Tag Archives: witness testimony

13 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 35, AKM Yusuf Bail Hearing

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecuto vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Investigation of AKM Yusuf

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 34, Dijoy Krishno Chowdhury. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because he did not assert any allegations against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury.

The pre-trial stage of the case against AKM Yusuf continued and the Tribunal heard the Defense’s bail application, fixing tomorrow for passing its order. Continue reading →

13 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim PW 19

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Prosecution heard testimony from Prosecution witness 19 in the case of Abdul Alim. The witness described being detained and tortured by the Pakistani Army during the war in 1971. However, the witness did not make any incriminating statements about Alim. Because the witness was not making statements regarding alim the Prosecutor Rana Das Gupta requested that the Tribunal declare Prosecution witness 19 to be a hostile witness. The Tribunal granted the request and allowed the Prosecutor to effectively cross-examine the witness. At the end of the questioning the Prosecutor alleged that the witness was either intimidated by the Defense and their supporters or bribed to conceal the truth. The Defense did not cross-examine the witness, but commented that the witness is s stating truth of his own free will.

Prosecution Witness 19
Abed Hossain testified as Prosecution witness 19. He stated that on 18 June 1971, he was picked up by the Pakistani Army from the yard of a local mosque situated in his village or Chakbarkat Sonarpara, Jaipurhat district. He asserted that it was the Pakistani army who carried out the operation and detained many others along with him. He stated that the Pakistani army then tortured him while he was in custody. He thought that as many as 22 people were killed by the army, although he managed to survive.

During the examination in chief, the witness made no mention of Abdul Alim and thus did not support the Prosecution’s claim that the Accused was involved in the witness’ detention and torture. Even after repeated questioning by the Prosecutor the witness failed to identify any factor showing the involvement of the Accused in his abduction and torture. He also did not implicate Alim in the detention, torture or killing of any other person. The witness highlighted that the atrocities were committed mainly by the Pakistani Army.

The Prosecution then received permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross-examine him. During the cross-examination, the prosecutor Rana Das Gupta alleged that the witness was either politically motivated, financially manipulated or otherwise intimidated into changing his testimony.

The Prosecution asked whether the witness was a supporter of any political party and which political party the witness voted for in the last parliamentary election. The judges quickly interrupted and condemned this line of questioning, saying that such questioning would not be tolerated. The judges affirmed that the witness may vote for anyone of his choice and will never be expected to disclose his choices before the Tribunal. The cross-examination was then concluded by the prosecutor with the suggestion that the witness is concealing the involvement of the accused by reason of intimidation or corruption.

The Defense did not conduct a separate cross-examination of the witness and merely stated that the witness was voluntarily testifying and was stating the truth. 

6 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 18

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution witness 18

Today due to a major ongoing protest called by Hefazat-e-Islami our researchers were unable to attend proceedings. While not officially considered a hartal, the protest resulted in severe unrest throughout the city and security conditions were extremely precarious. The government deployed an entire platoon of Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) to the International Crimes Tribunal so as to ensure high security at the courts’ premises. The Tribunal was empty mostly empty today as both counsel and researchers were unable to attend the court. Our coverage of the days proceedings are gathered primarily from media sources.

At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the judges of Tribunal-2 expressed their dissatisfaction with the failure of Dhaka Metropolitan Police to comply with the court order instructing them to provide the Alim with adequate security on his way to and from the court. The issue of lack of security of the Accused was brought to the Tribunal’s attention after the Daily Star published an article regarding the matter yesterday.

The court then addressed the only case listed for the day, Chief Prosecutor v Abdul Alim. Prosecution witness 18, Mostafizur Rahman, testified before the Tribunal. He described how his father and others were detained and later killed by the Pakistani Army. He also claimed that the Accused was the Chief of the local Peace Committee and Razakar forces in Jaipurhat. After the witness’ examination-in-chief the Tribunal adjourned the case until 07.05.2013 when the defense will cross-examine PW-18.

