Tag Archives: international criminal courts

16 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mubarak Hossain Opening Statements and Mir Qasem Ali Formal Charge

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain
  2. Investigation of Mir Qasem Ali

In the Mobarak Hossain case the Prosecution submitted its opening statement. Prosecutor Zahid Imam read out a prepared statement describing Mobarak as the traitor of Akhaura. He described the role played by Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Chattra Shangho (student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami), Peace Committee, Razakars, Al-Badr and Al-Shams from 25 March to 16 December 1971. The Prosecution alleged that Mobarak was the Razakar commander of Shohilpur, Brahmanbaria in 1971 and that he assisted the Pakistani army in the commission of atrocities.  The Tribunal fixed 20 May for hearing the testimony of Prosecution witness 1 and asked the Defense to submit all the documents, if any, they intend to rely on by 20 May 2013.

In the investigation of Mir Qasem Ali the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charge to the registrar with all relevant documents. The Tribunal fixed 26 May for its decision on whether to take cognizance of the charges.

Administrative Matters
Today the Tribunal warned the lawyer of Mubarak Hossain and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury for misleading the court. On 15 May, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena informed the Tribunal that on 19 and 21 May, Salauddin was required to go to Chittagong in order to appear in cases pending there on those days. However the Tribunal stated that it had found out that Salauddin had a case only on 22 May.

 

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35 and 36

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 35, Kamal Uddin and Prosecution witness 36, Ezab Uddin Mia.

Prosecution Witness 35
Kamal Uddin provided hearsay testimony in support of charge no 19. The charge alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed murder, abduction, confinement and torture as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Continue reading →

14 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Denial of Bail

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Therefore our coverage is very brief.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf

The Tribunal passed an order rejecting the Defens’s request for bail in consideration of the gravity of the allegations against the Defendant. The Tribunal  asked the jail authorities to ensure Yusuf’s proper medical treatment. They fixed 6 June for the next hearing in the case and asked the Prosecution to submit all its supporting documents.

13 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35, AKM Yusuf Bail Hearing

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecuto vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of AKM Yusuf

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 34, Dijoy Krishno Chowdhury. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because he did not assert any allegations against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

The pre-trial stage of the case against AKM Yusuf continued and the Tribunal heard the Defense’s bail application, fixing tomorrow for passing its order. Continue reading →

13 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 19

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Prosecution heard testimony from Prosecution witness 19 in the case of Abdul Alim. The witness described being detained and tortured by the Pakistani Army during the war in 1971. However, the witness did not make any incriminating statements about Alim. Because the witness was not making statements regarding alim the Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta requested that the Tribunal declare Prosecution witness 19 to be a hostile witness. The Tribunal granted the request and allowed the Prosecutor to effectively cross-examine the witness. At the end of the questioning the Prosecutor alleged that the witness was either intimidated by the Defense and their supporters or bribed to conceal the truth. The Defense did not cross-examine the witness, but commented that the witness is s stating truth of his own free will.

Prosecution Witness 19
Abed Hossain testified as Prosecution witness 19. He stated that on 18 June 1971, he was picked up by the Pakistani Army from the yard of a local mosque situated in his village or Chakbarkat Sonarpara, Jaipurhat district. He asserted that it was the Pakistani army who carried out the operation and detained many others along with him. He stated that the Pakistani army then tortured him while he was in custody. He thought that as many as 22 people were killed by the army, although he managed to survive.

During the examination in chief, the witness made no mention of Abdul Alim and thus did not support the Prosecution’s claim that the Accused was involved in the witness’ detention and torture. Even after repeated questioning by the Prosecutor the witness failed to identify any factor showing the involvement of the Accused in his abduction and torture. He also did not implicate Alim in the detention, torture or killing of any other person. The witness highlighted that the atrocities were committed mainly by the Pakistani Army.

The Prosecution then received permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross-examine him. During the cross-examination, the prosecutor Rana Das Gupta alleged that the witness was either politically motivated, financially manipulated or otherwise intimidated into changing his testimony.

The Prosecution asked whether the witness was a supporter of any political party and which political party the witness voted for in the last parliamentary election. The judges quickly interrupted and condemned this line of questioning, saying that such questioning would not be tolerated. The judges affirmed that the witness may vote for anyone of his choice and will never be expected to disclose his choices before the Tribunal. The cross-examination was then concluded by the prosecutor with the suggestion that the witness is concealing the involvement of the accused by reason of intimidation or corruption.

The Defense did not conduct a separate cross-examination of the witness and merely stated that the witness was voluntarily testifying and was stating the truth.