Jan
25

ICC Confirms Charges Against Four of the “Ocampo Six”

A pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it’s decision this week confirming the charges against four of the six persons indicted for crimes against humanity in post election violence in Kenya.

The case has had some unusual turns.  Kenya originally supported the investigation, but when government officials were indicted, argued the case should go back to Kenya for investigation and charges. The court decided that the cases should go forward, and that Kenya did not have the infrastructure or means to ensure fair trials.

At the confirmation of charges hearing, one accused, Uhuru Kenyatta, took the unusual step of testifying in his defense. His testimony apparently did not convince the judges to dismiss the charges, as his case was continued for trial.

The four whose charges were confirmed are: Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta; Head of Public Service Francis Kirimi Muthaura; former Cabinet Minister William Samoei Ruto; and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.

Dismissed from the cases were: former police commissioner Maj. Gen. Mohammed Hussein Ali, and former Minister of Industrialization Henry Kiprono Kosgey.  In many African media outlets, the six indictees have been referred to as the “Ocampo Six” a reference to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor of the ICC.

Judge Hans Peter Kaul dissented from the decision, arguing that the cases do not belong at the ICC and do not come under the jurisdiction of the statute.  He said this in the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case:

I am unable to accept this decision of the Majority and the analysis that
underpins it. I continue to believe that the International Criminal Court (the
“ICC” or the “Court”) lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae in the situation in the
Republic of Kenya, including in the present case. Contrary to the Majority’s
findings, I am not satisfied that the crimes, for which Mr Ruto and Mr Sang are
held accountable pursuant to articles 25(3)(a) and 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute
(the “Statute”) respectively, occurred pursuant to or in furtherance of a policy of
an organization within the meaning of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute. Thus, I am not
satisfied that the crimes charged constitute crimes against humanity as set out in
article 7 of the Statute.

…

That said, and while I do not question that abhorrent crimes, as described in
the amended document containing the charges, have been committed, my doubts
pertain to their correct qualification. Consequently, my principled disagreement
with the Majority centres on the question of whether the ICC is the right forum
before which to investigate and prosecute those crimes.

Judge Kaul made similar points in his dissent in the case against Keyatta, Muthaura and Ali, questioning not just admissibility, but whether or not the actions of “the Mungiki gang” constitute the actions of “an organization” within the meaning of the Statute.  Judge Kaul argues that finding such a gang responsible for crimes against humanity leaves the court open to the obligation of prosecuting organized crime world wide.

Judge Kaul’s dissents raise many interesting points, about the thoroughness of the review at a confirmation of charges hearing, the defense right to present a defense at such a hearing, the defense right to challenge admissibility, the prosecution’s duty to investigate exculpatory information, and the presumptions of the court in determining whether or not to confirm charges.  How the court addresses those criticisms may well shape it going forward.

The court uses an escalating standard of review, reasonable cause to indict, probable cause to confirm the charges, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial.

 

Dec
17

Mbarushimana Case Dismissed at Confirmation of Charges Hearing

The pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) hearing the case against Callixte Mbarushimana has dismissed the charges, finding the prosecution did not establish probable cause to hold Mbarushimana for trial. The case against Mbarushimana, previously detailed here, claimed that he, as the Executive Secretary of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, (FDLR) directed, and had command responsibility for six counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). At the time of his arrest, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) detailed the charges this way:

[T}he OTP alleges that Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA is responsible for the war
crimes of (1) attacks against the civilian
population; (2) destruction of property; (3)
murders or willful killings; (4) rape; (5)
inhuman treatment; and (6) torture, and the
crimes against humanity of (1) murders; (2)
torture; (3) rape; (4) inhumane acts; and (5)
persecution.

The court offered the following explanation in its press release on the order, the 215 page order is available here:

Today, 16 December 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided by Majority, the Presiding Judge Sanji M. Monageng dissenting, to decline to confirm the charges in the case of The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana and to release Mr Mbarushimana from the custody of the Court, on the completion of the necessary arrangements.

The Majority of the Chamber, comprising Judge Sylvia Steiner and Judge Cuno Tarfusser, found that there was not sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Callixte Mbarushimana could be held criminally responsible, under article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute, for the eight counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity brought against him by the Prosecutor.

