The war crimes tribunal on Monday assigned the case against fugitive war crimes accused Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan for verdict as proceedings in the case ended.
The case has been kept in CAV, [Curia Advisari Vult, a Latin legal term ] which means verdict in the case would be given any day.
The International Crimes Tribunal 2 gave the order after the prosecution and the defence completed placing their closing arguments around 3pm.
“We are keeping the case in CAV. We are not setting any date for the judgement,” said the tribunal that comprises Justice Obaidul Hasan, Justice Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Shahinur Islam.
The tribunal also asked prosecutor Shahidur Rahman to submit a written argument on “instruction,” jointly with prosecutor Tureen Afroz within one week.
This would be the second case when a verdict will be passed after holding a “trial in absentia.” Earlier, the same tribunal conducted a “trial in absentia”, sentencing former Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abul Kalam Azad alias Bachchu Razakar to death.
Mueen and Ashraf, now believed to be in London and New York respectively, were indicted jointly on 11 charges of crimes against humanity that include the abduction and killing of 18 intellectuals including Shahidullah Kaiser and Selina Parvin between December 11 and December 15, 1971.
Among the 18 intellectuals, nine were Dhaka University teachers, six were journalists and three were physicians, according to the probe report of the prosecution.
The militia force al-Badr, which was formed in 1971 with the activists of Islami Chhatra Sangha, then student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, is responsible for the killings of leading intellectuals. The force executed the plan of the Pakistani occupation army. According to the prosecution’s submission, Mueen was al-Badr’s “operation in-charge,” while Ashraf had played the role of “chief executor” of the force.
While placing arguments for Mueen, state-appointed defence counsel Salma Hye said since the country’s
independence, 40 cases had been filed against abduction and killing of the intellectuals.
“No case, except one filed in 1997, mentioned my client’s name.
The 1997’s case was filed for the abduction and killing of Prof Giasuddin. But, my client was acquitted since there was no witness against him.”
She argued that Mueen could not be charged with the same offence, of which he had been acquitted earlier.
Prosecutor Shahidur, however, later argued that the 1997’s case had never proceeded. Referring to the constitution, he also said: “An article states that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
He also argued that the charges brought against Mueen were not the same as the earlier one. “Rather, these [charges against the duo] include 11 counts of charges for their involvement in the killing of 18 intellectuals.”
Before the prosecutor’s arguments, defence lawyer Abdus Shukur Khan had claimed that his client was not the same Ashrafuzzaman who had been involved in the killings in 1971.
The tribunal responded: “Have you found the main Ashrafuzzaman that you are referring to?” The counsel remained silent.
The tribunal then mentioned that all witness statements, the investigation officer’s findings and documents from several institutions mentioned that the accused Ashraf was the brother of one Rowshan Ali Khan. The tribunal asked the defence lawyer whether his client had a brother named Rowshan or not. Counsel Shukur Khan failed to answer it.
The defence counsel also argued that there was no example of trying absconding persons in the history of war crimes trial.
However, the rules of procedure of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 provides for trial in absentia “if the accused fails to appear before the tribunal within the designated time frame.”
On May 11, the tribunal ordered a public announcement in the newspapers, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Act, asking the duo to appear before it within 10 days of the publication.
Following the order, notices were published in the national dailies on May 12, asking the duo to appear in the court. But they did not comply with the tribunal order.
