Category Archives: Weekly Digests
Legal Conclusions from Kamaruzzaman Judgment
We are pleased to present our fourth Special report on the third verdict issued by Tribunal 2.
Special Issue # 4: Legal Conclusions from Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman
This special report provides a detailed summary of the legal conclusions made by the International Crimes Tribunal in its fourth verdict, the Judgment of Chief Prosecutor vs. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013. All seven Charges leveled against Kamaruzzaman alleged direct involvement in Crimes Against Humanity, or in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Tribunal found Kamaruzzaman guilty of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity for Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. This special report focuses on the legal conclusions within the Judgment, particularly on the Tribunal's decisions concerning evidentiary standards, the definition and elements of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, and the doctrine of Command Responsibility. For more information on the procedural history of the case and the factual findings of the Tribunal please refer to our initial report on the case, Special Issue #2: Kamaruzzaman Verdict. The legal conclusions expressed in this report are a summary and restatement of those found in the Tribunal's verdict, for the benefit of those interested in following the work of the ICT. The interpretations of law described herein do not necessarily reflect the institutional views of the Asian International Justice Initiative or its researchers.
This entry was posted in Asian International Justice Initiative, ICT's Legal Conclusions, Trial of Md. Kamaruzzaman, Tribunal 2, Weekly Digests on August 19, 2013 by AIJI Trial Monitor.
Special Report Issue #3: Chief Prosecutor vs. Gholam Azam Case Summary
This special report provides a detailed overview of the factual and legal arguments presented by the Prosecution and Defense in the case of Chief Prosecutor vs. Professor Gholam Azam. Arguments in the case were completed on 17 April 2013 and the case is currently awaiting verdict from Tribunal 1. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each count within each distinct charge, as well as the general arguments made by both parties. Once the Tribunal issues its verdict, we will publish a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment.
For the full report please go here: Special Issue No. 3 – Gholam Azam Case Summary
This entry was posted in Trial of Gholam Azam, Tribunal 1, Weekly Digests and tagged Bangladesh, Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal, Closing Arguments, command responsibility, crimes against humanity, Defense Closing Arguments, definition of crimes, documentary evidence, evidence, genocide, Gholam Azam, ICT 1, incitement, International Crimes Tribunal, international criminal courts, prosecution witness, Tribunal 1, war crimes, witness testimony on July 2, 2013 by AIJI Trial Monitor.
Special Report Issue 2: Detailed Summary of Kamaruzzaman Case and Verdict
We are pleased to release our second Special Issue Report on the Verdict in the Kamaruzzaman case. For a full pdf of the report please read here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict
This special report provides a detailed summary of the International Crimes Tribunal's fourth verdict, the Judgment in Chief Prosecutor vs. Md. Kamaruzzaman. The verdict was issued on 9 May 2013 and was the third verdict to be issued by Tribunal 2. We have attempted to distill the major conclusions expressed by the Tribunal into a digestible format. We have reported on the documentary and witness evidence used to support each distinct charge, general arguments made by both parties, and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. For the sake of length we have focused this report on the factual and charge specific findings within the Judgment. We will be publishing a supplementary report regarding the legal conclusions made in the Judgment that have particular bearing on the ongoing proceedings. This report does not critically analyze the legal merits of the Judgment. It is presented simply in order to facilitate broader access to and understanding of the ICT's proceedings and conclusions.
Kamaruzzaman was found guilty on 5 of 7 Charges, specifically Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. He was acquitted of Charges 5 and 6. All of the Charges alleged direct commission of Crimes Against Humanity or, in the alternative, complicity in Crimes Against Humanity. The Prosecution additionally argued that Kamaruzzaman could be found liable under the doctrine of Command Responsibility under Section 4(2). However, he was convicted solely of complicity in Crimes Against Humanity under Section 4(1) of the Act. On the basis of Charges 3 and 4 he was sentenced to death. The Tribunal noted that charges 1 and 7 merited a life sentence, while Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under charge 2. All lesser sentences were merged into the death sentence.
