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
17

Office of the Prosecutor Announces Ivory Coast Investigation

The International Criminal Court (ICC), Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) announced today the opening of an investigation into post-election violence in Ivory Coast.  The ICC, located in The Hague, The Netherlands, has authority to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide occurring in nations that have signed on to the treaty creating the court, or if referred by the Security Council of the United Nations, or when, as in Ivory Coast, the country has accepted jurisdiction, even though they are not a member state.

The notice states, in part:

By this notice, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court informs victims of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Côte d’Ivoire by any party following the presidential election of 28 November 2010 that he will shortly request authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber II to open an investigation into such alleged crimes.

The Prosecutor notifies victims of the post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire that they can send their comments to the Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber II on whether an investigation on such alleged crimes should be opened. The victims or their legal representatives have 30 days from this notice to make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Victims who wish to make observations and are seeking to do so are encouraged to contact the Reparations Center for assistance.  The Reparations Center and attorney John L. Fossum are interested in providing assistance to those seeking to participate, share their information or seek reparations.  There is no fee for this service.

Victims have an opportunity at the ICC to participate in ongoing cases by making arguments, presenting evidence, and ultimately seek reparations if there is a conviction.  Reparations and the process are funded by the 114 nations that have ratified the Treaty of Rome, now known as the Rome Statute, the founding document of the International Criminal Court.

 

Apr
21

Lubanga Trial Closes Evidence Phase

Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands, has declared a closed the evidentiary phase of the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The court had previously announced the schedule for closing arguments, previously discussed here, which Judge Adrian Fulford announced will not be changed. “The clock has started ticking and nothing save an earthquake will stop it,” The Lubangatrial.org blog reports him as saying.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first person to face the International Criminal Court. He is accused of the war crimes of recruiting, using and conscripting child soldiers.  He was brought to the court in 2006, and his trial began in January of 2009.  The defense began presenting it’s case in January 2010.  The case stopped several times because of the prosecution cross examining witnesses with information that had not been disclosed to the defense.  At one point, the trial chamber issued a stay, finding that Lubanga could not get a fair trial, the appeals chamber reversed, but disclosure of evidence has continued to be an issue. The trial chamber again recently ruled on the disclosure problems and denied another defense request to end the trial because of the disclosure issues.

The questions raised by the ongoing disclosure issues were discussed in part, here.  Ultimately, the attitude and actions of the prosecutor in timely and properly disclosing evidence will determine whether or not an accused may get a fair trial at the court.  That, and the court’s reaction to the prosecution’s failure to comply with rules and court orders will determine the credibility of the court.  The court has been much in the news lately, which has added to American awareness of its existence.  It’s continued existence will require credibility in fair trials for the accused followed fair treatment of the victims in the reparations process when there is a conviction.

 

Dec
26

Lubanga Disclosure Still an Issue

Trial Chamber I at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued another decision in the ongoing battle over disclosures by the prosecution in the trial of  Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.  Lubanga’s trial commenced in January of 2009, the defense began its case in January 2010.  Testimony was to have been completed by now, but the chamber issued another decision on December 13, 2010 on disclosure.  The prosecution sought court approval for the names and evidence it has already withheld as “work product.”  The court did order the disclosure of some names and information previously withheld from the defense.

The prosecution had argued the notes of the investigators were not discoverable as they were work product.  The court previously issued a ruling evaluating the disclosure obligations of the Office of the Prosecutor in November, shortly after a ruling that prosecutor had violated its obligations.  In July, the trial chamber stayed the proceedings finding that a “fair trial … is no longer possible.” In October  the appeals chamber found that the trial chamber had not exhausted its power to sanction the prosecution for non-disclosure.  The fact that the prosecution did not disclose information it was ordered to disclose was not in dispute, the prosecution claimed it could not disclose the information because of its obligations to the governments and organizations that had provided the information.

The prosecution had been admonished by the trial chamber for failure to comply with disclosure orders in February 2010 for disclosures that should have been made “no later than December of 2009.”  The ongoing disclosure issues in this case highlight a conflict in the concept of the court and the obligations of the parties.  The Office of the Prosecutor is a semi-diplomatic office with obligations to the U.N. and nations which have provided information.  But in order to guarantee a fair trial it must also provide access to that information to the defense. The conflict has been that even when ordered by the court to disclose information, the prosecution argues that it’s diplomatic obligations prevent it from doing so.  Can the court offer fair trials without full disclosure?  The trial chamber has argued that it cannot but was overruled by the trial chamber with an eye towards greater sanctions on the prosecution.

