|
|
Post by phil on Jan 23, 2012 13:40:30 GMT 3
The chamber by majority has agreed to confirm charges against four of the six suspects
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 13:40:38 GMT 3
OMG. which 4? We've gotta wait. waiting waiting waiting. can't hear a thing the judge is explaining. we're just waiting for the names of those confirmed!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 23, 2012 13:43:42 GMT 3
According to colleague at the Hague ICC pretrial chamber confirmed against William Ruto, Uhuru Kenyatta, Joshua Arap Sang, Francis Muthaura.
Henry Kosgey and Gen Ali have had their cases dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by commes on Jan 23, 2012 13:48:11 GMT 3
According to colleague at the Hague ICC pretrial chamber confirmed against William Ruto, Uhuru Kenyatta, Joshua Arap Sang, Francis Muthaura. Henry Kosgey and Gen Ali have had their cases dismissed. I guess you are right |
|
kevoh
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by kevoh on Jan 23, 2012 14:01:36 GMT 3
JUDGE TRENDAFILOVA: As for Mr Kosgey and Mr Ali, I would like to tell them that the prosecutor may present a request to appeal against this ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 23, 2012 14:04:13 GMT 3
JUDGE TRENDAFILOVA: As for Mr Kosgey and Mr Ali, I would like to tell them that the prosecutor may present a request to appeal against this ruling. Which he most likely will do. |
|
|
|
Post by Titchaz on Jan 23, 2012 14:05:30 GMT 3
JUDGE TRENDAFILOVA: As for Mr Kosgey and Mr Ali, I would like to tell them that the prosecutor may present a request to appeal against this ruling. Wow!....  |
|
|
|
Post by toddo on Jan 23, 2012 14:05:51 GMT 3
JUDGE TRENDAFILOVA: As for Mr Kosgey and Mr Ali, I would like to tell them that the prosecutor may present a request to appeal against this ruling. Which he most likely will do. You got that right. Ocampo is coming after both of them. He may amend or add some charges and include Kisumu evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by gemagema on Jan 23, 2012 14:09:15 GMT 3
It seems fair for the case against Kosgey not to be confirmed. Lakini Ali...Ocampo will definitely roar back. The police were definitely involved
|
|
|
|
Post by njamba on Jan 23, 2012 14:10:56 GMT 3
This was my "prediction"on December 21,2011 I was wrong on the confirmation being by all three judges verdict as leaked by sources Confirmed by Majority decision 1. Uhuru – The judges strongly rule that according to available evidence Mr Kenyatta has a case to answer. His links to the Mungiki militia is of particular concern. However, the dissenting judge believes there was no proof per evidence that Kenyatta had sole command or command at all of the Mungiki. 2. Ruto – The meeting in his house is what nailed him judges believe that there was no evidence to show that there was no planning at Mr. Ruto’s house. All three judges voted to confirm charges 3. Sang ¬– He is believed to have used Kassfm to spread war propaganda and pass coded messages. All judges agree there was reason Kassfm was cited by all reports and evidence to have been used in planning and execution of the crimes in RV during PEV. 4. Muthaura – he gave orders for A/P commandant to facilitate safe passage to mungiki the evidence Not Confirmed: Ali – His evidence has contradicted prosection evidence that he was informed of shot to kill orders and granting safe passage to mungiki. Evidence provided by defense lawyers show that Ali was by passed in all the decisions Kosgey – No proof that he planned PEV or was involved in support PEV material wise or any other way. According to legal insider the case before ICC is very weak and the only reason charges were confirmed for the 4 is to give the suspects a chance to clear their names and prosecution time to bring to court more evidence if there is any available. _________________ In the Court of Cats; rats have no Justice asubuhi Fombe muigwithania.com/2011/02/20/audi ... huru-rage/ Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:37 am |
|
|
|
Post by 5thestate on Jan 23, 2012 14:13:25 GMT 3
JUDGE TRENDAFILOVA: As for Mr Kosgey and Mr Ali, I would like to tell them that the prosecutor may present a request to appeal against this ruling.
I think Kosgey is off the hook, Ali´s case is vey very tricky, an appeal means further investigation and this means opening the wounds of Kibera and kisumu [shoot to kill order] What the judges are telling him is "start taliking or you are also toast " Sheriff Ocampos press statement tommorow will be vey interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jan 23, 2012 14:13:33 GMT 3
hhehehehehehe. Oh the head scratching. The pain and agony. That is nothing compared to what the victims had to deal with. They didn't have the luxury to face a court and wait for verdict. There was fast and furious. Let's hope the Kenyan media for once will look at the ruling from the perspective of the victims and survivors as opposed to the political interests and future of those who now stand indicted to face charges of committing crimes of mass murder and rape of Kenyans.
