothers had filed a case before or after the Liberation War regarding the alleged killing of his father. Poritosh replied that he did not know if anyone he or anyone else had filed such a case at the Rawzan Police Station. He testified that the  Rawzan Police Station is about half a kilometer from his house. He could not say whether his father visited the Police Station before he was killed. He testified that after 25 March 1971 the Pakistani Army went to Rawzan but could not give an exact date.

The Defense then asked him questions about his job as a teacher at RABM high school. He testified that the head master of his school was Abdur Rashid. He stated that when he left the school in 1971  he did not submit the resignation letter or application for leave. He claimed that there were no students from Palit Para or Biswash Para in his school. He testified that his house was about 10 kilometers from the school. He stated that while he was a teacher he also worked as the house tutor for Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s son, Abu Bakar. He acknowledged that Abu Bakar is still living. He stated that he knew the neighbors and that he stayed ab Abul Kashem Chowdhury’s house for over a year. He testified that he did not inform anyone when he left Abul Kashem’s house in 1971.

The Defense asked Poritosh to describe the trip between the scene of the killing and where his family was hiding. He testified that along the road there were shops on both sides of the road, and the houses of wealthy and important people. He admitted that he did not attempt to tell anyone about the killing on his way back. However, he claimed that others were aware of the incident, though he could not say how people heard about it. Continue reading →

22 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17, Investigation Officer

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid – Cross-Examination of Prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer.

The Defense continued their cross-examination of prosecution witness 17, Investigation Officer Abdur Razzaq. At at the end of yesterday’s session the Tribunal instructed Defense to conclude their cross-examination of the Investigation Officer today, 22nd April, 2013.

The Defense asked the witness about the investigation procedure, his findings regarding Mujahid’s position within the Islami Chatra Shangho, the presence of Mujahid’s name in any of documentary evidence, and Mujahid’s alleged whereabouts after the war.

The witness said that his investigation showed that Mujahid went on to hiding after the war, but did not leave Bangladesh. He hid at his maternal uncle’s house. The witness also said that Mujahid separated himself from all forms of political affiliation until the political transformation in 1975 after the assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The witness admitted said that Mujahid’s name is not found among the lists naming Rajakars, Al-Badrs, Al-Shams or Peace Committee members that have been submitted into evidence. However, he reiterated that his investigation revealed that the accused was the President of the East Pakistan Islami Chatra Shongho beginning in October  and continuing until 16th December 1971. Therefore he asserted that Mujahid had participated in Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide as an Al-Badr Commander.

Administrative Matters
The Tribunal granted the Defense’s request for privileged communication with their client and stated they would allow two designated Defense counsel to visit Mujhaid in prison on 28 April 2013. The Tribunal also stated that the Prosecution should be prepared to begin their Closing Arguments if the Defense fails to produce their witnesses. They reiterated that delay of the trial process would not be allowed.

22 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of Prosecution Witness 28

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 28, Poritosh Kumar Palit. The witness is the son of an alleged victim of the Accused.

Prosecution Examination-in-Chief
The witness first provided personal details about his education and where he lives.  He testified that in 1971 he was 27 years old and a teacher at the R.A.B.M High School in Rangunia, Chittagong. He testified that on 25 March 1971 there was widespread political unrest in the country and activists from the Muslim League in his area torched and looted houses of the Hindu community and additionally raped many women.

At the time his father worked writing GDs, Complaints and Diaries. Around 10 or 11 April 1971 his father decided that the family should seek shelter at Khetro Mohon Biswash’s home, which was 3 or 4 miles away from their house. The father remained at their home.

Poritosh testified that on 14 April 1971, after the death of the Principal of Kundashori, Notun Chandra Shing, he went to visit his father and asked him to leave the house and return to Biswash’s home with Poritosh. His father refused to leave. The witness testified that after that he saw Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, along with members of the Pakistani Army, come to the house. He testified that he hid himself in a bush and watched as  Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and Panjabi soldiers engaging in an altercation with his father. At one point the witness alleged that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury shouted to the soldiers “that person is dangerous, kill him!” Poritosh testified that after hearing this the Panjabi soldiers told his father to go into the house, but when he turned the soldiers shot him two times in the back. His father fell and the soldiers then covered him with two blankets which they covered with some sort of chemical powder and lit on fire. The witness stated that once the soldiers left to inform his family members about his father’s death. They later left the country for India because they felt unsafe. Continue reading →