After the cross examination of the witness relating to the trial of Molla the defence lawyer, Abdur Razak then argued the application for the review of the indictment of Mujahid
The chairman asked the lawyer that he should mention the main points only. During the argument the lawyer said that Mr. Quader Mollah has a severe back pain, and he has a diabetic patient and has faced open heart surgery. Could he be permitted not to present everyday physically?
The tribunal replied that he should come tomorrow.
The accused then said that he lives at a distant place, comes through non AC micro bus and at the time of traffic jams, he faces severe problem.
Razzak said that on humanitarian grounds could the tribunal please consider the matter.
Justices replied, tomorrow the matter will be dealt with
In his oral arguments for the review Razaq made the following points:
- We didn’t ever say that, after a long period like 40 years, allegation can’t be brought; but comparing with other international issues relating to International Crimes, we said that, to bring such type of allegation, 40 years is a very long time.
- To bring a criminal proceeding after a long period of 40 years, it needs such a type of explanation which we do not find in this current allegation, but that type of explanation is found against the allegation of German Nazi forces.
- In the Law of ICTY, the terms ‘systematic and widespread’ is not mentioned. In our law, these terms are also absent. So, to use these terms, we need judicial pronouncement.
- In Charge-1, the allegations is simply simple murder.
- We’ve nothing to say about Charge-2
- In Charge-3, no definition of ‘torture’ is given. This doesn’t fulfill the purpose of Article-1 of Torture Convention. You could use the word ‘alternative’ at Charge-3.
- Charge -4 also doesn’t fulfill the purpose of Torture Convention. No contextual definition of torture or severe injury is given.
- Referring to different tribunals, he said in a case at the Rwanda tribunal (Prosecutor Vs Summanda) where the existence of discriminatory intention and mens rea was required. Knowledge is related with the terms of wide spread and systematic. He also mentioned a case before the Cambodia tribunal (Prosecutor Vs Camp). According to Para 297, wide spread and systematic terms are used. If the allegations do not come within those offences, then the accused should be released (Article-5 of EEC). The prerequisite for wide spread and systematic is that, the attack was against civilian population.
- There are two elements in Charge-3, confinement and abatement to commit offence. Confinement is itself crime committed to civilian population. Allegation has been brought against Ali Ahsan Mohammad Muzahid for confinement of Hindu population. Now, the question is that, whether the allegation of abatement will exist, which is a distinct offence.
- You frequently told the accused as the leader of ‘Al Badar’ in the charge. Even our learned friends didn’t directly mention him as the leader of Al Badar. There is no documentary evidence relating to this statement.
- In Charge-1, the term Al Babar is not mentioned. There is stated: ‘under the control and supervision of the accused (Formal Charge-1, page-98). For that purpose, to become Al Badar is not necessary.
Then, the Justices replied, we found that term (Al Badar) from his life sketch. Mr. Abdur Razzak then told the tribunal there is no allegation about this matter.
- Again, it is stated in Charge-2, page-100 that, Mr. Muzahid burnt and killed 50 persons of 3 villages of Faridpur. Here, there is no mentioning of ‘auxiliary force’.
- In Charge-3, page-103, it is only stated that, a Hindu person was killed by the advice of Muzahid.
- According to page of 106, he was the Secretary of Islami Chhatra Sangha. There, only Nizami was identified as Al Badar Leader, not the accused.
- In Charge -6, page-107, relating to the description of Physical College Institute, Mohammadpur, the accused was referred as Al Badar only one time.
Justice (Chairman): Mr. Prosecutor, do you have anything to say?
Prosecutor (Mokhlesur Rahman Badol): We have not much to say. After considering all relevant issues, the Tribunal made the Charge and here is nothing to say. In our every formal Charge, the term Al Badar is mentioned. And the Charge is prepared from formal Charge, documents and statements. We will clear the matter supplying further documents, if necessary.
The Tribunal fixed the next date – 15 July, 2012 for Order.
After that, the Tribunal asked Mr. Tajul Islam for the opening statement of ICT-BD Case No: 01 of 2012. But his junior told that, he has gone to High Court Division.
