Tag Archives: Salauddin Quader Chowdhury

21 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 8, Chowdhury PW 40, Mubarak Hossain PW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mubarak Hossain

In the Nizami case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witness  8, Khalilur Rahman, who testified in support of Charge 6. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until 26 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Kawser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, who testified regarding documents collected by the Investigation Officer. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena then conducted the cross-examination.

In the Mubarak Hossain case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Darul Islam, Prosecution witness- 1, who had testified in support of Charges 1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 22 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami
Cross-examination
The Defense asked Prosecution witness 8, Khalilur Rahman, about  Dhulaura village, its location, where the witness stayed before entering the village, the location where he allegedly found the corpses of those killed, the location of the banyan tree in which he hid, etc. These questions were aimed at undermining the witness’ version of events and casting doubt on the assertion that he was actually present during the commission of the alleged crimes. The Defense asked the witness whether he saw any Pakistani Army members before 27 November 1971. He answered that he had seen them in Dhaka, but could not remember when between 25 March and 16 December 1971 he visited Dhaka. The Defense asked what the intention was behind going to Dhulaura village. He answered that his group went in order to meet with the freedom fighters of the village. Specifically he named Nizam Uddin Chairman, but he could not identify the location of Nizam Uddin’s freedom fighters’ camp.

During the examination-in-chief, the witness testified that at about 3:30 am he heard the sounds of the army approaching. He opened the window and saw Nizami, other Razakars and members of the Pakistani occupation forces coming towards the house. The Defense claimed that at 3:30 in the morning it would have been too dark to recognize anyone through the window, particularly given there was no electricity in the area. The witness answered that there was moonlight. The Defense asserted that this was impossible given it was after Eid-ul-Fiter and the moon set at 1:23 am. Additionally they noted that the weather at that time was foggy, further undermining the witness’ testimony.

The Defense claimed that his initial interview with the Investigation Officer the witness did not acknowledge that Mazed was alive, and that he did not claim that he saw Nizami with other Razakars and members of the Pakistani Army. The Defense also claimed that the Witness did not originally allege that he saw members of the Pakistani Army enter a house with two young women. Additionally they stated that the witness did not tell the Investigation Officer that he knew Nizami before the Liberation War or that Nizami’s house was just 1 kilometer away from the witness’ house. The witness denied these suggestions and claimed that he had stated all these things during his initial interview.  TheDefense asked the witness about books written by Zohirul Huq Bishu and Rezaul Karim and claimed that the witness read the books and used them for his testimony. The witness denied the suggestion.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury
Kawser Shaikh, the official book-sorter of the divisional government library, testified as Prosecution witness 40. He testified as to the contents of documents being entered into evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.

Examination-in-Chief
Kowser Shaikh, Prosecution witness 40, exhibited photocopies of two news reports published in the Daily Pakistan in 1970, nine news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1970 and 17 news reports published in the Daily Ajadi in 1971.

Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that on 10 March 2011 when the newspaper cuttings were seized from the divisional government library the witness did not hold the post of ‘Assistant Librarian in Charge.’  The Witness admitted that he did not hold that title and added that he was the book sorter. The Defense claimed that all  the headings (heading, date, paper name) of the exhibited newspaper reports (Exhibit 37, 38/1 to 38/25) are computer composed and that the reports were scanned. The witness admitted that the headlines were generated via computer and the reports scanned. The Defense claimed that the editor of the Daily Ajadi newspaper ran against Fazlul Qader Chowdhury (father of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury) in the election of 1970.

Chief Prosecutor vs Mubarak Hossain
Cross-Examination
The Defense claimed that Rina Begum filed Case No. 26 against Mubarak Hossain in the Akhaura police on 28 May 2007. They stated that the witness also testified against Mubarak Hossain in that case as Prosecution witness 4. The Defense noted that Mubarak was acquitted in that case. The witness denied giving any testimony against Mobarak Hossain. The Defense asked if the witness knew that in Mubarak Ali had been acquitted on appeal. The witness said he did not know anything about the case. The Defense also claimed that the witness, as a non-commission officer following the Pakistan Military Rules, cannot obtain leave more than three months at a time. Witness denied this suggestion.

19 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – PWs 37, 38 and 39

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases: 

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Chapala Rani, Prosecution witness-37; Md Ersadul Haque, Prosecution Witness-38 and Mollah Abdul Hye, Prosecution witness 39. Thereafter, Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena conducted cross-examination. After the conclusion of the cross-examination Tribunal adjourned the case until 21 May 2013.

