|
|
Post by deyiengs on Feb 14, 2013 13:30:59 GMT 3
Uhuru Kenyatta and co are terrorizing the OPT, They want a reschedule for the hearing start-date to be pushed forward because there are "extensive redaction" of witness statements... yaani what they see is stuff like this:  Khan just said he "hates seeing those ink". He wants to know the identity of these witness. I can feel what they're going through. if you're no following these proceedings, then try to do so through either the KTN, Citizen or NTV. |
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Feb 14, 2013 13:51:52 GMT 3
OPT: "Non Kikuyu victims have been denied essential help that they need by the government" 4 of them have since died!
Now that is a serious allegation. I did not see that coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 14, 2013 14:01:05 GMT 3
Key things for the judges to decide on apart from the dates and prosecution evidence.
The confirmation that the accused will only need to attend court when required and will not be requried to be in "remand" in the Hague at least removed the concern about the accused being locked during the duration of the trial.
Secondly the application to attend the trial via video link was equally interesting as it means if the application is granted, then no one needs run the government via Skype. The defence has a task quoting available law and justifying the application.
The third element was the coordination of the 2 cases. Whilst a second chamber has been ruled out or even the expediting of the trial by having 4 hours for each case every day did not appear logistically possible. The Presidency has not told the chamber of how to proceed and I suspect that this is perhaps tied in with the application to transfer the cases to Arusha.
From the outset, it does not appear as if the case will commence on 10th April.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 14:24:08 GMT 3
I had a go with my little gourd, 11 beans, and ancient leopard skin. Here is what I got: The cases will commence as previously scheduled.
I then considered a more "scientific" approach to try and explain this. Here is the best I could come up with: Looking at other cases, the court takes very seriously the concerns of the victims, and, all other things being equal, will give higher priority to those. If I recall correctly, over 97% of victims polled do not want trials in Kenya or Arusha. That pretty much settles that one. And today the Victims Representative gave a short but powerful argument about the start of trials. To my mind, that pretty much settles that one. Still, nice try by the Defence.
As for "trial by video link", you are right that the Defence has quite a task before it. While witnesses can testify by video link, for the accused, see:
Article 63: Trial in the presence of the accused
1. The accused shall be present during the trial.
2. If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be take only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required.
The "being present" in (2) can be parsed thinly but, taken with (1), it seems to indicate exactly where the felons are supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Feb 14, 2013 14:33:54 GMT 3
Article 63: Trial in the presence of the accused
1. The accused shall be present during the trial.
2. If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be take only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required.The "being present" in (2) can be parsed thinly but, taken with (1), it seems to indicate exactly where the felons are supposed to be. They really want to have these trial a) Postponed and b) Held via Skype from Kenya... But why, why? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 14:43:06 GMT 3
a) Postponed and b) Held via Skype from Kenya... But why, why? (a) The Prince wants to be in Kenya during the runoff. (Doing certain things, e.g. the witness 4 business, at the last minute have been intended to assist in getting such delays. And I found it amusing that they should complain to the judges about delayed disclosures that have been authorized by the judges themselves!) (b) If he wins, he's much rather have his trial by video from his bedroom in State House. I just spent a couple of minutes thinking of this idea of a "trial by video", for a small case and for a major criminal case. I can't stop laughing. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 14, 2013 15:22:45 GMT 3
I had a go with my little gourd, 11 beans, and ancient leopard skin. Here is what I got: The cases will commence as previously scheduled. I then considered a more "scientific" approach to try and explain this. Here is the best I could come up with: Looking at other cases, the court takes very seriously the concerns of the victims, and, all other things being equal, will give higher priority to those. If I recall correctly, over 97% of victims polled do not want trials in Kenya or Arusha. That pretty much settles that one. And today the Victims Representative gave a short but powerful argument about the start of trials. To my mind, that pretty much settles that one. Still, nice try by the Defence. Otishotish I have to strongly disagree with you that the interests of the victims override those of the accused in the trial. The case by their representative about deaths of victims was not strong if you ask me! As for the video link, it surely is new territory otherwise the judges would have thrown it out without a glance. They entertained such an attendance today so why should it be any different if the defence can put up an arguable case? The delay in my mind is inevitable especially if the court was to send the evidence issue back to the PTC. Going on with the case on the date would mean throwing out the new evidence claimed by the defence. Remember the 68.7% statistic? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 16:46:16 GMT 3
Otishotish I have to strongly disagree with you that the interests of the victims override those of the accused in the trial. Please read this again, slowly this time: "the court takes very seriously the concerns of the victims, and, all other things being equal, will give higher priority to those". See the middle bit? Also see the bits that precede the reproduced part. Today was a status conference, not a trial. The unusual thing today is not the video link but that the suspects were asked to attend a status conference. Usually that's stuff for just lawyers, but I guess the court wanted to hear that the felons understand their bail conditions. We need not wait for the judges on that one: there is no arguable case there. Like I said, good effort by the Defence. Anyway, .... we can go back and forth on this one, but we'll find out soon enough. |
|
emali
Full Member
Posts: 219
|
Post by emali on Feb 14, 2013 16:54:29 GMT 3
Otis/Kamalet thanks for keeping us updated...
