Supplementary agenda items requested by Kenya have been approved and will be featured on the formal ASP agenda.
Kenya had proposed two agenda items to be discussed.
The first request Kenya had made was that the legislative intent of rule 68 be placed before the Assembly for discussion and that a decision of the Assembly be taken to reaffirm the non-retroactive application of the rule to situations commenced before the 27 November 2013. Kenya requests the President of the Assembly thereafter conveys the decision of the 14th session on rule 68 to the President of the Court.
Kenya argues that the application of Rule 68 violates the principle of non-retroactivity and violates the fair trial rights of the accused. The issue is currently under appeal, and discussing it at the ASP risks politicizing the judicial process according to the Court Principals.
The second request refers to the petition by members of the Kenya National Assembly who are deeply concerned that the Independent Oversight Mechanism is yet to be operationalized as its absence undermines the Assembly’s oversight over the Court.
In light of the emerging credible concerns on witness procurement in the Kenyan cases highlighted in the petition by 190 members of Parliament of the Republic of Kenya, Kenya urges the Assembly to appoint an ad hoc mechanism of 5 independent jurists (one from each diplomatic grouping and a chair) to audit the Prosecutors’ witness identification and recruitment processes in the case of The Prosecutor v. William Samoel Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Case Number ICC- 01/09-01/11, and establish and determine the veracity of allegations of irregular procuring and coaching of witnesses in the case within 6 months.