Then Mr. Justice A.T.M. Fazle Kabir adjourned the case till 2.00 pm.
The chairman asked the lawyer that he should mention the main points only. During the argument the lawyer said that Mr. Quader Mollah has a severe back pain, and he has a diabetic patient and has faced open heart surgery. Could he be permitted not to present everyday physically?
The tribunal replied that he should come tomorrow.
The accused then said that he lives at a distant place, comes through non AC micro bus and at the time of traffic jams, he faces severe problem.
Razzak said that on humanitarian grounds could the tribunal please consider the matter.
Justices replied, tomorrow the matter will be dealt with
In his oral arguments for the review Razaq made the following points:
- We didn’t ever say that, after a long period like 40 years, allegation can’t be brought; but comparing with other international issues relating to International Crimes, we said that, to bring such type of allegation, 40 years is a very long time.
- To bring a criminal proceeding after a long period of 40 years, it needs such a type of explanation which we do not find in this current allegation, but that type of explanation is found against the allegation of German Nazi forces.
- In the Law of ICTY, the terms ‘systematic and widespread’ is not mentioned. In our law, these terms are also absent. So, to use these terms, we need judicial pronouncement.
- In Charge-1, the allegations is simply simple murder.
- We’ve nothing to say about Charge-2
- In Charge-3, no definition of ‘torture’ is given. This doesn’t fulfill the purpose of Article-1 of Torture Convention. You could use the word ‘alternative’ at Charge-3.
- Charge -4 also doesn’t fulfill the purpose of Torture Convention. No contextual definition of torture or severe injury is given.
- Referring to different tribunals, he said in a case at the Rwanda tribunal (Prosecutor Vs Summanda) where the existence of discriminatory intention and mens rea was required. Knowledge is related with the terms of wide spread and systematic. He also mentioned a case before the Cambodia tribunal (Prosecutor Vs Camp). According to Para 297, wide spread and systematic terms are used. If the allegations do not come within those offences, then the accused should be released (Article-5 of EEC). The prerequisite for wide spread and systematic is that, the attack was against civilian population.
- There are two elements in Charge-3, confinement and abatement to commit offence. Confinement is itself crime committed to civilian population. Allegation has been brought against Ali Ahsan Mohammad Muzahid for confinement of Hindu population. Now, the question is that, whether the allegation of abatement will exist, which is a distinct offence.
- You frequently told the accused as the leader of ‘Al Badar’ in the charge. Even our learned friends didn’t directly mention him as the leader of Al Badar. There is no documentary evidence relating to this statement.
- In Charge-1, the term Al Babar is not mentioned. There is stated: ‘under the control and supervision of the accused (Formal Charge-1, page-98). For that purpose, to become Al Badar is not necessary.
Then, the Justices replied, we found that term (Al Badar) from his life sketch. Mr. Abdur Razzak then told the tribunal there is no allegation about this matter.
- Again, it is stated in Charge-2, page-100 that, Mr. Muzahid burnt and killed 50 persons of 3 villages of Faridpur. Here, there is no mentioning of ‘auxiliary force’.
- In Charge-3, page-103, it is only stated that, a Hindu person was killed by the advice of Muzahid.
- According to page of 106, he was the Secretary of Islami Chhatra Sangha. There, only Nizami was identified as Al Badar Leader, not the accused.
- In Charge -6, page-107, relating to the description of Physical College Institute, Mohammadpur, the accused was referred as Al Badar only one time.
Justice (Chairman): Mr. Prosecutor, do you have anything to say?
Prosecutor (Mokhlesur Rahman Badol): We have not much to say. After considering all relevant issues, the Tribunal made the Charge and here is nothing to say. In our every formal Charge, the term Al Badar is mentioned. And the Charge is prepared from formal Charge, documents and statements. We will clear the matter supplying further documents, if necessary.
The Tribunal fixed the next date – 15 July, 2012 for Order.
After that, the Tribunal asked Mr. Tajul Islam for the opening statement of ICT-BD Case No: 01 of 2012. But his junior told that, he has gone to High Court Division.
Then Mr. Justice A.T.M. Fazle Kabir adjourned the case till 2.00 pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment