Tag Archives: International Crimes Tribunal

13 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 24

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case the Prosecution called Prosecution witness 24, Bhagirath Chandra Barman, to testify. After the completion of the examination-in-chief the Tribunal scheduled his cross-examiantion for 16 June 2013. Barman testified as an eye-witness.

Examination-in-Chief
He is a relative of multiple victims. He provided his personal his details. He then stated that Alim was the chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which he claimed was an auxiliary force to the Pakistani Army. He stated that Alim was assisted by the Pakistani Army and the local Peace Committee members in committing the killings.

The witness stated that on a Monday, approximately in the second week of the Bengali month of Boishakh,1971, the Pakistani Armi entered the village of Kadipur accompanied by local Peace Committee members. Upon seeing them arrive the witness claimed he ran towards his home and then attempted to escape towards the north along with his family members. However, before they could manage to escape, members of the Peace Committee and the Pakistani Army surrounded them.  The witness stated that around 50 to 55 people of the local community were gathered near the bank of a pond located to the east of the witness’s house. The pond is locally known as “Dom Pukur.” The witness stated that the Peace Committee members then segregated the men from the women and took them to the slant of the pond. 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 →

2 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 30 and 31

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The prosecution in Alim’s case called Md Mobarak Hossain, the Chief Librarian of Bangla Academcy, and Md Azabuddin Miah, the Assistant Librarian, to give testimony as Prosecution witnesses 30 and 31 respectively. The testimony of both witnesses was formal and brief and used to verify documents submitted into evidence by the Prosecution. The Defense conducted a very brief cross-examination of the witnesses as well. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of Prosecution witness 32 for 3 July 2013.

Prosecution witness 30: Chief Librarian of Bangla Academy
The Prosecution asked the Md Mobarak Hossain about the documentary evidence he provided to the Investigation Officer. The witness stated that Mr Altafur Rahman, the Investigation Officer for the case, visited the ‘Journal Section’ of Bangla Academy to collect various reports of daily newspaper issues from the 1971-1972 periods. He seized newspapers including the Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sangram, Doinik Bangla, Daily Pakistan, Doinik Purbadesh, and the Daily Azad. The witness stated that the Investigation Officer collected made photocopies of the original, leaving the original with the Bangla Academy.

Cross-examination
On cross-examination the Defense asked the witness who is in charge of the Journal Section of Bangla Academy. In reply, the witness stated that there is no separate officer for the journal section and that the entire library including the journal section is under the supervision of the Chief Librarian. The Defense then drew the witness’ attention  to the exhibited seizure list submitted by the Prosecution. They noted that the  the list does not bear the witness’ name or signature. The witness stated that the materials had been seized from Bangla Academy and not from his personal custody and therefore his name required to appear on the seizure list.  The Defense then questioned the authenticity of the collected reports. The witness finally stated that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents exhibited.

Prosecution witness 31: Assistant Librarian of Bangla Academy
Md Azabuddin Miah testified that he is a subordinate officer under Prosecution witness 30, working as the Assistant Librarian at the Bangla Academy. He testified that he was present when Prosecution witness 30 gave the exhibited newspapers to the Investigation Officer and affirmed the statements of Md Mobarak Hossain. No new statement was made. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness.

12 June 2013: ICT- 2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 23

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

 Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23. The Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief on 9 June 2013.

Cross Examination of PW 23
Mr Mohammmad Abdul Hye, the brother of victim Fazlu, testified as Prosecution witness 23, providing circumstantial evidence. The Defense asked the witness various questions about his family, education and background. The witness stated that his date of birth is listed on his Secondary School Certificate as 6 October 1950 and that he regularly reads newspapers. He stated that two of his other brothers are living: Abdur Razzak Mondon and Aini Iliyas. He stated that Aini Iliyas is a journalist who used to work for the English daily newspaper, the Bangladesh Observer. He stated that his mother died two years ago.

 The Defense asked the witness about the formation and conduct of the Central Peace Committee. He stated that he does not remember when Central Peace Committee was formed but that it was probably in the beginning of April of 1971. In 1971, he stated that the Convention Muslim League, Council Muslim League, Karijum Muslim League were the existing religious political parties. He did not remember precisely who the head of Convention Muslim League was, but stated that it was probably Fazlul Qadir Chowdhury. He said that Khwaza Khoyer Uddin was part of the Muslim League but he did not remember which specific group he belonged to.  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.