Resources
Sunday, July 3, 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 Africa Cases

Judges order Ongwen removed from court for disrupting hearing

Journalists For JusticebyJournalists For Justice
March 20, 2018
in Africa Cases, ICC Cases
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
0
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By: Tom Maliti, IJ Monitor

The chamber adjudicating the trial of Dominic Ongwen ordered he be removed from court after he disrupted proceedings on Monday, March 19. His trial was just resuming after a break of almost three weeks.

The disruption happened during the afternoon session as Gillian Clare Mezey gave her opinion of Ongwen’s mental state based on extracts of testimony previous prosecution witnesses had given about their interaction with Ongwen when he was a commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).

Mezey had given her views on seven pages of extracts of witness testimony in open court when, as she began to comment on the next extract, Thomas Obhof, one of Ongwen’s lawyers, asked that her comments be in private session because the extract was taken from a court transcript that was confidential. It was some time after that that Ongwen disrupted the hearing while it was closed to the public.

The hearing was opened to the public about 40 minutes later. When the hearing resumed, Presiding Judge Bertram Schmitt asked the defense to say something because what had happened was “severe and serious.”

RelatedStories

Gicheru witness tampering trial starts before the ICC

Trial Chamber VI to hear Said Abdel Kani case

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

Charles Taku, another of Ongwen’s lawyers, began by commenting on the extracts that Mezey was giving her views on and Judge Schmitt cut him short, saying the chamber was not entertaining any litigation on any issue but wanted to hear from the defense.

Taku then said the issue of Ongwen’s mental state was something the court “has been fully aware of.” He referred to a time when there was a combative witness in court, P-003, and Ongwen’s statement to court then.

“We need to critically think how we will handle this matter for the future of the proceedings,” said Taku.

Obhof asked that a psychologist or psychiatrist see Ongwen as soon as possible.

Judge Schmitt said the chamber would invoke Article 63(2) if Ongwen refused to attend court on Tuesday or if there was a slight disruption in the proceedings.

He said this would mean Ongwen “will have to follow the hearing via video link from the detention center.” Judge Schmitt said he hoped Ongwen would have calmed down by Tuesday.

“We would appreciate that the defense take part in such a calming down,” said Judge Schmitt.

He told Ongwen’s lawyers that the chamber would consider it “a sign of understanding by your client if he could give a statement.”

“The hearing will resume tomorrow [Tuesday] at 9:30, with or without the accused [Ongwen],” concluded Judge Schmitt before adjourning Monday’s hearing.

Ongwen has been charged with 70 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity that allegedly took place between July 2002 and December 2005 in northern Uganda. During this period he was an LRA commander. Ongwen has pleaded not guilty to all counts.

His trial had been on a break since February 28. At the beginning of Monday’s hearing, Mezey told the court she had taken partial retirement from Britain’s National Health Service, but she is still a forensic psychiatry professor at St. George’s, University of London.

Prosecutor Colin Black then took Mezey through the steps required for her expert report to be admitted as evidence under Rule 68(3) of the ICC Rules of Evidence and Procedure. This follows a November 16, 2017 decision Judge Schmitt made to allow Mezey to testify and have her report admitted as evidence under Rule 68(3). In that decision, Mezey is not identified by name but by witness number P-446.

Once Black completed the Rule 68(3) procedure, he then asked Mezey a series of questions. These included asking her to explain some concepts of psychiatry and giving her views on extracts of transcripts of the testimony of previous prosecution witnesses.

The concepts Mezey explained in detail were post-traumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, and dissociative identity disorder. Mezey also told the court that Ongwen declined to see her.

“How did that affect your ability [to evaluate Ongwen]?” asked Black.

“It would have been desirable to assess Mr. Ongwen because there are a number of matters that I would have wanted to put to him. I had an advantage of being provided an enormous bundle of documentation, which reflected on his mental state over a period of time,” replied Mezey.

“Including medical records. Including witness statements. I, therefore, felt this gave me an accurate picture, a very good picture of his mental state including the period [July 2002 to December 2005] that I was being asked to comment on,” continued Mezey.

When commenting on the extracts of the transcripts of witness testimony, Mezey made a general comment that they showed Ongwen as someone who had “agency.”

She said the extracts negate “any suggestion of duress that is an individual being coerced to commit acts for fear of violence or harm to themselves. There are a number of entries that indicates he has moral awareness, or awareness between right and wrong.”

“[Extract] number three seems to me that here he is describing a man, Mr. Ongwen, who rises up through the ranks because of his ability as a fighter, because he is respected by the men and who is, I suppose, regarded as being solid and reliable,” Mezey said.

“He’s described as tough, which is an interesting word and is one which would not be applied to an individual who is mentally unstable,” said Mezey.

Soon after these observations is when the hearing went into private session and the disruption ensued.

Mezey will continue testifying on Tuesday.

This article was first published on the International Justice Monitor.

Previous Post

Judges allow victims lawyers to call seven witnesses in Ongwen trial

Next Post

Expert says Ongwen did not have a mental illness while in the LRA

Journalists For Justice

Journalists For Justice

Related Posts

Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru at the opening of his trial at the International Criminal Court on February 15, 2022. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Gicheru witness tampering trial starts before the ICC

February 16, 2022
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

December 20, 2021
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
Special Criminal Court Arrests CAR Minister Bouba for War Crimes. Photo: News Central TV

Pressure mounts for CAR minister to face justice

December 2, 2021
ICC Trial Chamber VIII declares Mr Al Mahdi guilty of the war crime of attacking historic and religious buildings in Timbuktu and sentences him to nine years' imprisonment. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Al Mahdi to be released early after ICC cuts sentence by two years

December 1, 2021
Dominic Ongwen's appeal hearing coming up in February 2022. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI.

Ongwen’s appeal hearing to start in February 2022

November 26, 2021
Next Post

Expert says Ongwen did not have a mental illness while in the LRA

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

  • 20 years of the ICC: The hopes, the disappointments, the future
  • Judge to decide Gicheru’s fate after parties conclude case
  • 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

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