Lubanga is the first case go to trial at the ICC.  He was brought before the court in 2006.  He is alleged to have been the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots and is accused of conscripting and recruiting child soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC.  Lubanga is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The ICC has jurisdiction in the 114 nations that have ratified the Rome Treaty, or over their citizens who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as defined by international law.

If there is a conviction in this case, the court could move on to the reparations phase where the victims of war crimes or crimes against humanity could seek orders of the court to make reparations from the funds of Lubanga, or from the trust fund for victims.  The ICC is the first international tribunal to offer a process for reparations and what form those reparations orders will take is still an open question.

Dec
04

Trial Chamber III Restricts the Right of Victims to Select Counsel

Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC), currently hearing the case against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Bemba)  has ordered that all victims seeking to participate at trial will be represented by one of two lawyers designated by the court.  On November 18, the court ruled on the applications of the first 772 victims seeking to participate at trial and authorized 624 them to proceed to trial. An additional 653 victims have filed requests to participate in the trial, those applications are still pending.

In an order issued just prior to the beginning of trial, the chamber re-iterated the decision that the victims would be represented by two lawyers at trial, and determined that the 653 victims whose applications have not yet been decided would be represented by the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV):

On 10 November 2010, the Chamber issued it “Decision on common legal
representation of victims for the purpose of trial” whereby it, inter alia,
authorised the Registry to designate two common legal representatives from the
Central African Republic (“CAR”) to represent the totality of the victims allowed
to participate in the case and recalled that where it is appropriate, the OPCV may
appear before the Chamber in “respect of specific issues.”

Those two representatives, Marie-Edith Douzima Lawson and Assingambi Zarambaud are now the sole lawyers authorized to appear at trial on behalf of the 624 victims whose applications have been approved and of those whose applications are eventually approved.  This of course, raises the question, can two lawyers effectively represent more than a 1,000 victims in a single case during trial?

As noted by the court, the victims have a right to participate in the trial:

The Trial Chamber notes that, pursuant to Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute,
“the Court shall permit the victims to present their views and concerns 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.”

Can two lawyers, engaged full time in trial have time to consult with more than a thousand victims and then timely present their “views and concerns” to the court?

The court noted that many of the victims have not selected counsel, or have indicated a willingness to be represented by the OPCV or by one of the two lawyers selected to represent victims at trial.

the Chamber is of the view that, in the present circumstances and in
light of the time constraints, it is to the benefit of the Applicants to be represented
by the OPCV in court at the commencement of the trial until a decision on their
applications to participate in the trial proceedings is issued, at which point they
will be represented by one of the two common legal representatives designated
by the Registry.

The chamber does not specifically address the question of what happens if a victim selected their own counsel who is not the OPCV or one of the selected representatives, but presumably this order means that the victim’s selected counsel may not appear at the trial to present that victim’s “views and concerns.”

Has the court gone too far in restricting victim’s right to counsel?  It does appear that the court is concerned that victims slow down the process and is looking for ways to expedite the cases and limit victim participation.  Because the court and the process is new, the answers are not clear, but it seems unlikely that two lawyers, even with a small staff, engaged full time in a mass atrocity trial could effectively communicate with 1,000 or more clients and seek their input on the case.  Whether this case will be a model for future ICC cases or its approach will be scrapped remains to be seen.  The question for the chamber should be how seriously do we take the right of the victims to participate, and what steps should be taken to ensure adequate and direct representation of the victims? Following the trial the victims have an opportunity to seek reparations for the harms they have suffered, will they still be restricted to one of two lawyers at the reparations stage?

The ICC prosecutes cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  Are they focused on getting the cases tried and over with, on building a record of the alleged crimes, on a fair trial for the accused, or on justice for the victims?   Certainly speed of the trial should be last consideration, not the first.

