|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 14, 2013 16:45:06 GMT 3
Uhuru-Muthaura Case:www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1537646.pdfRe-reading the details of some of the horrific crimes that were committed by Mungiki, on Maina Njenga's orders after he was paid, should make people think twice about what this fellow is now doing in politics. Sang-Ruto Case:www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1537682.pdfThis time names are given to clarify Ruto's "fuzzy" network. For good measure, just on Jan 9 and 10 alone, the OTP dumped over 500 items of evidence on Ruto and Sang. From the Updated DCC: 25. Prior to executing attacks, direct perpetrators gathered at designated meeting points where they met their local Coordinators, including but not limited to Christopher Kisorio, Henry Talam, Solomon Tilawen (also referred to as Solomon TIROP), Sammy Ruto and Arap Keen.
38. For that purpose, between late December 2006 and the end of December 2007,a series of preparatory meetings were held by RUTO, and other members of the Network at various levels, including but not limited to Jackson Kibor, Farouk Kibet, Henry Kosgey, Jackson Bett, Philip Murey, Augustin Cheruiyot, Samson Cheramboss, John Koech, Fred Kapondi, Isaac Maiyo, Christopher Kisorio, Solomon Tilawen, Henry Talam, Sammy Ruto, Lucas Sang, Ishmael Choge, A. Chelogoi, A.K. Bor, Arap Keen, Jacob Kata, to discuss, organize and arrange the modalities of the implementation of the said policy.
8. In 2006 and 2007, the Network also had a Military Structure that included three “Commanders” or “Generals” (Commanders), Samson Cheramboss, Augustin Cheruiyot and John Koech, all of whom reported to RUTO or to RUTO’s close Network associates.
11. Subordinates, including but not limited to Solomon Tilawen, Henry Talam, Arap Keen, and Ishmael Choge, were responsible for identifying PNU supporters’ homes and businesses for future attack, obtaining weapons, weapons training and leading perpetrators during the attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 15, 2013 9:13:37 GMT 3
The charges are in.....now begins the most difficult bit. Proving them beyond a reasonable doubt! Bensouda needs a briefing on how criminal Kenyans can be!
It makes me recollect the election petition between Matiba and Kiano in the 80s where Kiano alleged oathing of people and Matiba being present and the man was able to concort a Telex Message showing that Matiba was not even in the country at that time. Extelcom people had a rough time explaining why they could not authenticate a telex!
|
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Jan 17, 2013 0:45:21 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 17, 2013 9:49:02 GMT 3
I highly doubt the court will allow such a request with the deadlines already given by the court. But I am certain our resident ICC analyst will tell us how she can navigate this. |
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Jan 17, 2013 11:16:07 GMT 3
This clearly shows the direction the Case is heading too .Unfortunately UhuRuto have to suffer because of politicization of the Post election violence .This confirms that the investigations weren't thoroughly done and evidence is filled with half truths and lies . Up to now the ordinary mwananchi is still left asking himself " why isn't Raila Odinga amongst the suspects ?" |
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Jan 17, 2013 18:36:45 GMT 3
This clearly shows the direction the Case is heading too .Unfortunately UhuRuto have to suffer because of politicization of the Post election violence .This confirms that the investigations weren't thoroughly done and evidence is filled with half truths and lies . Up to now the ordinary mwananchi is still left asking himself " why isn't Raila Odinga amongst the suspects ?" as it has now been confirmed without reasonable doubt that indeed their were Meeting held with Mingiki in Statehouse, before they arrived in Naivasha & Nakuru to slaughter innocent Kenyans.. Kenyans ain't fools, maybe where you come from they Worship blindly.. ICC Has enough witnesses ( even though some were moored down through Extra-judicial Killings right after they did the dirty work for those who hired them.. Nguyai was an Important witness.. He managed to point out the connections with the Mungiki fellows ;D ;D Kenyans know Innocent Kenyans died at the hands of Mungiki, what Kenyans would like to know is who paid them, and what was it in exchange for!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Jan 18, 2013 0:47:39 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 18, 2013 6:13:14 GMT 3
They better be careful how they get people with "evidence." Lots of people would like to go to Europe, and it would not be too hard to come up with a story to suit the prosecution enough for the treat. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 18, 2013 6:52:16 GMT 3
They better be careful how they get people with "evidence." Lots of people would like to go to Europe, and it would not be too hard to come up with a story to suit the prosecution enough for the treat. That possibility has never occurred to them. I am, right now, forwarding your comment to the OTP (via the email address at the ICC website), and I imagine they will be very grateful for it. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 18, 2013 9:51:36 GMT 3
Otishotish Can you confirm the veracity of this story on 'new witnesses' coming up after disclosure and bearing in mind that the caveat on additional witnesses was based on govt giving in to allow the PCs etc to give evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Jan 18, 2013 11:07:22 GMT 3
They better be careful how they get people with "evidence." Lots of people would like to go to Europe, and it would not be too hard to come up with a story to suit the prosecution enough for the treat. You are very right, many of the people who were witnesses in the Congolese cases ended up in the Netherland claiming asylum. The latest cases where the accused was set free, it transpired that witnesses were promised asylum, only for the Netherlands to turn them down. They, in turn, told the Court about the deal, leading to their testimony being declared unreliable. I have seen press coverage where defense witness have claimed asylum because they allege in their testimony that they fear severe risk to their lives - as their testimony was unfavorable to the current regime in Congo. See attached, Witnesses Seeking Asylum
In May 2011, three witnesses, who each testified for the defense during the Katanga/Ngdujolo trial, applied for asylum in the Netherlands after their testimony implicated the DRC government, including President Joseph Kabila. The witnesses had been in detention in the DRC for their alleged role in the murder of UN peacekeepers and claimed they would face persecution and security risks if they were sent back to prison in the DRC.
