Resources
Sunday, June 26, 2022
  • Login
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result

Browse by Topic:

  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result
Home The ICC

Court turns down bid to introduce elusive witness’s testimony, but allows four other statements

Janet SankaleMary WasikebyJanet SankaleandMary Wasike
December 17, 2021
in ICC Cases, kenya, Kenyan Cases, The ICC
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
0
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

It has been a week of mixed fortunes for the prosecution in Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru’s case at the International Criminal Court, with the judge rejecting some of its applications and granting others.

Trial Chamber III ruled on three applications the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) had made under Rule 68 (on prior recorded testimony) of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The prosecution had asked Judge Miatta Maria Samba to admit the testimony of eight witnesses that had been recorded for the original case against William Ruto and Joshua Sang, which later collapsed when witnesses withdrew. Gicheru has been charged with witness interference in the case.

In three rulings dated between December 14 and 15, the judge allowed the prior recorded testimony of four witnesses, rejected three others, admitted one statement under a different rule, and granted the prosecution’s request to extend a deadline.

The first ruling, dated December 14, rejected the prosecution’s application to admit the prior recorded testimony of P-0495, saying the prosecution had failed to make all reasonable efforts to secure the witness’s court attendance. At first, the OTP had said it had been unable to locate the witness since the time he gave testimony in 2014. The prosecution later filed an addendum, explaining that after the filing of the request, P-0495 had contacted the prosecution.

The prosecutor said after meeting with the witness “…to establish his willingness to cooperate with the court, including by testifying voluntarily at trial, and to obtain updated information…” the witness’s counsel had said his client was unlikely to testify, although he had maintained the evidence he provided during his testimony in the Ruto and Sang case.

RelatedStories

From Kyiv to Kabul and Darfur: Challenges of reporting justice and human rights

Gicheru to attend court session remotely

Said Abdel Kani to remain in custody as Appeals Chamber rejects his plea for release

“Despite P-0495 initially stating that he would be prepared to testify in the Gicheru case, his counsel subsequently revised this position and advised the prosecution that the witness would be unlikely to testify willingly,” said Deputy Prosecutor James Stewart in his addendum dated December 2.

The prosecution argued that although there was a possibility that P-0495’s appearance before the court could be secured by means of summons, it was certain that even if he were to testify, he would again fail to give evidence with respect to material facts.

In its response of December 10, the defence argued that the prosecution had presented “no compelling or rational reason why it could not request Trial Chamber III to request the Government of Kenya to locate and serve a summons to secure P-0495’s attendance”.

The court agreed with the contention of Michael Karnavas, Gicheru’s defence lawyer.

“In respect of whether P-0495 has failed to attend in the present case, the chamber finds that the prosecution has not used all reasonable efforts at its disposal to obtain P-0495’s attendance, this includes requesting a summons for his attendance,” Trial Chamber III’s Judge Samba said.

The judge said the fact that a witness has failed to attend or failed to give evidence in one case does not mean that he or she will fail to attend or give evidence in all cases. She added that, for the purpose of introducing prior recorded testimony in the case, the prosecution must satisfy the court that P-0495 has failed to attend as a witness in the present case and cannot rely on the witness’s failure to attend or give evidence in another case.

“Any anticipated failure to attend in this case is speculative and largely due to the prosecution not wishing to seek a summons for P0495’s attendance because he would, according to the prosecution, likely be hostile to the prosecution,” Judge Samba said.

Rejecting the request, she concluded: “The prosecution must, therefore, use all reasonable measures available to it to try and obtain P-0495’s attendance before seeking recourse to Rule 68(2)(d). It has not done so in the present proceedings, despite expressly acknowledging that requesting a summons is available to it. Accordingly, the chamber finds that the prosecution has not satisfied the first limb of Rule 68(2)(d) of the Rules.”

In the second ruling dated December 15, Judge Samba partially granted the prosecution’s request and allowed the introduction of the prior recorded testimony and associated materials of P-0734 and P-0735, P-0736, and P-0737. She rejected the remainder of the request – for the testimony of P-0731 and P-0732 – and declared P-0733’s report and associated material formally submitted. The judge also designated the Senior Legal Adviser of the Registry Legal Office, or any appropriate person delegated by him, to be the person authorised to witness declarations.

In another decision dated December 14, the court agreed to extend the deadline for the OTP to submit evidence and materials.