This decision does not preclude the Prosecutor from subsequently requesting the confirmation of the charges against Callixte Mbarushimana if such request is supported by additional evidence. Both the Prosecutor and the Defense may also appeal the decision declining to confirm the charges and the order for the release of Mr Mbarushimana.

Factual findings

On the basis of the evidence presented, the Chamber found that there are substantial grounds to believe that, from at least 20 January 2009 until at least 31 December 2009, an armed conflict not of an international character took place in the North and South Kivus, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), between the forces of the Government of the DRC, supported at times by Rwandese forces (RDF) or the forces of the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, on the one side, and at least one organised armed group, the Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda – Forces Combattantes Abacunguzi (FDLR), on the other.

The Chamber found substantial grounds to believe that FDLR troops committed several war crimes in different locations and at different times, particularly in Busurungi and surrounding villages in March 2009 (murder) as well as on or about 9 to 12 May 2009 (attacking civilians, murder, mutilation, rape, cruel treatment, destruction of property and pillaging); in Manje on or about 20 July 2009 (attacking civilians, murder, cruel treatment and destruction of property); in Malembe on or about 11 to 16 August 2009 (attacking civilians and destruction of property), and in Mianga on or about 12 April 2009 (attacking civilians, murder and destruction of property).

Although the Chamber found substantial grounds to believe that acts amounting to war crimes were perpetrated in five out of the twenty-five occasions identified by the Prosecutor, the Majority found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to be convinced of the existence of substantial grounds to believe that such acts were part of a course of conduct amounting to “an attack directed against the civilian population” pursuant to or in furtherance of an organisational policy to commit such attack, within the meaning of article 7 of the Rome Statute which defines crimes against humanity. Accordingly, the Majority found that there were not substantial grounds to believe that crimes against humanity were committed by the FDLR troops.

The Majority of the Chamber, with the Presiding Judge dissenting, further found that Callixte Mbarushimana did not provide any contribution to the commission of the alleged crimes, even less a “significant” one.

Background

The DRC ratified the Rome Statute, the founding instrument of the International Criminal Court, on 11 April 2002. On 3 March 2004, the Government of the DRC referred to the Court the situation (the events falling under the Court’s jurisdiction) in its territory since the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002. After a preliminary examination, the Prosecutor initiated an investigation on 21 June 2004.

On 28 September 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest under seal for Mr Mbarushimana. The warrant was unsealed on 11 October 2010. On 25 January 2011, the French authorities surrendered Mr Mbarushumana to the Court. He was then transferred to the Court’s Detention Centre in The Hague. In the Document Containing the Charges, the Prosecutor charged Mr Mbarushimana with five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, inhumane acts, rape, torture, and persecution) and eight counts of war crimes (attacking civilians, murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, rape, torture, destruction of property and pillaging). The Confirmation of Charges hearing was held from 16 to21 September 2011.

Besides Callixte Mbarushimana, three persons have been transferred to the Court with respect to the situation in the DRC: Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. A warrant of arrest has also been issued against a forth (sic) person, Bosco Ntaganda, but has yet to be executed.

Investigations are ongoing with respect to the situation in the DRC

This is the second time a pre-trial chamber has declined to confirm the charges against an accused, the first was the case against Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, who had his case dismissed in February 2010.  The prosecution may appeal the court’s determination to not confirm the charges, and is expected to do so. The appeals chamber confirmed the dismissal in Abu Garda’s case.

Dec
06

Vanuatu Ratifies ICC Treaty

Vanuatu has now ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, becoming the 120th nation to acceded to ICC jurisdiction. The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute war crime, crimes against humanity and genocide which occurs within the territory of the nations which have ratified the treaty, or committed by nationals of those nations, or when referred to court by the United Nations Security Council.

The court has ongoing prosecutions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, the Darfur region of Sudan, Ivory Coast, and involving post election violence in Kenya.  There are also indictments from Uganda, though none of indictees, all members of the Lord’s Resistance Army have appeared before the court.  The court has also issued indictments from Libya, upon referral of the Security Council, though one of the indictees, Muammar Qadafi was killed, and the other two are currently in custody in Libya, and may not be transferred to the court.  The past president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo has made his first appearance in the court this week, though Ivory Coast is not a signatory to the treaty, it has accepted ICC jurisdiction.

