Tag Archives: witness testimony

9 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Alim Application for Admission of Statements under Section 19(2)

Today due to scheduled vacation our researcher was unable to attend proceedings. The following coverage was gathered from media sources.

The Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

The Tribunal heard an application from the Prosecution requesting that statements previously made by a few witnesses to the Investigation Officer be admitted into evidence under Section 19(2) of the ICT Act. Section 19(2) allows for unsworn statements made by witnesses to the Investigation Officer to be admitted where the witness is deceased or unavailable. The Prosecutor informed the Tribunal that four Prosecution Witnesses who were supposed to testify against Abdul Alim have been “missing” since May 2013. The witnesses who cannot be found are Mr Nurul Islam, Mr Abul Khayer Sarkar, Mr Fazlur Rahman and Mr Matiur Rahman. The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that admitting the statements would not be lawful and would have prejudicial effect against the accused as the defense would be deprived of the right to cross-examine the missing witnesses.

The rejection of the application is out of step with the Tribunal’s previous decisions. Previously, the Tribunal has accepted the similar requests from the Prosecution with regard to five other prosecution witnesses who were also unavailable to give testimony. Two, ,Mr Dulu Talukdar and Akramuddin died in 2011; two others, Mr Shirajul Haque and Shamsul Huda Chowdhury, are physically unfit to give testimony before the tribunal and one Krishna Kumar Bajla, currently resides in India where his wife is receiving medical treatment. The Tribunal noted that it would not be unjust to allow the statements of the deceased and witnesses who are unavailable due to illness or for being out of the country be considered as evidence, as their case is distinct from the ones who are merely suspected of being missing.

 The Defense counsel Mr. Tajul Islam objected regarding the acceptance of the statements of the two deceased witnesses, stating that the two died long before submission of the witness list. The Defense accused the Prosecution of intentionally keeping the names of those two witnesses on the list despite knowing about their death. However this argument did not change the Tribunal’s conclusion.

8 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Nizami PW 12, Chowdhury DW 2

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

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

In the Nizami case, the Defense continued their cross-examination of Prosecution witness 12, Ratindra Nath Kunda, who testified in support of Charges 1 and 10. The Tribunal then adjourned the proceedings of the case until 10 July 2013.

In the Chowdhury case, the Tribunal heard the examination-in-chief of Nizam Ahmed, Defense witness 2. The Prosecution then began their cross-examination and sought time for preparation, alleging that they were not informed earlier that Defense is going to produce this witness today. The case was then adjourned until tomorrow, 9 July 2013.  Continue reading →

8 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – Abdul Alim PW 33 and 34

Due to scheduled vacation our researcher did not attend proceedings today. The following coverage has been gathered from media sources.

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. 1.     Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the Alim case the Prosecution called two additional formal witnesses, PW-33 and PW-34, to testify regarding documents seized by the Investigation Officer and listed in the seizure list. Prosecution witness 33, Mr Anisur Rahman, is a librarian with the Investigation Agency designated to probe the facts of alleged war crimes Prosecution witness 34, Mr Nabibur Rahman, is the Commander of Akkelpur Upazila Command of the Bangladesh Muktijuddha Shanshad (a Union of Freedom Fighters of Bangladesh). He testified regarding the submission of a book titled ‘Muktijuddhe Jaipurhat’ (Jaipurhat in the war of liberation) which appears in the seizure list. Both witnesses presented the relevant documents and stated that the Investigation Officer had seized the documents from them. They did not discuss the contents of the exhibited documents. The Tribunal then scheduled 11 July for the testimony of the Investigation Officer. 

4 July 2013: ICT-2 Daily Summary – AKM Yusuf Scheduled Hearing of Charges, Abdul Alim Cross-Examination of PW 11

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Pre-trial stages against AKM Yusuf
  2. Chief Prosecutor vs. Abdul Alim

In the pre-trial proceedings against AKM Yusuf the Tribunal passed an order stating that it would begin hearing the charges against the accused. Defense counsel Tajul Islam informed the Tribunal that they had only just received the AKM Yusuf’s brief and requesting additional time to prepare upon receiving client instruction. The Tribunal then scheduled the Charge Hearing for 14 July 2013.  AKM Yusuf, a Jamaat-e-Islami political leader, was arrested on 12 May 2013. Tribunal 1 initially took cognizance of the allegations against Yusuf, and the case was then transferred to Tribunal 2.

The Tribunal then turned to the Alim case where they allowed the Defense to recall Prosecution witness 11 for cross-examination. The initial examination-in-chief of Prosecution witness 11 was conducted in the absence of Defense counsel. The Defense had requested an adjournment on several occasions (17, 25, and 27 February 2013) due to the inability of the defense counsel to attend the court proceedings for miscellaneous reasons. The Tribunal denied these applications and allowed the examination-in-chief of the witness to take place without Defense presence. The witness has been recalled based on a defense application arguing that recalling the witness was necessary for the interest of justice.

