Victims in the President Uhuru Kenyatta Case at the International Criminal Court want the court to deny the Prosecution’s application not to review it.The Victims respectfully request the Chamber to deny the Application and to invite the Prosecution to submit, within a reasonable time, a response to the entirety of the Victims’ Request. Through their Legal Victim’s Representative, Fergal Gaynor, they state that their arguments are on two issues: One, that the Kenya II investigation was not effective. All charges against all persons charged in Kenya II were withdrawn before a day of trial was heard, in a case infected by extensive obstruction of access to evidence. The conclusion that the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in Kenya II was not effective is a conclusion with which no reasonable observer can disagree.Two, the Victims argue that the Prosecution’s duty under article 54(1) requires it to use all powers conferred upon it by the States Parties in order to gain access to all relevant evidence. Judicial review of whether the Prosecution took all reasonable steps to gain access to relevant evidence is a necessary element of determining whether its decision to subsequently suspend active investigation was lawful.Read The victims were responding to Fatou Bensouda’s application to the court to reject review of the legality of its decision to cease active investigation in the Kenyatta case. Read: Anger, bitterness as victims seek to keep Kenyatta case alive Bensouda had stated Gaynor was informed by letter that, “In the Prosecutor’s view, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate any further prosecution in the Kenya Situation at this time, and that the Prosecution is not conducting further active investigations “at present” because, absent genuine cooperation from Kenya in relation to the pending cooperation requests, there is no immediate prospect of strengthening the evidence already gathered.”