Tag Archives: Tribunal 2

Weekly Digest Issue 11: March 31- April 4

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

This week Tribunal 1 dealt with the Motiur Rahman Nizami, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, and Gholam Azam cases. In the case against Nizami the Defence cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal heard both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Gholam Azam’s Defence counsel continued their Defence Closing Arguments, addressing the conspiracy allegations under Charge 1, as well as legal arguments on incitement. Proceedings were delayed by hartals and the absence of Defense counsel.

In Tribunal 2, the Court heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, during which they addressed evidentiary issues including hearsay, and legal arguments about the standard of complicity and under the doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Due to the hartal on 2 April, ICT 2 convened only briefly to allow the Prosecution to complete their examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case. On 3rd April the Defence began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, addressing factual issues in Charges 1-3 and responding to the legal issues raised by the Prosecution during their Closing Arguments.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →

25 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Cross-Examination PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution Witness 17
  2. Submission of Formal Charges against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The case against Abdul Alim was the lone case scheduled in Tribunal 2 for today. Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena very briefly cross-examined Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar who gave testimony against the accused as Prosecution witness 17.

Additionally, the Prosecution submitted Formal Charges and related documents against Mr. Chowdhury Moinuddin and Mr. Ashrafuzzaman Khan. 16 charges have been proposed by the Prosecution against these two new accused, both of whom live outside of Bangladesh.

The Defense suggested did not attempt to discredit the witness’ prior testimony in a targeted manner. They alleged that the Abdul Alim never went to Akkelpur during in 1971. Despite the Defense’s suggestions the witness affirmed his statement that the Razakars said that detainees could be released only with permission from Alim. The witness said that Alim gave a short speech in Akkelpur in Suleman Kabiraz’s Mill ghor. He said that the Accused warned those present that their land was part of Pakistan and that agents from India would not be tolerated.

After this brief examination the court adjourned for the day.

24 April 2013: ICT-2 daily Summary – Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 17

Today our researchers were unable to attend proceedings due to a nation-wide hartal. Our coverage is compiled from media sources as well as conversations with the Prosecution and the Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Prosecution witness 17, Accused Present

The prosecution called for Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar to give testimony as PW-17 in the case against Abdul Alim. The witness is a resident of Akkelpur in Jaipurhat and gave evidence mainly in support of Charge 6.

The witness stated that the first week of May 1971 he heard that the Pakistani Army took three people into their custody from amongst fourteen to fifteen people who were hiding in the house of Bhatsha Union Parishad chairman Mr Syed Ali. The group was allegedly fleeing to India because of the war. The remaining people from the group were handed over to the Akkelpur Peace Committee and detained in the waiting room of Akkelpur Railway Station. The witness testified that during the three days of detention there, various Razakars assured the detainees that they would be free to go if Mr. Alim ordered them to be released the same. The prosecution witness testified that he heard this information from locals in the area.

The witness stated that the detainees were later shot by the Pakistani Army near Bakjana station after few members of Razakar forces, including Makbur Kabiraj, Moti Chairman and Boor Bakhth, delivered them to the army. One Mozammel Hossain was the only survivor.

23 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abul Alim Prosecution Witness 16

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. Our coverage is compiled from media sources and conversations with the Prosecution and Defense.

the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Examination-in-Chief of Prosecution Witness 16, Accused Present

The Prosecution called Mr AKM Mahbubur Rahman to testify as Prosecution Witness 16.  Mahbubur is a local businessman, who is the nephew of victims allegedly killed on 26 May 1971. The witness testified in support of Charge 7, alleging that Alim was involved with the Pakistani army in the killing. Mahbubur stated that the Accused was a leading figure of the Peace Committee, and that he helped to form an anti-liberation force in Jaipurhat and Panchbibi. This auxiliary force, known as Rajakar Bahini, apprehended and delivered unarmed civilians and supporters of Bangladeshi independence to the Pakistan Army. They also committed arson and looting.

Mahbubur stated that on 26th May 1971 the Pakistan Army raided their home in Nowda village, based on information collected by two Rajakars, Ahmed Bihari and Rashid Bihari. The witness and his elder brother Bazlur Rahman hid but were able to see the incident. With the assistance of Ahmed and Rashid, who announced that the Army was there to restore peace, the witnesses’ uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar, Yunus Uddin Sardar  and Ilias Uddin Sarder were taken into the custody of the Pakistani Army. Mahbubur testified that his cousin Abul Kashem Sardar went to attempt to get the men released. The witness said that Abul Kashem was advised by some Peace Committee members to talk to Abul Alim about the matter.  Upon returning from Alim’s Peace Committeee office in Shaon Lal Bazla’s Godighor, Kashem said that Alim denied to release the victims because they were suspected of being affiliated with the freedom fighters. The witness said that he and others heard gunshots coming from Kali Shaha’s pond in the evening at around 6:30 p.m. The family knew that the detainees had been shot to death.

After the incident, Mahbubur said that he and his family fled to India and only returned after independence. The witness said that they later disinterred their bodies from the mass grave near Kali Shaha’s pond and reburied them following appropriate burial rituals.