Prosecution Witness 18
Mostafizur Rahman, the son of alleged victim Ilias Uddin Sarder, testified as Prosecution witness 18. He stated that on 26 May 1971 at around 11 am., the Pakistani Army accompanied by Peace Committee and Razakar members came to his uncle’s house. The witness said that he went hid himself in a nearby bush along with his cousin Mahbubur Rahman (PW-16), Bazlar Rahman and other villagers. Soon after, two Biharis named Ahmed Koshai and Rashid announced that the Army had come to form the Peace Committee and therefore everyone present should return to their respective homes. The witness said that they went back to his house but his father Ilias Uddin Sardar, uncles Yusuf Uddin Sardar and Yunus Uddin Sardar, and some other elderly people were then taken away by the Pakistani Army. The witness said that his cousins Mahbubur and Bazlar secretly followed and foun out that Ilias, Yusuf, Yunus and others were detained at the Balighata Union Parishad office, which was then being used as a camp by the Army and Razakar forces.

The witness said that three Peace Committee members advised the witness’ cousin, Abul Kashem Sardar, to go to Abdul Alim for help in getting their relatives released. Abul Kashem Sardar went to Alim and requested their release. The witness testified that Alim told his cousin that they would not be released because they supported the independence movement. The witness’ cousin informed him of this when he returned home that day. At around 6:30pm the same day the witness testified that he heard gunshots from a nearby location that was used by the Pakistani Army as a killing site. The witness and others presumed that it was their family members who were being killed. He stated that they then fled the country. He stated that they returned to Bangladesh following independence and that he gathered information of the precise spot where the killing had taken place. He said that he unearthed his family members’ bodies from the mass grave in order to rebury them with proper funeral rituals.

6 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 33

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: PW 33

Mahmud Ali, Prosecution Witness 33, testified in support of charge no 20, in which Salauddin Qader Chowdhury is charged with committing confinement, torture and murder as Crimes Against Humanity under Section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973. Defense Counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena cross-examined the witness. After the witness’ testimony was concluded the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until May 13, 2013

Prosecution Witness 33
Examination-in-Chief
Mahmud Ali testified that he was a farmer in 1971. He testified that in the last part of July Razakars from the CO Office found Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai. When the Razakars attempted to detain Ekhlas, Ekhlas jumped into a pond. The Razakars detained him from the pond and took him to the Razakar camp located at CO office. Mahmud testified that the Razakars then took him to home of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury at Goods Hill. He claimed that Ekhlas was tortured there and subsequently died. 2 or 3 days later Ekhlas’s father brough his son’s body back for burial. Mahmud testified that he attended the Janaza (last prayer) for Ekhlas and that his body was buried in the bank of the pond. Mahmud acknowledged that he was interviewed by the Investigating Officer. He identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Cross-Examination
The Defense then cross examined the witness, first asking about his personal details, his siblings, father’s profession, etc. Defense asked the witness how far his house was from CO office and the alleged place of incident. The Defense also asked questions about the alleged place from where Ekhlas was detained by the Razakars with the aim to cast doubt on his testimony by showing that he was not familiar with the CO office and or the alleged crime site. The Defense implied that the witness could not have been present when Ekhlas was detained.

The Defense next asked the witness numerous questions about Goods Hill and Akubdandi, where Ekhlas resided in 1971, aiming to show that the witness was unfamiliar with those sites as well. Defense asked him whether he could name anyone still living who also attended the Janaza for Ekhlas. The Witness claimed that no one is left alive now. The Defense asked how old Ekhlas was in 1971 and where he studied at that time. They implied that the witness did not know the victim at all and was fabricating his testimony. The witness answered that Ekhlas was 16 or 17 years of age and was a student of matriculation when he died. Mahmud affirmed his prior testimony that he saw Ekhlas being chased and subsequently detained by the Razakars, and that he witnessed the victim being taken to the CO office. Mahmud admitted that he did not witness Ekhlas being taken to Goods Hill from the CO office.

The Defense alleged that Mahmud’s courtroom testimony introduces new allegations not included in his original statement to the Investigating Officer. They alleged that he did not tell the Investigating Officerthat the alleged incident took place in front of the shop of Kokai or that he himself witnessed the alleged incident. The Defense claimed that the Pakistani Army detained Ekhlas while he was throwing grenade. The Defense also denied thatEkhlas jumped into the pond. They further asserted that the Razakars had not yet been formed in July 1971. The Defense also suggested that the Pakistani Army sent Ekhlas to Chittagong Medical College Hospital. The witness denied each of these assertions.

