Tribunal order on defence witness application 

Order No. 26

Today the case is fixed for examination of the defence witnesses and hearing and disposal of the applications.

These are 03 (three) applications filed on behalf of the defence. 01 (one) is under section 9(6) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 read with Rules 46A (1) of the International Crimes Tribunals (Tribunal-2) Rules of Procedure, 2010 for allowing the accused petitioner to submit two video clips as further evidence. The 2nd application is also under section 9(6) of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 read with Rules 46A (1) of the International Crimes Tribunals (Tribunal-2) Rules of Procedure, 2010 for submitting the additional list of defence witnesses and further evidence and the 3rd application is for simple adjournment praying for 08 (eight) weeks’ time.

So far, the first application is concerned, we have heard both the defence and the prosecution.

From a plain reading of the petition itself, it appears that the two video clips as mentioned in the petition itself may be relevant for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the case. Therefore, the same is allowed and the defence is directed to produce the aforesaid video clips, which is 04 sets in number for proper utilization thereof, as early as possible.

The 2nd application for adducing 03 (three) witnesses mentioned in the petition itself. Upon perusal of the petition, it appears, of the 03 (three) witnesses mentioned in the petition, two are supposed to be material for the purpose of a decision in this case, while the other one namely David Akerson, Visiting Assistant Professor of the Practice University of Denver Sturm College of Law and Korbel School of International Studies, Denver does not appear to be so much material for our purpose. Therefore the 2nd petition is allowed in part.

So far, the 3rd application is concerned, this is simply for adjournment of 08 weeks for preparation of the defence.

On perusal of petition and the context of the situation attending herein, we do not feel inclined to allow any adjournment for such a long time. Therefore, the prayer for adjournment is rejected.

Let this matter appear in the list for adducing defence witnesses and produce the video clips on 22 February 2026.

Let this order be communicated to all concerned.

The jail authority is directed to ensure the production of the sole accused Hasanul Haq Inu before this Tribunal on the next date fixed, without fail.