I know here in Jukwaa there has been furious predictions and even prophesies on who will be set free and all that. Most of that has come to zero. There will be no wails of "I told you" For the most part Jukwaa folks have been right on the money. Those who voted seem to have got it right. The relentless arguments in the past speak for themselves. All that is now irrelevant. Four people have been indicted to face charges at the ICC.
What next?
1. The hopeless appeals from the indicted? That has to go through the same PTC II judges to give consent. Even if they do the appeal wil lbe dead in the water just as the ones before.
2. Uhuru and Muthaura have to face reality and quit the state offices they hold.
3. Kenyans must reject any more attempts to use and abuse state resources to defend those indicted. They did not commit those crimes on behalf of the Kenyan people.
4. Genuine reconciliation efforts devoid of political games and balkanisation should be encouraged. Hopefully th eindicted will desist from ethnic incitement lie kwe show during the so caleld prayer meetings when Uhuru particularly went ballistics with his "kimundu" ethnic talk insulting whole communities as he faced the reality of the Hague.
5. Ocampo will definitely appeal. I agree that he may have a shot at Ali but Kosgey will go hos way.
We will take a hard good look at the reality later.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 23, 2012 14:13:52 GMT 3
Presentation for 23 January 2012 in Case 1 and Case 2
Court Officer, please, call the two cases in the Kenya situation. Thank you, Court Officer.
Good morning, to everyone who is joining us from in and around the Court and also to those joining us from the Republic of Kenya via the internet or otherwise.
Pre‐Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court composed of Judges Hans‐Peter Kaul to my right, Cuno Tarfusser to my left and I – Ekaterina Trendafilova – the Presiding Judge of this Chamber, has decided to appear in Court this morning in order to present an oral summary of its decisions concerning the charges of the Prosecutor against:
• William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang in Case 1 and
• Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali in Case 2.
Before presenting a summary of the Chamber’s findings, I would like to clarify that this is not a hearing or a Court session. The Prosecutor and the Defence teams are not present, the Legal Representatives of victims are also not in attendance, the Registrar and her colleagues are not here, and the Chamber’s legal officers are also absent from the courtroom.
Rather, the Chamber is alive to its role in ensuring that both the public at large and interested Kenyans, are duly informed of the Chamber’s decisions regarding charges emanating from the violence, which engulfed the Republic of Kenya, after the announcement, on 30 December 2007, of the results of the presidential elections.
In Case 1, the Prosecutor presented 6 counts charging the 3 Suspects with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population and persecution.
In Case 2, the Prosecutor presented 10 counts charging the other 3 Suspects with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution.
The Chamber is mindful of concerns regarding the precarious security situation in parts of the country. It is also attentive of its responsibility to maintain stability in Kenya, and to fulfill its duty vis-a-vis the protection of victims and witnesses.
Thus, the Chamber considered it necessary to issue the two decisions on the charges of the Prosecutor on the same day and did so today before this appearance. The parties and participants were notified accordingly of the decisions.
Now I will turn to the decisions of the Chamber issued today.
After having thoroughly examined and analyzed individually and collectively all the evidence presented, the Chamber, by majority, decided to confirm the charges against four of the six suspects, as will be explained later in more detail.
Judge Kaul appended a dissenting opinion in both cases. He maintains that the ICC is not competent because the crimes committed on the territory of the Republic of Kenya during the post‐election violence of 2007‐2008 in his view were serious common crimes under Kenyan criminal law, but not crimes against humanity as codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
Before turning to the task at hand, namely the summary of the Chamber’s decisions, I would like to briefly recall some of the important procedural developments of the two cases. This will give a better idea of the work of the Court, of the parties and participants in the cases.
Since 8 March 2011, when the Chamber issued its decisions on the summonses to appear, in the two cases, the Chamber has been continuously seized with a multitude of issues. Throughout the proceedings, the Chamber placed at the centre of its activities its duty to ensure the fair, expeditious and independent conduct of the entire process. The Chamber also gave substantial consideration to the protection of victims and witnesses and the various rights of the defence.
On 7 and 8 April 2011, in Case 1 and Case 2, respectively, the initial appearance hearings took place, during which the Chamber set the dates of the confirmation of charges hearing.
