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.

Mar
04

ICC Prosecutor Tells Court Kenya Violence Directed by Officials

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has told the pre-trial chamber that the post-election violence in Kenya is traceable to specific officials.  The prosecutor reported the violence was directed by specific “senior political and business leaders.”

Kenya may be the fifth situation for the ICC, the investigation is limited to the post election violence.  The ICC has jurisdiction over cases in countries which are signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty which created the court, or where the case has been referred by the U.N. Security council.  The security council referred the situation in Sudan.  The situations in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo,  and Central African Republic were referred by the respective governments.  The government of Kenya has consented to this investigation.  The ICC has jurisdiction only when the cases cannot or will not be prosecuted by the national government.

The ICC’s press release is available here. The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Feb
26

Prosecution Asks to Declare its Witness as Hostile in Katanga and Chui Trial

At the trial of Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngdolo Chui for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the prosecution asked that its witness be declared hostile.  The prosecutor reportedly noticed “inconsistencies” and asked the court to declare the witness as hostile.  The court determined that the inconsistencies could be resolved without declaring the witness as hostile and allowed questioning to continue.  A detailed report on the testimony is available here.

Katanga and Chui are the second case to go to trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.  They are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  They are accused of attacking civilian targets, rape, pillaging, using child soldiers and sexual slavery among other charges.  Katanga and Chui had led rebel armies in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but had signed peace agreements with the government of the DRC and had joined the Congolese army at the time they were arrested and brought to The Hague.  Their trial began on November 9, 2009.

The situation in DRC was referred to the ICC by the Congolese government.

Feb
21

Lubanga Trial Takes Two Week Break

The International Criminal Court trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was suspended this week for a two week trip for the defense to the Democratic Republic of Congo for important “research,” presumably this means further investigation into the previous allegations that prosecution witnesses lied  or were paid to lie about being child soldiers.  The trial was earlier suspended on Tuesday because of noted differences in the official English and French transcripts.  The reporting from the Open Society Institute, available here, does not make clear whether or not the court had arrived at a resolution of the transcription problem.

The court also ruled that the Lubanga defense could share information on its investigation with the defense team of Germain Katanga, whose trial, along with co-defendant Matthieu Ngdolo Chui was the second trial to start at the ICC. The trial opened on November 26, 2009, and my summary of the case and its opening is available here. Lubanga is the first person to face a trial at the ICC.  Lubanga, Katanga, and Chui were rebel leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and are charged with war crimes, and crimes against humanity.  There are four witnesses who are scheduled to testify for the prosecution in both cases, and the defenses wished to share the information they had collected in their investigations.  Judge Adrian Fulford ruled there was nothing to prevent such sharing between the teams.

Lubanga is accused of using child soldiers in his Union of Congolese Patriots, and Katanga and Chui are charged with  using child soldiers, attacking civilian targets, destruction of property, rape and sexual slavery as war crimes, they are also alleged to have committed crimes against humanity, including murder within the court’s jurisdiction, rape and sexual slavery. Another accused from the DRC, Bosco Ntaganda is still at large.

In the cases of the Sudan, one accused, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda voluntarily appeared at the court, and the charges against him were not confirmed.  A summary of that action is available here.  Three more accused from Sudan remain at large.  In the Uganda case there are four accused, all of whom are still at large.  In the case involving the Central African Republic, there is one accused, Jean-Pierre Gemba, whose trial is expected to begin April 27, 2010.

The International Criminal Court sits in The Hague, Netherlands and is intended to be a permanent court to hear cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide when those cases are not resolved by national authorities.  Thomas Lubanga was the first person brought before the court, he was arrested in 2007, and his trial began in January 2009, the defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  There are also victims who have been given a limited right to participate in the case, and then to seek reparations if they can establish their right to do so.

Feb
08

International Criminal Court Finds For Abu Garda

The Interational Criminal Court, pre-trial chamber I today ruled that the Office of the Prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence to continue the case against Bahar Idriss Abu Garda for trial.  Abu Garda was the first case from the Sudan to come before the court. He appeared voluntarily with counsel in May of 2009 and has been in The Hague, though not in custody since then.

