Matthieu Ngdolou Chui has been released from International Criminal Court (ICC) custody, following his acquittal by Trial Chamber II on Monday.  The prosecutor announced on Tuesday that they would appeal the acquittal and ask the appeals chamber to re-evaluate the evidence.  Both the trial chamber and the appeals chamber denied the prosecutor’s request to hold him in custody pending the appeal.

Chui had been tried along with Germain Katanga for war crimes alleged to have occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  the trial  began in November 2009, and was the second ICC case to proceed to trial.  The defense began presenting its case in April 2011. Last month the court severed the cases and announced a verdict in Chui’s case would come this week.  The case against Katanga is not yet resolved.

Matthieu Ngdolo Chui, alleged to have been a leader of militias in the Democratic Republic of  Congo (DRC), was found not guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity today by Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court.  This is the second verdict issued by the ICC.  Thomas Lubanga was convicted earlier this year and sentenced to 14 years for the war crimes of  recruiting and enlisting child soldiers in the DRC.  That case is in its reparations phase.

Chui was indicted and initially tried as a co-defendant with Germain Katanga, but the case was severed November 21, 2012.  Judges are considering motions to change the case and mode of liability for Katanga. The defense began presenting its case in November 2011.  The  prosecution  began presenting its case in November 2009.

There were many issues with the case as it proceeded, including a motion from the prosecution to declare its own witnesses hostile.  Defense witnesses testified, then sought asylum in The Netherlands.  Ultimately, the court decided the witnesses who testified that Chui was the leader of the Lendu militia during an attack on the Bogoro village in the Ituri district of the Eastern DRC were not credible and that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Coalition for the ICC issued the following statement:

Today’s decision will undoubtedly be a disappointment to the all-too-many victims of the most terrible crimes in a part of the world that has reported, decade after decade, millions of lost lives and where the ICC has tried its best to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity in an ongoing conflict zone, nevertheless, the rule of law must be respected if peace and stability are our ultimate goals. The Coalition urges the ICC to explain today’s decision to victims and affected communities, as well as the reasons behind the delayed verdict against Germain Katanga. said William R. Pace, convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court.

Either side can appeal the decision, a trait of Civil Code systems used in much of Europe, under Common Law, used in the U.K., the U.S. and other former British Colonies, an acquittal cannot be appealed.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands,  last week unsealed an arrest warrant for Simone Gbagbo, the former First Lady of the Ivory Coast.   The warrant, issued under seal in February, was unsealed and made public last week.

The warrant says that the prosecutor requested a warrant against:

Simone Gbagbo (“Ms Gbagbo”) for her individual criminal
responsibility as regards the crimes against humanity of murder, rape and
other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhumane acts
committed during the post-election crisis from 28 November 2010 onwards
by the Ivorian Defence and Security Forces (“FDS”), which were reinforced
by youth militias and mercenaries loyal to President Gbagbo (“pro-Gbagbo
forces”), in Abidjan, including around the Golf Hotel and elsewhere in the
country.

The court found reasonable cause to issue the warrant for the crimes against humanity of murder, rape, persecution and “other inhumane acts.” The court found Mrs. Gbagbo responsible as “an indirect co-perpetrator.”    Even so, the court found reasonable grounds that she participated by:

i) adopting the common plan; ii) being aware of its implementation and the
means other members of the inner circle had at their disposal to implement
the common plan; iii) meeting with members of Mr Gbagbo’s inner circle to
discuss and coordinate the implementation of the common plan; iv) playing a
key role in recruiting and instructing the galaxie patriotique, and integrating
them into the FDS; and v) being aware of the contribution of other members
of Mr Gbagbo’s inner circle to the implementation of the common plan.
Furthermore, the Chamber is of the view that Ms Gbagbo was fully conscious
of the factual circumstances that enabled her and other members of
Mr Gbagbo’s inner circle to exercise joint control over the crimes.

Mrs. Gabagbo is the first woman to be charged publicly by the court. Her husband,  former president Laurent Gbagbo, is currently in ICC custody awaiting his confirmation of charges hearing, (similar to probable cause to proceed to trial).  Ivory Coast is not an ICC state party, but acceded to the authority of the court to investigate the post-election violence.  Mrs. Gbagbo is in custody in Ivory Coast, and may face trial there.  As apparently the two remaining indictees in Libya may stay in Libya for trials.  Libya has made clear it does not wish to send Saif Qadafi to the ICC, but wants to proceed with a trial in Libya.

Earlier this month, Mauritania returned Libya’s former head of intelligence, Abdullah al-Senussi, to Libya for prosecution. Saif Al-Qadafi, son of Muammar Qadafi was captured in Libya, and the current regime has declined to surrender him to the International Criminal Court. (ICC). In February of 2011, the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, and the Qadafis and al-Senussi were indicted.

