Lubanga Found Guilty

By | Published March 14, 2012

By Jvhertum (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

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


Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today announced a guilty verdict for Thomas Lubanga Dyillo in his war crimes trial in The Hague.  Lubanga was accused of recruiting and conscripting child soldiers as the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, (UPC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

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.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Philippines Ratifies the Rome Statute

By | Published August 31, 2011

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.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are Victims Getting Short Shrift at the ICC?

By | Published July 18, 2011

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.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Katanga Witnesses Testify, then Seek Asylum

By | Published June 6, 2011

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.

 

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lubanga Closing Scheduled

By | Published April 13, 2011

Although testimony is still being taken, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has set out a timetable for the closing arguments in the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.  The order states that the prosecution and the victims should go first and must make their submissions by June 1, 2011. Although it is common to have simultaneous submissions, the court ordered the prosecution to submit its argument first:

In light of the legal and factual developments since the commencement of the trial, which led, inter alia, to the most recent defence application for a stay of the proceedings based on an abuse of the process by the prosecution, the Chamber is of the view that it is necessary for the Prosecutor to file his written closing statement first. The accused is entitled to know, once the evidence has closed, the legal and factual basis on which the Prosecutor maintains he is guilty. In this particular case, the lack of clearly identified bases could, potentially, result in the defence responding to evidence that is no longer relied on. In the circumstances, the logic underlying Rule 141(2) of the Rules that  establishes the right of the defence to examine witnesses last also applies to these final written submissions. The defence is therefore entitled to file
its closing submissions once the arguments of the prosecution and the legal representatives have been submitted.

The prosecution’s closing argument is to be no more than 250 pages long and the victim’s submissions to be no more than 50 pages long for each team.  The defense has until July 15, 2011 to file a response of up to 300 pages.  The prosecution than can file a response on August 1, the defense has until August 15 to file a rebuttal to the prosecutor argument.  On August 25 and 26 the court will hear oral arguments about the case from the prosecution and defense as well as the victim’s legal teams and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims.

The chamber directed the parties to address the following issues in their closings:

i) Whether there was an armed conflict in Ituri, Democratic Republic of
Congo, between 1 September 2002 and 13 August 2003?
ii) If there was an armed conflict for the purposes of i) above, is there a
nexus between the armed conflict and the alleged crimes?
iii) Was the armed conflict of an international character or not of an
international character, for the purposes of Article 8 of the Statute?

iv) If the Chamber concludes that it was not of an international character,
what factors should be taken into account if the Chamber considers
modifying the legal characterisation of the facts (under Regulation 55)
for the period of early September 2002 to 2 June 2003?
v) What does the prosecution need to establish in this case under Article
25(3)(a) of the Statute?
vi) What is the meaning of the terms “conscripting” or “enlisting”
children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces,
into armed forces or armed groups or “using them to actively
participate in hostilities”, for the purposes of Articles 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and
8(2)(e)(vii) and the corresponding Elements of the Crimes?
vii) What does the prosecution need to establish under Article 30 of the
Statute, bearing in mind Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi)(3) and Article
8(2)(e)(vii)(3) of the Elements of Crimes?

Apparent in the order is the concern that the court has not resolved for itself whether the discovery violations which were complained about recently, stopped the trial last summer, and have been at issue a number of times in the case, have deprived Lubanga of a fair trial.

Lubanga is the first person to face trial in the ICC.  He was brought to The Hague in 2006, his trial began in January 2009, the defense case began in January 2010.  He is accused of war crimes including conscripting and using child soldiers as leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

At the ICC, victims are allowed to participate to a limited extent in the trial, including motions and commenting on evidence.  The victims may also seek an order for reparations from the court if there is a conviction.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

International Criminal Court Announces Indictments in Kenya

By | Published March 8, 2011

Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today announced the indictments in the post-election violence in Kenya.  The court has combined the cases into two indictments with three accused each.

The court issued an indictment against William Samoei Ruto,  a suspended Minister of Higher Education, Science and technology of the Republic of Kenya; Henry Kiprono Kosgey,   Minister of Industrialization of the Republic of Kenya and the Chairman of the
Orange Democratic Movement; and Joshua Arap Sang,  head of operations at Kass FM in Nairobi.

The court found:

reasonable grounds to believe that Ruto and Kosgey are criminally responsible as indirect co-perpetrators (i.e., committing crimes through another person(s)) in accordance with article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer and persecution.