 

 

Sep
26

What is Left of the Victims Right to Select Counsel?

Trial Chamber IV of the International Criminal Court, ICC, recently ordered that in the Sudan case currently moving towards trial, two lawyers will be representing all victims at the court.  The case, against alleged rebel leaders Abdallah Banda Aadaker Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, is proceeding to trial on the following charges:

  • violence to life, whether committed or attempted, within the meaning of article 8(2)(c)(i) of the Statute;
  • intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission within the meaning of article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute; and
  • pillaging within the meaning of article 8(2)(e)(v) of the Statute.

The court had previously confirmed the charges, a proceeding roughly equivalent to a probable cause hearing.  The question now, is can two lawyers adequately represent the victims in the case?  A question previously pondered here.   The court in the Bemba case, which has by far the largest number of victims, over 1,600 so far, started the trend by ordering two lawyers from the Central African Republic should be appointed as counsel.

Article 75 of the Rome Statute gave victims a right to seek reparations:

Article 75
Reparations to victims
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims,
including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision
the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances,
determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of,
victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying
appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation.
Where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made
through the Trust Fund provided for in article 79.
3. Before making an order under this article, the Court may invite and shall take account
of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims, other interested
persons or interested States.
4. In exercising its power under this article, the Court may, after a person is convicted of
a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, determine whether, in order to give effect
to an order which it may make under this article, it is necessary to seek measures
under article 93, paragraph 1.
5. A State Party shall give effect to a decision under this article as if the provisions of
article 109 were applicable to this article.
6. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under
national or international law.

Article 68, Paragraph 3 gives the victims a right to participate and to counsel during the proceedings:

Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their
views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings
determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and
concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court
considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

The ongoing question to be resolved will be, does the court’s practice of appointing very few lawyers prejudice that right?  Will the lawyers who undertake the responsibility be given the resources and opportunities to maintain proper contact with their clients?

The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, has jurisdiction in the 118 nations that have signed on to the Treaty of Rome, or over their citizens, or in case referred to it by the U.N. Security Council, so far Libya and Darfur.  The court investigates charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide occurring within its jurisdiction since the founding of the court which was in 2002.

Aug
31

Philippines Ratifies the Rome Statute

This week The Philippines became the 117th nation to ratify the Rome Statute and submit its citizens and politicians to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The nation offered the following official statement:

“The Philippines, a democracy that champions international law and the rule of law, views being party to the Rome Statute of the ICC as a vital part of the on-going global campaign to end impunity and violence against individuals and to further strengthen a rules-based international system, specifically in relation to international human rights law and humanitarian law,” Philippine Permanent Representative Ambassador Libran Cabactulan said.

“It is a clear signal of the importance with which the Philippines places to this treaty,” he added.

Ambassador Cabactulan further elaborated that, “The ICC also serves as a deterrent against genocide and other heinous crimes and ensures that all perpetrators of these serious crimes of concern are held accountable.

The ICC sits in The Hague, The Netherlands and has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide within the territory of the 117 nations that have ratified the treaty, or by their citizens, or when the United Nations Security Council refers a situation to the ICC for investigation.  So far, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan and in Libya.  In response the prosecutor has sought, and obtained, warrants for the arrest of two heads of state, Muammar Qadafi of Libya, and Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan.

State’s Parties to the Rome Statute are, among other things charged with enforcing the court’s warrants.  Should those with outstanding warrants appear on their territory, those 117 nations are expected to effect the arrest.

Aug
29

Will Muammar Qadafi Appear at the ICC?

When the United Nations referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in February, there seemed to be a theory that it would reduce the violence with which the regime responded, and that it would deter others from responding to uprisings with force.  Neither has quite happened, and now there seems to be a growing movement to ignore the ICC indictment and let Libya determine the appropriate resolution for Qadafi.  Since rebels took control of Tripoli, it has been reported that a bounty of $2 million has been placed on the “arrest or death” of Qadafi, along with amnesty for the claimant.