Abdul Alim Prosecution Witness 11 Cross-Examination
The Defense’s cross-examination aimed at undermining the reliability of the evidence and the credibility of the witness. In particular, they implied that the witness could not have identified Alim as being connected with the alleged charges and that he did not know Alim during the war. They alleged that the witness was not even in Bangladesh. 

The witness stated that he has 3 brothers and 4 sisters and they all lived together in the same house in 1971. He does not know when the Pakistani Army invaded Jaipurhat. He stated that he did not go to Jaipurhat Sadar road during the 1971 war and also never went to Alim’s house before or during war or  during the war. He stated that he was unable to remember when the Pakistani Army first entered in Khetlal area and could not say if there was an Army Brigade headquarters in Khetlal. The witness further stated that he does not know how many army camps were there but heard that there was one army camp, though he could not say where it was located. 

The Defense asked the witness how many members there were in the Jaipurhat Peace Committee or who its secretary was at that time. He said that probably someone named Abdul Sardar was the Chairman of Khetlal Peace Committee, but he could not name the the Secretary. He said he did not know how many members were in the Jaipurhat Peace Committee. The witness stated that the house of Saidur Rahman, who he had referred to in his previous testimony, is located in Mandal Para about 300 yards south-west of the witness’ house. He testified that he did visit Saidur Rahman’s house before the war of liberation. The witness testified that Saidur Rahman had 4 brothers and 1 sister and his father is the late Esharat Ullah Mandal.

The witness stated that he studied at Kalai Moinuddin High School, whose Principal was Qazi Talibur Rahman. His confirmed his date of birth (as it appears on his SSC certificate) as 1 July 1955. He said he was not a voter during the 1970 General Election. The witness acknowledged that he did not file a case regarding the murder of his family but said he was not sure whether anyone else from his family filed a case. The Defense noted that the late Badol’s brother, Biswanath Dev, filed a case against 6 persons in 1972. They suggested that the witness was intentionally pretending not to know about this case because Abdul Alim is not accused in that case. The witness denied the suggestion.

The witness then stated that he was not present during the meeting between Alim, other Peace Committee members and Major Afzal. He claimed that he did not know whether there were news reports about the meeting.

The witness said he did not show to the Investigation Officer the bush where the alleged incident took place. He described the area around his house. He stated the distance between his house and Hazunza Har is about 2 to 2.5 km. There are two villages in between, Harunza Hat to Khetlal is 3 to 4 Km of distance. There is a mosque in the South-West of the witness’s house after which there lies a Hindu village. 

The witness acknowledged that he does not have any documentary evidence to show that Alim was the Chairman of local Peace Committee or a Rajakar member, but he reiterated that he had heard that Alim held those positions. He denied that Abbas Ali Khan was the actual Chairman. The witness said that he does not know whether the Razakars had a uniform or dress code. He denied the Defense’s suggestion that there was no bush near his house in 1971 and that he was not actually in Bangladesh at the time. He said that he does not know about any village named Turipara near Alim’s house.

The Defense alleged that the witness is providing fabricated evidence before the Tribunal at the instruction of the Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council. The judges objected and stated that this suggestion would not be recorded as it is aggravating towards religious groups. The Defense also alleged that Alim was in hiding during the war.

4 July 2013: ICT-1 Daily Summary – Chowdhury Cross-Examination as DW 1

Today the Tribunal heard matters in the following cases:

  1. Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury

Today the Prosecution completed their cross-examination of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Defense witness 1. Thereafter, Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 8 July 2013.

Cross-Examination
During his examination-in-chief, Chowdhury claimed that he is Chittagonian by birth. The Prosecution stated that the he born to a Bengali Muslim family on 13 March 1949 in Bohira village under Rawjan police station. The witness denied, clarifying that he born in a Muslim family in the Chittagong town under Kotoali police station, not in a Bengali family. The Prosecution alleged that Chowdhury’s mother tongue is Bangla. He denied this as well, claiming that his first language is Chatgia, the local language of Chittagong. The Prosecution asked the witness whether this language has an alphabet which he affirmed.

During his examination-in-chief Chowdhury also claimed that Chittagong has never historically been part of Bengal. The Prosecution asked the witness about Resolution-7, dated 19 July 1905, from a book titled The Partition of Bengal, which they claimed showed that Chittagong was part of Bengal even in 1905. The resolution referred to a proposal to form a new province consisting of Chittagong, Dacca (now Dhaka), Rajsahi of Bengal and Malda, Hill Tipperah, Asam and Darjeeling . The Prosecution read out from the book and asked the witness whether these statements are written in this book. The witness answered yes. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he read the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and is aware of its content, to which he replied affirmatively. The Prosecution then claimed that Chittagong was clearly part of Bengal even before the birth of Chowdhury’s father and had no distinct identity as claimed by Chowdhury. They alleged that the Defendant is intentionally denying history and providing false information before the Tribunal. The witness denied the allegation and added that there is nothing in the Act stating that distinct identity must be recognized by Act. Continue reading →