Tag Archives: witness testimony

5 May 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Mujahid DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid: DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first Defense witness in the Mujahid case. The witness is the youngest son of Mujahid and testified as a formal witness, exhibiting various documents before the Tribunal in support of the Defense case. After the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witness the Tribunal asked the Defense whether they plan to call any additional Defense witnesses. Defense counsel stated that they are unable to determine which witness to choose because the Tribunal has limited them to two witnesses in order to avoid unnecessary delay. The judges stated that this may be beneficial to the Defense because defense witnesses in previous cases have actually caused harm to the Defense’s case. The Tribunal then adjourned for the day till lunch.

After lunch, the overall security of the court area significantly deteriorated due to a mass protest by the Hefazat-e-Islam group in the Paltan Area in Dhaka. Our researchers therefore left the Tribunal at that time.

Defense Witness 1

Examination-in-Chief
The witness is a formal witness who exhibited the following documentary evidence: Continue reading →

Weekly Digest, Issue 12: April 7-11

This week Tribunal 1 continued to hear the Defence’s Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case. The Defence concluded their coverage of Charges 3 and 4, and requested one additional day to complete their arguments. The Defence however did not attend proceedings during hartal days. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Tribunal heard the testimony of Prosecution witness 25. Additionally, the Prosecution submitted the Formal Charges against Mubarak Hossain and both Parties submitted their arguments regarding the impending of indictment of Hossain.

In Tribunal 2 the Defence for Ali Ahsan Mohadded Mujahid began their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer. The case of Kamaruzzaman was repeatedly scheduled for the Defence’s Closing Arguments. However, the Senior Defence counsel did not attend on hartal days and therefore the case was adjourned until the following week. In the case against Abdul Alim the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution witnesses 14 and 15.

It should be noted that hartals were called for the 8, 9, 10, and 11th of April. Due to security concerns our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days. Therefore our coverage of those days is compiled from media sources as well as discussion with the Defence and Prosecution.

The full report of this week’s proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 12 – April 7-11

2 May 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 32, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Motiur Rahman Nizami

In the Chowdhury  case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 32, Basanti Ghosh. The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because she did not allege that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury was involved in the mass killing committed in Unsattar para. The then Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 6 May 2013.

In the Nizami case the Defense filed two applications. The first requested medical treatment for Motiur Rahman Nizami and the second sought admission of additional documents as exhibitis. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of the applications for Sunday, 5 May. The Defense also concluded cross-examining Prosecution witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 12 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness 32
Today the Prosecution called Basanti Gosh as Prosecution witness 32. She is the wife of victim Momoranjon Gosh and testified in support of Charge 6. This charge alleges that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury committed Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act 1973.

Examination-in-Chief
Basanti testified that in 1971 (did not specify date) a Pakistani military officer and a Bengali came to her house and captured his husband Monoranjon Gosh. She testified that she tried to make the two men free her husband but that the military officer beat her. She stated that her husband was taken to Khitish Mohazon’s home where he was lined up along with other prisoners and killed. She did not specify how he was killed. She testified that after two days her husband’s brother brought Monoranjon’s body back. She testified that her husband’s name is listed among the names of victims on the memorial   monument that now marks the site.

Cross-examination
The Defense declined to cross-examine the witness because she did not identify Salauddin Qader Chowdhury as being involved in the alleged crimes. Continue reading →

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

30 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury PW 31, Nizami PW 6

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 31, Accused Present

Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Examination-in-Chief and Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness 6, Accused Present

Today the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 31, Shujit Mohazon, in the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury. Shujit testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges Genocide and deportation as a Crime Against Humanity. The case was then adjourned until 2 May 2013. In the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 6, Shahajahan Ali. The witness testified in support of Charge 6, which alleges murder as a Crime Against Humanity. The Defense began their cross-examination but did not complete their questioning before the end of the day. The Tribunal adjourned the case until 2 May 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
Shujit Mohazon testified as Prosecution witness 31 in support of Charge 6. Chowdhury is accused of  committing offense of Genocide under section 3(2)(c )(i), 3(2)(3 )(ii) and deportation as Crimes Against Humanity under section 3(2)(a) of the ICT Act.

Cross-Examination
The Defense began by asking Shujit Mohazon about his profession. Shujit stated that he he is a shopkeeper and received his trade license from the Union Council. The Defense suggested that the Mohazon name is known as being involved with determining interest rates in Chitagong. The witness said he did not know anything about such business.

The Defense then asked the witness about Bozlur Rahman road. Shughit that the road was visible from his house but that he did not see any army vehicles on the road on the day of the incident on that day.

Continue reading →