This stage was followed by a series of judicial activities. In particular, the Chamber facilitated the participation of victims by issuing a number of decisions in this regard.
In the first case, the Chamber received 394 victims applications for participation, amounting to 4,246 pages and admitted 327 victims as participants in the proceedings.
In the second case, we received 249 applications for participation with the total of 2,864 pages and admitted 233 victims to participate.
Moreover, for the purposes of ensuring the security of the victims and witnesses, the Chamber also took decisions on the Prosecutor’s proposals for redactions, which amounted to around 12,000 pages.
Apart from that, the Chamber also issued two decisions on the Government of Kenya’s challenges to the admissibility of the cases, in which it ultimately found the cases to be admissible. The Chamber’s decisions were upheld on appeal.
Furthermore, in readiness of the confirmation of charges hearings, the Chamber issued a number of decisions organizing and facilitating the disclosure of evidence between the Prosecutor and Defence. Together, the six Defence teams and the Prosecutor in both cases disclosed approximately 30,000 pages of evidence, for the purpose of the Chambers’ determination on the charges presented.
On 1 September 2011, the confirmation of charges hearing in Case 1 commenced, as decided during the initial appearance, and lasted for 7 days.
Similarly, as determined during the initial appearance of the Suspects in the second case, the confirmation of charges hearing in Case 2 started on 21 September 2011, , lasting for 12 days.
Thus, since the start of the cases, the Chamber has received 4,905 filings, including their annexes, from the Prosecutor, the Defence teams, Victims representatives, amici curiae and the Registry.
Including today’s decisions, the Chamber has issued 252 decisions, in both cases.
This concludes the procedural background of the two cases to date.
At this point and on behalf of the Chamber, I must explain that we are not passing judgment on the guilt or innocence of the individuals. The Chamber is tasked by law only to evaluate the strength of the Prosecutor’s case at this pre‐trial stage ‐ that is to determine whether the Prosecutor presented enough evidence before the Chamber to confirm the charges. The standard required by the law, is that there are “substantial grounds to believe” that the crimes charged were committed, and that the Suspects were responsible for them.
Summary of Decision in Case 1
I will now turn to the merits of Case 1, the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang. It concerns crimes committed in Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills from on or about 30 December 2007 until the end of January 2008. I would like to underline the following:
As mentioned at the start, the Prosecutor charged Mr. Ruto, Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Sang, for crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution.
Mr. Ruto and Mr. Kosgey were charged as indirect co‐perpetrators, while Mr. Sang was charged as having contributed to the said crimes against humanity.
I will first summarise the findings of the Chamber on the crimes, and then the findings as to the criminal responsibility.
With respect to the crimes charged and based on the evidence placed before it, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor has established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer and persecution were committed. These crimes resulted in the death of hundreds, and the displacement of thousands of civilians from Turbo town, the greater Eldoret area, Kapsabet town and Nandi Hills.
The Chamber also found that these crimes were committed as part of an attack directed against particular groups, namely, Kikuyu, Kamba and Kisii, due to their perceived political affiliation to the Party of National Unity.
As to the criminal responsibility of Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang, the Chamber found, on the basis of the evidence presented, that they are responsible for the charges levied against them.
In particular, Pre‐Trial Chamber II confirmed the charges against Mr. Ruto as an indirect co‐ perpetrator with others, pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, while it found that Mr. Sang contributed to the commission of said crimes against humanity, pursuant to article 25(3)(d)(i), to the extent specified in the written decision.
However, in relation to Mr. Kosgey, the Chamber found that the Prosecutor’s evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required. The Chamber was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the Prosecutor of Mr. Kosgey’s alleged role within the organization.
In particular, the Prosecutor relied on one anonymous and insufficiently corroborated witness. Moreover, the Chamber determined that Mr. Kosgey suffered prejudice due to the redaction of certain dates related to a number of meetings that he allegedly attended, which proved to be essential for his defence and for the finding on his criminal responsibility.
In light of these facts and the entire body of evidence relating to Mr. Kosgey’s criminal responsibility, the Chamber declined to confirm the charges against Mr. Kosgey.
Summary of Decision in Case 2
Turning now to Case 2, the Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali.
As mentioned earlier, the Prosecutor charged Mr. Muthaura, Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Ali with crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution.
Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta were charged as indirect co-perpetrators, while Mr. Ali was charged as having contributed to the said alleged crimes against humanity.
