Tag Archives: Tribunal 1

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 →

3 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 Application and Closing Arguments

Today Defense counsel for Gholam Azam filed an application seeking the recall of yesterday’s order, citing the interest of justice. Yesterday, 2 April 2013, the Tribunal passed an order directing the Defense to conclude their Closing Arguments by 4 April 2013. The Defense argued that compelling them to conclude their Closing Arguments would seriously prejudice the Accused because they would be unable to adequately present the case.

The Defense requested an additional four days instead of the two currently allotted. Senior Defense counsel stated that he cannot make himself available on hartal days. He noted that the other courts of the country, from the magistrate level to the Supreme Court, do not convene on hartal days. Razzaq further stated that though he is supporter of a political party, he appears before the Tribunal solely as an advocate and has refrained from making any political statements over the last 3-4 years.

After making his submissions Tribunal 2 granted Razzaq permission to leave in order to appear before Tribunal 2.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the prayer and submitted that the application should be rejected summarily.

Defense Closing Arguments
Defense counsel Imran Siddiq continued the submission of Closing Arguments on behalf of Gholam Azam. He argued regarding the legal requirements of the charge of conspiracy, planning and incitement.

Conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity
Imran Siddiq submitted that section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act of 1973 does not describe the elements of the crime which the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Given the silence of the Statute on this matter, it is therefore necessary to look to Customary International Law in order to assess whether the Prosecution has sufficiently proved its case.

Imran stated that in order to convict the Accused of conspiracy to commit Crimes Against Humanity, the Prosecution must prove that i) there was an attack ii) the attack was widespread or systematic iii) the attack was directed against a civilian population iv) the attack was committed on national, political, ethical, racial or religious grounds and v) Gholam Azam acted with the knowledge of the attack. He cited to the ICTR case of Ntagerura (Trial Chamber), 25 February 2004, para 698.

Continue reading →

2 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Hartal – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments

Please note that today was a hartal and due to security concerns our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following brief summary is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam

Today was scheduled for the conclusion of the Defense’s Closing Arguments on legal points. Abdur Razzaq, Senior Defense Counsel for Gholam Azam was not present before the Tribunal. A junior Defense counsel member filed an application for adjournment on the grounds that the senior Defense members were facing personal difficulties. The junior also noted that the Defense had tried to pay the costs imposed by the Tribunal upon them on 27 March, but were unable due to a problem with the server of the concerned bank’s online network. He stated that they tried to pay another two times and so today sent a clerk to pay the cost directly.

Prosecutor Sultan Mahmud Simon opposed the application for adjournment. Prosecutor Turin Afroz submitted that the cost imposed does not reflect the value of the labor and time of judges, lawyers, officials and others which she claimed are being wasted because of the Defense counsel’s absence. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings until tomorrow, 3 April 2013. The Tribunal also passed an order directing the Defense counsels to finish the legal arguments by 4 April and noted that failure to do so would effectively terminate the Defense counsel’s Closing Arguments.

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 →