Tribunal decides about charges on May 2

International Crimes Tribunal-2 yesterday fixed May 2 to decide on taking into cognisance the war crimes charges brought against Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan.
The prosecution had submitted formal charges along with other documents on April 25.
“After perusal of the formal charges and other documents, the necessary order will be passed on May 2, 2013,” observed the court.
The prosecution pressed war crimes charges against Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman in connection with the killing of 18 intellectuals at the fag end of the Liberation War in 1971.
They brought 16 charges against the suspects, who were, according to post-independence newspapers, two of the persons most wanted for killing intellectuals.
According to the probe report, Mueen-Uddin as the “operation-in-charge of Al-Badr” and Ashrafuzzaman as the “chief executor” led an Al-Badr force and “directly took part” in the killing of 18 intellectuals between December 10 and 15.
The prosecution submitted the charges against the two suspects together due to their “joint criminal liability” as they had allegedly taken part in the same offences and their target was also the same.
Meanwhile, the defence at International Crimes Tribunal-1 yesterday completed cross-examining the fifth prosecution witness, Nazim Uddin Khattab, in the war crimes case against Jamaat-e-Islami chief Motiur Rahman Nizami.
Nazim said he used to deliver food to the freedom fighters' camps but did not provide any information about Razakar and Al-Badr members.
In reply to a question, Nazim said he had seen Nizami first during the election campaign in 1970.
On completion of the cross-examination the tribunal again asked prosecutor Mir Iqbal Hossain to prepare witnesses before producing them for testimony.
When the counsel said his witness would give a brief deposition, it would take at best 15 minutes to complete, the tribunal observed.
Referring to Nazim, the tribunal said as per his statement before the investigation officer, he was supposed to give a brief deposition. But the witness gave a long testimony.
“There is no similarity between his deposition and the statement before the investigation officer. Keep your witness within the statement [given before the IO],” the tribunal said.
The tribunal also gave the prosecutor a brief lesson on what is “omission and contradiction”.
The tribunal said an omission is when a witness gives a deposition less than his or her earlier statement. On the other hand, contradiction happens when a witness gives a deposition more than his or her statement earlier, the court added.
Iqbal claimed that there was not much difference between Nazim's statement and deposition. He requested the tribunal to take a look at the statement and compare.
The tribunal said once the recording was completed, it had no scope to look back at the statements.
The proceedings of the case were adjourned until tomorrow on the defence's request.