[object Object]

The defense for Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD) president Hasanul Haq Inu has mounted a vigorous challenge against the prosecution's case, asserting that key witnesses have delivered unreliable and contradictory testimonies. Appearing before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-2), senior advocate Monsurul Haque Chowdhury meticulously detailed alleged discrepancies, particularly concerning the timeline of an audio conversation purportedly involving Inu and a former prime minister. The defense contends that witnesses claimed to have heard the conversation on dates preceding its alleged circulation, suggesting a deliberate fabrication of evidence.

“

So, they lied to the tribunal. The three witnesses were tutored by the investigating officer, and their testimonies are not trustworthy.

Central to the defense's argument is the claim that prosecution witnesses were 'tutored' by the investigating officer, rendering their testimonies untrustworthy. The defense pointed out that the audio clip in question only surfaced publicly much later, via a verified foreign journalist's Facebook post. This temporal inconsistency, they argue, undermines the credibility of the witnesses and, by extension, the entire prosecution narrative. Furthermore, the defense noted that only a fraction of the prosecution witnesses were deemed relevant, with others serving merely formal roles.

“

The claim that Inu directed Hasina to use lethal force was baseless.

Mr. Inu stands as the sole accused in this case, which stems from alleged killings during the July uprising in Kushtia. The defense has sought to dismantle the prosecution's claims by presenting alternative interpretations of events and questioning the validity of the evidence. They have argued that claims of Inu directing lethal force are baseless and have attempted to introduce audio recordings suggesting his support for a student movement rather than incitement to violence. The defense also highlighted factual errors made by witnesses, such as misstating Inu's electoral status, which were later acknowledged by the investigating officer, further eroding the prosecution's case.

“

Another relevant witness made no incriminating statement, he added.