After months of jurisdictional disputes between the ICC, the Netherlands, and the DRC government, a Dutch court held that the witnesses have the right to access the Dutch asylum procedure under Dutch immigration law. The Dutch court also ordered the government authorities of the Netherlands to make a decision on the asylum applications by June 28, 2012. The Dutch Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum has stated that he intends to reject two of the asylum applications because they are suspected of having committed crimes against humanity, an exception allowed in certain circumstances under the Convention on the Status of Refugees. However, as of December 2012 a final decision was still pending and the case of the third witness was on hold for health reasons.
In the meantime, the witnesses have remained in custody at the ICC detention center, which they protested as a violation of their international human rights. In late September 2012, a Dutch court ruled that the three Katanga/Ngudjolo witnesses must be released from the ICC detention center while they await the outcome of their Dutch asylum claims. The Dutch court noted that the witnesses cannot be punished for having made an asylum application. However, the following month the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the detention of another ICC witness, who testified in the trial of Thomas Lubanga, had not violated his human rights. This new ECtHR decision could have a significant impact on the cases of the Katanga/Ngudjolo witnesses, as it absolves the Netherlands of responsibility for the witness’ detention. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Jan 18, 2013 13:19:10 GMT 3
KamaletThis, below, is the provision Bensouda has to fulfil for her prosecution, and especially to succeed in adding 'new'charges. Pay attention to the provision on bold. My considered view is that Bensouda will have hard time when seeking to add additional charges or to substitute more serious charges. It is easier said than done. First, she will have to convince the Court in a hearing, where the defence will obviously object, under article 61 to have those charges confirmed. As some of those charges were not confimed once before - in the confirmation stage - I find even suspicious that she now has 'new' evidence. Even if she can produce some 'new' evidence at this last stage, she will be hard pushed to prove them satisfactorily, where the defence can also call their own 'evidence' to counter hers. Second, some of the 'witnessess' she is reliant upon seem to be those the defence used in the confirmation stage. That means they will have to deny whatever they said at that earlier stage. I doubt if the Court will take such testimony very seriiously, if they admit to not telling the truth in the first instance. Here is the provision, Part 5. Investigation and Prosecution
Article 61
Confirmation of the charges before trial
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, within a reasonable time after the person's surrender or voluntary appearance before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall hold a hearing to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to seek trial. The hearing shall be held in the presence of the Prosecutor and the person charged, as well as his or her counsel.
2. The Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor or on its own motion, hold a hearing in the absence of the person charged to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to seek trial when the person has:
(a) Waived his or her right to be present; or
(b) Fled or cannot be found and all reasonable steps have been taken to secure his or her appearance before the Court and to inform the person of the charges and that a hearing to confirm those charges will be held.
In that case, the person shall be represented by counsel where the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that it is in the interests of justice.
3. Within a reasonable time before the hearing, the person shall:
(a) Be provided with a copy of the document containing the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to bring the person to trial; and
(b) Be informed of the evidence on which the Prosecutor intends to rely at the hearing.
The Pre-Trial Chamber may issue orders regarding the disclosure of information for the purposes of the hearing.
4. Before the hearing, the Prosecutor may continue the investigation and may amend or withdraw any charges. The person shall be given reasonable notice before the hearing of any amendment to or withdrawal of charges. In case of a withdrawal of charges, the Prosecutor shall notify the Pre-Trial Chamber of the reasons for the withdrawal.
5. At the hearing, the Prosecutor shall support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed the crime charged. The Prosecutor may rely on documentary or summary evidence and need not call the witnesses expected to testify at the trial.
