The tribunal had set the date for the defense to respond to the charge frame application relating to Golam Azam. (The prosecution had completed its charge framing application of Azam on 22 Feb)
Advocate Tajul Islam asked the tribunal for more time before the defence are required to respond to the charge framing application. He said that due to the voluminous documents produced by the prosecution it is difficult to do sufficient preparation. He also said that the video documentation, which the prosecution wanted to show was totally irrelevant.
Justice Nizamul Huq said that according to the prosecution it is relevant to their case. Advocate Tajul Islam responded by asking how he could prepare himself if he has to stay here watching their video.
The chairman said that it was not, the business of Court to fix your time for preparation.
Advocate Zead-Al- Malum then stood up and told the tribunal that they were going to show some video documentation on 1971 including one that will show the historic timeframe of 1947 to 1971.
Then several videos were presented before the court through a projector. It included a video of atrocities committed in between that time, news clippings by the Lizz Trotta of NBC broadcast on 2/10/72, George Montegomary of CBS on 6/3/76, an individual clipping from ABC on 12/9/71, a news package by Peter Jennings, Ray Moloney etc. They have also presented a video documentation made by the Investigation agency.
After showing all the Video Documentations, Mr. Saiful Islam apologized for the poor sound quality.
Justice Nizamul Huq said that the technical problems must be checked out properly before producing it before any court.
Advocate Tajul Islam then argued that as it is a specialized tribunal, the defence must be very careful before they make their submission, and the prosecution has prepared a document of around 2500 pages. For taking proper preparation we’ve asked for four weeks previously.
The chairman then passed an order which adjourned the charge framing matter until 6th March and also stated that during the charge hearing Golam Azam’s presence was not required unless it is required by the Court.
The court then went onto deal with Salauddin Quader Chowdhury's charge frame hearing which can be read on a different page.
Advocate Tajul Islam asked the tribunal for more time before the defence are required to respond to the charge framing application. He said that due to the voluminous documents produced by the prosecution it is difficult to do sufficient preparation. He also said that the video documentation, which the prosecution wanted to show was totally irrelevant.
Justice Nizamul Huq said that according to the prosecution it is relevant to their case. Advocate Tajul Islam responded by asking how he could prepare himself if he has to stay here watching their video.
The chairman said that it was not, the business of Court to fix your time for preparation.
Advocate Zead-Al- Malum then stood up and told the tribunal that they were going to show some video documentation on 1971 including one that will show the historic timeframe of 1947 to 1971.
Then several videos were presented before the court through a projector. It included a video of atrocities committed in between that time, news clippings by the Lizz Trotta of NBC broadcast on 2/10/72, George Montegomary of CBS on 6/3/76, an individual clipping from ABC on 12/9/71, a news package by Peter Jennings, Ray Moloney etc. They have also presented a video documentation made by the Investigation agency.
After showing all the Video Documentations, Mr. Saiful Islam apologized for the poor sound quality.
Justice Nizamul Huq said that the technical problems must be checked out properly before producing it before any court.
Advocate Tajul Islam then argued that as it is a specialized tribunal, the defence must be very careful before they make their submission, and the prosecution has prepared a document of around 2500 pages. For taking proper preparation we’ve asked for four weeks previously.
The chairman then passed an order which adjourned the charge framing matter until 6th March and also stated that during the charge hearing Golam Azam’s presence was not required unless it is required by the Court.
The court then went onto deal with Salauddin Quader Chowdhury's charge frame hearing which can be read on a different page.
No comments:
Post a Comment