The prosecution had made a second supplementary request to add updated transcripts and translations after the November 15 deadline set by the court for the disclosure of all evidence and material on which the OTP intends to rely at trial and the list of all items it plans to submit as evidence during the trial.

In the second request filed on December 10, the prosecution was seeking a further variation of the disclosure deadline until December 13, 2021 to add “.. a limited number of revised transcriptions and translations of recently enhanced audio recordings…” to the list of evidence and the substitution of the additional material for the previous versions.

The prosecution explained that one item of the enhanced recording was omitted from the original transmission to the Language Services Unit (LSU) and was thus not included in the first extension request. The omitted item was identified on November 26 and sent to the LSU for urgent processing and the resulting revised transcriptions and translations subsequently registered on December 6.

It explained that the omission was as a result of an “oversight” and the material ought to have been included in its first extension request.

The prosecution noted that the additional material “is very limited in scope and content” with the original audio item and that all existing transcripts and translations were disclosed in full to the defence in January 2021. It suggested that the duplicative nature of the additional material means an extension to the disclosure deadline will not affect the rights of the defence to have adequate preparation time

While granting the request and extending the deadline for the submission of the materials to December 15, Judge Samba accepted the prosecution’s explanation about the oversight, although she blamed the OTP for “lack of due diligence” on its part. She said she had found no reason to question the prosecution’s submission that it acted “as expeditiously as possible” upon discovery of the error.

 

Previous Post

Victory for human rights as Tanzania allows young mothers back in school

Next Post

Trial Chamber VI to hear Said Abdel Kani case

Janet Sankale

Janet Sankale

Send me an Email

Mary Wasike

Mary Wasike

Send me an Email

Related Posts

Ukrainian journalist Oksana Kovalenko and Afghan cartoonist Hossein Rezaye. The two described the challenges they encounter in the course of their work when they spoke at the Hague Talks at The Hague University of Applied Science on May 30, 2022.

From Kyiv to Kabul and Darfur: Challenges of reporting justice and human rights

June 22, 2022
Judge Miatta Maria Samba of the Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC) presiding over Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru's case. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Gicheru to attend court session remotely

June 16, 2022
Former Central African Republic rebel leader Mahamat Said Abdel Kani at the opening of his confirmation of charges hearing at the International Criminal Court in October 2021. Photo credit: @nICC-CPI

Said Abdel Kani to remain in custody as Appeals Chamber rejects his plea for release

May 25, 2022
Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru and his lawyer. Michael G. Karnavas, during the hearing of his case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Parties prepare to wind up Gicheru case

May 20, 2022
Michael G. Karnavas, the lead counsel of Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru, during the opening of his trial at the International Criminal Court. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Gicheru asks ICC judge to admit new evidence

May 3, 2022
Cyril Laucci, the lead counsel of former Janjaweed commander Ali-Abd-Al-Rahman, during the opening of his trial at the International Criminal Court. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Abd-Al-Rahman paid Janjaweed, witness tells judges

April 27, 2022
Next Post
Mr Said during the opening of the confirmation of charges hearing at the seat of the Court in The Hague (The Netherlands) on 12 October 2021 ©ICC-CPI

Trial Chamber VI to hear Said Abdel Kani case

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please login to comment
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
No Result
View All Result

Recent Posts

  • From Kyiv to Kabul and Darfur: Challenges of reporting justice and human rights
  • Gicheru to attend court session remotely
  • After euphoria of state white paper, victims now demand action on Jammeh
  • Right the Wrongs: Spotlight on the 2020 General Election in Tanzania
  • Selective approach to TRRC recommendations a sure recipe for defeating justice

Recent Comments

  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Kenyan lawyer denies bribery charges at the ICC
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on You did me wrong, Bemba tells ICC as he demands 70 million euros
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Two victims’ lawyers in Kenyatta case in line to become next ICC prosecutor
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Profiles of the four people shortlisted for the job of ICC Prosecutor
  • Write My Essay on Afghanistan case fails to take off at the ICC — pragmatism’ or surrender to the powerful?

Archives

Categories

JFJ – Journalists for Justice

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.

Browse by Topics:

Archives by Month:

Never Again
INTAHE
BarometreVerite
The Victims' Bantaba
No Result
View All Result
  • Confronting Impunity
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Login

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.

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
wpDiscuz