Tag Archives: witness testimony

10 Feb 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Gholam Azam cross-examination of DW-1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs Gholam Azam – Cross-examination of DW-1 (Accused Not Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Cross-examination of PW 17 in-camera (Accused Present)

A number of administrative matters were brought to the attention of the Tribunal, including allegations of harassment of Defense counsel, in-camera examination of the witness, and Chowdhury’s counsel.

The Tribunal then began addressing items in the cause list, beginning with the Gholam Azam case. The Prosecution continued its cross-examination of DW 1, Abdullahil Aman Azmi, who is the son of Gholam Azam and a former Army personnel.

After the mid-day break Defense counsel for Salauddin Qader Chowdhury began their cross-examination of prosecution witness 17 in-camera.

Continue reading →

23 January 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary –

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossain Sayedee: Order on review applications, Resubmission of Defense Closing Arguments (Accused was Present)
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury: Rejection of Applications for Contempt Proceedings (Accused Not Present)

On January 23, Tribunal rejected two Review applications filed by the Defense Counsel for Delwar Hossain Sayedee on January 20, 2013. These applications were filed to review the order dated 14 January 2013 denying the request to inspect all process and summons issued to the 19(2) witnesses and to recall the Prosecution Witnesses No 28 (Helal Uddin, Investigation Officer) and Defence Witness No13 under Rule 46A of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2010.

Mizanul Islam said that Prosecution adduced some documents on December 5, 2012, just one day before closing the Defence Arguments by virtue of section 19(4) of the ICT Act 1973. Mizanul Islam argued that they did not get any chance to Cross examine IO on those documents and for interest of justice they should be given opportunity to cross examine the IO (PW-28).#

The Tribunal continued to hear Mizanul Islam’s Closing Arguments on behalf of the Defense.

In the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal summarily rejected two applications filed by the Defense. One of them was an application to issue contempt proceedings against Ahmed Ziauddin (the foreign legal expert implicated in the Skype controversy) under section 11(4) of the ICT Act 1973. The second was an application seeking explanation from the Attorney General as to whether Ziauddin was officially appointed by the Tribunal to be a legal expert or not.

Continue reading →

22 January 2013: ICT 1 Daily Summary – Sayedee Defense Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following case:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Delwar Hossein Sayedee: Resubmission of Defense Closing Arguments (Accused was Present)

Mizanul Islam, Defense counsel for Sayedee, continued the resubmission of the Defense’s Closing Arguments for the 3rd  consecutive day. The Defense began their closing arguments on January 20, 2013. On January 22, The Defense summed up arguments based on Charges 5, 14 and 16. Chairman A.T.M Fazle Kabir directed the Defense to complete their arguments within tomorrow’s session (January 23, 2013).

Continue reading →

3 Jan 2013: Cross-Examination of PW 11 in Mujahid Case

Chief of Prosecution vs. Mujahid
The Defense conducted the cross examination of Mr Foyez Uddin Ahmad, Prosecution Witness 11. The 82 year old witness had previously testified against Mujahid, providing testimony supporting  Charge 2 for abetting and substantially contributing to the actual commission of offense of persecution as crime against humanity and genocide. He stated that Mujahid was the leader of Islami Chatra Sangha and subsequently became the head of Al-Badar Bahini. The witness alleged that Mujahid, accompanied by one Hammad Moulana, 8-10 non-Bengalees, and a Mr. Ishaque went along with the Pakistani Army and launched an attack directed against Hindu populated villages such as Baidyadangi, Majhidangi, and Baladangi. The charge further alleges that they killed 50 to 60 Hindus by gun fire and by setting fire to their houses, and that they carried out these actions with the intent to persecute and destroy the Hindu Community.

The Defense focused its cross-examination on questions designed to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence and undermine the credibility of the witness, leading to an inference that he could not have identified the accused to be connected with the alleged charges because he did not know him during the liberation war.

  • The witness was asked during his cross-examination about his school, Yasin Muslim Hight School, Tepakhola (presently named as Government Yasin College) and about the Head Masters / Principals thereof during different regimes.
  • The Defense asked about the presence of Razakaars in the witness’ locality during the liberation war. He commented that his areas of Dicrichor, Chor Horiram and Gazirtech had none.
  • The witness was asked about the number of areas in Faridpur city named “Komlapur”and answered that there were three, namely, Komlapur, Kuthibari Komlapur and Chorkomlapur.
  • He was asked about the character of Mr Maolana Abdul Ali, the father of the accused, and testified to the affirmative in regard to his piousness, being an Imam and Islamic scholar, and that he was released upon the instruction of Bangabandhu  Sheikh Mujibur Rahman following the arrest in the post-liberation period.
  • He stated that he was not aware about the number of children Maolana Ali had, their education details and that he did not personally know the accused Mr Mujahid at all. He remembers seeing him only once, in the local Sadar Hospital, but admitted that he saw him only from the back side.