Tag Archives: prosecution witness

23 January 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary

The Tribunal heard the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Suranjit Sen Gupta
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs.  Abdul Alim: Cross examination of Prosecution Witness (Accused Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness  (Accused Present)

At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, Mr Rana Das Gupta, counsel for the prosecution brought to the court’s attention the comments made by MK Anwar, a member of BNP standing committee on January 20th, a day before the announcement of ICT-2’s first judgment. Mr Gupta submitted that the BNP veteran’s comment – that the ongoing trials of the war criminals have been staged by the government to serve its political purposes – will adversely affect the public perception as to the tribunal’s independence. The chair of the tribunal in response to the prosecution’s averment opined that such a statement is purely a political one and it is correct to say that the Government’s decision to form the International Crimes Tribunals was an executive decision and that is a part of the ruling party’s political manifesto. The Tribunal asked the prosecution to submit a written application precisely enumerating questionable statements made by Gupta.The court made it clear that it will only proceed with contempt proceedings if MK Anwar’s comment appears to be on a sub-judice matter. At this point, the court expressed its appreciation for Defense counsel Tajul Islam, for his comment to the media whereby he stated that the judgment in the case against Abul Kalam Azad Bacchu will not affect the decision of other pending cases.

Counsel for Mr Suranjit Sen Gupta requested adjournment of the hearing due to the unavailability of senior counsel. The court accepted the request and stated that it will fix and notify the next date for hearing.

The court then moved to Abdul Alim’s case wherein the prosecution witness PW-9, Mr Jahidul Islam was cross examined by the defense counsel, whose core line of questioning was aimed to undermine the credibility of the witness, suggesting that the testimony has been concocted at the Prosecution’s direction and that the witness could not have seen or heard of the participation of the accused. The case was then adjourned until 4 February 2013.

In the Kamaruzzaman case, Mr Md Azabuddin Miah, the Assistant Librarian of Bangla Academy testified as Prosecution Witness 16. He stated that Mr Abdur Razzak Khan, the Investigation Officer of the case collected a total of 257 paper extracts from daily and weekly papers published during the 1971 liberation war. Of these documents, only 6 extracted items have been exhibited for the tribunal’s perusal in support of the prosecution’s case against the accused. The tribunal disallowed the defense from referring to any other newspaper extracts from the bundle that has not been so exhibited.
Continue reading →

15 Jan 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Qader Molla, Alim, Mujahid

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Quader Molla – Defense closing arguments  (Accused Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim– Examination of Prosecution Witness (Accused Present)
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid – Examination of Prosecution Witness (Accused Present)

In the case of Qader Molla the Defense continued its closing arguments, attacking the prosecution’s evidence in support of charges 5 and 6. In particular they attacked the credibility of witnesses who had testified in support of the charges. The Tribunal urged them to complete their arguments and stated that they would only have one hour during tomorrow’s session to do so.

In the case against Mujahid, the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of their 12th witness, who provided testimony in support of Charge 7, pertaining to the killing of the witness’ brothe,r Biren Shaha, along with 8 to 9 others from the Hindu community on 13 May 1971.

Finally, in the case against A.M.Alim, the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of their 9th witness, Jahidul Islam, who testified in support of Charge 6, pertaining to the killing of Abdus Salam and nine others in early May 1971, as the victims were fleeing the conflict on their way to India.

To read in more detail please continue reading here: Continue reading →

3 January 2013: Tribunal 2 Daily Summary

Tribunal 2 heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Qader Molla -Defense petition for review of order dying permission to produce additional witnesses
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid – Cross examination of Prosecution Witness #11 [See here for more detail]
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman – application for retrial hearing [see here for more detail]
  • The Counsel for Defense made request for a later hearing date of the review application filed a for reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision denying the permission to produce additional defense witnesses. The request was immediately denied orally, along with the request for two hours of time for enabling the Senior Defense Counsel to appear. The Tribunal required the Counsel for Defense to make submissions instantaneously. The Tribunal rejected the review application reasoning that the ICT rules of procedure contain no provision allowing the defense to call additional witnesses and noting that only the prosecution may do so. The Tribunal further stated that the application was virtually identical to one rejected earlier, and that it must have been submitted in order to cause delay in the proceedings. The rejection was accompanied by a sanction of 10,000 BDT imposed on the Defense for submitting repetitive applications.
  • The court then moved to Mujahid’s case wherein the prosecution witness PW-11, Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, was cross examined by the defense counsel. The core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated and based on the coaching of the Prosecution, and that the witness neither knew the accused, nor was he capable of recognizing him.
  • Finally, the Court heard at length the application filed on behalf of Muhammad Kamaruzzam for the recall of the order by which the Tribunal took cognizance of the charges against him and for a full and complete retrial. The Defense argued that the perception of bias created by the leaked Skype and email conversations between the former ICT 1 Chairman and outside legal expert Dr. Ziauddin prejudiced the Accused’s right to fair trial and therefore necessitate a retrial. They supported these arguments with international legal precedents.  The court denied the application, firmly rejecting any such possibility of bias and condemning the content of Skype conversation. They stated that the statements in the Skype conversations were at all true, they reflected only on the former Chairman and Dr. Ziauddin. The Tribunal then passed  a suo moto order requiring Mr Ziaduddin, the Brussels based Bangladeshi international law expert, to explain, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, why contempt proceedings shall not be commence for his Skype conversations with the retired chairman of ICT-1 and the appearance that he was attempting to interfere with the independence of the tribunal. Prosecution witness PW-16 who was present expressed his inability to give testimony on that day due to his sudden illness.

3 Jan 2013: Cross-Examination of PW 11 in Mujahid Case

Chief of Prosecution vs. Mujahid
The Defense conducted the cross examination of Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, Prosecution Witness 11. The 82 year old witness had previously testified against Mujahid, providing testimony supporting  Charge 2 for abetting and substantially contributing to the actual commission of offense of persecution as crime against humanity and genocide. He stated that Mujahid was the leader of Islami Chatra Sangha and subsequently became the head of Al-Badar Bahini. The witness alleged that Mujahid, accompanied by one Hammad Moulana, 8-10 non-Bengalees, and a Mr. Ishaque went along with the Pakistani Army and launched an attack directed against Hindu populated villages such as Baidyadangi, Majhidangi, and Baladangi. The charge further alleges that they killed 50 to 60 Hindus by gun fire and by setting fire to their houses, and that they carried out these actions with the intent to persecute and destroy the Hindu Community.

The Defense focused its cross-examination on questions designed to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence and undermine the credibility of the witness, leading to an inference that he could not have identified the accused to be connected with the alleged charges because he did not know him during the liberation war.

  • The witness was asked during his cross-examination about his school, Yasin Muslim Hight School, Tepakhola (presently named as Government Yasin College) and about the Head Masters / Principals thereof during different regimes.
  • The Defense asked about the presence of Razakaars in the witness’ locality during the liberation war. He commented that his areas of Dicrichor, Chor Horiram and Gazirtech had none.
  • The witness was asked about the number of areas in Faridpur city named “Komlapur”and answered that there were three, namely, Komlapur, Kuthibari Komlapur and Chorkomlapur.
  • He was asked about the character of Mr Maolana Abdul Ali, the father of the accused, and testified to the affirmative in regard to his piousness, being an Imam and Islamic scholar, and that he was released upon the instruction of Bangabandhu  Sheikh Mujibur Rahman following the arrest in the post-liberation period.
  • He stated that he was not aware about the number of children Maolana Ali had, their education details and that he did not personally know the accused Mr Mujahid at all. He remembers seeing him only once, in the local Sadar Hospital, but admitted that he saw him only from the back side.