Tag Archives: war crimes

9 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Defense Closing Arguments

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

 Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammed Kamaruzzaman

Tribunal 2 adjourned for the day after expressing its displeasure at the  absence of the senior Defense counsel for Kamaruzzaman, and the general pattern of absence during hartals.  The Chairman of the Tribunal noted that some Defense counsel in other cases are now using security services provided by the law enforcement agencies in order to reach the Tribunal on hartal days. The Tribunal stated that the counsel for  Kamaruzzaman should do the same. The judges stated that this absence is a disservice to the Accused. Furthermore the Tribunal said that given the political situation, they would consider applying Section-13 of the International Crimes (Tribunals ) Act 1973 in deciding whether to allow further adjournments. The judges instructed the junior Defense counsel to communicate these messages to his seniors. Additionally, the Tribunal stressed that it would close the Defense’s  Closing Arguments if the Defense continued to be absent on hartal days.

8 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 14

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution witness 14
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman – Adjournment

Due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings today. The following summary is compiled from media sources as well as conversations with the Defense and Prosecution.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
The Prosecution called former Awami League leader Mustafizur Rahman Chowdhury to testify as Prosecution witness 14. The witness testified in support of allegations that Alim worked alongside the Pakistani Army in looting and torching houses at Panchbibi of Joypurhat on 20th April 1971.  The witness  was not at home during the incident, having sought shelter in a relative’s house after he learned that the Accused and other Peace Committee members had warmly welcomed the Pakistani Army in Dinajpur Ghorarghat on the same day. The following day the witness returned home and found that his house had been burned. The witness testified that his family supported the Awami League and had given their support to the Awami League candidate Mafiz Chowdhury, the political rival of Abdul Alim in the 1970 Election. The witness also stated that Alim’s house was later attacked as an aftermath of the incident.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Kamaruzzaman’s case was listed in the day’s cause list. However, Senior Defense attorney Abdur Razzaq was not present because of the hartal. Tarikul Islam, a junior counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused, informed the Tribunal that the senior counsel remains at home on hartal days and requested adjournment on such days. Although the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings due to the Defense’s absence, it been stressed that hartals should not be used as an excuse for non-attendance.

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 →

4 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 Defense counsel Imran Siddiq continued presenting the Defense’s Closing Arguments. He added some additional arguments regarding the impact of censorship on the reliability of documentary evidence and then addressed Charge 3 which is for Incitement to commit crimes under section 3(2) of the ICT act of 1973.

Censorship
The Defense added some points to the arguments they submitted regarding censorship on 3 April. Imran submitted that a conviction cannot be solely based on newspaper reports where the newspaper reports have not been collaborated. The Defense submitted that it is evident from Exhibit-EK that the Chief Martial Law Administrator imposed restrictions on newspapers through the Martial Law Regulation no 77, prohibiting printing or publishing any news which is calculated to prejudicially affect the integrity or solidarity of Pakistan. The Defense argued that Prosecution Exhibit 3, a news report published in the daily Shangram 19 June 1971, shows that Gholam Azam called for the withdrawal of censorship restrictions. Imran also noted that Defense witness 1 testified that during 1971 the Martial Law Authority imposed censorship on mass media by official notification. The Defense pointed to pages 62 and 84 of the book Muktijuddho: Bibhinno Dristikon Theke, by Sadruddin, stated that due to censorship news received from East Pakistan was very limited and unreliable. The Defense further noted that the book Ami Mujib Bolsi, by Krtittibas Ojha, states that censorship was imposed on newspapers, radio and television were not allowed to publish without prior permission regarding the contents from the relevant authority. Continue reading →