6. At the hearing, the person may:
(a) Object to the charges;
(b) Challenge the evidence presented by the Prosecutor; and
(c) Present evidence.
7. The Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the basis of the hearing, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged. Based on its determination, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall:
(a) Confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is sufficient evidence, and commit the person to a Trial Chamber for trial on the charges as confirmed;
(b) Decline to confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is insufficient evidence;
(c) Adjourn the hearing and request the Prosecutor to consider:
(i) Providing further evidence or conducting further investigation with respect to a particular charge; or
(ii) Amending a charge because the evidence submitted appears to establish a different crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
8. Where the Pre-Trial Chamber declines to confirm a charge, the Prosecutor shall not be precluded from subsequently requesting its confirmation if the request is supported by additional evidence.
9. After the charges are confirmed and before the trial has begun, the Prosecutor may, with the permission of the Pre-Trial Chamber and after notice to the accused, amend the charges. If the Prosecutor seeks to add additional charges or to substitute more serious charges, a hearing under this article to confirm those charges must be held. After commencement of the trial, the Prosecutor may, with the permission of the Trial Chamber, withdraw the charges.
10. Any warrant previously issued shall cease to have effect with respect to any charges which have not been confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber or which have been withdrawn by the Prosecutor.
11. Once the charges have been confirmed in accordance with this article, the Presidency shall constitute a Trial Chamber which, subject to paragraph 9 and to article 64, paragraph 4, shall be responsible for the conduct of subsequent proceedings and may exercise any function of the Pre-Trial Chamber that is relevant and capable of application in those proceedings.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 18, 2013 16:39:12 GMT 3
Kamalet: I would not be surprised in Bensouda's goal is actually something less. Here is what I wrote earlier, in the thread "Update On Charges" OTP: 4. However, the Prosecution respectfully informs the Chamber that since the Confirmation Hearing, the Prosecution has obtained additional evidence to substantiate this factual allegation. Accordingly, the Prosecution intends to apply to the Pre-Trial Chamber to include this allegation within the Murder Count 1. If the Pre-Trial Chamber confirms this, the Prosecution will seek leave of the Trial Chamber, pursuant to Article 64(6) (a) and (f), to re-insert the charge. We are alerting the Chamber of this possibility so that the Defence is properly put on notice of it. In the event that the Prosecution does not seek confirmation of this additional fact, moreover, because it is relevant to the intent and plan of the perpetrators in furtherance of the plan, the Prosecution may also seek to lead this evidence during trial. It is by no means certain that (a) The Pre-Trial Chamber will confirm the allegations, or even entertain such a request (depending on issues to do with the rights of the Defence and what they say about it), or (b) that the Trial Chamber will allow it to be inserted. Whence the "seeks", rather than The Standard's categorical statement. The issue most likely to arise is that of giving the Defence an opportunity to counter the OTP's new evidence, i.e. of having some sort of "mini Confirmation Hearing". The rules certainly appear to allow Bensouda to go back to the Pre-Trial Chamber, even in the cases of Ali and Kosgey, but whether that will actually happens (and whether it succeeds) remains to be seen. Bensouda is obviously very smart, and I obviously don't know her plans, but, as a betting man, my punt would be that she may be allowed to introduce the material, even if it is not confirmed. Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7734&page=2#ixzz2ILTqmpu8 |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 18, 2013 16:40:06 GMT 3
Otishotish Can you confirm the veracity of this story on 'new witnesses' coming up after disclosure and bearing in mind that the caveat on additional witnesses was based on govt giving in to allow the PCs etc to give evidence? Obviously, I am not in a position to confirm whether "witnesses" have been flown out recently; I know no more than you do. But two things seem clear: (a) Since September, the OTP has acquired several new witnesses; some are so recent that as of two weeks ago the OTP had not finished transcribing their testimony; (b) until about two weeks ago, some of those witnesses were still in Kenya, and I imagine that some still are. Lastly, the nominal end of the designated disclosure period does not stop the OTP from introducing new witnesses and testimony later, provided she gets the leave of the court. In fact, as things stand, because of (a) and requests for delays, the is a lot that the OTP is yet to disclose. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 18, 2013 22:24:13 GMT 3
Shukrani Otishotish
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Jan 19, 2013 9:13:54 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 19, 2013 17:33:55 GMT 3
Kamalet: The lawyers might be after excluding certain people they think will be tough on them, but mostly I think it just a matter of racking up the billable hours. Even if the court agrees to give them what they want, and they make noises about it and that will be about it. Almost dead on arrival but with the prospects of a slow, longish death. I notice that Kaufman is again in the thick of it. He is the guy who most recently ate Itumbi's money, by convincing the guy that he could go to the ICC over a supposedly illegal arrest in Kenya and pursue a compensation claim. As one would have expected, the OTP simply stated that they never asked Kenyans to arrest him and if he had any issues he should go back to his fellow Kenyans who arrested him. The court agreed. Kaufman banked his cheque and moved on. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 1, 2013 18:06:28 GMT 3
