Tag Archives: prosecution witness

8 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination-in-Chief of PW 25 and 26

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

The Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury and Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman. After recording their testimony the Tribunal adjourned proceedings in the case until tomorrow, 9 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 25
The Tribunal first heard testimony from Prosecution witness 25, Abu Taher Chowdhury, a former freedom fighter. He testified that one morning at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin, house tutor of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury, had been taken by Shamsu, a UP chairman of the nearby village, the Pakistani army and others. The witness stated that as a freedom fighter he tried to find out Saleh Uddin’s whereabouts and learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Fazlul Qader Chowdhury’s home at Goods Hill. Abu Taher also testified that he had planned to rescue Saleh Uddin, but that the plan was not practically possible. Therefore he went to the leaders of the Muslim League in his village, Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi, and asked them to help rescue Saleh Uddin. He testified that in the next day Badsha Miah Saudagar and Nurul Huda Qaderi went to Goods Hill at about 10 or 11 am and were able to bring him back. The witness testified that after Saleh Uddin returned he told them that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and others beat him because he would not reveal the whereabouts of freedom fighters. Abu Taher testified that Saleh Uddin removed his Panjabi (long loose shirt) to show the injuries he had sustained. The witness stated that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 26
Prosecution witness 26, Md Solaiman, testified that Saleh Uddin had been staying at the house of Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury as a house tutor. Solaiman stated that at the end of July 1971 he learned that Saleh Uddin had been taken to Goods Hill by Shamsu, the Pakistani Army, and some Razakars. He testified that Harun, a student of Saleh Uddin, found out about his teacher’s abduction and went to Goods Hill along with Badsha Miah Saudagar and Shamsul Huda Maizha Miah. The witness said they were able to bring back Saleh Uddin from Goods Hill. Solaiman testified that after Saleh Uddin’s return, Solaiman and others went to visit Saleh Uddin and that he stated in front of everyone present that he had been persecuted based on the decision of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Solaiman testified that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer on 1 July 2011. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

7 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary, Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam: Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Defense continued their Closing Arguments, addressing Charge 3 for incitement and Charge 4 for complicity.

After the lunch break Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzak requested an additional working day in order to complete the Defense’s summing up. By mentioning “working day,” the Defense implied a non-hartal day. This week hartals have been called for Monday through Thursday.  The Defense does not attend the Tribunal during hartal days.

Charge 3:
Incitement to Commit Genocide
The Defense addressed each count of incitement contained within Charge 3. First, the Defense argued that none of Gholam Azam’s statements were designed to instigate or prompt others to attack or destroy members of any national, religious, ethnic or racial group. Considering the context of censorship surrounding news reports, the testimony of both Prosecution and Defense witnesses and submitted Exhibits, it is clear that none of  Gholam Azam’s statements, when interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning, were directed against members of the Hindu community, the Bengali civilian population or supporters of the Awami League. Secondly, the Defense argued that the Charge Framing Order does not adequately specify how Gholam Azam prompted, provoked or instigated criminal action, nor has the Prosecution brought any evidence on record to show that an identified perpetrator was so instigated, prompted or provoked. Thirdly, the Prosecution has made no attempt to establish that Gholam Azam had the required intention to destroy Hindus, members of the Awami League or the Bengali civilian population. Similarly, the Prosecution failed to prove that through his statements Gholam Azam intended to create genocidal intent amongst members his audience. Therefore the Defense stated that the Prosecution did not prove essential elements of the alleged crime.

Continue reading →

4 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman: Defense Closing Arguments

The day’s proceeding began with a Defense application for permission to meet with the Accused at the Kashimpur Jail. The Tribunal granted the application and allocated two hours (10:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.) on Sunday 7 April 2013 as the tentative date for two members of the Defense counsel to meet with Kamaruzzaman.

Following the defense application, senior Defense counsel for Kamaruzzaman, Abdur Razzaq, continued with the Closing Arguments on the legal issues pertaining to the charge of complicity in the commission of Crimes Against Humanity. The Defense also discussed the evidentiary aspects of Charge 3, which alleges Kamaruzzaman’s involvement the massacre and rape committed at Shohagpur. Razzaq also submitted arguments relating to Charge 2, which alleges the inhuman treatment of pro-liberation intellectual Syed Abdul Hannan. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of the relevant witnesses and between their testimony and prior statements to the Investigating Officer.

