Tag Archives: International Crimes Tribunal

5 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense continued presenting its Closing Arguments for the third day. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 7 August 2013. Tomorrow, 6 August is a government holiday.

Statements under section 19(2)
The Defense argued that Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973 can be used arbitrarily due to its construction. Section 19(2) of the ICT Act 1973 states that the Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement recorded by a Magistrate or Investigation Officer being a statement made by any person who, at the time of the trial, is dead or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which the Tribunal considers unreasonable. The Defense argued that the word used in this section is ‘may’ which means this section is discretionary and there may be some exceptions. The section also used the words ‘any person’ and is not specific about the maker of the statement. The Defense remarked that where the statement is recorded by a Magistrate the statement is to be signed by the declarant and accompanied by a memorandum, similarly to Bangladesh’s Criminal Procedure Code. However, Section 19(2) allows for statement made to the Investigation Officer to be admitted into evidence, despite the fact that these statements are not signed by the declarant. The Defense argued that, under Bangladeshi law, statements made to the police, and therefore to the Investigation Officer, carry no value and should not be admitted into evidence.  The Defense therefore asserted that the open ended nature of Section 19(2) shows that there is scope for its misuse.   Continue reading →

4 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena presented the second day of their Closing Arguments.

The Defense argued there is no link between Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and any political party or auxiliary force that was involved in atrocities during the 1971 war. The Defense referred to the testimony of the Investigation Officer who asserted that Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, was the associate of the ruling party of Pakistan and that Fazlul supported the Pakistani occupation forces and assisted them and directly or indirectly committed crimes with his followers. The Investigation Officer additionally claimed that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was inspired by his father’s political ideology and with the help of Pakistani occupation forces he and his followers also directly or indirectly committed mass killings and Crimes Against Humanity in Chittagong. The Defense argued that one cannot assume that sons always follow the ideology of their fathers. They argued that the Investigation Officer failed to present evidence in support of his claims. There is no document to show that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury followed the political ideology of his father or participated in the election campaign of his father. Continue reading →

22 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Khan & Mueen Uddin PW 16, Alim Cross-Examination of PW 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the case against Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, who are being jointly tried in absentia, the Tribunal heard the testimony of Prosecution witness 16. Both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination were completed today. The testimony of Prosecution witness 16 supports Charge 6, which alleges that they were responsible for the abduction and killing of Professor Gias Uddin Ahmed, among other intellectuals.

In the case against Abdul Alim the Defenst resumed its cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, Prosecution witness 35. The Defense’s questioning focused on the investigation procedure followed by the Officer and the authenticity of various documents submitted into evidence.  Continue reading →

22 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Abdus Sobhan Pre Trial Proceedings, Contempt Proceedings against Human Rights Watch

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against Abdus Sobhan
  2. Contempt Proceedings against Human Rights Watch

On 19 August 2013, Prosecution in the case against Abdus Sobhan filed an application requesting permission to interrogate the suspect in the safe home under Rule 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The Defense submitted a written objection against the application. Today the Tribunal heard arguments from both sides regarding the application. The Prosecution submitted that the investigation is in its final stage but asserted that for proper and effective investigation the Investigation Officer is required to interrogate the accused. The Prosecution further argued that for total verification, interrogation in the safe house is necessary.

Continue reading →

21 August 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin PW 15

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

Tribunal 2 heard the testimony of Prosecution witness 15 in the case against Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, both of whom are being tried in absentia. The testimony of the witness is relevant to Charge 6 of the case which alleges that the Defendants led a group of armed Al-Badr men in abducting Professor Gias Uddin Ahemed, Professor dr. Serajul Haque Khan, Dr. Md. Mortuja, Dr. Abul Khayer, Dr. Foyzul Mohiuddin, Professor Rashidul Hassan, Professor Anwar Pasha, and Professor Dr. Santosh Bhattacharrjee from their residences on Dhaka University campus. These victims are among the targets of the ‘intellectual killings’ that occurred just before the surrender of the Pakistani Army. The Defendants are charged with abduction as a crime against humanity, or in the alternative, with extermination as a crime against humanity, or in the alternative murder as a crime against humanity. Both modes of joint criminal enterprise and superior command responsibility are alleged as modes of liability. Continue reading →