Tag Archives: prosecution witness

1 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami –cross-examination of PW 3
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – examination of PW 24
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam –Defense Closing Arguments

Defense Counsel for  Motiur Rahman Nizami concluded their cross-examination of Prosecution witness- 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. The Tribunal scheduled the next hearing of the case for 15 April 2013.  In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Thereafter, Defense counsel cross-examined the witness. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings in the Chowdhury case until 4 April 2013.  In the afternoon the Tribunal heard Abdur Razzaq, senior Defense counsel for Gholam Azam, present the Defense’s Closing Arguments based on Charge 1 for conspiracy. The Tribunal then adjourned the Gholam Azam case until tomorrow, 2 April 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 3
The Defense cross-examined Rustom Ali Mollah, Prosecution witness 3. The witness testified that Tarek Khan Mojlish was 7 to 8 years younger than him. He said that Zohir Uddin Jalal is also younger than him but he could not specify by how many years. Rustom testified that he crossed the Bosila river by himself, on his way to Vayaspur and Rampur. He traveled alone and met Zohir Uddin Jalal, a freedom fighter who went by the name Jalal. The witness said that he did not meet with any other freedom fighters before meeting with Jalal. Additionally, he claimed that he did not meet any other freedom fighters during the war. He testified that he continues to live in the same house that he occupied during the Liberation War.

Continue reading →

31 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

The Tribunal began its proceedings at 12:00 pm today. In the case against Motiur Rahman Nizami the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. After the lunch break Senior Defense Counsel Abdur Razzaq presented the Defense’s Closing Arguments regarding legal issues and Charge 1.

Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 3
The Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. He testified that his father Rohom Ali retired in 1986. He did not know when his father began his job. Rustom testified that he did not complete primary school. He could not remember whether he went to the New Eskaton circuit house in 1971 or not. Rustom testified that he went to the recourse field on 7 March 1971 to hear the speech of Sheikh Mujib Rahman. He said that he does not know who the leader of Awami League or Chhatra League (student wing of Awami League) in Mohammadpur area was in 1971. He said that during the election of 1970 he was in Dhaka with his father. He testified that he did not know who won the Mohammadpur area elections in 1970. He claimed that in 1971 Khan Mojlish was the principal of the Physical Institute. He testified that now his son Tarek Khan Mojlish is the principal of this institute. Rustom denied that Tarek Khan Mojlish is older than him. The witness acknowledged that his father no longer lives with him and that he lives Rustom Ali’s sons from his first wife. He said that his first wife died. He could not specify the year when Tarek Khan Mojlish became the principal of the Physical Institute. He said that in 1971 the length of a course at the Mohammadpur Physical Training institute was 10 months and now the length of this course is 1 year. He did not know which subjects were taught in this course but said that it is basically a training center to teach gym teachers.

Continue reading →

28 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal, Shortened Coverage

Today due to an opposition led hartal (strike) our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. We have compiled the following summary from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 22

Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury cross-examined Anil Baran Dhar, PW-22. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until April 1, 2013

Cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 22
Prosecution witness 22, Anil Baran Dhar, testified that he filed a case at the Raozan Police Station on 5 April 1972 under section 148/149/302/34, accusing 16 persons including Salauddin Qader Chowdhury and his father Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. However, the witness testified that he cannot remember whether a Charge Sheet was issued against Fazlul Qader Chowdhury and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. He said that after filing the case he did not stay up to date on the case’s progress and denied that he actually knew everything about the case. Dhar testified that the Pakistani Army first went to Raozan on 13 April 1971. He said that he could not remember whether Sheikh Mujibur Rahman used his speech on 7 March 1971 to call on the people to form Shangram Parishad (committees for preparation of conflict) in each and every village and town to stand against Pakistan. Dhar testified that he did not know whether any committee was formed in Raozan to stand against Pakistan. He additionally said he did not know what was written on his SSC certificate as his date of birth.

Continue reading →

25 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman

The day’s proceedings began later than usual due to the late arrival of senior Prosecutor Saiful Islam. The court sat at 10:35 A.M but adjourned for half an hour after waiting for the Prosecutor to arrive. After his arrival the Tribunal reconvened and chastised the Prosecutor for his tardiness. They warned that he would face sanctions if similar incidents occured in the future.   The prosecutor then moved on to address the evidentiary aspects of each of the charges against Kamaruzzaman.

Charge 1:  Torture and murder of Badiuzzaman
Date of Occurrence: 29 June 1971 and 30 June 1971.
Place of Occurrence: Ahammad Nagar Army Camp
Witnesses in support of the Charge: Prosecution witnesses  4 and 6.

Both the prosecution witnesses in support of this charge provided testimony based on hearsay evidence. Prosecution witness 6 additionally gave testimony in relation to some circumstantial evidence. The testimony of Prosecution witness 4 involves multiple hearsay, meaning that the information was relayed through more than one person before being received by the witness. Prosecution witness 6 testified that Kamaruzzaman accompanied the group who abducted the victim. The Prosecution argued that they have evidence showing that the accused led the group. However, the judges stated that  such evidence would not be of high significance because Charge 1 against Kamaruzzaman is not framed under Section 4(2) of the ICT Act of 1973, which provides for liability due to command responsibility.

Continue reading →

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination of PW 23

25 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings vs. the Economist – Reply from Respondent
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Hearing of Request for Police Escort, Prosecution Witness 23

Today Mustafizur Rahman, counsel for the named respondents in the contempt proceedings against the Economist, submitted their reply and the Tribunal fixed 24 April 2013 for a hearing. The South Asian Bureau Chief of the Economist and the Chief Editor of the London based weekly were named in contempt proceedings that the Tribunal initiated on 6 December 2012. The Tribunal issued a notice asking them to show cause why action for interference with the ongoing trials and violating the privacy of a judge in conjunction with the publication of alleged skype conversations between the former Tribunal 1 Chairman and foreign lawyer Ahmed Ziauddin.

Today the Tribunal also heard arguments from Ahsanul Huq Hena, Senior Defense Counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, in support of his application for police protection coming to the Tribunal during hartal (strike) days. The advocate submitted that he represents Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Mobarak Hossain alias Mobarak Ali, and Abdul Alim. Hena stated that he is does not belong to any political party and comes to court in a professional context. He further submitted that on his way to the Tribunal he has been followed and threatened in offensive language by people outside the court. Because he resides far away from the Tribunal and has to cross several areas to come to the Tribunal, Hena stated that it is unsafe and troublesome for him to attend proceedings during hartal days.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon agreed with the Defense application and stated that if the provisions of law (he did not make it clear which law) allowed Prosecution counsel to receive police protection then Defense Counsel should be similarly assisted. The Tribunal verbally allowed the Defense application and asked Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon to communicate the Tribunal’s approval to the police. The Tribunal also scheduled 27 March as the date for passing its order regarding this application.

After hearing the Defense application, the Tribunal then turned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 23, Bano Gopal Dash. After the completion of the cross-examination the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 27 March 2013.

Continue reading →