Complicity in Commission of Crimes Against Humanity
The counsel cited the ICTY Trial Chamber case of Tadic (more specifically paragraph 688 and 689 of the judgment) to claim that the crime of complicity requires intent, defined as awareness of the act coupled with a conscious decision to participate by planning, instigating, ordering, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Therefore the Prosecution must prove that the Accused participated in a way that contributed to the commission of the illegal act. The counsel further referred to the I.L.C. Draft Code’s legal findings in the Nuremberg cases whereby it concluded that an Accused may be found culpable if it is proved that he “intentionally commits such a crime” or, if he “knowingly aids, abets or otherwise assists, directly and substantially, in the commission of such a crime.”

The Defense argued no evidence has been given to show that Kamaruzzaman knowingly acted in a way that substantially and directly contributed to the commission of a crime. The Prosecution has failed to prove that Kamaruzzaman had the requisite intent of awareness or knowledge that crimes would be committed or were planned. Nothing has been presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he assisted, instigated, facilitated, or aided and abetted the commission of the alleged offences. Continue reading →

3 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – Defense Closing Arguments

The Defense began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case. Counsel addressed details pertaining to Charge 1 and the allegations of Kamaruzzaman’s involvement in the torture and killing of Bodiuzzaman. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of Prosecution witnesses 4 and 6, both of whom provided hearsay evidence. Additionally the Defense highlighted inconsistencies between each witness’ courtroom testimony and their previous statements to the Investigation Officer. The Defense argued that in order for hearsay evidence to be viewed as credible and reliable it should be consistent and supported by circumstantial evidence. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the Prosecution’s case for Charge 1 give rise to substantial doubt as to the guilt of the Accused.

Abdur Razzaq, the senior Defense counsel for the Accused, also addressed legal questions arising from the Prosecution’s case including admissibility and probative value of hearsay evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence, whether the statement of one hearsay witness can satisfactorily corroborate another, and whether corroboration is required. In the course of their submissions the Defense referred to and analysed judicial precedents from the ICTY and the ICTR and rebutted arguments made by Prosecutor Tureen Afroz on 31 March 2013. The Defense also referred to the text Archbold: International Criminal Courts Practice, Procedure and Evidence and some domestic cases.

The Defense stated that their final arguments would take a total of four days. They requested that the court accommodate their proposed timeline.

Charge 1
Evidentiary and Factual Arguments
The first Charge against Kamaruzzaman pertains to the killing of Badiuzzaman. The charge is supported only by the testimony of Prosecution witnesses 4, Fakir Abdul Mannan, and 6, Dr Md Hasanuzzaman, both of whom are hearsay witnesses.  The Defense argued that there are fundamental discrepancies between the two witnesses’ testimonies and the findings of the Investigation Officer. The Defense stated that these discrepancies and inconsistencies go to the very root of the Prosecution’s case. The testimony of these witnesses has been used to establish the Prosecution’s allegations about the purpose of Badiuzzaman’s visit to Ahammed Member’s House at Badiu where he was abducted, the presence of Pakistan Army at the time of abduction, Ahammed Member’s position during the Liberation War, the mode of Badiuzzaman’s arrest, and the identification of Kamaruzzaman.

Continue reading →

2 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Hartal, Mujahid Prosecution Witness, Kamaruzzaman Closing Arguments

Today due to security concerns relating to the hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mohammed Kamaruzzaman

Due to the hartal Tribunal 2 convened only for a brief session of an hour and a half.  The examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case was completed. The witness affirmed his prior testimony regarding his investigation findings that the accused acted as the President of Faridpur District Islami Chatra Shangha (ICS) during the pre-liberation and Liberation War periods. The witness also stated that the Accused later became the President of Islami Chatra Shangha’s Dhaka Unit, subsequently becoming Secretary and then President of East Pakistan ICS. The witness also submitted further documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The witness is scheduled to be cross-examined by the Defense on 7 April 2013.  

Kamaruzzaman’s case was also listed in the day’s daily cause list. The learned Senior Advocate for the defense Barrister Abdur Razzaq previously informed the tribunal that he would present the Defense’s Closing Arguments, and had therefore requested accommodation of his schedule as he his also representing Gholam Azam in Tribunal 1. Today Razzaq was not present due to the Hartal. Although the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for the day due to his absence, it was stressed that the Tribunal would terminate the Defense’s arguments if counsel continues to be absent. In such an event, the Tribunal stated the Defense would only be entitled to submit written arguments. Unlike Tribunal 1, no cost sanction for non-attendance has been imposed on the senior counsel by Tribunal 2.