In July, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Qadafi, his son Saif, and the country’s intelligence chief.  British Prime Minister David Cameron recently appeared to voice support for a Libyan process rather than the ICC process.  This led to at least one commentator to argue to the contrary.  According to lawyer Geoffrey Robertson:

It is too much to expect that Gaddafi can receive justice at the hands of those whom he has repressed for so long, in a corrupt judicial system that he controlled (and so could not be considered “judicial” in any real sense). It must now be reconstructed from scratch, with new judges independent of the National Transitional Council. That gimcrack organisation’s UN spokesman said that it wants to organise Gaddafi’s trial, but it is plainly unable to secure an unbiased legal process when he does fall into its hands. The bounty on his head seems to confirm the NTC’s preference for Gaddafi’s summary execution.

There is a more important reason of principle why the fate of the Gaddafis must not be left to the Libyans. The colonel is charged with crimes against humanity – the mass murder of civilians by perpetrating offences so barbaric that the very fact that a fellow human being can commit them demeans us all. Ordering the massacre of 1,200 captives in a prison compound, blowing 270 people out of the sky over Lockerbie, and almost as many in a UTA passenger jet over Chad a few months later – these are merely the most egregious examples of international crimes committed by the worst man left in the world. It is essential, therefore, that Gaddafi face real justice in The Hague and not revenge in Benghazi.

This is a bit of overstatement, given that the mandate from the U.N. Security Council was only to investigate crimes against humanity, war crimes occurring since February, 2011.  Other commentators have questioned whether the ICC has the tools and credibility to carry out the investigation and prosecution, with all the cases going on, the lead prosecutor leaving at the end of his term next year.

Whatever the resolution of the Libya cases, whether or not they wind up in The Hague will be a key test of the credibility of the ICC.  Can the ICC truly be an institution of international justice or will it be a threat rarely fulfilled?

Jul
18

Are Victims Getting Short Shrift at the ICC?

Radio Netherlands reports that an NGO, REDRESS, believes the court is not focusing enough resources on the needs of victims. The REDRESS statement is available here. According to REDRESS:

Registry officials at the ICC have warned judges that they can’t
process the paperwork to enable victims to take part in crucial Court hearings, because they
simply have too few staff.

Earlier this month (4th July), Trial Chamber I ruled that hundreds of pending applications
from victims wanting to participate in the Callixte Mbarushimana confirmation of charges
hearing would be left out, because the Registry could not meet the deadline to process the
applications that had been set by the Court.

This decision will deny 470 victims who potentially qualify to participate in the case, a voice
during the confirmation of charges hearing, due to take place on 17 August 2011. This is
significant for victims who often perceive the Court as a remote institution and see the
confirmation of charges hearing as the first opportunity for their lawyers to make a
statement on their behalf.

The statement also offers the following comment:

“Victims are paying the price for the failure to properly resource the Registry. Victim participation is one of the most innovative features of the ICC, designed to involve in the justice process those most affected by crimes. Now, victims are finally coming forward to engage with the Court but the Court is not ready or capable to deal with them. If this resource issue is not resolved, victim participation will become a meaningless paper promise,” says Carla Ferstman, REDRESS’ Director.

The statement continued:

Mbarushimana is not the only case affected. In the Ruto case (Kenya) the Registry indicated
that it would only be able to process 400 out of 1800 applications. In the Muthaura case
(Kenya), the Registry also stressed that it would not be able to process all of the applications
from victims. So far, almost 2,000 victims are affected but the problem is likely to worsen in
the resource issue is not addressed.
The Court is finalising its Budget for 2012 which will soon be discussed with States that are
party to the Rome Statute, who are expected to pay. Despite the fact that the Court is now
working on many new investigations, including from Libya, Cote D’Ivoire and Kenya, some
States have been insisting on a ‘zero-growth’ budget from the previous year.
“States have recognised the importance of the Court by continuing to refer it new cases, but
have not matched this with adequate financial support. While recognising the financial
constraints on many States, why create a Court then prevent it from fulfilling its mandate?
Excluding victims from being involved in Court hearings is just another way to say they don’t
matter. This is the wrong signal to send to victims and affected communities.”

