Tuesday, March 19, 2013

15 Nov 2012: Sayedee prosecution closing day 9

The prosecution continued its closing arguments by dealing with some legal points, continuing from the previous day (Nb: This particular post draws in part on notes taken by the defense lawyers)

The 1973 Act
This law was enacted by parliament. Section 2 gives the definitions. Section -6 deals with the formation of the tribunal for the purpose of section 3. Our tribunal got the high standard of judges. Our judges are experienced judges. Section -3 deals with the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 3(2) (a) deals with Crimes against humanity includes- ‘whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated’.

Chairman: if you would like to bring persecution as crimes against humanity then it should be political, racial, ethnic or racial grounds.

Haider Ali: section -4 deals with the liability of the offences. It is wider than section 34 and 149 of the penal code. Section 8 deals with Investigation

Chairman: here investigation officer need not to be a police officer. Judge may also be investigator. Lawyers may also be Investigator.

Section 9 says that what ever done by IO, done under law.

Chairman: if the Tribunal finds that IO did not record the statements correctly then what will happen.

Haider Ali after taking it into consideration it may be rejected.

Chariman: if IO does not record correctly?

Haider Ali: there is no such allegation in Trial Stage, only regarding Investigation stage.

Our law has been extracted from Nuremberg convention. It embedded everything. It is much higher in standard than that of ICC.

Chairman: as per section 17(1) of the act the accused has the right to explain charges. How it is given under this act? Is there any scope under section 10?

Haider Ali: guilty plea is his explanation.

Chairman: it is not the explanation of the Charges.

Haider Ali: during his plea he has tried to give some explanation, it is enough.

Tribunal: after giving statement by taking oath what is the legal position of 19(2) received witnesses?

Haider Ali: even then it is acceptable. Section 19(2) states ‘any statement to any person’

Tribunal: This only applies to those whose attendance cannot be procured or who is dead?

Prosecutor: at the time of receiving his statement he was not available, so his statement is acceptable.

Tribunal: as soon as the witness comes themselves to depose then 19(2) should not be received?

Prosecutor: he did not come alone. He came with defense.

Tribunal: 19(2) statement is not his sole evidence so can we compare it with live testimony?

Prosecution: yes. 19(2) and live statement have similar value. His subsequent appearance will not curb his 19(2).

Tribunal: do you submit that 19(2) is natural and live testimony is being motivated?

Prosecution: yes.

At this stage he submits about other 19(2) witness statements. They are as good as live witness. Recording is proper. Writing and manner of Recording is as per law. Very good statement.

On 2-08-2012 defense has cross examined the IO on the 19(2) received evidences. It continued for next few days. So sufficiently they have crossed examine on that point.

Chairman: is the live and 19(2) statement is of same value?

Prosecution: yes. IO placed those with court on oath. As soon as those are exhibited. It is evidence from then.

Chairman: hearsay and live evidence are of same value?

Prosecution: yes, under this act.

Chairman: if we believe one witness, conviction may be delivered based on that. Can you base on 19(2) in this way?

Prosecution: if you believe 19(2) you can give conviction on that.

Force of the Act
Collaborators Act and Tri-party Agreement does not affect our law.

Tribunal: collaborators Act does not conflict with this Act. Because it is independent.

Prosecution: Tripartite Agreement was not ratified by Parliament.

Chairman: does tripartite Agreement struck down the trial of Bangladeshi nationals?

Proseuction: no there is nothing. We can also try the 195 pakistani officers. As a citizen I will submit that they should be tried also.

Standard of Trial
Prosecutor: actually there is no standard of Trial worldwide. Our act giving right to the accused to appoint counsels at his choice. Section 17, 12, 21 gives the accused some right in international standard.

During my reply after the defense Argument, I will submit my rest of the legal issues.

We have given sufficient materials to prove 19 Charges. I pray for highest punishment.

No comments:

Post a Comment