Tag Archives: Tribunal 2

6 March 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings Against Jamaat Leaders, Kamaruzzaman DW 1

6 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 1
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat leadership – Selim Uddin and others (Accused not present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman : Examination of DW 1

Defense counsel for the Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam said they were unable to produce their clients before the tribunal and that they that they had not been able to communicate to their clients the tribunal’s order requiring their attendance. Upon being asked by the tribunal about what may be done, the learned counsels said that they have no option but to surrender their vokalatnama, (the power as appointed advocates of the opposite parties) as it is not possible for them to continue representing the three Jamaat leaders. The tribunal asked the counsels to submit a written application to this effect and accepted their prayer of withdrawal as appointed advocates. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta submitted that an arrest warrant against the absent leaders should be issued by the Tribunal. He further stated that the opposition parties are intentionally disregarding the Tribunal’s order, showing their disrespect and lack of confidence in the institution.  The Tribunal thenissued an arrest warrant against the three leaders under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure read with Section 22 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. They noted that the court had granted time to the leaders on four previous occasions, repeatedly asking for their presence, but with no response. The Tribunal directed the Inspector General of Police to take necessary steps to secure the arrest of the Jamaat trio on or before 21 March 2013.

The Tribunal then moved on to the case against Muhammad Kamaruzzaman. The Defense called its first witness, Md. Arshed Ali, the son of a martyr Ekabbor Ali. After being examined by Defense counsel the Prosecution started its cross-examination. In his testimony Ali described how his father and many others were killed by the Pakistani Army on 10th Srabon of the Bangla calendar during the 1971 Liberation War in Shohagpur, Benupara and Kakorkandi area of Sherpur.   Cross-examination is scheduled to continue on 7 March 2013.

Courtroom Dynamics
During the examination-in-chief of the defense witness, there was an intense argument between Defense counsel Kafil and two of the Tribunal-2 judges: Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge Shahinur Islam. The argument started when the Defense objected to Judge Shahinur Islam asking questions to the witness. The Defense reacted by saying that he should be allowed to question his witness without interruptions. The Chairman said that contempt proceedings under Section 11(4) of the 1973 Act could be taken against the Defense counsel for similar behavior in future. The Defense counsel at one point said that he would withdraw himself and not continue before the Tribunal. After moments of silence, the situation calmed down after the Defense counsel offered his apology and the judges said that the court is a place to maintain decorum. Questioning was then resumed without any further incident. 

Continue reading →

27 Feb 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Adjournment and Fine

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Defense Petition for Time and Adjournment (Accused Present)

The Defense for Alim submitted a time petition before the Tribunal-2 requesting an adjournment of the case until Sunday, 3 March 2013. The Defense counsel said that the two other senior counsels engaged in the case are currently unavailable, one by reason of his illness and the other because of personal difficulty. The Tribunal Chairman commented that in the interest of justice the Tribunal must grant additional time when counsel is unable to appear because of personal difficulty. However, he stated that such absences cannot continue frequently and continuously. The delay should be compensated by cost implications. Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta submitted that the Defense should pay a cost of Taka 50,000 (fifty thousand), so as to communicate a message to everyone that causing delay will come with burdensome consequences.

The Tribunal adjourned the case until Sunday, requiring the Defense counsel to pay a total of Taka 2,000. The court said that this shall be paid from the counsel’s own pocket and the client should not pay or bear any burden. The Defense counsel said the fine would be paid and apologized for the unwanted delay in the proceedings.

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 (Accused Present)

The counsel representing M K Anwar filed a written explanation, as requested by the Tribunal, on behalf of the veteran BNP policy maker and stated that his client has the highest regard for the court and that his statements were misplaced and misinterpreted by the newspaper report. MK Anwar had allegedly made comments that the government is staging the ongoing trials of the alleged war criminals as a mechanism of vengeance against the leaders of its opposition parties. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta sought time for further hearing of the matter, stating that the prosecution will place its submissions after evaluating the written explanation filed on behalf of the opposite party. The matter fixed for hearing on 28 February 2013.

Counsel for the Jamaat leaders Mr Selim Uddin,  Mr Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Mr Rafiqul Islam sought adjournment of the matter for another week, stating that they could not appear by reason of unavoidable circumstances. The three leaders were ordered to personally appear before Tribunal-2 after contempt proceedings commenced against them following their comments about the tribunal during a public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. The prosecution strongly objected to their absence and stated an arrest warrant should be issued against each. The judges stated that the absent politicians must be personally present before the court on Sunday 3 March 2013 or face severe consequences.

Mr Kamaruzzaman’s case was adjourned until Sunday, 3 March 2013.

Finally, the cross-examination of Mr Shakti Shaha, PW-13 of the case against Mujahid was resumed by the Defenes and continued for the rest of the day.  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 is based on coaching by the Prosecution. It was suggested that the witness lives and works in India permanently. It is the Defense’s case that the witness never saw the accused and is a false witness who in reality is an Indian passport holder coming to Bangladesh illegally to give oral evidence. The Defense noted that he gave his previous statements to the Investigating Officer in India and claimed that this was because he is in fact an Indian resident. The Defense further suggested that the witness’ description of what he saw from the top of the tree (allegedly the participation of Mujahid and his associates in the killing of the witness’ father) is not only untrue and fabricated but also impossible and impracticable.

Continue reading →

ICT’s Legal Conclusions: Trial in Absentia

Trial in Absentia:
The first verdict issued by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) was in the case of Kalam Azad, a case that was held in absentia. It is alleged that Kalam Azad fled to Pakistan so as to avoid trial. Trial in absentia is a rare occurrence in international criminal law. While such trials were conducted during the Nuremberg trials, contemporary courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone have not allowed such trials.

Tribunal 2 addressed the issue of trial in absentia in its Final Judgment in the Kalam Azad case. This is a summary of their conclusions. Continue reading →

25 Feb 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Applications, Alim Continuance

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Two Defense Applications
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Defens Request for Additional Time

Today the Tribunal heard two Defense applications in the Kamaruzzaman case. The first was an application to recall the court’s order ending the cross-examination of Prosecution witness18, the Investigation Officer. The order was issued after Defense counsel Kafil Uddin Chowdhury failed to complete the cross-examination within the time stipulated by the court. On 20 February 2013 (Wednesday), the court instructed the Defense to finish the cross-examination before lunch break on Sunday, February 24th. The Defense was absent on Sunday however, due to the ongoing hartal (strike). The Tribunal nonetheless announced that the cross-examination was completed after the lunch recess on the 24th. The second application was a request to allow the Defense to submit additional documents into evidence.

In the Alim case the Tribunal granted a request from the Defense for additional time due to the inability of the senior Defense counsel to attend.

Continue reading →