Tag Archives: investigation officer

3 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Hartal Brief Coverage: AKM Yusuf Transfer of Documents, Alim PW 32

Today due to a nationwide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Coverage of the following cases has been gathered from media sources as well as through conversation with both the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against AKM Yusuf documents pertaining to the allegations against him were formally transferred from Tribunal 1 to Tribunal 2. Tribunal 2 also directed the Gazipur jail authorities to transport the Mr. AKM Yusuf in an appropriate vehicle given his health condition. The direction was given after Mr Saifur Rahman, Defense counsel for the Accused, informed the Tribunal that the accused was brought to the court in a microbus as opposed to a prison van despite the fact that he is seriously ill.

The Tribunal then moved to the case against Abdul Alim and recorded the testimony of Prosecution witness 32, Mr Rafiqul Islam Raju, who is the Advertisement Manager of the Bogra-based Daily Bangladesh. The witness is a formal witness who exhibited two issues of his newspaper dated 17 January 1971 and 23 January 1971.  Both newspaper issues were seized by the Investigation Officer during the investigation into the current case.  The Defense summarily conducted the cross-examination of the witness. The court then scheduled 4 July 2013 for the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 11, who is being recalled following an application by the Defense.

26 June 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case, the Prosecution called the Cataloguer of the Bangladesh Press Institute as its first seizure list witness to formally exhibit various documents. However, the judges noted that the name of the person appearing as PW 27 is not on the list of Prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the judges opined that it would go against procedural practice of the Tribunal to allow the witness to give testimony despite not being included in the list of witnesses. The Tribunal adjourned for an hour, asking the prosecutor, Rana Das Gupta, to immediately submit an application praying for the addition of a witness.

The Tribunal then resumed after an hour of recess. Prosecutor Gupta submitted that this was an unintentional and mistaken omission on the part of the Prosecution, and requested that the Tribunal afford him an opportunity to rectify this mistake allowing the application. He stated that some of the names of seizure list witnesses were on a separate list already on record, with the exception of three witnesses. The application was allowed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the examination of PW 27 took place. PW 27, in the course of his testimony, exhibited various Prosecution documents for the Tribunal’s consideration. Defense counsel Hena then conducted a  brief cross-examination. 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-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.