After the tribunal denied the Sayedee defense application for adjournment, the evidence in chief of the investigation officer then started
The prosecutor told the tribunal that they had summarised the Investigation officer’s examination in chief in two volumes. The first volume is a summary of the IO examination in chief that he will say before this tribunal. The second volume are the pictures of the places occurrences and other exhibits that the IO will exhibits during his examination in chief. We are giving these two volumes to the tribunal and giving copy to the defense.
Mizanul Islam for the defence stated that It appears that the second volume contains many new pictures, maps and documents which the prosecution cannot give at this stage; if they want to rely upon additional document they will have to take special permission from the tribunal under section 9(4) of the Act after giving notice to the defense.
The chairman said, let the examination of the investigation officer start, and that the defence can show that any of those documents have not been given to them earlier, that the defence will take its own course and the court will not take them as exhibits.
Justice Nizamul Haq: Mr. Prosecutor, have you passed the copies to the defence?
Mizanul Islam said that the defence had an objection. The investigation officer cannot refer to those documents since they have not provided the defence copies of those documents earlier. These are new documents.
The chairman asked the prosecution whether they had given a copy of these documents to the Defence earlier?
The prosecutor said that it was there, but the defence argued that it was not in the four volumes of documents given earlier, and asked for the page number so they could see.
After the tribunal members discussed amongst themselves, Anwarul Haq told the prosecution that they cannot exhibit this document since a copy had not been given to the defence as required by law.
The defence lawyer then argued that the statement regarding those new documents should also be deleted from his examination in chief.
The chairman however stated that this is not necessary, and there was no harm if statement about those documents remained in the examination in chief. The investigation officer can say which documents he inspected in the course of his investigation, though copy of those documents are not given to the defence.
The defence lawyer then argued that the prosecution had given the defence copies of the papers and documents upon which they wanted to rely, and since the prosecution have not given it to them, then they do not want to rely on it , and so why should the investigation officer state anything about it in the examination in chief.
One of the judges stated that we are not allowing prosecution to exhibit those documents, but the investigation officer can say that he have inspected these documents in the course of his investigation.
The defence lawyer again raised the issue about the Investigation report - and that the defence had not been able to see it. Inforamtion about what he did is usually contained in the Investigation report. So how can we check the authenticity of the investigation officer’s statement about these documents since we are not given the Investigation Report?
Haider Ali from the prosecution then said that, the website- https:/www.warcrimesbd.org/list/razakars-of-dhaka-division circulates the list of razakars. It has released the name of 917 razakars. It has published the name of the razakars according to the division and districts, whereas the list of Pirojpur District the number of razakars are 854-870, in total 17 among them Delwar Hossain Sayeede’s name hold the 868 serial [reference- Page- 3561, vol- 13].
Justice Akm Zaheer- You have refered the name of a website; but you have not provided the reference of the website to the defence.
The defence then asked whether Sayedee could be relieved from coming to the tribunal in the afternoon as he was not feeling well. The tribunal agreed and then that the matter relating to Nizami would not be heard today but adjourned until 15 April
The Court was adjourned till 2 P.M.
Haider Ali came to the dais and continued Examination-in-chief of the Investigation officer, Helal Uddin
Prosecution: My lord, report of the newspaper is exhibited so it should not be deleted.
Chairman: Newspaper has been exhibited but the book is not exhibited, that means you are not relying upon the book. Therefore pages 36 and 37 re not taken.
Justice Zaheer: Learned prosecution just tell me what is the parent here, this book or this newspaper?
Prosecution: Newspaper.
Jaustice Zaheer: Then why you want to refer this book?
Defence: My lord, then your decision is, page 36 and 37 are not going. Is it?
Justice Zaheer: Yes.
Prosecution: If I get a reference of newspaper after reading the book then what will be the problem if I refer to the book?
Justice Zaheer: Mr. Haider Ali, if there exists primary evidence then why you want to submit secondary evidence. Statement of the Investigation Officer has been modified by stating that newspaper was seized and analysed according to the reference of the book. Is the information below referring to what is written in the newspaper article mentioned above in teh Daily Jonokhonto
Defence: My lord, we do not get these documents also. My lord, if these documents are not given to you as well as us, then why are they exhibiting this document. My lord, if they do not rely upon that document then why they will submit this before the court. And they should be given well advanced copy to us.
The prosecution argued that they had given copies of sketch maps of the places of occurrences in the document volumes given to the defence, and that these maps are merely combined maps of those sketch maps.
The defence said that that the prosecution had given then only five sketch maps in the document volumes. But this Big map contain pictures and other information about all the 20 places of occurrences. There is no scope to submit any new map at this stage.
The chairman said that this is merely a combined sketch map and we will take it.
The defence said but this is a new document.
