Tag Archives: witness testimony

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

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman: Defense Closing Arguments

The day’s proceeding began with a Defense application for permission to meet with the Accused at the Kashimpur Jail. The Tribunal granted the application and allocated two hours (10:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.) on Sunday 7 April 2013 as the tentative date for two members of the Defense counsel to meet with Kamaruzzaman.

Following the defense application, senior Defense counsel for Kamaruzzaman, Abdur Razzaq, continued with the Closing Arguments on the legal issues pertaining to the charge of complicity in the commission of Crimes Against Humanity. The Defense also discussed the evidentiary aspects of Charge 3, which alleges Kamaruzzaman’s involvement the massacre and rape committed at Shohagpur. Razzaq also submitted arguments relating to Charge 2, which alleges the inhuman treatment of pro-liberation intellectual Syed Abdul Hannan. The Defense identified and outlined the substantial contradictions between the testimonies of the relevant witnesses and between their testimony and prior statements to the Investigating Officer.

Complicity in Commission of Crimes Against Humanity
The counsel cited the ICTY Trial Chamber case of Tadic (more specifically paragraph 688 and 689 of the judgment) to claim that the crime of complicity requires intent, defined as awareness of the act coupled with a conscious decision to participate by planning, instigating, ordering, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Therefore the Prosecution must prove that the Accused participated in a way that contributed to the commission of the illegal act. The counsel further referred to the I.L.C. Draft Code’s legal findings in the Nuremberg cases whereby it concluded that an Accused may be found culpable if it is proved that he “intentionally commits such a crime” or, if he “knowingly aids, abets or otherwise assists, directly and substantially, in the commission of such a crime.”

The Defense argued no evidence has been given to show that Kamaruzzaman knowingly acted in a way that substantially and directly contributed to the commission of a crime. The Prosecution has failed to prove that Kamaruzzaman had the requisite intent of awareness or knowledge that crimes would be committed or were planned. Nothing has been presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he assisted, instigated, facilitated, or aided and abetted the commission of the alleged offences. Continue reading →

24 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam Defense Closing Arguments, Chowdhury Defense Application for Police Protection

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam – Defense Closing arguments
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury – Defense Counsel Application for Police Protection to and from the Tribunal

Tajul Islam, Defense Counsel of Gholam Azam filed an application seeking permission to meet with his client Gholam Azam. Additionally, the Defense concluded the closing arguments on factual issues. Arguments continued for 5 days and addressed Prosecution and Defense witnesses as well as Charge 5. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings until 27 March 2013, when Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present the Defense arguments on legal issues and Charges 1 to 4.

In the case of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, filed an application seeking police protection for coming to the Tribunal during days when hartals or other political unrest present security concerns. He requested that his car be accompanied by full time uniformed police gunman. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing of the petition for tomorrow and adjourned the proceedings until then.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam- Defense Closing Arguments
Prosecution Witness 16 – The Investigating Officer
The Defense read out different paragraphs from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Prosecution witness 16. Mizanul Islam submitted that during the cross-examination the witness was asked whether Gholam Azam had a direct connection with the local Peace Committee but was only able to refer to Exhibit-57, the Daily Pakistan dated 16 April 1971. The Defense noted that the contents of Exhibit-57 do not answer the question. The article discusses the formation of a 21 member executive committee within the Peace Committee and states its purpose as bringing back normalcy at the direction of the Central Peace Committee. On cross-examination the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not find any direction or order bearing the signature of Gholam Azam. The witness also admitted that there was no resolution which designated Gholam Azam the power to cancel or suspend any local level Peace Committee. The Defense noted that the Investigating Officer was unable to specify who had authority within the Peace Committee to issue directions or orders to the local level committees. The Investigating Officer claimed that directions and orders from the Central Peace Committee were communicated to the local level Peace Committees by newspapers, television and radio broadcast. He further testified that the local level Peace Committees were bound to follow the directions. However, the Defense noted that the witness had admitted that he did not know the broadcasting range of Dhaka television stations and acknowledged that due to poor communication there was often a delay in orders reaching newspapers in remote areas such as Taknaf and Tetulia. The witness also admitted that he had no evidence as to whether the Daily Shangram or the Daily Paigam was distributed in Patuakhali (a remote area). Continue reading →

6 March 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings Against Jamaat Leaders, Kamaruzzaman DW 1

6 March 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt, Kamaruzzaman Examination of DW 1
Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings: Jamaat leadership – Selim Uddin and others (Accused not present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman : Examination of DW 1