Oct
11

Fourth DRC Suspect Arrested in France

The fourth person accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Callixte Mbarushimana has been arrested in France.  Mbarushima is listed as the Executive Secretary of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, (FDLR) and is accused of six counts of war crimes and was arrested outside his home in Paris to fact charges at the International Criminal Court, (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The warrant naming Mbarushimana was unsealed after his arrest, raising the question  of how many other sealed indictments and warrants await public disclosure.  The ICC press release on the arrest of Mbarushimana is available here. Bloomberg news covered the story here.

According to a fact sheet released by the ICC:

 In sealed documents submitted to the ICC
judges on 20 August 2010, the Office of the
Prosecutor (OTP) presented evidence against
Mr. Callixte MBARUSHIMANA, Executive
Secretary of the FDLR, charging him with 6
counts of war crimes and 5 counts of crimes
against humanity.
 The Court’s Pre‐Trial Chamber I issued a
sealed arrest warrant on 28 September 2010.
 On 11 October 2010, the French authorities
executed the arrest warrant and arrested Mr.
Callixte MBARUSHIMANA in Paris, France.

The fact sheet describes the allegations as follows:

 Mr. Callixte MBARUSHIMANA is accused
of being among the top FDLR leaders that, at
the end of 2008 and over the course of 2009,
agreed to conduct widespread and systematic
attacks against the civilian population in order
to create a humanitarian catastrophe. He is
also accused of agreeing to conduct and
personally conducting an international
campaign intended to persuade the DRC and
Rwanda Governments and the international
community that the FDLR could not be
defeated militarily and thereby to extort from
them concessions of political power for the
FDLR in Rwanda as a condition for the FDLR
to stop committing atrocities against civilians.
 The OTP accuses Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA, as part of the FDLR
leadership, of having used violence against
civilians as their main bargaining tool in their
international campaign to attempt to extort
from Rwanda and the international
community political power for the FDLR.
 The OTP accused Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA of being responsible for
the crimes committed by the FDLR in pursuit
of this goal as contributor to the commission
of crimes by the FDLR, a group acting with a
criminal common purpose.
 As such, the 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.

Mbarushmina is the first accused at the ICC to face charges for crimes alleged to have been committed in the Kivus provinces of the DRC.  The three accused from the DRC who are presently at the ICC are in trial.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo former head of the Union of Congolese Patriots was brought to the court in 2006, his trial began in January 2009, with the defense case beginning in January 2010.  His trial was adjourned for failure by the prosecutor to disclose the identity of an investigator, but is expected to resume shortly.

Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngdolo Chui are also from the DRC and are being tried together.  Their trial commenced on November 24, 2009.  Katanga and Chui are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity including, using child soldiers, sexual slavery, attacking civilians, rape and pillaging.

Those are the only cases to come to trial in the history of the ICC.  A third trial, that of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, of the Central African Republic accused of rape and murder as crimes against humanity and rape, murder and pillaging as war crimes is awaiting the end of the  Lubanga trial in order to start trial.

The ICC began in 2002 when the 60th nation ratified its treaty, as of November 1, there will 114 nations that have ratified the treaty and subjected their citizens to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Three citizens of Sudan, which is not a state’s party to the ICC have appeared before the court voluntarily to face charges.  The first, Bahr Idriss Abu-Garda had his case dismissed at the confirmation of charges hearing.  Two others, Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jermus are awaiting the confirmation of charges hearing after appearing voluntarily in June of 2010.

There are outstanding warrants for the arrest of Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, the president of Sudan for genocide and war crimes, Ahmed Harun, minister of Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan and the leader of the Janjaweed Militia, Ali Kushayeb. The case against Al-Bashir is the most controversial, having raised concerns about the indictments of sitting heads of state. Al Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity by an international tribunal.

There have been public indictments issued from investigations in Uganda, and the prosecutor has announced the indictments will be published in the next few months in the investigations into post-election violence in Kenya.

The prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has also said there may be investigations into crimes within the jurisdiction of the court in Afghanistan, Colombia,  Georgia, and  Guinea.  At the moment, the only publicly disclosed investigation are from five contiguous countries in Africa, DRC, Central African Republic, Kenya, Uganda and the Darfur region in Sudan.