As to the crimes, the Chamber found, on the basis of a thorough review of the evidence individually and collectively, substantial grounds to believe that between 24 and 28 January 2008 there was an attack against the civilian residents of Nakuru and Naivasha perceived as supporters of the Orange Democratic Movement, in particular those belonging to the Luo, Luhya and Kalenjin ethnic groups.
The Chamber also found that the attack resulted in a large number of killings, displacement of thousands of people, rape, severe physical injuries and mental suffering.
Thus, the evidence established substantial grounds to believe that the crimes of murder, deportation or forcible transfer, rape, other inhumane acts and persecution were committed.
With respect to the criminal responsibility of Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta, the Chamber was satisfied that the evidence also established substantial grounds to believe that they are criminally responsible for the alleged crimes, as indirect co-perpetrators, pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, having gained control over the Mungiki and directed them to commit the crimes.
However, in relation to Mr. Ali, the Chamber found that the evidence presented does not provide substantial grounds to believe that the Kenya Police participated in the attack in or around Nakuru and Naivasha. Since Mr. Ali was charged with contributing to the crimes through the Kenya Police, the Chamber declined to confirm the charges against him.
The Chamber will now outline the impact of its decisions on: (1) those against whom the charges have been confirmed; (2) on those against whom the charges have not been confirmed (namely, Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali); (3) as well as on the victims.
As a result of the decisions issued today, Mr. Ruto, Mr. Sang, Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta are committed to trial. They will be tried before a different Chamber for the charges confirmed. To this end, one or more Trial Chambers will be established by the Presidency of the ICC.
In this regard, the Chamber wishes to highlight that victims, who are already represented before this Chamber, may participate in the trial. Other victims will have the right and opportunity to apply to participate during the trial stage. Victims will have also the right to request reparations, should the accused persons be found guilty.
The Chamber wishes to be unequivocal and state that Mr. Ruto, Mr. Sang, Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta are merely accused before this Court. The Chamber would like to emphasise, for the purposes of clarity, that the presumption of innocence remains fully intact.
At trial, the Prosecutor will have the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to article 66 of the Statute. Furthermore, the decisions issued today by this Chamber do not affect the liberty of the accused, which remains undisturbed.
This, however, absolutely depends on the accused’s adherence to the conditions contained in the summonses to appear, which continue to remain in full force. At this point, the Chamber recalls its previous warning to the Suspects that their continued liberty is subject to their non‐engagement in incitement of violence or hate speech.
As to Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali, the Chamber wishes to clarify that they are no longer Suspects before the Court. However, the Chamber recalls article 61(8) of the Rome Statute, according to which the Prosecutor may present additional evidence requesting confirmation of charges against Mr. Kosgey and Mr. Ali.
We have now concluded the summary of the Chamber’s decisions in Case 1 and Case 2. At this juncture, the Chamber would like to express a few sentiments.
Today and indeed throughout the proceedings in these cases, we have appeared in our official capacities as Judges of the International Criminal Court. Offices which task us with the sole purpose of achieving justice ‐ justice for all – for victims but equally, justice for those who appeared before the Court. This is not rhetoric but a tangible goal we all genuinely strive for.
In reaching our decisions we have reviewed all the evidence individually and collectively, regardless of its source, firmly guided by the provisions of the Court’s statutory documents. In the fulfillment of our judicial mandate, we have looked through impartial and independent lenses, in order to ascertain whether the requisite threshold in article 61 of the Statute, for confirmation of the charges has been reached.
It is our utmost desire that the decisions issued by this Chamber today, bring peace to the people of the Republic of Kenya and prevent any sort of hostility. The decisions are the result of intensive and committed judicial work of the Chamber, conducted impartially, independently and conscientiously in the interests and in the service of justice.
That concludes Pre-Trial Chamber II’s appearance this morning.
Before we leave the courtroom, on behalf of the Chamber, I would like to thank everyone who has been following this public appearance and especially the people of the Republic of Kenya.
|
|
|
|
Post by destiny on Jan 23, 2012 14:19:20 GMT 3
These people are finished politically at least in the next five years or so, no matter the amount of sanitization and chest thumping.
MUTHAURA (Kibaki), RUTO (Odinga), UHURU (Mungiki) ARAP SANG (militia)
The victims who have been kept out of the limelight by our manipulative and selfish media have scored a big victory in their march towards justice.
Let the confirmed carry their own cross, to use that truly Kenyan cliche. Some will implicate others when the full trial begins and some will sing like canary birds.