The prosecutor said that they had given them copy of these maps this morning.
The defence argued that this was not sufficient. If the prosecution wants to bring in any new paper and document then the permission must be taken under section 9(4) of the 1973 Act and the defence should be given notice of this. This is the only way to bring in any new paper and document.
The chairman then said, that the court would not exhibit this, but that the investigation officer can submit this and he can make statement about this map in his examination in chief.
The defence asked that their objection should be recorded, and the chairman agreed.
The prosecutor then said that the tribunal should not record any objection against this maps, as there was no legal bar for the IO to give statements on these Maps.
The defence argued that the legal bar was section 9(4) of the 1973 Act and Rule 18 of the Rules of procedure.
One of the judges said that though they cannot give any exhibit mark, they can give it an identification mark as I and II for these two maps so that the tribunal can identify them in future..
Mizanul Islam then said that there was no provision to put any identification mark on any paper copy of which is not given to the defence.
Justice Anwarul Haque said that in the traditional trial we follow this procedure.
The defence lawyer then said the traditional trial is conducted under Cr.PC. and there is a provision for identification mark in Cr.PC, but that this tribunal has repeatedly told us to forget Cr.PC for this court. So, why you will follow Cr.PC provision here?
The tribunal judges then said that we have inherent power under rule 46 to use Cr.PC in this case.
The defence lawyer then said that there a is specific prohibition that Cr.PC will not be applicable.
The chairman said that we are not applying Cr.PC, but we have inherent power to follow a similar procedure here if we find it necessary.
Then the court is adjourned.
The prosecutor told the tribunal that they had summarised the Investigation officer’s examination in chief in two volumes. The first volume is a summary of the IO examination in chief that he will say before this tribunal. The second volume are the pictures of the places occurrences and other exhibits that the IO will exhibits during his examination in chief. We are giving these two volumes to the tribunal and giving copy to the defense.
Mizanul Islam for the defence stated that It appears that the second volume contains many new pictures, maps and documents which the prosecution cannot give at this stage; if they want to rely upon additional document they will have to take special permission from the tribunal under section 9(4) of the Act after giving notice to the defense.
The chairman said, let the examination of the investigation officer start, and that the defence can show that any of those documents have not been given to them earlier, that the defence will take its own course and the court will not take them as exhibits.
Haider Ali [Prosecutor]: What is your name?Mizanul Islam [Defence Counsel]: My Lord, we’ve not received the contents of those 15 pages.
Helal Uddin: I’m Helal Uddin, the Investigation Officer at International Crimes Tribunal.
Haider Ali [Prosecutor]: How old are you?
Helal Uddin: 56 years.
From 8th July, 2010 I’ve been appointed as the Investigation Officer in International Crimes Tribunal, under section- 8(1) of the ICT Act-1973. On the time of taking the preparation of investigation of the cases of ICT, a martyr named Mr. Mahbubul Alam Hawlader, of Tengrakhali, Police Station- Indurkhali, District- PIrojpur has came before the International Crimes Tribunal and filed an application by addressing the Chief Investigation Officer of the Investigation Unit of the International Crimes Tribunal. The date of the application is 20th July, 2010. On 15th July, 2010 the application has been registered under rule-05. (ICT Notification No- TRI/87/BIDHI/10)
Then, we started our investigation for the crimes committed under section-3(2) of the ICT Act-1973 under rule-6. During the investigation, the Investigation agency has created a map which was based on the survey of the country based on a map of 1971 genocide, created by the war crimes fact finding committee, Uttara Dhaka which is being secured in the office of the Investigation agency. After observing the map the places of genocide has been stated in pages 1-15.
Justice Nizamul Haq: Mr. Prosecutor, have you passed the copies to the defence?
Mizanul Islam said that the defence had an objection. The investigation officer cannot refer to those documents since they have not provided the defence copies of those documents earlier. These are new documents.
The chairman asked the prosecution whether they had given a copy of these documents to the Defence earlier?
The prosecutor said that it was there, but the defence argued that it was not in the four volumes of documents given earlier, and asked for the page number so they could see.
After the tribunal members discussed amongst themselves, Anwarul Haq told the prosecution that they cannot exhibit this document since a copy had not been given to the defence as required by law.
The defence lawyer then argued that the statement regarding those new documents should also be deleted from his examination in chief.
The chairman however stated that this is not necessary, and there was no harm if statement about those documents remained in the examination in chief. The investigation officer can say which documents he inspected in the course of his investigation, though copy of those documents are not given to the defence.
The defence lawyer then argued that the prosecution had given the defence copies of the papers and documents upon which they wanted to rely, and since the prosecution have not given it to them, then they do not want to rely on it , and so why should the investigation officer state anything about it in the examination in chief.
