Tag Archives: witness testimony

28 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Prosecution Closing Arguments

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Mobarak Hossain

In the Chowdhury case the Prosecution began their Closing Arguments, addressing charges 1, 2 and 3. The Defense also filed an application seeking adjournment stating that Shamim Hasnain is willing to testify in the case and has requested permission to do so from the Chief Justice. They requested adjournment until approval is granted. The Defense also attached a letter sent by Salman F Rahman (one of the proposed DWs) to the registrar in which the potential witness stated that he is currently out of the country, has fallen ill and has been instructed by his doctors to recover prior to traveling. The Tribunal responded that if it decided the application merited hearing it would appear in the cause list the next day.

In the case against Mobarak Hossain today was scheduled for the examination-in-chief of Prosecution Witness 7. However, due to the Closing Arguments in the Chowdhury case the Tribunal rescheduled the witness’ testimony for 12 August. Continue reading →

25 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Prosecution Witness 35

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the case against Abdul Alim. the Prosecution called the Investigation Officer, Mr ZM Altafur Rahman, as Prosecution witness 35. The Investigation Officer testified about his findings and stated that the accused played a central role in committing atrocities as the Chairman of Jaipurhat Peace Committee, which acted as an auxiliary force of the Pakistani Army.  He referred to documentary evidence collected during the investigation as being incriminating of Alim. These documents include several books that have been exhibited in addition to documents and newspapers seized by the Investigation Officer and enumerated on the Seizure List. Cross-examination was scheduled for a later date.

Demeanor of the Court
A junior member of the Defense informed the Tribunal that senior counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena, who has been cross-examining the witnesses, is ill. The Defense requested a long adjournment until Hena is able to fully recover. The Tribunal was critical of the request and noted that this sort of delay, on a regular basis, is tantamount to obstruction of justice. The Tribunal noted that there have been frequent requests for adjournment based on  either the illness of a Defense counsel or that of the Accused. They stated that such requests will not be entertained and that the Defense must complete the cross-examination between 29 July to 1 August 2013. The Judges stressed that the trial will continue at its pace without such delays, save in exceptional instances.

24 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Charge Framing Order, Khan and Mueen Uddin PW 5, Alim PW

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial Proceedings against AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin
  3. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim 

Today Tribunal began by hearing a bail application on behalf of AKM Yusuf. The Defense presented arguments both regarding the necessity of bail, and the insufficiency of the charges proposed against AKM Yusuf by the Prosecution. They argued that the suspect should be discharged as the allegations against him are malafide and inspired by political motivations. The Tribunal also heard the Prosecution’s response. They  scheduled 1 August for issuing their order regarding bail and the potential framing of charges against the suspect. They instructed the jail authorities to submit a report on the availability of their medical facilities and their ability to meet the needs of the suspect while in custody.

The Tribunal then turned to the case of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin in which the Prosecution  called Prosecution witness 5 to testify in support of Charge 6. As the trials are being conducted in absentia,  state appointed Defense counsel Shukur Khan and Tuny will be allowed to conduct the cross examination at a later date on behalf of Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin respectively.

In the Alim case the Tribunal rejected an application from the Defense requesting additional time due to the illness of senior Defense counsel Ahsanul Huq Hena. A junior Defense attorney stated that Hena is physically unwell and is undergoing treatment at the United Hospital. The Tribunal was critical of the delayed application and stated that it would briefly begin the examination of the Investigation Officer and would continue  it the following day. Thus the tribunal very briefly started recording the examination of the Io, but then fixed 25 July 2013 as the date for recording his entire testimony. Continue reading →

24 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 15, Chowdhury Defense Application and DW 4

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 Nizami case the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 15, Aminul Islam Dablu.

In the Chowdhury case the Tribunal had scheduled today as the deadline for producing Defense witnesses 4 and 5, Salman F Rahman and Shamim Hasnain. However, the Defense filed an application stating that they were facing difficulties in producing the witnesses and requested that the Tribunal allow another Defense witness, Abdul Momen Chowdhury, to testify in place of Salman F Rahman. The Prosecution opposed the application, noting Abdul Momen Chowdhury’s name did not appear in the original list of 1153 witnesses submitted by the Defense. They argued that section 9(5) of the ICT Act states that if the Defense intends to rely upon witnesses, the list of witnesses must be submitted before the Tribunal and the Prosecution at the commencement of the trial. The Prosecution additionally submitted that there is no scope under the ICT Act of 1973 or the Rules of Procedure to allow alternative witness. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal verbally granted the Defense’s application and asked the Defense if they would be able to produce the witness by 12 pm. The Defense agreed and the witness testified and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. After concluding the cross-examination, the Defense requested that the Tribunal allow them to produce Shamim Hasnain (on of the 5 DWs) on 28 July. However, the Tribunal passed an order and stated that the examination-in-chief of Defense witnesses has been concluded. They noted that they provided two additional opportunities for the Defense to produce the witness and that they did not now find any new ground for reconsideration. The Tribunal finally scheduled 28 July for the beginning of the Prosecution’s Closing Arguments and 31 July for the beginning of the Defense Closing Arguments.  Continue reading →

23 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings, Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Mueen Uddin PWs 3 and 4.

23 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Contempt Proceedings against Prosecution Witness, Ashrafuzzaman Khan and Chowdhury Mueen Uddin Cross Examination of PW 3

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Contempt Proceedings against Jahir Uddin Jalal
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Ashrafuzzaman Khan & Chowdhury Mueen Uddin

Jahir Uddin Jalal, a Prosecution witness against whom contempt charges were brought after he allegedly physically assaulted a Defense attorney outside of the High Court, filed an application to recall the order passed by Tribunal on 21 July. The Tribunal’s order disposed of the the charge by cautioning the witness not to engage in similar behavior in the future, without concluding that the incident was definitively committed by him. Jalal opposed the order, alleging that he did not instruct his lawyer Monsur Rashid to propose such a disposal of the matter and that the lawyer had acted without his instruction. Jalal’s newly appointed counsel requested that the order be recalled. The Tribunal accepted the application and recalled the order, scheduling a rehearing of the matter for 29 July.

In the Khan and Mueen Uddin case the Tribunal heard the cross-examination of Prosecution witness 3 as well as the testimony of Prosecution witness 4. The case is scheduled to continue tomorrow, 24 July, with the testimony of Prosecution witness 5. Continue reading →