Tag Archives: liability

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 →

14 August 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Closing Arguments, Prosecution Rebuttal

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the seventh day of the Defense’s Closing Arguments in the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case. The Tribunal had instructed the Defense yesterday that they needed to conclude their arguments within the first hour of today’s session. After the Defense completed their arguments the Prosecution presented its rebuttal. The Tribunal then closed the case pending judgment.  Continue reading →

20 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Defense Closing Arguments, Civilian Command Responsibility

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee – Two Defense Applications (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing Arguments on Civilian Superior Command Responsibility (Accused not Present)

On March 20, 2013 Defense counsel for Delwar Hossain Sayedee submitted two applications. The first was a request for bail in regard to two cases filed against Sayedee in the Pirojpur Sadar Police Station Case No 9(8)09 and Zianagar Police Station Case No 4(9)09. The second application requested certified or authenticated copies of the FIR, Charge Sheet, Statement of witnesses and other relevant documents related to these cases in Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and Zianogor Police Station. The Tribunal fixed 21 March 2013 to hear the applications.

In the Gholam Azam case the Tribunal heard Defense counsel Imran Siddiq’s response to the Prosecution’s submissions on the issue of whether a civilian can have superior command responsibility. Prosecutor Turin Afroz submitted arguments for the Prosecution on 18 March 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam:
The Defense argued that the doctrine of command responsibility as described under Section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973 is not applicable to civilians.

Interpretation of Law and Intent of Legislation
In support of the Defense’s position, Imran Siddiq argued that the legislative intent behind the passage of the ICT Act 1973 and its subsequent amendments showed that command responsibility was only applicable to military or auxiliary forces. He submitted that when the section 3(1) of the ICT Act 1973 was amended in 2009 to add “individual or a group of individuals” to the court’s jurisdiction, Parliament omitted to amend section 4(2) which codifies the doctrine of superior responsibility or command responsibility. Therefore the Defense argued the Prosecution cannot rely on section 4(2) to claim that an “individual or group of individuals” are liable due to command responsibility. Imran Siddiq argued that the text of Section 4(2) clearly limits the doctrine’s application to commanders and superior officers of military and auxiliary forces, showing that it is not applicable to civilians. He emphasized that the use of the terms ‘commander or superior officer’ and ‘persons under his command or his subordinates’ in Section 4(2) support the Defense’s position. Additionally, the Defense cited to Section 134 and 135 of the Penal Code, the Army Act of 1952, Air Force Act of 1953, Navy Ordinance of 1961, Bangladesh Rifles Order of 1972, Battalion Ansar Act of 1995 and Armed Battalions Ordinance of 1976. Imran Siddiq noted that none of these Acts have used the term of “superior officer” or “commander” to describe the authority of a political party leader or a civilian.

Continue reading →