Tag Archives: witness testimony

Special Report Issue 2: Detailed Summary of Kamaruzzaman Case and Verdict

We are pleased to release our second Special Issue Report on the Verdict in the Kamaruzzaman case. For a full pdf of the report please read here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

This special report provides a detailed summary of the International Crimes Tribunal’s fourth verdict, the Judgment in Chief Prosecutor vs. Md. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013 and was the third verdict to be issued by Tribunal 2. We have attempted to distill the major conclusions expressed by the Tribunal into a digestible format. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each distinct charge, general arguments made by both parties, and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. For the sake of length we have focused this report on the factual and charge specific findings within the Judgment. We will be publishing a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment that have particular bearing on the ongoing proceedings. This report does not critically analyze the legal merits of the Judgment. It is presented simply in order to facilitate broader access to and understanding of the ICT’s proceedings and conclusions.

Kamaruzzaman was found guilty on 5 of 7 Charges, specifically Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. All of the Charges alleged direct commission of Crimes Against Humanity or, in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Prosecution additionally argued that Kamaruzzaman could be found liable under the doctrine of Command Responsibility under Section 4(2). However, he was convicted solely of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity under Section 4(1) of the Act.  On the basis of Charges 3 and 4 he was sentenced to death. The Tribunal noted that charges 1 and 7 merited a life sentence, while Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under charge 2. All lesser sentences were merged into the death sentence.

Please read the entire report here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict

26 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Mir Qasem Ali Cognizance of Charges, Nizami PW 9, CHowdhury, PW 41,

Today due to a nation-wide hartal our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. The following summary has been 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 Mir Qasem Ali
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury  

On 26 May 2013, the Tribunal took Cognizance of the charges against Mir Qasem Ali and fixed June 27 for hearing arguments for and against framing the order.

In the Nizami case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 9, Aynul Haque. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until tomorrow, 27 May 2013.

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 41, Investigation Officer Md Nurul Islam. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 28 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami
Md Aynul Haque, Prosecution witness 9, testified in support of charge no 2. The charge alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act, resulting in murders, rapes and deportation of victims as Crimes Against Humanity. He is  charged under section 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(g) read with Section 4(1), providing for accomplice liability and section 4(2), providing for command responsibility.  Continue reading →

22 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid Closing Arguments, Alim PW 21, Pre-trial issues and contempt

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against Selim Uddin
  2. Syed Md Qaisar: Bail Application
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Md Ashruzzaman Khan and  Moinuddin
  4. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid – Defense Closing Arguments
  5. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Cross-Examination of PW 21

The Tribunal deferred the contempt proceedings against Selim Uddin until 28 May 2013 for further order. It then moved on to hear the bail application filed on behalf of Syed Md Qaisar who is currently under investigation for war crimes and related offences that may have been committed during the 1971 War of Liberation. Mr Qaisar, a former BNP leader and a subsequent policy maker of President HM Ershad’s cabinet was arrested on a warrant issued by Tribunal-2 on 15 May 2013. Upon hearing the bail application, the court took a brief recess of twenty minutes before finally rejecting the application. Mr Qaisar was then sent to jail.

The Prosecution team in the cases against Md Ashrafuzaman Khan alias Nayeb Ali and Moinuddin notified the Tribunal that they had followed its order and published a notification in two widely circulated national dailies asking the two defendants to appear before the Tribunal. The notice was published on 14 May 2013 in the Daily Janakantha and on 15 May in the Daily Star. The notification announced that failure to appear within 10 days of such publication would result in the court ordering trials-in-absentia, as was done in the case of Abul Kalam Azad. The Tribunal stated that they would hear the case next on  27 May 2013.

In the case of Mujahid the Defense began their Closing Arguments. They began with arguments regarding the evidentiary aspects of the case and stated that senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzak will be later address the relevant legal arguments.

Finally, the Defense counsel for Abdul Alim conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 21. They primarily attacked the credibility of the witness and accused him of providing false testimony. The Defense further suggested that the witness provide the same testimony to the Investigation Officer during his original interview.  Continue reading →

21 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 21

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – PW 21
  2. Contempt Proceedings Against Selim Uddin and Others

Today the Tribunal heard the Prosecution’s examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness in the case of Abdul Alim. After the Prosecution completed their questioning the Defense requested adjournment for the day, seeking time to prepare his cross-examination. The Tribunal agreed and scheduled the cross-examination for the following day.

The Tribunal also adjourned the contempt proceedings against Jamaat-e-Islam leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad and Rafiqul Islam Khan after hearing a petition for additional time. It may be mentioned that the contempt proceedings were initiated by the Tribunal against the Jamaat-trio in February, following comments regarding the Tribunal made at a public engagement the day before the verdict in Qader Molla was issued. Selim Uddin is the only one of the three who has been produced before the court after being arrested. He has filed a separate written explanation through his lawyer. The other two have not been detained by the police, despite the Tribunal having issued an arrest warrant for them.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim
Mr Abdul Hamid Sakidar provided circumstantial evidence as Prosecution witness 21 in the case against Abdul Alim. During examination-in-chief by the Prosecution the witness testified that he was a resident of Sakidarpara during the war in 1971 and that he was 15 or 16 years old at the time. He testified that Abdul Alim was one of the key persons in the formation of the Peace Committee in the Jaipurhat area and acted as its chairman. Sakidar asserted that the Pakistan army killed many people and also burned villages in his area during the war. He stated that local collaborators were also part of these raids.

The witness claimed stated that Alim, along with Muslim League members and Jamaat activists, occupied the Shaon Lal Bazla Godighar (office) in his area. He stated that the Razakar forces were later trained in this godighar and that the Pakistani Army also located its camp there. The witness incriminated the accused by stating that the Pakistani army and the Razakars used to kill people at the instruction of Alim. Sakidar stated that eleven people from his locality were apprehended by the Pakistani Army and the Razakars, and that they were then taken to the north side of Baroghati Pond near Sakidarpara. These eleven people, whose faces were painted black, were then shot to death at Mr Alim’s instruction. Six of the dead bodies were buried under a mango tree thereby and five others were buried under a lychee tree at the south end of the pond.

The witness claimed stated that about after 4 to 5 months after Bangladesh declared its victory over Pakistan about 150 skeletons were recovered from that very pond.

The witness then positively identified the accused in the courtroom.

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.