As previously described in this blog:

The court indicted Muammar Qadafi, Saif Al-Islam Qadafi and the country’s intelligence chief.  Even while Muammar Qadafi was alive some suggested he should face a Libyan rather than an International process.

There has been an ongoing battle between the ICC and Libya for the handover of Qadafi, and Libya has now refused.  Qadafi would not face a death penalty at the ICC and would have access to lawyers to present a defense to the charges.  During the fight, Libya arrested lawyers sent by the ICC to prepare Qadafi’s defense.

The court has no authority or force to enforce its warrants for arrest and instead relies on the international community and the 121 state parties to the Rome Statute to enforce warrants and arrest those charged by the court.  The court has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide occurring in the borders of those countries, or by nationals of those countries, or if the situation has been referred to the court by the U.N. Security Council, as has been the case in Darfur, Sudan, and Libya, which are not signatories to the treaty. The ICC is intended to provide a fair process where a national court cannot, or will not, or if the court does not have the means to provide a fair process.

Libya has recently announced a delay in Saif Qadafi’s trial, indicating that Qadafi and al-Senussi would be tried together.  Amnesty International and other groups have argued that the two should go to the ICC for trial.  Libya’s standoff with the ICC appears to have resulted in a win for the current government of Libya.  The ICC has apologized for the conduct of attorneys sent to meet with Saif Qadafi, resulting in their release. The arrest of ICC lawyers, and the refusal to surrender the accused, have led some to question whether Qadafi can have a fair trial in Libya.  Maybe the better question for Qadafi and al-Senussi will be whether or not the world will care whether or not they have a fair trial, or all are satisfied with a show trial for the two.

The Libyan authorities have announced that Saif Al-Islam Qadafi will stay in Libya for trial.  His trial will begin next month. Saif Qadafi, the son of Muammar Qadafi is one of three person indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands.  Muammar Qadafi was also indicted but did not survive the fall of Tripoli.

The United Nations Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the ICC in February 2011.  The court indicted Muammar Qadafi, Saif Al-Islam Qadafi and the country’s intelligence chief.  Even while Muammar Qadafi was alive some suggested he should face a Libyan rather than an International process.

There has been an ongoing battle between the ICC and Libya for the handover of Qadafi, and Libya has now refused.  Qadafi would not face a death penalty at the ICC and would have access to lawyers to present a defense to the charges.  During the fight, Libya arrested lawyers sent by the ICC to prepare Qadafi’s defense.

The court has no authority or force to enforce its warrants for arrest and instead relies on the international community and the 121 state parties to the Rome Statute to enforce warrants and arrest those charged by the court.  The court has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide occurring in the borders of those countries, or by nationals of those countries, or if the situation has been referred to the court by the U.N. Security Council, as has been the case in Darfur, Sudan, and Libya, which are not signatories to the treaty. The ICC is intended to provide a fair process where a national court cannot, or will not, or if the court does not have the means to provide a fair process.

Muammar Qadafi, and Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan are the first sitting heads of state to be indicted by international criminal tribunals, neither has yet appeared to face charges.

Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a 94 page decision describing the process for victims to collect reparations. The order, issued following the decision to sentence Thomas Lubanga Dyilo to 14 years imprisonment after having been found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots for conscripting and using child soldiers in his rebel army in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The court ordered that most of the processing of claims be delegated to the Trust Fund for Victims which welcomed its new role in a statement. The trust fund reports that it has €1.2 million in its fund for reparations, and that 85 victims have made application for reparations in the Lubanga case and more than 8,000 victims overall.  All applications are to be turned over to the trust fund, though the court will maintain oversight and approve the details.  The court described “five step process:”

First, the TFV, the Registry, the OPCV and the experts, should establish which
localities ought to be involved in the reparations process in the present case
(focusing particularly on the places referred to in the Judgment and especially
where the crimes committed).  Although the Chamber referred in the Article
74 Decision to several particular localities, the reparations programme is not
limited to those that were mentioned. Second, there should be a process of
consultation in the localities that are identified. Third, an assessment of harm
should be carried out during this consultation phase by the team of experts.
Fourth, public debates should be held in each locality in order to explain the
reparations principles and procedures, and to address the victims’
expectations. The final step is the collection of proposals for collective
reparations that are to be developed in each locality, which are then to be
presented to the Chamber for its approval.

The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court, (AMICC) reviewed and discussed the decision here, noting:

The Chamber noted that since Thomas Lubanga was found to be indigent, reparations will be financed by the Trust Fund for Victims, which tends towards collective reparation

Suggestions by victims and victims groups about the form reparations should take seemed to fall into three categories: reparations to empower victims economically and to stimulate local economic development, reparations to help heal the physical and mental health of victims, and symbolically (sic) reparations like a memorial.

