The Open Society Institute offered its summary of the Lubanga defense on its Lubangatrial.org website, boiling down the arguments to “witnesses lied, Lubanga not guilty.” The website’s summary, and unofficial transcript of the opening argument of Catherine Mabille, defense counsel for Thomas Lubanga is available here. Catherine Mabille is a Paris-based lawyer and argued in French, this appears to be a transcription of the translation, though is not the court’s official transcript.
In the time that the defense has been offering witnesses, since this opening statement they have had one witness testify that he was paid $200 to lie and state that he had been a child soldier in Lubanga’s Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) army, a rebel force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. When asked if he had been paid to lie on behalf of the UPC, the witness claimed he asked for money from the UPC, but they would not give it to him.
Another witness testified that his son lied about being a child soldier in the UPC. A third witness testified over three days that he children were not conscripted into the UPC, but also testified that some joined willingly, which would seem to harm at least part of Lubanga’s case.
The testimony that parties working on behalf of the ICC brought a question to the Office of the Prosecutor from Judge Adrian Fulford, who demanded to know if the prosecutor was going to produce the people who were alleged to have paid for false testimony. Fulford said “Are we going to hear from them? If so, when?” The judge apparently suggested that the court might have a difficult time rejecting the testimony of witness bribery without hearing from the people who are alleged to have bribed witnesses. The OSI’s summary is available here.
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first defendant to face trial at the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Lubanga is accused of conscripting, enlisting and using child soldiers in his UPC army. Lubanga was brought to the court in May 2007, his trial began in January of 2009. The defense began presenting its case in January 2010, after a few victims testified on their own behalf seeking reparations. The court is intended to be a permanent place to prosecute charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The court has a unique feature, never seen in international law before, allowing the victims of war crimes to seek reparations from a fund supported by the state’s parties who fund the court, charitable donations and the fines and fees paid by those convicted. Reparations may include financial support, psychological and physical rehabilitation services. The reparations process also includes the appointment of counsel funded by the court to represent the victims in pursuing their claims.
