Tag Archives: ICT

17 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Closing Arguments, Prosecution’s Reply

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Request for Adjournment
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs, Gholam Azam: Prosecution’s Reply to Defense Closing Arguments, Defense Rebuttal

Because today was fixed for the Prosecution’s reply in the Gholam Azam case, Ahsanul Huq Hena, Defense counsel for Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, requested adjournment of the Chowdhury case until 21 April 2013. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for the day and scheduled the case to be heard tomorrow, 18 April 2013.

Today in the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s reply to the Defense’s Closing Arguments. Prosecutors Sultan Mahmud Simon, Turin Afroz and Haider Ali submitted arguments. After the completion of Prosecution’s submissions the Defense was given 25 minutes for their rebuttal. After hearing both sides the Tribunal officially took the case under consideration awaiting verdict.

Prosecution’s Reply
Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon began by arguing that counsel for the Accused had presented only one theory of defense, being that Gholam Azam had supported Pakistan during the Liberation War with the purpose of maintaining the unity of Pakistan. Simon questioned whether such support could be considered lawful after Bangladesh’s declaration of independence on 26 March 1971. The Prosecution submitted that the Tribunal must consider the entirety of the case against Gholam Azam in light of the historical events of 1971. He submitted that Prosecution proved each element of the alleged crimes through sufficient oral and documentary evidence. The Prosecution also asserted that paragraph 6 of the Formal Charge discussed the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Prosecutor Simon read out sections 9, 10, 16 and 19 of the ICT Act of 1973 and talked about judicial notice.

The Tribunal Chairman asked whether the Prosecution had exhibited the documents (including some reports published in international media regarding the atrocities committed in Bangladesh in 1971) referred to in the Formal Dharge. The Prosecution replied that seven books had been submitted and that the Tribunal had been asked to take them under judicial notice. The Defense dissented and claimed that the Prosecution did not exhibit the documents that the Tribunal is specifically requesting.

The Prosecution argued that Gholam Azam supported Pakistan despite being aware of the atrocities committed by the Pakistani army on 25 March 1971. Prosecutor Simon referred to ‘Jibone Ja Dekhalm’ (Exhibit-H) and also submitted that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces were known internationally at the time. The Prosecution claimed that the Defense failed to produce a single document showing that Gholam Azam criticized the atrocities committed by the Pakistani occupation forces. Prosecutor Simon claimed that this proves Gholam Azam’s involvement in and support for the atrocities.  Continue reading →

16 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Examination-in-Chief of PW 4, Abdus Sobhan Submission of Investigation Progress Report

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Investigation of Moulana Abdus Sobhan

In the Nizami case the Prosecuttion and Defense respectively conducted the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 4, Habibur Rahman Habib. The case was then l adjourned until 18 April 2013.

In the ongoing Investigation of Moulana Abdus Sobhan the Prosecution a progress report.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami – Prosecution witness 4
Today the Tribunal heard testimony from Prosecution witness 4, the former freedom fighter Habibur Rahman Habib.

Prosecution’s Examination-in-Chief
Habibur Rahman Habib first testified about his personal details, including his profession, family, and education. He stated that in 1971 he was Zilla Muktijuddha Commander, the Pabna district commander of freedom fighters. The witness claimed that until 10 April 1971 Pabna had been free from Pakistani occupation. On 11 April 11 the Pakistani forces took control of Pabna. The witness stated that he, his elder brother Shahidullah and as many as 300 or 400 students fled to India. In India he took shelter at Kachuadanga Camp in Shikarpur. Later he went to Deradun with a 45 member team where they received 45 days of training. Then they left Deradun to return to Pabna.

Habib testified that while in India he learned that Moulana Kasimuddin, the headmaster of the Pabna Zilla School, had been killed. The witness stated that he had been close friends with Shibli, the son of Moulana Kasimuddin. The night of 19 August 1971 Habib said he went to meet Shibli to convey his sympathies and Shibli told him the story of his father’s murder.

Habib testified that Shibli told him that on 4 June 1971 his father, Moulana Kasimuddin, told the family members that he would not be safe in his house because Motiur Rahman Nizami had made a list of people to be killed and Kasimuddin’s name appeared on the list. Kasimuddin attempted to hide himself and boarded a bus from Tematha. However some Jamaat leaders identified him on the way and handed him over to the Pakistani Army. Habib testified that Kasimuddin was then taken to the Nurpur army camp. Shibli told Habib that his father was physically and mentally tortured at the camp. Shibli told him that his mother, brother and sisters went to Nurpur camp and begged for the life of Kasimuddin. Shibli also said that his family members begged Nizami for mercy and asked him to free Kasimuddin. Shibli told Habib that in reply Nizami told Kasimuddin’s wife “Tell your husband to give training to the freedom fighters.” Habib testified that Kasimuddin had given training to students with dummy rifles during the Oshohojog Movement at Pabna Zila School. Continue reading →

11 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Adjournment

Due to an ongoing nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following brief summary 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. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman

Today the Tribunal adjourned the Kamaruzzaman case for the fourth consecutive day due to the absence of the senior Defense counsel. The Defense stated that the senior counsel were unable to attend due to personal difficulties resulting from the hartal.  The Chairman of the Tribunal reiterated that the Defense has been granted the right to use law enforcement if necessary on Hartal days. The judges stated that absence amounts to obstruction of the judicial process. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that given the present political situation, hartals are becoming more frequent. Therefore the Tribunal cannot continue to adjourn proceedings and would close the Defense’s case if they fail to attend on upcoming hartal days. 

11 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak Hossain Investigation, Gholam Azam Adjournment

Due to an ongoing nation-wide  hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Investigation of Mubarak Hossain
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

Today Ahsanul Huq Hena, senior Defence counsel for Mubarak Hossain, submitted the Defense’s request for the discharge of his client from the case. The Defense also requsted bail. Prosecutor Zahed Imam opposed the bail prayer. After hearing both sides the Tribunal scheduled 23 April for the passing of its order.

In the Gholam Azam case the Defense requested an adjournment until Monday, 15 April, because senior Defence counsel Abdur Razzaq was unable to attend due to “personal difficulty.” Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the prayer. The Tribunal passed an order scheduling 15 April for the Defense’s Closing Arguments. The order stated that further requests for time extensions would not be allowed under any circumstances.

10 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 15, Kamaruzzaman Adjournment

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and the Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman

Examination in Chief of Alim Prosecution Witness 15
In the Alim case the Prosecution called Prosecution witness 15, Mozammel Hossain. The witness is allegedly the survivor of an assault mission in Jaipurhat. The witness testified that at least 22 Awami League supporters were killed during the and assault conducted by the Pakistani Army during the 1971 Liberation War. Hossain stated that the Pakistani Army acted based on a list of targets provided by the Accused, Abdul Alim, who happened to be a veteran Muslim League leader and Peace Committee member at that time.  The witness claimed that the alleged list contained his name. He said that the attack was directed against local Awami League supporters at the time. Hossain alleged that such supporters were first taken from their village mosque to the nearby village of Birala where they were lined up. People whose names did not appear on the list were released while the rest were taken to Chakpahananda village. There they were tortured and killed. The witness was one of the survivors.  While describing the atrocities the witness showed the court scars from his injuries.

Kamaruzzaman Adjournment due to Absence of Defense During Hartal
Kamaruzzaman’s case was also listed in the daily cause list. Mr Abdur Razzaq, the senior Defense counsel for the accused was again absent due to the ongoing hartal. A junior counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused informed the Tribunal that the senior counsel is unable to attend proceedings on hartal days.  The case was therefore adjourned.