This is not the first time the court’s commitment to victim’s issues has been questioned.  Previously, in the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case, the court ordered that all recognized victims were to be represented by two lawyers.  Bemba has the largest number of participating victims,  1620 so far.  It is not clear how the two lawyers have an opportunity to establish a relationship with, or adequately represent, all the victims. Recently the Victims section has similarly solicited counsel to apply to be common legal representatives for all the victims in forthcoming Sudan and Kenya cases.

Victim participation in the proceedings is described in Article 68 (3) of the Rome Statute:

Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their
views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings
determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and
concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court
considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

The question raised by both the Bemba order and the REDRESS statement is how the court will meet those obligations.  Do the current measures and increasing consolidation of representation adequately safeguard the victim’s interests?  What procedures and funds are in place to allow the counsel to adequately represent hundreds or thousands of victims?  Can any one or two lawyers adequately perform that function?

Victims have a right to offer their observations and arguments on motions before the court, offer some evidence and question witnesses.  Victims may also seek reparations from the court if a conviction is entered.  The exact form of those reparations is not yet known.  The first case, against Thomas Lubanga began in 2009 and is not yet completed.

The International Criminal Court sits in The Hague, The Netherlands.  It is a permanent court intended to punish War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or Genocide occurring within the 115 nations that have ratified the Rome Statute, or situations referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council, as has happened in Darfur, Sudan, and Libya.  Ivory Coast has also accepted the jurisdiction of the court for crimes occurring in Post-Election violence, even though it is not a signatory to the treaty.

Jun
06

Katanga Witnesses Testify, then Seek Asylum

Three witnesses who testified for the defense in the International Criminal Court (ICC) cases against Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngdolo Chui sought asylum in The Netherlands after their testimony.

According to the Katanga trial website,  the witnesses testified that the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was responsible for the Bogoro attack, one of the allegations against the accused.  The case raises difficult questions for the ICC and its obligations to protect witnesses.   The three claim that by testifying against the government of the DRC they have put themselves at risk, and cannot safely return to the DRC.  They have asked the court to keep them in The Netherlands until Dutch authorities rule on the asylum requests.

The court has an obligation to protect witnesses, but cannot provide asylum.  Returning the witnesses to the DRC if they would be harmed would clearly not be in keeping with the court’s obligation to protect witnesses, but there is a limit to how long the court could hold them in custody, and it has no place to put them that is not custody.

The registry and its Victim and Witnesses Unit is trying to determine whether the safety of the witnesses can be adequately guaranteed with a return to the DRC.  The witnesses were in DRC custody when brought to The Hague.  The question to be resolved is whether or not returning them to DRC custody puts them at greater risk.

The case against Katanga and Chui is the second ICC case to go to trial.  Katanga and Chui are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Katanga is alleged to have been the commander of the Patriotic Resistance Force of Ituri, (FRPI) and Chui is alleged to have been the leader of the Nationalist Front of Integrationists (FNI) both fighting against the government of the DRC.

The indictment alleges that Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui allegedly jointly committed through other persons, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute:

War crimes:

  1. using children under the age of fifteen to take active part in the hostilities, under article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) of the Statute;
  2. directing an attack against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities under article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Statute;
  3. wilful killings under article 8(2)(a)(i) of the Statute;
  4. destruction of property under article 8(2)(b)(xiii) of the Statute;
  5. pillaging under article 8(2)(b)(xvi) of the Statute;
  6. sexual slavery under article 8(2)(b)(xxii) of the Statute.
  7. rape under article 8(2)(b)(xxii) of the Statute

Crimes against Humanity:

  1. murder under article 7(1)(a) of the Statute;
  2. rape under article 7(1)(g) of the Statute.
  3. sexual slavery under article 7(1)(g) of the Statute.

The trial began in November, 2009. The defense began presenting its case in April of 2011.

 

Jun
01

Kenya Cases Remain Admissible

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has overruled the objections of Kenya and found that the post-election violence cases remain admissible (within the jurisdiction of the court).  A detailed discussion of the ruling, and the case, is available here.  Kenya has announced that it plans to appeal.

The ruling is a significant test of the issue of complementarity. A founding principle of the court, complementarity means that the court can only pursue cases that are not capable of, or were not adequately pursued in national courts.  Kenya had initially cooperated with the investigation, but then argued the cases were now capable of being resolved in national courts.

