& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Verdict draft leaked to discredit trial

War tribunal goes to police for exposing conspiracy

Staff Correspondent
The International Crimes Tribunal yesterday confirmed that an organised vested group had leaked parts of "the draft of the verdict" on Salauddin Quader Chowdhury and uploaded that on the internet to make the war crimes trial controversial.
AKM Nasiruddin Mahmud, registrar and spokesperson for the ICT, said parts of "the draft of the verdict" might have been leaked a few days before the tribunal delivered its verdict.
He said the verdict had been finalised one or two days before its pronouncement, and the portion involving the sentences was included in it on the day of the verdict.
The tribunal has filed a general diary with Shahbagh Police Station, asking the law enforcers to find out the culprits for the leak.
Meanwhile, Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim of International Crimes Tribunal-1, which sentenced Salauddin to death, said, "A conspiracy and a huge investment are behind it [the leak]."
FROM PAGE 1
He made the comment in the courtroom of ICT-1 minutes before proceedings in a war crimes case commenced against Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Motiur Rahman Nizami in the morning.
The three-member ICT-1 on Tuesday awarded the death penalty to BNP lawmaker Salauddin Quader Chowdhury for committing crimes against humanity and genocide during the 1971 Liberation War.
Immediately after the pronouncement of the verdict, the convict's family members and defence lawyers told the media that the verdict was available on different websites before the tribunal delivered the judgment.
They claimed "the copy of the verdict' was in a computer at the law ministry.
Nasiruddin said that according to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, the tribunal must provide both prosecution and defence with certified copies of the judgment on the day of the verdict. And therefore the tribunal does not fix a date for pronouncing the judgment until it is prepared.
"On the day of the verdict, the tribunal members finalise the portion involving the sentences upon reaching a consensus," he said.
Nasiruddin said defence lawyers are also officers of the tribunal. "It was the defence counsels' duty to bring the matter to the tribunal's notice before the verdict's pronouncement. Instead of doing that, they later showed the draft copy to the media and termed the judgment a dictated verdict," he said.
"It appears that there is a similarity between the leaked verdict and the draft. But the leaked verdict doesn't have any similarity with the final verdict," said the ICT registrar.
"It can be inferred that the said draft verdict was leaked after it was composed at the tribunal.” And it was leaked by an organised vested group and the beneficiaries of the misdeed, hesaid.
The Daily Star has obtained a copy of the GD that the tribunal filed with Shahbagh Police Station.
"There is no scope for publishing the verdict or any part of it before it is pronounced. It is a matter of great concern how parts of the said draft verdict were leaked from the tribunal and published on the internet."
"It is also a threat to the safety and transparency of
the tribunal," read the GD. The tribunal asked the law enforcers to take legal action after carrying out an investigation.
"IT'S A CONSPIRACY"
Speaking in the ICT-1 courtroom, Justice Selim said, "The conspiracy |the leak of the verdict's draft copy] was aimed at making the tribunal controversial."
He expressed surprise at the claims that the judgment had been drafted at the law ministry and "the leaked draft of the verdict" was exactly the same as the judgment that was read out at the tribunal.
"Those who are trying to make the verdict controversial are making comments without going through the full verdict.”
"The choice of words and language [of the verdict and the leaked version] are totally different."
"How can law ministry
officials, who hold the rank of district judges, dictate to us, judges of the High Court?”
"Are they more competent than us that we should need them to write the verdict?" he asked. “Sad ... it is really very sad," he said.
Justice Selim was also unhappy about the defence lawyers' claim that the tribunal did not allow Justice Shamim Hasnain to give a deposition in favour of Salauddin.
Referring to a previous order by ICT-1, he said, "Honourable Justice Shamim Hasnain is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court. How could we summon him without his consent for giving deposition [for Salauddin]?"
"He did not give his consent. If he had, we would have allowed him to testify," said Justice Selim.
The ICT registrar said
Justice Hasnain had never informed the tribunal whether he was willing to testify in the case.
On July 23, Fakhrul Islam, defence counsel for Salauddin, had filed two petitions with ICT-1 for adjourning the case proceedings till July 28, and accepting as defence document an affidavit of Justice Hasnain's mother.
Rejecting the defence lawyers' prayer, the tribunal said the affidavit was not acceptable, as Justice Hasnain, not his mother, was on the list of defence witnesses.
On the adjournment of the petition, the tribunal said the defence had promised to produce businessman Salman F Rahman and Justice Hasnain as witnesses but had failed to do so.
It, however, adjourned the case proceedings until July 24 “for the sake of justice".