One of the judges stated that we are not allowing prosecution to exhibit those documents, but the investigation officer can say that he have inspected these documents in the course of his investigation.
The defence lawyer again raised the issue about the Investigation report - and that the defence had not been able to see it. Inforamtion about what he did is usually contained in the Investigation report. So how can we check the authenticity of the investigation officer’s statement about these documents since we are not given the Investigation Report?
Helal Uddin [Investigation Officer]: 12 graveyards have been found in Pirojpur District. After searching www.genocidebangladesh.org it has been found that 60% houses have been damaged in Barishal, Jhalkathi, Rajapur, Kawkhali, Shorupkathi, Kathalia, Pirojpur, Mothbaria and Babugonj. Total 47 Graveyards, 3400 women were raped, 2500 skeletons have been found and 65,000 people were killed. After looking at several books, papers, websites and other document during the investigation and from the book published by Dr. M.A. Hasan; Coordinator, War Crimes Fact Finding Committee for genocide in Bangladesh; the list of the names of the perpetrators of War Crime, Crime Against Humanity and Genocide was found and it has also been found that- the auxiliary forces, razakar, al-badar, al-shams forces have been formed in Pirojpur District.At this stage Mr Mizanul Islam stated that they’ll be falling in trouble in the time of their submission with the mistaken page numbers of the Prosecution documents, as the copies do not have the correct page number and urged the prosecution follow the copies given to the defence. Justice Nizamul Haq contended that, no, the numbering of copies that the tribunal had in its possession should be the ones which should followed. Mizanul Islam contended that the system is that we have to rely on the copies on which the Prosecution is relying on. At this stage Haider Ali told the defence that they can correct their own copies. Then Tajul Islam shouted out ‘Why do we correct your copies?’ Then Justice Nizamul Haq stated that Mr. Tajul we advise you to restrain yourself and to be polite before the court. Tajul Islam then shouted out that the tribunal does not see any faults of the prosecution. Justice Nijamul Haq said so you are saying this? Tajul Islam again shouted out, Yes you’re not doing Justice to us. Justice Nijamul Haq said- We are not doing Justice? Mr. Islam, before saying these types of words you should restraint yourself.
From the list of the Razakar Forces of Pirojpur, the name of Delwar Hossain Sayedee has been found on number 16 among the list of the names of 18 razakars.
Justice Anwarul Haq: You have to refer the name, page and reference of the book.
Haider Ali [Prosecutor]: We’re trying to do so.
Haider Ali from the prosecution then said that, the website- https:/www.warcrimesbd.org/list/razakars-of-dhaka-division circulates the list of razakars. It has released the name of 917 razakars. It has published the name of the razakars according to the division and districts, whereas the list of Pirojpur District the number of razakars are 854-870, in total 17 among them Delwar Hossain Sayeede’s name hold the 868 serial [reference- Page- 3561, vol- 13].
Justice Akm Zaheer- You have refered the name of a website; but you have not provided the reference of the website to the defence.
The defence then asked whether Sayedee could be relieved from coming to the tribunal in the afternoon as he was not feeling well. The tribunal agreed and then that the matter relating to Nizami would not be heard today but adjourned until 15 April
The Court was adjourned till 2 P.M.
Haider Ali came to the dais and continued Examination-in-chief of the Investigation officer, Helal Uddin
Witness: If we analyse the book “Associates of Pakistan Army, 1971” by A.S.M Shamsul Arefin then in page 36 and 37 it is found that Delwar Hossain Sayeede, son of Yusuf Ali Sikder Village: southkhali, Thana: Indurkani, District: Pirojpur, was involved in Crime against humanity In 1971. By analysing this book it is found thata report of the Daily Janokantha dated 5th March 2001 is referred to in this book.Defence: My lord, then where is book which was written according to the report of Daily janakantha? So my lord, since the book is not exhibited so reference of the book should be deleted.
Prosecution: My lord, report of the newspaper is exhibited so it should not be deleted.
Chairman: Newspaper has been exhibited but the book is not exhibited, that means you are not relying upon the book. Therefore pages 36 and 37 re not taken.
Justice Zaheer: Learned prosecution just tell me what is the parent here, this book or this newspaper?
Prosecution: Newspaper.
Jaustice Zaheer: Then why you want to refer this book?
Defence: My lord, then your decision is, page 36 and 37 are not going. Is it?
Justice Zaheer: Yes.
Prosecution: If I get a reference of newspaper after reading the book then what will be the problem if I refer to the book?