The Pre-Trial Chamber II was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Sang otherwise contributed to the commission of the crimes in accordance with article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute.

The court did not find reasonable cause to for an additional count requested by the prosecutor, Torture.  The court issued a summons for the three, requiring that they appear before the court on April 7.  The court’s order is available here.

An interesting addition to the discussion was the court’s determination that the prosecutor had claimed two modes of liability for the accused:

as co-perpetrators, or in the alternative” as
falling under article 25(3)(d) of the Statute. Later, under the section on modes of
liability, the Prosecutor alleged that the three persons’ criminal responsibility fits as
“indirect co-perpetrators, or in the alternative, as co-perpetrators” or as common
purpose liability under article 25(3)(d) of the Statute.
36. Although the Prosecutor may generally charge in the alternative, he should be
consistent throughout his Application about the actual mode(s) of liability that he
intends to present to the Chamber. Moreover, the possibility for the Prosecutor to
charge in the alternative does not necessarily mean that the Chamber has to respond
in the same manner. In particular, the Chamber is not persuaded that it is best
practice to make simultaneous findings on modes of liability presented \ in the
alternative. A person cannot be deemed concurrently as a principal and an accessory
to the same crime. Thus, it is the Chamber’s view that an initial decision has to be
made on the basis of the material provided, as to whether there are reasonablegrounds to believe that Ruto, Kosgey and Sang bear criminal responsibility for the
crimes against humanity that occurred in the specific locations in the Republic of
Kenya, as discussed in section II above, either as co-perpetrators, indirect coperpetrators,
or any other form of liability presented or that the Chamber finds
appropriate.

The court also issued a summons for the appearance of: Francis Kirimi Muthaura,  Head of the Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet of the Republic of Kenya; Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta,  Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance of the Republic of Kenya; and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Chief Executive of the Postal Corporation of Kenya.

The court found:

reasonable grounds to believe that Muthaura and Kenyatta are criminally responsible as indirect co-perpetrators in accordance with article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts.

The Chamber was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Ali otherwise contributed to the commission of the crimes in accordance with article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute.

The decision in this case is available here.

In both cases, Judge Hans Peter Kaul dissented, though he has yet to issue a written position.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Lubanga Disclosure Still an Issue

By | Published December 26, 2010

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.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

ICC Rules on Disclosure Obligation of the Prosecution

By | Published November 17, 2010

Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a ruling on the obligation of the prosecution to disclose information.  Trial Chamber I has been hearing the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first ICC case to go to trial.  The Lubanga case has been stopped several times because of disputes over the disclosure of evidence in the possession of the prosecutor.   According to a post at the Open Society blog on the Lubanga trial, the issue came to light on March 5, 2010 when the defense noted to the court that the prosecution appeared to be cross-examining a defense witness based on undisclosed information.

It is clear in the Rome Statute, that the prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory information.  This ruling makes it clear the obligation is broader and the prosecution must disclose not just exculpatory information but information that may help explain the case, that may be used in cross examination and that “may otherwise be material to the preparation of the defence.”

While this clarification of the obligations may seem surprising to some in the Office of the Prosecutor, it is consistent with the spirit of the rules.  The obligation is based on the American Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland, which requires disclosure of exculpatory material or information that may lead to exculpatory material.  This obligation is ongoing.  Essentially, that appears to be the ruling of court.

The U.S. Department of Justice was involved in the drafting of the rules of the Rome Statute in the late 1990s.  Their input was to add an American style overlay to the system and require disclosure similar to that in U.S. federal court. The Office of the Prosecutor has adopted a more narrow approach, offering to disclose information they know to be exculpatory, or specifically requested by the defense.   The court seems to have broadened that understanding to include information that  “may significantly assist the accused in understanding the incriminating and exculpatory evidence, and the issues, in the case.”

This ruling makes the possibility of acquittal by the Trial Chamber seem more likely.  In June, the Trial Chamber suspended the proceedings finding that the prosecution’s failure to disclose the identity of a witness and the ongoing failure of the prosecution to disclose information as required meant that “a fair trial of the accused is no longer possible.”

If a fair trial was not possible because of the failure to meet disclosure obligations, and the prosecution has never met those obligations in the four years that Lubanga has been in The Hague, does this new ruling compel a finding of not guilty?