The court found that the Government of Kenya had not shown that there were open cases involving the six officials detained by the court.  Rather the government argued that there had been reforms in its judicial system and the cases could proceed.  The court determined that in the absence of actual open prosecutions of the six accused:

… the Chamber considers that there remains a situation of inactivity. Consequently, the
Chamber cannot but determine that the case is admissible following a plain reading
of the first half of article 17(l)(a) of the Statute. It follows that there is no need to
delve into an examination of unwillingness or inability of the State, in accordance
with article 17(2) and (3) of the Statute.

The argument over inadmissibility will likely remain ongoing as the case proceeds.

Apr
09

Lubanga Aide Testifies that Lubanga Would Not Use Child Soldiers

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’s personal secretary testified at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands,  this week that Lubanga would never have approved the use or recruitment of child soldiers.  The aide, Michel Angayika Baba, testified that he never saw minors in Lubanga’s bodyguard or entourage.  This is consistent with the testimony of an earlier witness for Lubanga.

Also this week the defense again complained about late disclosure of documents.  Failure to provide disclosures has been an ongoing issue in the case,  once stopping the trial, and the subject of repeated orders by the court. The prosecution offered three documents this week, which the defense argued should have been disclosed earlier.  The prosecution said one of the documents was simply a cleaner copy of an earlier document, two more “became relevant” because of the testimony of  a defense witness.  The prosecution’s determination of what is and what is not relevant and necessary to disclose had led the trial chamber to find last year that Lubanga could not get a fair trial, but that finding was reversed by the appeals chamber.

The prosecution’s position, that it must decide what material is relevant for disclosure has been troubling to some trial watchers and practitioners as well as to the trial chamber.  The prosecution takes the position that much of was it has cannot be disclosed to the defense, but only used a basis to find new evidence since the information has come through diplomatic channels and must be private.  This, of course, raises the question of whether or not the accused can be offered a fair trial if he cannot see the evidence against him or if potentially exculpatory evidence is being hidden, or ignored by the prosecution.

The question to be resolved is, do the rules provide an adequate protection of the accused?  Rule 77 says:
Inspection of material in possession or control of the Prosecutor
The Prosecutor shall, subject to the restrictions on disclosure as provided for in the Statute
and in rules 81 and 82, permit the defence to inspect any books, documents, photographs and
other tangible objects in the possession or control of the Prosecutor, which are material to
the preparation of the defence or are intended for use by the Prosecutor as evidence for the
purposes of the confirmation hearing or at trial, as the case may be, or were obtained from or
belonged to the person.

Part of the issue comes from the hybrid nature of the court.  The court is both a civil law (European) and a common law (U.K./U.S) system. In a traditional civil law system the prosecution has a duty to fully investigate the case, including any exculpatory evidence before presenting the case to the court.  In common law systems the adversarial nature of the process, with full disclosure for the parties is presumed to better serve the interests of justice.  In a hybrid system, does the prosecutor have a greater duty to justice and full and fair investigation, or to build a case against the accused with the defense having an opportunity to present its own case?  Can the defense adequately present its case without all the files available to the prosecution?

In the end, the answers to these question, provided, in part, by the Lubanga case will determine whether or not the ICC is credible.  If the accused cannot get a fair trial, then what is the point of the court?

Lubanga is the first person to face trial in the ICC.  He is alleged to have been using child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, (DRC).  He was brought to the court in 2006, his trial began in January 2009, and the defense began presenting its case in January 2010.

Categories

Recent Comments

Tags

abduction Abu Garda Afghanistan Arrest warrant Bahar Idriss Abu Garda Callixte Mbarushimana Central African Republic child soldiers complementarity counsel crimes against humanity Darfur Democratic Republic of Congo Den Haag genocidal intent Genocide Germain Katanga Government of Sudan Grenada ICC International Criminal Court ISAF Ivory Coast Jean-Pierre Bemba Kenya Libya Lubanga lubange Luis Moreno-Ocampo Matthieu Ngdolou Chui New York Times Nicholas Kristof Omar Al Bashir President of Sudan Qadafi rape reparations Rome Statute sexual slavery Sudan The Hague Thomas Lubanga Union of Congolese Patriots victims war crimes
Go back to top

Switch to our mobile site