The Trust Fund for Victims welcomed its substantial role in the reparations process and hailed the decision as “a historic milestone for victims of international crimes.” The Fund was set up by the ICC’s governing body, the Assembly of State’s Parties (ASP) in 2002 and currently has a total income of $5.5 million. $2.7 million has been set aside for grants in the DRC and Uganda.

Although the Chamber’s decision is not binding on future cases, the principles and procedures set out may be used by future Trial Chambers where they are practicable. It is possible that in a future case, where a defendant has means, a Trial Chamber may order individual reparations, or a combination of individual and collective reparations.

It appears from the decision that the direction of the court is to order collective rather than individual reparations. If the test is whether or not a convicted party has the means to make whole the victims of the kind of mass atrocities that would come before the court, then it is hard to imagine the defendant with the resources to make to make whole hundreds or thousands of victims after having spent some time in pre-trial detention, trial and appeal.

Lubanga was the first person to be tried, convicted and sentenced by the court, as previously described on this blog:

 Lubanga was brought to the court in May of 2006, his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case was stopped in 2009 to consider the addition of charges at the request of victims, and for other reasons throughout the trial, failure to disclose evidence by the prosecution, transcription and translation errors, and other issues.  The case was submitted to the court after closing arguments in August 2011.

At one point, the trial chamber ordered Lubanga released, finding that he could not have a fair trial because of the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence and comply with court orders.  That decision was overturned by the appeals chamber and the trial resumed.

Court Video on the Reparations Decision (In French).

Schevingen Prison in The Hague, Netherlands, where prisoners spend pre-trial detention.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first accused brought to the International Criminal Court, has been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for the war crimes of recruiting, conscripting and enlisting child soldiers in his rebel army in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Union of Congolese Patriots.  The court announced the guilty verdict in March.

As previously blogged here:

Lubanga was the first accused brought into the custody of court. Lubanga was brought to the court in May of 2006, his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case was stopped in 2009 to consider the addition of charges at the request of victims, and for other reasons throughout the trial, failure to disclose evidence by the prosecution, transcription and translation errors, and other issues.  The case was submitted to the court after closing arguments in August 2011.

At one point, the trial chamber ordered Lubanga released, finding that he could not have a fair trial because of the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence and comply with court orders.  That decision was overturned by the appeals chamber and the trial resumed.

As pointed out in the BBC report, Lubanga has been in the custody of the court for more than 6 years, and so would have something less than eight years to serve.   The prosecution and defense now have 30 days to appeal the verdict and the sentencing order.  It is not clear when the victim’s reparations process will begin, presumably after the resolution of any appeals.

An appeals chamber of the International Criminal Court has dismissed the prosecution’s appeal in the case against Callixte Mbarushimana.  Mbarushimana was charged with six counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity based on his position as Executive Secretary for the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, (FDLR).

The case was dismissed in December after the Confirmation of Charges hearing.  The details of the case were blogged about here.

John L. Fossum, along with former U.S. Ambassdor Robert Flaten, United States District Court Judge John Tunheim, Assistant United States Attorney John Docherty and Professor Barbara Frey of the Human Rights Program at the Institute for Global Studies at the University of Minnesota.  Details of the program, registration information, and bios of the speakers are available here.

Topics include the genocide in Rwanda, the International Criminal Court, a History of International Criminal Law, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  Speakers will also be addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide generally.

Schevenigen Prison in the Netherlands where ICC prisoners spend pretrial detention.

According to the Lubanga Trial blog:

The ICC judges ruled that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lubanga is guilty of the crimes charged. Judge Adrian Fulford, Presiding Judge of the Trial Chamber, in delivering the verdict said that there was reasonable evidence to believe that Lubanga was involved in a recruitment drive for his UPC rebel group and that such drive included conscripting children and using them for combat purposes. The judges also found that Lubanga personally used children as his bodyguards.

Lubanga was the first accused brought into the custody of court. Lubanga was brought to the court in May of 2006, his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case was stopped in 2009 to consider the addition of charges at the request of victims, and for other reasons throughout the trial, failure to disclose evidence by the prosecution, transcription and translation errors, and other issues.  The case was submitted to the court after closing arguments in August 2011.

At one point, the trial chamber ordered Lubanga released, finding that he could not have a fair trial because of the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence and comply with court orders.  That decision was overturned by the appeals chamber and the trial resumed.

The defense has a right to appeal the verdict to the appeals chamber.  Now that there is a verdict, the court may also begin the reparations phase and determine the appropriate amount and form of reparations to the victims recognized and allowed to participate in the case.