Kamalet: An update on a question you asked earlier. The paperwork is in. The OTP is not asking to modify the charges or to add new charges. All she seeks is to re-insert an old allegation in relation to an existing charge. Quote: In the Prosecution’s submission the proposed amendment of the Final Updated DCC does not involve the addition of charges or the substitution of more serious charges. To the contrary, the proposed amendment is merely the reinsertion of one specific underlying factual allegation in relation to one crime site (Naivasha) for the existing and already-confirmed charge of murder. Neither the legal characterisation of the facts -- that they committed murder constituting a crime against humanity – nor the Prosecution’s main factual allegation that Mungiki and Pro-PNU youth attacke and killed perceived ODM supporters in and around Naivasha between 27 and 29 January 2008 – would thus be affected by this modification. For these reasons, a hearing in the sense envisaged in Article 61(9) is not required.One of the OTP's witnesses claims to have personally committed some of the murders in question, so it's going to be tricky for the Defence to counter the allegation. (This also gives us an idea of the level of "insider" information the OTP has.) Quote: In his interview, Witness P-0506 states that he was given automatic weapons together with ammunition and was instructed to attack Luos in Naivasha. He admitted that he personally shot and killed two men in [REDACTED] www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1546856.pdfThe presiding judge in PTC II is considering the matter and has asked for additional information: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1546087.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 1, 2013 18:16:27 GMT 3
Kamalet: An update on a question you asked earlier. The paperwork is in. The OTP is not asking to modify the charges or to add new charges. All she seeks is to re-insert an old allegation in relation to an existing charge. Quote: In the Prosecution’s submission the proposed amendment of the Final Updated DCC does not involve the addition of charges or the substitution of more serious charges. To the contrary, the proposed amendment is merely the reinsertion of one specific underlying factual allegation in relation to one crime site (Naivasha) for the existing and already-confirmed charge of murder. Neither the legal characterisation of the facts -- that they committed murder constituting a crime against humanity – nor the Prosecution’s main factual allegation that Mungiki and Pro-PNU youth attacke and killed perceived ODM supporters in and around Naivasha between 27 and 29 January 2008 – would thus be affected by this modification. For these reasons, a hearing in the sense envisaged in Article 61(9) is not required.One of the OTP's witness claims to have personally committed some of the murders in question, so it's going to be tricky for the Defence to counter the allegation. (This also gives us an idea of the level of "insider" information the OTP has.) Quote: In his interview, Witness P-0506 states that he was given automatic weapons together with ammunition and was instructed to attack Luos in Naivasha. He admitted that he personally shot and killed two men in [REDACTED] www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1546856.pdfThe presiding judge in PTC II is considering the matter and has asked for additional information: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1546087.pdfI think that witness admitting to murder to support the charges against someone else will be a tough cookie to pass. Interestingly Ekaterina wants to know why the investigation was not completed by confirmation time as ruled by the Appeals chamber and she will be hard pressed to explain how such key information was missed out. Let us wait for her ruling after 7th February. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 1, 2013 18:42:06 GMT 3
I think that witness admitting to murder to support the charges against someone else will be a tough cookie to pass. I'm not sure why you see it that way, as the court doesn't deal with crimes at that level, but that sort of thing happens all the time, all over the place. I don't know how the ICC handles such cases, but, taking the USA as an example, remember the case of the US mafioso known as Sammy "The Bull" Gravano? He cheerfully admitted to 19 murders but, for his evidence, skipped jail and was instead put into a witness-protection program. I don't see that as a problem. If you look at past cases, the court has stated that ideally the investigations should be completed before Confirmation, but that is not mandatory, and the court has allowed evidence from investigations after Confirmation. What the Appeals Chamber wrote: "investigation should largely be completed at the stage of the confirmation of charges""the Appeals Chamber also made clear that although the continuation of the investigation subsequent to the confirmation hearing is permitted, ideally, it would be desirable for the investigation to be complete by the time of the confirmation hearing". In the Kenyan cases, the OTP has stated, on more than one occasion that investigations were (and still are) ongoing. Among other things, Bensouda will probably cite government interference: the OTP has in the past complained to the court that the NSIS was involved in harassment and intimidation while trying to get names of people who might be talking about ICC issues. |
|