Abu Garda was charged with three war crimes, violence to life, directing attacks against peacekeeping forces, and pillaging.  The court found there was not sufficient evidence presented at the confirmation of charges hearing to require a trial.

The International Criminal Court uses a three stage process, a warrant and indictment can issue if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the person committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.  Once the accused is before the court, then there is a confirmation of charges hearing where the accused can participate and challenge the evidence, if after that hearing the court determines there is “substantial grounds” to believe the person is guilty of the crimes charged then a trial may be held where the prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was at this second stage where the court found for Abu Garda and essentially dismissed the charges.  This hearing, the equivalent of a probable cause hearing in an American court case may end the case against Abu Garda, although the prosecutor has the right to appeal the determination, and may ask to reopen if they can provide new evidence of Abu Garda’s involvement or command responsibility for the alleged war crimes.

The court’s press release regarding the decision is available here, the order itself is here, and the court’s fact sheet on the case is located here.  Abu Garda is the fifth person brought to the court to face charges of war crimes, and the first to win the confirmation of charges hearing.

The court has previously confirmed charges against Thomas Lubanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo and against Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngdolo Chui also of the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Lubanga’s defense team is currently presenting its case, and Katanga and Chui are being tried together, their trial recently resumed.  The court has also confirmed the charges against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of the Central African Republic who is awaiting the start of trial.

The president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir and a cabinet official, Ahmad Harun have also been indicted by the court for war crimes as has a rebel leader, Ali Kushayb.  None of them has yet appeared before the court to face the charges.

Feb
03

Appeals Chamber Reverses Pre-Trial Chamber in Bashir Warrant Decision.

The International Criminal Court made history in March of 2009 by issuing an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state, Omar Al Bashir, the President of Sudan. The warrant for his arrest was based on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The pre-trial chamber though declined to issue a warrant for the charge of genocide, finding at the time that the prosecutor had not established sufficient evidence of genocidal intent.

Today the appeals chamber of the ICC issued a decision, available here, determining that the pre-trial chamber erred by using the wrong standard for making its determination. The pre-trial chamber decided that since genocidal intent was only one of the reasonable inferences based on the evidence submitted and that a warrant should not issue for genocide. The appeals chamber reasoned that the pre-trial chamber read in too high a requirement when reading the statute’s requirement that a warrant of arrest required “reasonable grounds to believe” that a crime within the jurisdiction of the court occurred.

The appeals chamber said the pre-trial chamber’s determination effectively required the prosecutor to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt and “disprove any other reasonable conclusions.”  The appeals chamber determined that this effectively required a trial standard of proof at the issuance of an arrest warrant and did not recognize the statute’s escalating standards of proof, “reasonable grounds to believe” at the warrant stage, “substantial grounds to believe” at the confirmation of charges stage and “beyond reasonable doubt” for a conviction at trial.

The appeals chamber did not issue a warrant based on charges of genocide but sent the matter back to the pre-trial chamber for a determination based on whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bashir and the Government of acted with genocidal intent in Darfur.  The court’s press release summary of the decision is available here.

Jan
21

Lubanga Victims Testify

The Lubanga trial entered an unprecedented phase last week as the victims who are seeking reparations from Lubanga and the court testified about the harm they suffered because of Lubanga.  The victims tesitfied about their experiences being abducted as child soldiers and of others being held in sexual slavery. A summary of the testimony of the  first week of victims seeking reparations is available here.

The ICC process is unique in the history of war crimes prosecutions.  Never before have the victims of war crimes had an opportunity to seek reparations and never have they had the opportunity to participate in the case as it is going on.  This creates a difficulty for the defense as they have to defend the case on multiple fronts.  Reparations will be funded not just by the parties convicted, but by a victims fund which the member states contribute to.

Victims may seek reparations, including psychological and physical rehabilitation services. To assist them in seeking reparations, victims may request appointed counsel of their choosing, if they do not select counsel, they will be represented by the Office of Public Counsel for Victims.   Appointed counsel will not be funded by the courts and not by the victims personally.

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