One of the blogs presents the following summary of the facts
and concerns regarding limiting the number of defense-witness in the trail of
Sayedee:
- In July 2011, the prosecution gave the tribunal 138 names of witnesses it wished would testify before the tribunal to substantiate 20 counts (involving 35 separate offenses) involving crimes against humanity/genocide.
- The defense in December 2011 then gave a list of 48 names of witness it wished to call to the tribunal. This is one third of the prosecution number and was at the time accepted by the tribunal.
- When the trial started, the prosecution was only able to summon a total of 28 witnesses - 20 of which were witnesses of fact - to the tribunal. The tribunal accepted as evidence a further 16 written statements from witnesses of fact. Substantive statements of 36 people were admitted as evidence.
Now let us consider if this is a new practice introduced by Bangladesh
or is it a new issue of appeal by the defense lawyers in response to ICT’s
ruling regarding its number of witness. Let us consider a case from Africa.
A report reads as follows:
In Kenya
Ali's Lawyers Challenged ICC Witnesses Limit. Lawyers
of three post-election violence suspects have moved to the International
Criminal Court at The Hague
to challenge a decision by the pre-trial chamber judge to limit the number of
witness they should call at the confirmation hearing to two each.
Conclusions:
- It is not unprecedented that the ICT in Bangladesh restricted the number of defense-witness.
- It is not unusual that the defense has reservation on such a move made by ICT.
- It is however always a biased position of so called “neutral” observers when they take on such an issue.
- ICT Bangladesh makes headway in ensuring effective utilization of limited resources to deliver justice within the existing global precedents.