Please read the entire report here: Special Issue No. 2 – Kamaruzzaman Verdict
This entry was posted in Daily Summaries, Issue Based Posts, Trial of Md. Kamaruzzaman, Tribunal 2, Weekly Digests and tagged Bangladesh, Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal, Charge Framing Order, command responsibility, complicity, crimes against humanity, documentary evidence, Guilty, Hearsay, ICT, ICT 2, International Crimes Tribunal, international criminal courts, Judgment, Kamaruzzaman, Tribunal 2, Verdict, war crimes, witness testimony on June 11, 2013 by AIJI Trial Monitor.
Weekly Digest Issue 11: March 31- April 4
The full report of this week's proceedings can be read here: Weekly Digest, Issue 11 – March 31- April 4
This week Tribunal 1 dealt with the Motiur Rahman Nizami, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, and Gholam Azam cases. In the case against Nizami the Defence cross-examined Prosecution witness 3, Rustom Ali Mollah. In the case against Salauddin Qader Chowdhury the Tribunal heard both the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Prosecution witness 24, Babul Chakraborty. Gholam Azam's Defence counsel continued their Defence Closing Arguments, addressing the conspiracy allegations under Charge 1, as well as legal arguments on incitement. Proceedings were delayed by hartals and the absence of Defense counsel.
In Tribunal 2, the Court heard the Prosecution's Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, during which they addressed evidentiary issues including hearsay, and legal arguments about the standard of complicity and under the doctrine of Superior Responsibility. Due to the hartal on 2 April, ICT 2 convened only briefly to allow the Prosecution to complete their examination-in-chief of the Investigation Officer in the Mujahid case. On 3rd April the Defence began its presentation of Closing Arguments in the Kamaruzzaman case, addressing factual issues in Charges 1-3 and responding to the legal issues raised by the Prosecution during their Closing Arguments.
This entry was posted in Trial of Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid, Trial of Gholam Azam, Trial of Md. Kamaruzzaman, Trial of Motiur Rahman Nizami, Trial of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Tribunal 2, Weekly Digests and tagged Bangladesh, Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal, Chowdhury, Closing Arguments, command responsibility, complicity, conspiracy, crimes against humanity, cross-examination, Defense Closing Arguments, genocide, Gholam Azam, hartal, Hearsay, ICT, ICT 1, ICT 2, incitement, International crimes courts, International Crimes Tribunal, Kamaruzzaman, Mujahid, Nizami, Prosecution Closing Arguments, prosecution witness, Tribunal 1, Tribunal 2, war crimes, witness testimony on May 9, 2013 by AIJI Trial Monitor.
Weekly Digest 10: March 24-28
We apologize for the delay in publishing this week's digest.
The Tribunal was in recess on 26 March 2013 in honor of Bangladesh's independence day. Additionally, opposition parties declared hartals on the 27th and 28th of March. Therefore our coverage of those days is gathered from media sources as well as discussions with the Defense and Prosecution. Our researchers are unable to attend proceedings on hartal days due to security concerns.
Tribunal 1:
Proceedings in Tribunal 1 continued to center on the Defense's Closing Arguments in the Gholam Azam case this week, with counsel completing their submissions regarding factual issues and Charge 5. Senior Defense counsel Abdur Razzaq is scheduled to present arguments on legal issues and Charges 1-4 next week. In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case the Defense cross-examined Prosecution witnesses 22 and 23. Additionally, The Tribunal heard Chowdhury's Defense application for police escort to the Tribunal on hartal days.
Tribunal 2 dealt with two cases this week. In the Kamaruzzaman case, Defense witness 5 completed providing testimony, and the Prosecution began Closing Arguments. The Tribunal also heard testimony from Prosecution witness 17, the Investigating Officer, in the Mujahid case.
Please read the full report here: Weekly Digest, Issue 10 – March 24-28
This entry was posted in Trial of Ali Ahsan Mohammed Mujahid, Trial of Gholam Azam, Trial of Md. Kamaruzzaman, Trial of Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Tribunal 1, Tribunal 2, Weekly Digests and tagged Bangaladesh War Crimes Tribunal, Bangladesh, command responsibility, court access, credibility, crimes against humanity, cross-examination, Defense Closing Arguments, defense witness, genocide, Gholam Azam, ICT, ICT 1, ICT 2, International Crimes Tribunal, international criminal courts, Kamaruzzaman, Mujahid, prosecution witness, Salauddin Qader Chowdhury, Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, superior responsibility, Tribunal 1, Tribunal 2, war crimes, war crimes tribunal on April 25, 2013 by AIJI Trial Monitor.