Now can someone enlighten me on tracing and seizing the assets of the accused folks?
Does this mean that the judges believed night meetings actually happened in state house between powerful PNU honchos and the murderous Mungiki thugs?
Does this mean Kalonzo just squandered our millions in his quest for shuttle diplomacy?
I shudder just thinking about what is in public domain and the hidden horror stories that will be coming out when full trial starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by gemagema on Jan 23, 2012 14:26:26 GMT 3
Guess who is saying Raila must have influenced ICC chamber decision to not confirm case against Kosgey?
|
|
|
|
Post by Titchaz on Jan 23, 2012 14:27:48 GMT 3
Guess who is saying Raila must have influenced ICC chamber decision to not confirm case against Kosgey? Yaani wameanza mapema hii? Damn!...  |
|
|
|
Post by toddo on Jan 23, 2012 14:30:27 GMT 3
I shudder just thinking about what is in public domain and the hidden horror stories that will be coming out when full trial starts. There will be more to come. We are just starting to scratch the surface. Remember that even at the confirmation of hearing, there were some eveidence that was released in private. Ocompo only needed to release evidence that meets the PTII threshold. And he has done that. Secondly, Kibaki will not be President when all these cases are on trial. As much as her would wish to be president, the Ocampo4 will be carrying their own crosses. That means that some of them may toboa - so to say . Get ready for more to come. Those who thought that killing people is like frying peanuts now know reality. And we are not done yet. We shall smoke them out bit by bit. |
|
|
|
Post by toddo on Jan 23, 2012 14:32:23 GMT 3
Guess who is saying Raila must have influenced ICC chamber decision to not confirm case against Kosgey? Raila has so much power he can make rain for North Eastern ( tongue firmly planted in cheek) |
|
|
|
Post by nok on Jan 23, 2012 14:36:11 GMT 3
Fair Judgment.
There are " Skeletons in the closet "
Only a Full trial will enable us come to the bottom of why our
society has become critically sick!
As for Ali's case, well once the admissibility of the Police killings in
Kisumu was not accepted, his participation in Nakuru/Naivasha
was rather hard to prove ; especially due to the other
security-command-structure ( Muthaura-Kimemia-AP).
All in all, this is a ruling that gives the Victims hope for justice.
I hope Impunity gets a dent from this ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jan 23, 2012 14:45:50 GMT 3
Fair Judgment. There are " Skeletons in the closet " Only a Full trial will enable us come to the bottom of why our society has become critically sick! As for Ali's case, well once the admissibility of the Police killings in Kisumu was not accepted, his participation in Nakuru/Naivasha was rather hard to prove ; especially due to the other security-command-structure ( Muthaura-Kimemia-AP). All in all, this is a ruling that gives the Victims hope for justice. I hope Impunity gets a dent from this ruling. Even the Kisumu killings by cops and GSU it is hard to pin them on Ali. The cops were getting instructions directly from State House. Ali himself must have been getting orders from the Kibaki boys who were in full control of the security forces and the operation to install Kibak on the throne by any means necessary. Ocampo could pursue it in appeals but Ali stands a pretty good chance of beating the rap sheet. The elephant in the tent is Kibaki's own involvement. The State House meetings are going to come back to haunt him now that the PTC II has accepted that there is credible evidence to that effect. Ocampo must b every thankful to the suspects for deciding to bring their own witnesses. The witneses made Ocampo's work much easier. The Nguyai guy for example gave everything to prove "organation's policy" between Uhuru and Mungiki. After that it was a matter of linking Uhuru to Muthaura. Case closed and Ali gets out. By the way, what happened to the Press Conferences of Ruto and Uhuru? Is Kalonzo still in Ruto's house? Hopefully someone will remember to go visit and console with the IDPs and other victims. |
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Jan 23, 2012 14:49:34 GMT 3
RUTO: I will appeal against the ICC ruling, it is a strange ruling to me. I thank the people of Kenya who have stood with me through all this. I am still in the presidential race and will not let them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titchaz on Jan 23, 2012 14:53:11 GMT 3
RUTO: I will appeal against the ICC ruling, it is a strange ruling to me. I thank the people of Kenya who have stood with me through all this. I am still in the presidential race and will not let them down. ;D ;D ;D ;D....Jamani hii pesa ya ufisadi inawasha watu ama ni ushujaa? Kigen is surely smiling his behind all the way to the bank! |
|