Prosecution Witness 37
Chapala Rani, the sister-in-law of victims Beni Madhab and Tarapada and daughter of victim Shatish Paul, testified as Prosecution witness 37. She testified in support of Charge 6 which alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i) and 3(2)(3)(ii), as well as deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Examination-in-Chief
Chapala Rani, testified that a day before Chaitra Sankranti (last day of Bangla year) in 1971 the Pakistan Army raided their area. At that time she was inside her house. The Pakistani Army knocked on the door of every house and gathered the villagers on the bank of the pond, owned by Shatish Mohazon who is the brother of Khitish Mohazon. Chapala said she and the others were crying. Her brother-in-law Beni Madhab tried to reassure them, saying that the Chairman Makbul and Salauddin Qader Chowdhury were present. However, she said that at that moment they (she did not specify who) opened fire on the villagers. Chapala testified that she became unconscious and her brothers-in-law Beni Madhab and Tarapada and her father Shatish Paul died. Continue reading →

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35 and 36

15 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

In Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 35, Kamal Uddin and Prosecution witness 36, Ezab Uddin Mia.

Prosecution Witness 35
Kamal Uddin provided hearsay testimony in support of charge no 19. The charge alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed murder, abduction, confinement and torture as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Continue reading →

13 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35, AKM Yusuf Bail Hearing

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecuto vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of AKM Yusuf

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 34, Dijoy Krishno Chowdhury. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because he did not assert any allegations against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

The pre-trial stage of the case against AKM Yusuf continued and the Tribunal heard the Defense’s bail application, fixing tomorrow for passing its order. Continue reading →

6 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 33

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: PW 33

Mahmud Ali, Prosecution Witness 33, testified in support of charge no 20, in which Salauddin Qader Chowdhury is charged with committing confinement, torture and murder as Crimes Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena cross-examined the witness. After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until May 13, 2013

Prosecution Witness 33
Examination-in-Chief
Mahmud Ali testified that he was a farmer in 1971. He testified that in the last part of July Razakars from the CO Office found Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai. When the Razakars attempted to detain Ekhlas, Ekhlas jumped into a pond. The Razakars detained him from the pond and took him to the Razakar camp located at CO office. Mahmud testified that the Razakars then took him to home of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury at Goods Hill. He claimed that Ekhlas was tortured there and subsequently died. 2 or 3 days later Ekhlas’s father brough his son’s body back for burial. Mahmud testified that he attended the Janaza (last prayer) for Ekhlas and that his body was buried in the bank of the pond. Mahmud acknowledged that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Cross-Examination
The Defense then cross examined the witness, first asking about his personal details, his siblings, father’s profession, etc. Defense asked the witness how far his house was from CO office and the alleged place of incident. The Defense also asked questions about the alleged place from where Ekhlas was detained by the Razakars with the aim to cast doubt on his testimony by showing that he was not familiar with the CO office and or the alleged crime site. The Defense implied that the witness could not have been present when Ekhlas was detained.

The Defense next asked the witness numerous questions about Goods Hill and Akubdandi, where Ekhlas resided in 1971, aiming to show that the witness was unfamiliar with those sites as well. Defense asked him whether he could name anyone still living who also attended the Janaza for Ekhlas. The Witness claimed that no one is left alive now. The Defense asked how old Ekhlas was in 1971 and where he studied at that time. They implied that the witness did not know the victim at all and was fabricating his testimony. The witness answered that Ekhlas was 16 or 17 years of age and was a student of matriculation when he died. Mahmud affirmed his prior testimony that he saw Ekhlas being chased and subsequently detained by the Razakars, and that he witnessed the victim being taken to the CO office. Mahmud admitted that he did not witness Ekhlas being taken to Goods Hill from the CO office.

The Defense alleged that Mahmud’s courtroom testimony introduces new allegations not included in his original statement to the Investigating Officer. They alleged that he did not tell the Investigating Officerthat the alleged incident took place in front of the shop of Kokai or that he himself witnessed the alleged incident. The Defense claimed that the Pakistani Army detained Ekhlas while he was throwing grenade. The Defense also denied thatEkhlas jumped into the pond. They further asserted that the Razakars had not yet been formed in July 1971. The Defense also suggested that the Pakistani Army sent Ekhlas to Chittagong Medical College Hospital. The witness denied each of these assertions.

The Defense additionally asserted that in his initial interview the witness did not tell the Investigating Officer from whom he heard that Ekhlas was taken to Goods Hill. The witness answered that the Investigating Officer did not ask. The Defense also claimed that he did not originally allege that Razakars came out from CO Office and apprehended Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai, that Ekhlas jumped into a pond, or that Razakars took him to the Razakar camp located at the CO office. The Defense also stated the witness did not inform the Investigating Officer of the location of the victim’s burial site. The witness answered that he included all these details in his initial interview. The witness said he could not recall the specific date and month when Ekhlas was buried. He stated that he knew Salauddin Quader Chowdhury from 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin was studying in Pakistan and could not have met Mahmud Ali. They also alleged that Mahmud never Ekhlas that he was giving false testimony in a false case for financial benefit. The witness denied these allegations.