Defense counsel for the Jamaat leaders Selim Uddin, Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Rafiqul Islam said they were unable to produce their clients before the tribunal and that they that they had not been able to communicate to their clients the tribunal’s order requiring their attendance. Upon being asked by the tribunal about what may be done, the learned counsels said that they have no option but to surrender their vokalatnama, (the power as appointed advocates of the opposite parties) as it is not possible for them to continue representing the three Jamaat leaders. The tribunal asked the counsels to submit a written application to this effect and accepted their prayer of withdrawal as appointed advocates. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta submitted that an arrest warrant against the absent leaders should be issued by the Tribunal. He further stated that the opposition parties are intentionally disregarding the Tribunal’s order, showing their disrespect and lack of confidence in the institution.  The Tribunal thenissued an arrest warrant against the three leaders under Rule 46A of the Rules of Procedure read with Section 22 of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. They noted that the court had granted time to the leaders on four previous occasions, repeatedly asking for their presence, but with no response. The Tribunal directed the Inspector General of Police to take necessary steps to secure the arrest of the Jamaat trio on or before 21 March 2013.

The Tribunal then moved on to the case against Muhammad Kamaruzzaman. The Defense called its first witness, Md. Arshed Ali, the son of a martyr Ekabbor Ali. After being examined by Defense counsel the Prosecution started its cross-examination. In his testimony Ali described how his father and many others were killed by the Pakistani Army on 10th Srabon of the Bangla calendar during the 1971 Liberation War in Shohagpur, Benupara and Kakorkandi area of Sherpur.   Cross-examination is scheduled to continue on 7 March 2013.

Courtroom Dynamics
During the examination-in-chief of the defense witness, there was an intense argument between Defense counsel Kafil and two of the Tribunal-2 judges: Justice Obaidul Hassan and Judge Shahinur Islam. The argument started when the Defense objected to Judge Shahinur Islam asking questions to the witness. The Defense reacted by saying that he should be allowed to question his witness without interruptions. The Chairman said that contempt proceedings under Section 11(4) of the 1973 Act could be taken against the Defense counsel for similar behavior in future. The Defense counsel at one point said that he would withdraw himself and not continue before the Tribunal. After moments of silence, the situation calmed down after the Defense counsel offered his apology and the judges said that the court is a place to maintain decorum. Questioning was then resumed without any further incident. 

Continue reading →

6 March 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami Cross-Examination of PW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Motiur Rahman Nizami: Cross-Examination of PW 2 (Accused Present)

Today Defense Counsel Mizanul Islam finished cross-examining Prosecution witness 2, Zahir Uddin Jalal alias Bichchu Jalal. After concluding the cross-examination Tribunal adjourned the proceeding of Nizami’s case until March 19, 2013.

Continue reading →

26 Feb 2013: ICT 2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Mujahid Cross-Examination of PW 13

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings Against M K Anwar, Jamaat Party Leaders (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Muhammad Kamaruzzaman: Adjourned
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid: Cross-examination of Prosecution witness 13 (Accused Present)

The counsel representing M K Anwar filed a written explanation, as requested by the Tribunal, on behalf of the veteran BNP policy maker and stated that his client has the highest regard for the court and that his statements were misplaced and misinterpreted by the newspaper report. MK Anwar had allegedly made comments that the government is staging the ongoing trials of the alleged war criminals as a mechanism of vengeance against the leaders of its opposition parties. Prosecutor Mr Rana Das Gupta sought time for further hearing of the matter, stating that the prosecution will place its submissions after evaluating the written explanation filed on behalf of the opposite party. The matter fixed for hearing on 28 February 2013.

Counsel for the Jamaat leaders Mr Selim Uddin,  Mr Hamidur Rahman Azad MP and Mr Rafiqul Islam sought adjournment of the matter for another week, stating that they could not appear by reason of unavoidable circumstances. The three leaders were ordered to personally appear before Tribunal-2 after contempt proceedings commenced against them following their comments about the tribunal during a public engagement on 4th February, a day prior to Mollah’s judgment. The prosecution strongly objected to their absence and stated an arrest warrant should be issued against each. The judges stated that the absent politicians must be personally present before the court on Sunday 3 March 2013 or face severe consequences.

Mr Kamaruzzaman’s case was adjourned until Sunday, 3 March 2013.

Finally, the cross-examination of Mr Shakti Shaha, PW-13 of the case against Mujahid was resumed by the Defenes and continued for the rest of the day.  The core line of questioning was aimed at attacking the reliability and credibility of the witness’s testimony, suggesting that the testimony is fabricated and is based on coaching by the Prosecution. It was suggested that the witness lives and works in India permanently. It is the Defense’s case that the witness never saw the accused and is a false witness who in reality is an Indian passport holder coming to Bangladesh illegally to give oral evidence. The Defense noted that he gave his previous statements to the Investigating Officer in India and claimed that this was because he is in fact an Indian resident. The Defense further suggested that the witness’ description of what he saw from the top of the tree (allegedly the participation of Mujahid and his associates in the killing of the witness’ father) is not only untrue and fabricated but also impossible and impracticable.

Continue reading →