Justice Zaheer: Mr. Haider Ali, if there exists primary evidence then why you want to submit secondary evidence. Statement of the Investigation Officer has been modified by stating that newspaper was seized and analysed according to the reference of the book. Is the information below referring to what is written in the newspaper article mentioned above in teh Daily Jonokhonto
Investigation Officer: Substance of the Newspaper: - Razakaar “Deilla” was named as Delwar Hossain Saidee today. He was Involved in crime against humanity in 1971. The News is as follows:
1. In 1971 he was named as Razakaar “Deilla”
2. He was the involved in the killing of Faizur Rahman Ahmed, father of renowned novelist Humayun Ahmed.
3. There is an allegation that he killed Freedom fighter Abdur Razzak in 1971.
4. After the liberation he fled away then in 1985 he returned in Pirojpur and started to organize different religious meeting.
5. He wanted revolution by following the style of Taleban which is clear from his waj (religious meeting). He was becoming more and more popular as a disciple of International terrorist Osama bin laden.
6. He was involved in looting, arson, killing, torture and rape in 1971.
7. He was the son–in-law of the Iunus Munshi at Badura village. He used to gossip at Chicken farm at Parer hat bandor.
8. In 1971 when Liberation war started he joined in razakaar force, supported Pakistan army and then started to commit all types of offences. After that within a few days he became popular to the Pakistan Militia. He compelled the young people to join at razaakar force otherwise they were killed.
He looted the shop of Helaluddin poshari, Roiz poshari, Amzad ali, and others. He forcibly possessed the shop of Sultan talukdar and then started this buisness in his name. He looted the house of madan shaha. A freedom fighter Gopal banik was illegally taken away by him and after that he was killed at the bank of Doleshwari River by Pakistan militia. Krishno Kanto saha was also killed with the cooperation of Saydee. He also looted the house of Narayan shaha, makhan saha and Bipod saha. Therfore, he was involved in killing, persecution, looting, torture, rape and also made a list of freedom fighter for the convenient of Pakistan militia.The prosecutor showed two big maps (about 3ft by 5 ft) to the Tribunal. An argument then ensued about whether these documents should be admitted or not. The investigation officer said that the first one combined map of all the places of occurrences. The second one is combined map of the mass graves in Pirojpur districts. These maps are prepared by the LGED experts of the government.
An old lady made an allegation that his hasband had been killed by the Delawar Hossain Saidee. He filed an case but it was not continued as saydee is a politically powerful person.
This case was submitted to the chief prosecutor on 29th July 2010. Then he was arrested and his statement has been taken subsequently. I have visited different places in Pirojpur for collecting evidence and taken statement of freedom fighters, relatives of freedom fighters, renowned persons of that particular region. And there is video CDs which I have taken in my official Camera. This is the Sketch map of Pirojpur district and map of the Boddhabhumi and mass-graveyard. (Gonokabor).
Defence: My lord, we do not get these documents also. My lord, if these documents are not given to you as well as us, then why are they exhibiting this document. My lord, if they do not rely upon that document then why they will submit this before the court. And they should be given well advanced copy to us.
The prosecution argued that they had given copies of sketch maps of the places of occurrences in the document volumes given to the defence, and that these maps are merely combined maps of those sketch maps.
The defence said that that the prosecution had given then only five sketch maps in the document volumes. But this Big map contain pictures and other information about all the 20 places of occurrences. There is no scope to submit any new map at this stage.
The chairman said that this is merely a combined sketch map and we will take it.
The defence said but this is a new document.
The prosecutor said that they had given them copy of these maps this morning.
The defence argued that this was not sufficient. If the prosecution wants to bring in any new paper and document then the permission must be taken under section 9(4) of the 1973 Act and the defence should be given notice of this. This is the only way to bring in any new paper and document.
The chairman then said, that the court would not exhibit this, but that the investigation officer can submit this and he can make statement about this map in his examination in chief.
The defence asked that their objection should be recorded, and the chairman agreed.
The prosecutor then said that the tribunal should not record any objection against this maps, as there was no legal bar for the IO to give statements on these Maps.
The defence argued that the legal bar was section 9(4) of the 1973 Act and Rule 18 of the Rules of procedure.
One of the judges said that though they cannot give any exhibit mark, they can give it an identification mark as I and II for these two maps so that the tribunal can identify them in future..
Mizanul Islam then said that there was no provision to put any identification mark on any paper copy of which is not given to the defence.
Justice Anwarul Haque said that in the traditional trial we follow this procedure.
The defence lawyer then said the traditional trial is conducted under Cr.PC. and there is a provision for identification mark in Cr.PC, but that this tribunal has repeatedly told us to forget Cr.PC for this court. So, why you will follow Cr.PC provision here?
The tribunal judges then said that we have inherent power under rule 46 to use Cr.PC in this case.
The defence lawyer then said that there a is specific prohibition that Cr.PC will not be applicable.
The chairman said that we are not applying Cr.PC, but we have inherent power to follow a similar procedure here if we find it necessary.
Then the court is adjourned.
No comments:
Post a Comment