Lubanga was the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he is accused of the war crimes of conscripting and enlisting child soldiers.  Lubanga was the first defendant in the custody of the court, arriving in 2006, his trial began in January 2009 and the defense began presenting its case in January 2010. The trial is expected to conclude this month.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

U.S. State Department Official Describes “Positive Engagement” with the ICC

By | Published November 14, 2010

A U.S. State Department official has described the current administration‘s position on the International Criminal Court (ICC) as “positive engagement.”  The Bush administration had been openly hostile and sought agreements from other countries that no U.S. nationals would be transferred to the court and further threatened that it would use military force if any U.S. nationals were brought to the court.  Human Rights Watch described the law containing this threat,  the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002 as “The Hague Invasion Act” for its provision allowing such a use of force.

The Clinton administration had participated in the drafting of the Rome Treaty, but did not support the final version.  President Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000, the final day to allow for continued participation in negotiating changes to the treaty.  President Clinton did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and in a signing statement recommended that his predecessor not do so either,  because the ICC prosecutor was not “accountable” to the Security Council.  It appears that the main U.S. objection was that a member state, in particular the United States, could not veto or otherwise stop a prosecution.

In 2002, when the court’s jurisdiction began, the Bush administration sent a notice to the court withdrawing from the treaty.  A chronology of the U.S. attitude towards the court is offered by the American NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court (AMICC). The Bush administration sought bi-lateral agreements with other nations promising not to transfer U.S. citizens to the ICC if indicted, apparently tying the signing of such an agreement to aid.  The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (ICCNOW) has offered a list of some of those agreements here.

There have been statements from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, signaling a change in policy towards the ICC, and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has described it as “a great regret” that the U.S. is not a state’s party. It is clear that the U.S. is not as openly hostile to the ICC as the Bush administration. Though it seems unlikely the administration will expend any political effort or capital on seeking ratification of the treaty when it is clear that would not be 66 votes to ratify.  It is not clear how many Senators would support ratification, there are no public statements of support by any U.S. Senators that have been located in preparing this post.

The purpose of the ICC is to have a permanent international court to prosecute mass atrocity cases, those crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of genocide that are not or cannot be effectively prosecuted by national authorities.  The principle of complementarity, preventing prosecution by the ICC when a national authority has jurisdiction has been sufficient for the 114 nations which have ratified the treaty.  The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, not to prosecute crimes generally.

The Rome Statute, founding document of the ICC, does not create new obligations, but rather creates an enforcement mechanism for violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, ratified by 194 countries, including the U.S.  The newest addition to the statute is a definition of the crime of aggression, or committing aggressive war.  The Nuremberg trials after World War II included a count of waging aggressive war and the U.N. charter includes an obligation of the member states, including the U.S. not to wage aggressive war.  The ability of an international court to enforce treaty obligations by prosecution appears to be the area of concern which prevent U.S. support for the ICC.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judges Again Fault Office of the Prosecutor for Late Disclosure

By | Published November 9, 2010

Presiding Judge Adrian Fulford, hearing the case against Thomas Lubanga at the International Criminal Court, (ICC) has again raised concerns about the conduct of the prosecution in failing to identify a witness. The prosecution apparently had interviewed a witness, determined the testimony was not credible, but did not disclose the information to the defense.  The prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory information to the defense.

The trial has previously been suspended for several months because of the non-disclosure to the defense. In giving the prosecution until Friday November  5 to make the disclosure, Judge Fulford said, “We will reflect on the approach taken by the OTP in relation to disclosure,”

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first person to face trial at the ICC.  He was brought to the court in 2006. Lubanga was the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), and is the first person to face trial at the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands.  Lubanga is accused of the war crimes of  using and conscripting child soldiers. The trial began in January 2009, the defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case has been delayed several times,  and just resumed after a lengthy delay when the trial court suspended the case over concerns that Lubanga could not get a fair trial because of the repeated refusal of the Office of the Prosecutor to disclose the identity of a prosecution investigator accused of bribing witnesses.  The other delays are recounted here. The appeals chamber determined that  the case could continue, and that the court could impose sanctions on the Office of the Prosecutor to induce compliance with the court’s orders.

Testimony in the case is expected to conclude this month.  The defense is to complete its written argument requesting dismissal of the case because of prosecutorial misconduct for not properly disclosing witnesses or complying with its obligations.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments
« Older
Easy AdSense by Unreal

Switch to our mobile site