Tag Archives: International Crimes Tribunal

18 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – ATM Azharul Islam and Mir Qasem Ali Pre-Trial Proceedings

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam
  2. Pre-trial proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali 

Today in the pre-trial proceedings against ATM Azharul Islam the Tribunal was scheduled to hear arguments regarding the framing of charges against the Defendant. However, the Defense filed two applications: one for adjournment and another requesting privileged communication with the Defendant. The Defense argued that they received numerous documents from the Prosecution and had not had sufficient time to examine them. Additionally they argued they needed additional time to prepare for the hearing on the charge matter and to consult with their client. The Prosecution opposed the applications, arguing that privileged communication is not appropriate at this stage of trial. After hearing both sides the Tribunal granted both applications and set 24 August for privileged communication between ATM Azharul Islam and his two defense attorneys from 10 am to 1 pm. The Proceedings were then adjourned until 29 August 2013.

The Tribunal then turned to pre-trial proceedings against Mir Qasem Ali in which it heard the Defense’s arguments for dismissal of the proposed formal charges against the Defendant. Continue reading

27 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Prosecution Application for Additional Witnesses

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

Today Tribunal the Tribunal heard an application filed by the Prosecution in the Nizami case requesting additional witnesses be admitted under section 9(4) of the ICT Act 1973. The Prosecution argued that under section 19(1) of the ICT Act 1973 the Tribunal is not bound by technical rules of evidence and so there is no bar to allowing additional witnesses at this stage of the proceedings. They further argued that during the investigation material witnesses were found and requested that they be allowed to testify in the interest of justice.

The Defense opposed the Prosecution’s  application. They noted that the Prosecution specifically mentioned that the Investigation Officer was conducting further investigation for the purpose of collecting additional witnesses. Citing Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, the Defense submitted that the investigation cannot continue for such an uncertain period of time. They asserted that the Prosecution applied for these additional witnesses because their case was insufficent. The Defense argued that the Prosecution did not even explain why they had failed to bring the witnesses from the previous list, a list containing more than 100 witnesses. They deemed the application to be demonstrative of malafide intent and submitted that if Tribunal allowed the additional witnesses at this stage of the trial it would hamper the Defense’s ability to prepare and thereby prejudice the Accused. They requested the Tribunal to reject the application.

After hearing both the sides Tribunal passed an order allowing five additional witnesses. The Prosecution then requested permission to call one of these witnesses to testify as he was present at the Tribunal. The Defense objected and the Tribunal questioned how the Prosecution had seen fit to bring the witness to the Tribunal when they could not have known how the Tribunal would rule on its application. The Defense requested an additional 10 days to prepare for the additional witnesses. The Prosecution opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no scope under law for giving such time. The Tribunal scheduled 29 August for recording the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 18 and 1 September for cross-examination.

27 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim DW 1, Khan & Mueen Uddin PW 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

Today in the Alim case Tribunal 2 recorded the testimony of Defense witness 1. Defense counsel Ahsanul Haque Hena conducted the examination-in-chief in the morning session while Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta conducted cross-examination of the defense witness during the second half of the day.

Additionally, the Tribunal recorded the testimony of Prosecution witness 18 in the case against Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, both of whom are being tried in absentia. Both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination were completed. The testimony of Prosecution witness 18 supports Charge 6, regarding the abduction and murder of Dr Abul Khayer and other intellectuals.

Continue reading

26 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Order On Defense Application

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

Today Tribunal 2 rejected a review application filed by the Defense on behalf of AKM Yusuf seeking review of the Charge Framing Order.  Only two members of the bench were present, Justice Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Md Shahinur Islam. Jointly they issued an order summarily rejecting the petition by reason of the Defense’s delay in submitting the application. The Tribunal did not accept the Defense’s argument that the delay in filing the application was due to a delay in obtaining a certified copy of the original Charge Framing Order. No other cases were listed in the court ‘s daily cause list and Chairman of Tribunal 2, Justice Obaidul Hassan, is currently on leave. The Tribunal then adjourned for the day.

26 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 17, Mobarak Hossain PW 8

Today in the Nizami case the Defense concluded it cross-examination of Jamal Uddin, Prosecution witness 17. Jamal Uddin testified in support of charges 2, 4 and 6. 

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Tribunal recorded the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 8, Abdus Samad, who testified in support of Charge 2. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 4 September 2013.

Continue reading