The Defense additionally asserted that in his initial interview the witness did not tell the Investigating Officer from whom he heard that Ekhlas was taken to Goods Hill. The witness answered that the Investigating Officer did not ask. The Defense also claimed that he did not originally allege that Razakars came out from CO Office and apprehended Ekhlas in Kadurkhil near the shop of Kokai, that Ekhlas jumped into a pond, or that Razakars took him to the Razakar camp located at the CO office. The Defense also stated the witness did not inform the Investigating Officer of the location of the victim’s burial site. The witness answered that he included all these details in his initial interview. The witness said he could not recall the specific date and month when Ekhlas was buried. He stated that he knew Salauddin Quader Chowdhury from 1971. The Defense claimed that in 1971 Salauddin was studying in Pakistan and could not have met Mahmud Ali. They also alleged that Mahmud never Ekhlas that he was giving false testimony in a false case for financial benefit. The witness denied these allegations.

7 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – PW 18
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid  – Prosecution Closing Arguments   

 The Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution Witness 18 Mostafizur Rahman, who completed his examination-in-chief yesterday in the cae of Abdul Alim a day earlier. The Defense highlighted contradictory statements between the witness’ courtroom testimony and his original statements to the Investigation Officer. Ultimately, the Defense alleged that the person giving testimony before the tribunal as Mostafizur is not the same person who gave statement to the Investigation Officer, and that the courtroom testimony is fabricated at the direction of the Prosecution.

After hearing the witness testimony in Alim’s case, the tribunal next heard the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the case against Ali Ahsan Muhammed Mujahid. The Prosecution began by outlining their arguments. A printed copy of the Structure/Outline of the prosecution summing up was submitted by the prosecution, which contained in its cover page the picture of a dog eating the dead body of an infant. The judges were critical of the use of the photo and stated that such pictures should not be included in the future as the judges are charged with evaluating the contents of the documents only. Such a photograph is therefore inappropriate and cover photo will not assist the court in any way and is also inappropriate.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Alim: Cross-Examination of Mostafizur Rahman
The Defense counsel then conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 18 in the Alim case. They attempted to show the witness was not aware of the specific details of the incident, thereby undermining his testimony. They questioned his credibility both in terms of the evidence he provided regarding the incident and as to whether he is really Mostafizur Rahman. During cross-examination the witness admitted that Bazlar Rahman and Mahbubur Rahman are not brothers, but cousins. The witness denied that 26th May 1971 was a Tuesday and asserted that it was a Wednesday.

The Defense suggested that the witness had become a witness in many other cases. The witness denied this suggestion and stated that this is the first case in which he has appeared as a witness. The witness said that he does not know when in 1971 the Peace Committee was formed in Paanchbibi. He then also admitted that he did not know whether there were any Razakars in East Pakistan in May 1971.

However, despite the Defense’s questions and his lack of knowledge of these two groups he asserted that Alim was the head of the Razakars and the Peace Committee.

The witness then described the site of the alleged crime. He stated that his house is 9 or 10 km south from Jaipurhat. In 1971 bicycles and cow cart could be used along the roads there. He stated that Kli Shaha’s pond (where the killing of his father allegedly took place) is quite big. There is a rail line in the west of the pond and no houses in between. He again asserted that many had been buried therein. He stated that there was one house to the South of the pond where Kamal lived, unmarried. On the east of the pond, there was a road that was not used.

The witness stated that many in his village supported independence, but he did not know if there were any against it. He stated that Abul Kashem Sarder’s house is next to his house and that his children are living, but his brothers are deceased. He said that he does not know whether the other villagers knew that Kashem supported liberation, but he asserted that he knew that Kashem was in his side. He stated that he does not know who the local Chairman of the Peace Committee was in 1971.

Finally, the defense suggested that he did not give the original statement to the Investigating Officer. They alleged that he is posing as Mostafizur Rahman and that someone else gave the original statement. They accused him of presenting false evidence in support of mala fide prosecution.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Mujahid:

Prosecution Closing Arguments
Prosecutor Moklesur Rahman Badol began Closing Arguments with an of the Prosecution’s case against the Mujahid. He announced that they would first provide historical background and a detailed profile of Mujahid before discussing each of the charges and the defendant’s liability under the ICT Act.

Historical background relevant to the case
The Prosecution made a statement regarding the numerous sacrifices of freedom fighters and the nation as a whole. He discussed at length the history of Bangladesh’s struggle fo independence. He briefly referred to the general election of 1970, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic speech on 7th March, the killings carried out during Operation Search Light by the Pakistani Military on 25th March and the nine months of war that finally led to victory on 16th December.  The Tribunal at one point interjected to ask that the Prosecution not repeat the historical aspects in detail as it had already given its observation on the historical aspect of the cases in two of its previous judgments.

