Resources
Monday, June 27, 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 ICC Cases Kenyan Cases

How judges decided to unveil Ruto witness who did not want to go abroad

Journalists For JusticebyJournalists For Justice
February 22, 2018
in Kenyan Cases
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
0
How judges decided to unveil Ruto witness who did not want to go abroad
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

 By Susan Kendi

Thanks to a document dump by the international Criminal Court (ICC), we are getting firsthand insights into the great lengths to which the Court went to protect witnesses in the collapsed case against Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang. Almost two years since the ICC abandoned its prosecution of the pair, Journalists for Justice (JFJ) has painstakingly pored through the documents released by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to sieve out the gems.

This is the second part in a series of articles that will piece together the disparate shards of information from the documents recently released by the ICC. The first piece in the series can be read here. Once complete, (we hope) the series will give readers some measure of the enormous challenges faced by the prosecutor in the Ruto/Sang case and how they eventually led to the case’s termination.

Today’s piece explores how judges in the Ruto and Sang case allowed the defence to know of the existence of a witness with potentially exonerating evidence.

A former prosecution witness, P-534, who was in possession of information that could have helped exonerate William Ruto and Joshua Sang, refused to consent to his identity being revealed to defence teams and also rejected an offer to be “externally relocated” by the ICC’s Victims and Witnesses Unit (the ‘VWU’), Journalists for Justice (JFJ) has learned. VWU considered the witnesses’ relocation necessary to protect him and ensure his safety once his identity was revealed.

RelatedStories

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

ICC plenary rejects bid to disqualify Gicheru trial judge

Court sets Gicheru trial date

Documents released by the ICC reveal that in June 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) requested the court’s guidance on how to proceed on the delicate matter regarding Witness P-534. The Prosecutor’s office also suggested that a status conference involving them and VWU be held in case the judges needed additional information before making its decision.

The judges identified that that the court had been presented with a ‘dual problem’ as defined by Trial Chamber I. A ‘dual problem’ emerges when there is a strain between ‘the need to ensure that all relevant exculpatory evidence is served on the accused and the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are properly protected.’

The Trial Chamber V(a) issued directions on how the prosecution should proceed on the matter, by directing that the only revised redactions allowed, are for the categories of the redaction protocol that they had agreed on and the identity of the subjects of any investigation.

By a majority decision, judges Olga Herrera Carbuccia and Robert Fremr ordered that the identity of Witness P-534 be disclosed to the Defence. Judge Eboe-Osuji partly dissented. The Court ordered also the VWU to take the suitable protective measures to secure the witness’ safety.

“As set out in the Provisional Direction, the Majority considers that the only fair way to proceed in these circumstances is for Former Witness 534’s identity to be disclosed and for the VWU to continue working with him as appropriate to ensure that the potential impact of this disclosure on his safety is mitigated to the extent possible.”

On June 11, 2014, the Victims and Witnesses Unit submitted to the Court that revealing the identity of Witness P-534 as requested by the Defence, may give rise to unmanageable levels of risks for the witness, his family and community. They further stated that his involvement with the ICC should be taken into consideration.

In their submissions to the court, the prosecution stated that they had no further submissions and were prepared to comply with the chambers instructions on disclosing the identity of former Witness P- 534.

The chamber declined to amend its previous decision, although the Defence made submissions that the redacted information in some of the relevant materials was important for their investigations.

Taking into consideration the concerns of the prosecution and VWU’s in relation to the risk to Witness P-534 should his identity be disclosed, the majority of the bench however, found it important for the Defence to get the particular information they had requested.

In accordance with Article 68(1) of the Rome Statute, the Chamber has to balance its obligation to ‘take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses’ with its duty to ensure that measures for protection ‘shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial’.

The majority felt that the only fair way to progress was  for the identity of the witness to be disclosed as the VWU worked on the best measures possible, to ensure that the safety of the witness was safeguarded. The Chamber also requested the prosecution to assign pseudonyms and prepare an accompanying code sheet for the names and sources of the Article 70 investigation.

Bearing in mind the security concerns raised and the observations of the Victims and Witness Unit, the Majority ordered the defence not to directly or indirectly disclose the identity of Witness P-534 to the public or his involvement with the activities of the Court.

The judges also prohibited the prosecutor from making any enquiries or conducting any investigations amongst Former Witness P-534’s family, friends and associates, present or past. In case the Defence team found it essential to conduct investigations which would have the potential to reveal Witness P-534’s involvement with the Court, the judges ordered that in such circumstances, the lawyers for Ruto and Sang would first have to seek the Chamber’s approval.

“Should the Defence consider it necessary to conduct investigations which have the potential, in any way, to reveal Former Witness 534’s involvement with the Court, even indirectly, it shall request prior authorisation of the Chamber.”

ICC judges, citing insufficient evidence, terminated the Ruto-Sang case on 5th April 2016. While throwing out the case, the judges stressed that the prosecutor had faced unprecedented challenges shielding witnesses from attempts to corrupt them through bribes and coercion. The Chamber also made it clear that the case could be prosecuted afresh in future.

Previous Post

Burundi must release rights advocate Aloys Habimana [Updated]

Next Post

Escape attempts from the LRA were punished by death, witness tells ICC

Journalists For Justice

Journalists For Justice

Related Posts

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

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

December 17, 2021
Judge Miatta Maria Samba Presiding Judge in the case of The Prosecutor v. Paul Gicheru. Photo credit: @ICC/CPI

ICC plenary rejects bid to disqualify Gicheru trial judge

November 18, 2021
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

Court sets Gicheru trial date

September 30, 2021
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

Gicheru defence team kept busy with new evidence

September 27, 2021
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

ICC rejects Gicheru’s request to suspend hearing

September 24, 2021
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

All set for Gicheru status conference and trial

September 17, 2021
Next Post

Escape attempts from the LRA were punished by death, witness tells ICC

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