• About US
  • Our Work
Sunday, June 22, 2025
  • Login
Journalists For Justice (JFJ)
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists For Justice (JFJ)
No Result
View All Result

ICC Appeals Chamber reverses Trial Chamber V(A)’s decision on admission of prior recorded testimony in Ruto and Sang cases

byJournalists for Justice
February 12, 2016
in ICC Cases
Reading Time: 2 mins read
16
A A
5
SHARES
55
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Whatsapp

 Appeals judges at the International Criminal Court unanimously ruled key witness testimony against Mr. William Ruto and Journalist Joshua Sang inadmissible.

“The prior recorded testimony was delivered without an opportunity for the accused to cross-examine the witnesses,” said presiding judge Piotr Hofmanski.

The Appeals Chamber in this appeal was composed of Judge Piotr HofmaÅ„ski (Poland), Judge Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi (Argentina), Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert (Belgium), Judge Howard Morrison (United Kingdom) and Judge Péter Kovács (Hungary). Judge HofmaÅ„ski, who presided over this appeal, read a summary of the judgment in open court.

Judge Hofmanski said the court had interpreted the rules “too narrowly to the detriment” of Ruto and his co-accused Sang under Article 51(4) of the Rome Statute.

RelatedPosts

Dilemma of ICC-wanted Netanyahu’s visit high on the agenda of new leadership in Germany

Impunity continues to rob Sudanese victims of peace and justice

Rodrigo Duterte arrest heralds hope for justice for Philippines’ victims of ‘war on drugs’

The Appeals Chamber considered that there was nothing in the drafting history of amended rule 68 of the RPE that revealed an error in the conclusion of the Trial Chamber that the amended rule may apply to this case, subject to a consideration of article 51 (4) of the Rome Statute providing that amendments to the RPE shall not be applied retroactively to the detriment of the accused.

It noted that rule 68 of the RPE was amended by the Assembly of States Parties on 27 November 2013. The Appeals Chamber found that the application of this rule was retroactive as the trial had started on 10 September 2013, before the amendment to the rule, and detrimental in the sense that the disadvantage, loss, damage or harm to the accused caused by its application negatively affected the overall position of Mr Sang and Mr Ruto in these proceedings. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber decided to reverse the decision to the extent that prior recorded testimony had been admitted under amended rule 68 for the truth of its contents.

The trial of William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang opened on 10 September 2013 before Trial Chamber V(A). Mr Ruto and Mr Sang are accused of crimes against humanity (murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution) allegedly committed in the context of the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya.

Judgment on the appeals of Mr William Samoei Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Trial Chamber V(A) of 19 August 2015 entitled “Decision on Prosecution Request for Admission of Prior Recorded Testimony”

Share2Tweet1Send
Previous Post

Security Council extends mandate of Darfur sanctions experts

Next Post

Unending toll on rape survivors from the post-election violence

Next Post

Unending toll on rape survivors from the post-election violence

Please login to join discussion

Recent Posts

  • Freedom and human rights under siege in Africa amid rising repression
  • International lenders called out on ballooning debt and corruption in poor countries
  • Karim Khan’s Accusations of Misconduct: A Timeline of Key Events
  • Karim Khan’s exit deals another blow to the troubled ICC
  • Proposed war crimes court holds hope for justice and accountability in Liberia

About

We call out impunity wherever it occurs; we advocate justice for all victims of atrocity crimes; and we work with people of goodwill everywhere who share our values.

Twitter Facebook Instagram LinkedIn

Archives by Month:

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers

Copyright © 2019. Journalists for Justice has asserted its right to be recognized as creators and owners of the content here. Reproduction in part or in whole is permitted on condition that JFJ is acknowledged and notified.