Profile of the Accused
The Prosecution presented a profile of Mujahid, including his family background, academic background and political career. They stated that Mujahid comes from a family of Jamaat-e-Islami supporters and that his father was also a political figure in Jamaat-e-Islami. Mujahid finished his Secondary School Certificate examination in the year 1964 and his Higher Secondary Certificate examination in the year 1966. He became active in politics during his under-graduation and was the Chairman of Faridpur district’s Islami Chatra Shangho (ICS), the then student wing of Jamaat-e-Islam, from 1968 until 1970. He graduated in the year 1970 and continued to serve in ICS’s Dhaka unit from January to July 1971. He was then elevated to General Secretary of ICS’s East Pakistan Unit in July 1971, before being appointed as its President in October. The Prosecution alleged that Mujahid went into hiding after the end of the war and only returned to politics of Jamaat-e-Islam Bangladesh long after the drastic political change following the assassination of the Bangabondhu Sheikh Mujib in 1975. He was never elected in any Parliamentary Election but nevertheless served as a Minister from 2001-2006 as a ‘Decorum Minister’ during the Four-party alliance government.

Pro-active role of the accused
The Prosecution submitted that the Jamaat party was effectively a terrorist organization during the War of Liberation. It formed and operated a killing squad called Al-Badr, that was mainly comprised of leaders and activists of the Islami Chatra Shangho (ICS). The Prosecution alleges that Mujahid acted as the Chief of this force and therefore is  responsible for the torture, rape and murder perpetrated by Al-Badr members. The Tribunal interjected and asked how Mujahid’s superior position could be deduced. The Prosecution replied that the documentary evidence submitted illustrates his leadership role within the force. They referred to Exhibit 1 series, containing newspaper reports, the first being the Daily Azad’s issue from 11 December 1971, which reported a speech of by  Mujahid addressing a rally organized for Al-Badr forces. Additionally the Prosecution noted that Prosecution Witness 2, Zahir Uddin Jalal also testified that he threw a grenade in that rally after hearing the speech. The prosecution submitted that the defense did not dispute the contents of the reports.

The Prosecution claimed that Mujahid publically and pro-actively encouraged the masses to support the Pakistani Army and to resist pro-liberation forces. They stated that he travelled, attending various conferences and giving Anti-Indian speeches to calling for the prevention of the tactics of Indian agents, miscreants and enemies of Pakistan. On 17 October 1971, he attended a conference in Rangpur and proposed that no one other than ICS members should be allowed to join Al-Badr forces. He then went to Bogura on 23 October, Magura on 24 October, and came back to Dhaka on 25 October 1971, attending campaigns and conferences designed to inspire Jamaat party supporters through Anti-Indian speeches and urging them to actively defend the unity of Pakistan against domestic and international forces. The Prosecution stated that Exhibits-17 and 18 support these allegations.

The Prosecution argued that Mujahid exercised top-tier authority over the Al-Badr auxiliary force. They claimed that Mujahid and others used cars and jeeps to patrol his region, even during curfews. They claimed that ICS became synonymous with the Al-Badr forces. They noted that Mujahid had made statements that books written by Hindu writers should be destroyed and the following day the library was burned. In a speech delivered on 7 November 1971, Mujahid made statements against India even though India had not formally intervened at that point. The Prosecution alleged that the term ‘India’ in that context was a euphemism for any person who supported an independent Bangladesh. The Prosecution referred to Exhibits 1 and 2 as containing supporting documents. Quoting from the book Al-Badr, the {rosecution counsel stated that even on 16th December 1971 Mujahid remained adamant about his position. In his speech as the ‘Nezam’ (urdu for Chairman/Head), he expressed his dissatisfaction with the surrender of the Pakistani Army, stating that they should have given the weapons to Al-Badr instead of surrendering them to enemy forces. The Prosecution asserted that Mujahid urged all the Al-Badr members present at that meeting to continue the mission and to spread out for ‘Hijra’ (migration in Islam). They concluded that all these facts specifically illustrate the stance and position Mujahid within Al-Badr and his role during 1971.

The Tribunal noted that it has already delivered its findings regarding the status and role of Al-Badr and would not deviate from the same save for minor matters without a differing decision from the high court.

The Prosecution then concluded for the day.