Tag Archives: witness testimony

16 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Kamaruzzaman Final Closing Arguments, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 17

The publication of this post was delayed as we were waiting to obtain certain documents from the Prosecution. Please excuse the inconvenience.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecution vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Defense application and Conclusion of Prosecution Closing Arguments, Accused Present 
  2. Chief Prosecution vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Defense Application and Cross-Examination of Investigation Officer

The Tribunal heard the last of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman  case. Prosecutor Tureen Afroz addressed remaining legal issues including the value of hearsay evidence, inconsistencies and the old evidence rule, and the doctrine of Superior Responsibility under Section 4(2). Two other Prosecutors made additional closing remarks before the Tribunal allowed the Defense to present a brief rebuttal. The case was then closed and the Tribunal officially took it into consideration awaiting verdict.

In the Mujahid case the Tribunal heard a Prosecution application seeking limitation of the number of Defense witnesses allowed. The Defense previously submitted a list of 1500 names listed as possible defense witnesses. After Disposing of the Application and limiting the Defense to three witnesses, the Tribunal then returned to the Defense’s cross-examination of Prosecution witness 17, the Investigation Officer.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
Defense Application for Opportunity to Make Statement
At the beginning of the day’s proceedings, the defense submitted an application on behalf of the accused under Section 17(1) and (2) of the ICT Act seeking permission for the Accused to make a statement before the Tribunal. Section 17(1) provides that the Accused “shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charge mage against him.” Section 17(2) allows the Accused to conduct his own Defense or to have the assistance of counsel.

The Prosecution opposed the application and stated that such a statement could only be allowed while the Tribunal is hearing witnesses. However, Closing Arguments are taking place and there is no such right at this stage of proceedings.

The Judges quickly rejected the application and agreed with the Prosecution’s interpretation of the Statute.  Continue reading →

25 April 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Cross-Examination PW 17

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim – Prosecution Witness 17
  2. Submission of Formal Charges against Chowdhury Moinuddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan

The case against Abdul Alim was the lone case scheduled in Tribunal 2 for today. Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena very briefly cross-examined Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar who gave testimony against the accused as Prosecution witness 17.

Additionally, the Prosecution submitted Formal Charges and related documents against Mr. Chowdhury Moinuddin and Mr. Ashrafuzzaman Khan. 16 charges have been proposed by the Prosecution against these two new accused, both of whom live outside of Bangladesh.

The Defense suggested did not attempt to discredit the witness’ prior testimony in a targeted manner. They alleged that the Abdul Alim never went to Akkelpur during in 1971. Despite the Defense’s suggestions the witness affirmed his statement that the Razakars said that detainees could be released only with permission from Alim. The witness said that Alim gave a short speech in Akkelpur in Suleman Kabiraz’s Mill ghor. He said that the Accused warned those present that their land was part of Pakistan and that agents from India would not be tolerated.

After this brief examination the court adjourned for the day.

25 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 5, Chowdhury, PW 30

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Prosecution Witness 5, Accused Present
  2.  Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Prosecution Witness  30, Accused Present

Today in the Nizami case the Prosecution conducted its examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 5, Nazim Uddin Khattab. The Defense began their cross-examination, which continued until the lunch break. The Tribunal then adjourned the case until 28 April 2013.

In the Chowdhdury case Defense conducted the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 30, Md Nazim Uddin. The witness testified in support of Charge 4 which alleges that Nizami conspired to commit crimes under section 3(2)(g) of the Act and was complicit in murders, rapes, looting and destruction of properties as Crimes Against Humanity  under section 3(2)(h), section 3(2)(g) and 3(2)(a) read with section 4(1) and section 4(2) of the ICT Act 1973.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Nizami: Prosecution witness 5
Examination-in-Chief
Nazim Uddin Khattab testified that on the morning of 25 April 1971 he saw Motiur Rahman Nizami with Rafikun Nabi Bablu, Asad, Afzal, Moslem, Shukur and Siraj doctor attending a meeting at the Union Board Office. He said that after half an hour the meeting concluded and everyone exited the meeting room. Rofikun Nobi Bablu began yelling and verbally insulting the witness and others who were with him. Bablu was angry at them for voting in favor of Boat (the symbol of the Awami League) in 1970 and for supporting the Awami League. The witness further testified that Nizami told them that if they left the village they would assume that they were joining the freedom fighters and their family members would be killed. If they stayed in the village he said no one would be harmed.

Continue reading →

24 April 2013: ICT-2 daily Summary – Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 17

Today our researchers were unable to attend proceedings due to a nation-wide hartal. Our coverage is compiled from media sources as well as conversations with the Prosecution and the Defense.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim: Prosecution witness 17, Accused Present

The prosecution called for Mr Abdus Sobhan Sardar to give testimony as PW-17 in the case against Abdul Alim. The witness is a resident of Akkelpur in Jaipurhat and gave evidence mainly in support of Charge 6.

The witness stated that the first week of May 1971 he heard that the Pakistani Army took three people into their custody from amongst fourteen to fifteen people who were hiding in the house of Bhatsha Union Parishad chairman Mr Syed Ali. The group was allegedly fleeing to India because of the war. The remaining people from the group were handed over to the Akkelpur Peace Committee and detained in the waiting room of Akkelpur Railway Station. The witness testified that during the three days of detention there, various Razakars assured the detainees that they would be free to go if Mr. Alim ordered them to be released the same. The prosecution witness testified that he heard this information from locals in the area.

The witness stated that the detainees were later shot by the Pakistani Army near Bakjana station after few members of Razakar forces, including Makbur Kabiraj, Moti Chairman and Boor Bakhth, delivered them to the army. One Mozammel Hossain was the only survivor.

21 April 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury –Examination of PW 27

Today the Tribunal heard both the direct and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 27, Dr. A.K.M Shafiullah. Shafiullah was first a medical student and later the Assistant Registrar at the Chittagong Medical College in 1971.

Prosecution’s Examination-in-Chief
The witness testified that he obtained his medical degree from Chittagong Medical College in 1970 and that he joined to Surgical Unit 1 of the Chittagong Medical College as an institutional trainee. He became a medical officer in the same ward in July of 1971, and in August was assigned to the post of Assistant Register. He testified that toward the end of September he received a call around 10pm that he was needed urgently at the hospital. He arrived at the ward within half an hour and found army, police and others there. He further testified that Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, son of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, was seriously injured. According to his recollection Chowdhury was wounded in the leg and and received primary treatment at the hospital, staying 3 or 4 days. The witness said that he later heard that Salauddin was taken to Dhaka or outside of the country for better treatment. He stated that he had been interviewed by the Investigating Officer identified Salauddin Qader Chowdhury in the dock.

Defense’s Cross-Examination of Witness 27
The Defense began by questioning the witness about his personal details, including where he lived during his employment at the hospital and the location of his home district. They then asked him about his work at the hospital. Shafiullah testified that he is aware of the rules and regulations for the admission of an injured at the medical college hospital. He testified about the staff hierarchy at the hospital and identified the director in 1971 as Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel. He named the Principal, Head of Medicine and Head of Surgery in 1971. Continue reading →