Jul
02

Victims Motivated by a Desire to be Heard

In an interview with the Open Society Institutes blog on the Lubanga Trial, Paolina Massidda of the International Criminal Court’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims has stated that the victims participating in the Lubanga Trial are interested in telling their stories, not in collecting reparations.  The interview is available here.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), created by the Treaty of Rome, has a unique process where the victims of war crimes are eligible to seek reparations for the harms they have suffered.  The ICC has determined that the victims are allowed an opportunity to participate in the cases as they proceed and to seek reparations after a conviction.  The reparations are to be paid by a fund supported by fines paid by those convicted and by contributions from the 111 governments which are the state’s parties to the court.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was the first person to be brought before the ICC.  He was the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is accused of war crimes including conscripting and using child soldiers in his army.  Lubanga was brought to the court in 2007, his trial commenced in January 2009, the defense began presenting its case in January of this year.

May
13

Lubanga Defense Witnesses Testify by Video Link

Two witnesses in the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Thomas Lubanga testified by video link because they were unable to travel to The Hague.  The defense asserts they were unable to travel because prosecution witnesses, who are also participating as victims in the case, had stolen their identities and they could not obtain proper travel documents.

The Open Society institute reported the stolen identities issue here in its blog on the Lubanga trial.  The defense witnesses identified themselves as former Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) soldiers and claim that prosecution witnesses, identified as Witness 225 and Witness 229 stole their identities and posed as child soldiers in the UPC.  The testimony of one witness who described himself as the father of a witness whose identity was stolen was previously described here and in the Lubanga Trial blog here.

A defense investigator reportedly uncovered the fraud when he arrived in a village and found that there was a person in the village named Dieudonné Tonyfwa Urochi which was the name used by one of the two prosecution witnesses.  The court has ordered that court officials fingerprint the two defense witnesses to see if their identities can be determined.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first person to be brought to the ICC for trial.  He was brought before the court in 2007 and his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  Lubanga was the head of the UPC in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is on trial for war crimes including the use of child soldiers.  Victims have been allowed the right to participate to a limited extent in the case because the court’s process allows the victims of war crimes to seek reparations from the victims fund or the perpetrators.   The presentation of persons masquerading as victims of course threatens the process and the ability of victims in future cases to seek reparations.

May
10

Lubanga Defense Claims Witnesses Stole Identities

The defense team for Thomas Lubanga at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has claimed that a witness testified under a false name.  The witness, who testified as Dieudonné Tonyfwa Urochi, and is participating in the case as both a witness for the prosecution and as a victim seeking reparations before the court.  The testimony, report by the Open Society Institute’s blog on the trial here, goes to the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

In attempting to call the prosecution’s witness, the defense offered the testimony of a witness who stated that he is the father of Dieudonné Tonyfwa Urochi who was not a soldier in the Union of Congolese Patriots, (UPC) and is not the person who testified before the court. The defense witness was cross-examined by the counsel for the victim, as well as by the office of the prosecutor.

The counsel for Dieudonné Tonyfwa Urochi showed the witness a picture of the person who testified under that name and the witness insisted that was not his son.  Much of the testimony was continued in close session.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first person to be brought to trial in the ICC, which is located in The Hague, The Netherlands.  Lubanga was brought before the court in 2007, the trial commenced in January 2009, the defense case began in January 2010.  Lubanga was the leader of the UPC in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is on trial for the war crime of recruiting and conscripting child soldiers.

Mar
31

Pre Trial Chamber Opens Kenya Investigation

Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court has granted the request of the prosecutor to open an investigation into the post-election violence in Kenya.   A majority of the panel voted to grant the request, Judge Han-Peter Kaul, dissented, arguing that the crimes alleged in the 1,500 pages of documentation submitted by the office of the prosecutor do not constitute crimes against humanity.   Essentially Judge Kaul determined the post-election violence was not directed by a government or other organization and so did not rise to the level of war crimes as defined by the Statute of Rome, the defining treaty of the court.

The court’s 163 page decision is available here.  The court’s press release is available here. The 111 nations that have ratified the Treaty of Rome are subject to the court’s jurisdiction when there are crimes against humanity or war crimes that national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.  Kenya has agreed to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of the widespread violence following its election in 2007.

This investigation will allow the victims of crimes against humanity from Kenya during the post-election period to make application to the court and seek reparations from the court and the fund set up by the 111 nations who are signatories to the treaty.

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