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 17:03:44 GMT 3
An interesting point is that Uhuru and Ruto has been suggesting that (if they win then) while one was in the dock, the other would be running the country. The judges indicated that one possibility under consideration is that on each day they would do 4 hours of case 1 and 4 hours of case 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 14, 2013 17:27:38 GMT 3
An interesting point is that Uhuru and Ruto has been suggesting that (if they win then) while one was in the dock, the other would be running the country. The judges indicated that one possibility under consideration is that on each day they would do 4 hours of case 1 and 4 hours of case 2. The ICC are a pretty idle bunch....if you look at the hearing schedule for 2013, there are only two cases this year...the PTC hearing for Gbagbo and the Kenya cases. From August, only the Kenya cases will be heard until the end of the year so what is this about only courtroom 1 being available? As the matter sits with the Presidency (which means there are competing interests behind any decision) the procedure will not be agreed/confirmed soon. I sometimes got a feeling that the possible elections of the two are influencing a lot of decisions in the ICC - however much we get told that politics does not play a part! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 17:50:46 GMT 3
The ICC are a pretty idle bunch....if you look at the hearing schedule for 2013, there are only two cases this year...the PTC hearing for Gbagbo and the Kenya cases. From August, only the Kenya cases will be heard until the end of the year so what is this about only courtroom 1 being available? Bemba case should be going on for a good chunk of the year. Also note that two cases that are on "temporary hold" (Katanga and Sudanese ones) are expected to resume soon and will still need to be scheduled. But like the Victims' rep said, "why not borrow a courtroom from another tribunal ... what matters is that we sort out this lot as quickly as possible". Anyway, I don't think that is a major factor; it was probably just thrown in as one of several factors. I'm going to bet on the same judges hearing both cases, in the same courtroom. Another reason for alternating on a daily basis is that it appears to be the case Muthaura's health means he cannot sit for more than 4 hours anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 14, 2013 18:03:28 GMT 3
The ICC are a pretty idle bunch....if you look at the hearing schedule for 2013, there are only two cases this year...the PTC hearing for Gbagbo and the Kenya cases. From August, only the Kenya cases will be heard until the end of the year so what is this about only courtroom 1 being available? Bemba case should be going on for a good chunk of the year. Also note that two cases that are on "temporary hold" (Katanga and Sudanese ones) are expected to resume soon and will still need to be scheduled. But like the Victims' rep said, "why not borrow a courtroom from another tribunal ... what matters is that we sort out this lot as quickly as possible". Anyway, I don't think that is a major factor; it was probably just thrown in as one of several factors. I'm going to bet on the same judges hearing both cases, in the same courtroom. Another reason for alternating on a daily basis is that it appears to be the case Muthaura's health means he cannot sit for more than 4 hours anyway. Please see the hearing schedule of the court in 2013 www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/hearing%20schedule/Documents/2013calendarbilingual.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 14, 2013 18:18:47 GMT 3
I've seen it. (And I am aware that usually at this time of the year the schedule is not finalized.) Is there a part of it that requires correction to what I wrote above? |
|
|
|
Post by okolowaka on Feb 14, 2013 18:31:20 GMT 3
Why should the "Video-Link" option be such a big deal to Uhuru, yet he proposed running the country via Skype, from huko.
Can Uhuru show beyond doubt that he will need to attend to State Affairs that will require his physical presence in Nairobi for the duration of the trial? In Kenya witnesses disappear, electricity disappears, cables get cut, etc....
My take is, Uhuru will not be president after March 4th so he needs to make a long stay Visa application early, no need for Skype link. Request denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 14, 2013 18:31:38 GMT 3
An interesting point is that Uhuru and Ruto has been suggesting that (if they win then) while one was in the dock, the other would be running the country. The judges indicated that one possibility under consideration is that on each day they would do 4 hours of case 1 and 4 hours of case 2. The ICC are a pretty idle bunch....if you look at the hearing schedule for 2013, there are only two cases this year...the PTC hearing for Gbagbo and the Kenya cases. From August, only the Kenya cases will be heard until the end of the year so what is this about only courtroom 1 being available? As the matter sits with the Presidency (which means there are competing interests behind any decision) the procedure will not be agreed/confirmed soon. I sometimes got a feeling that the possible elections of the two are influencing a lot of decisions in the ICC - however much we get told that politics does not play a part! I totally agree with your observations here. This sounds very true especially if you juxtapose what the presiding judge said today and what the president of the court said in New York one or two days ago. I in effect think, the video link and shifting of the court to Arusha will become a real possible after March 4, especially if the two are elected into office. |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 15, 2013 0:38:00 GMT 3
Roughly four requests have been made so far; one: Request to have the trial moved to Arusha, two: facilitation of the video link, three: rescheduling of the start trial date due to late disclosure to the defense, and four: a requirement that any disclosure of evidence and witnesses so far redacted should be made available in good time.
The Jukwaa Chamber would like to deal with the first and second requests as a pointer to the possible and actual decision by the Trial Chamber at the ICC.
For the first request, the Jukwaa Chamber is the opinion that it cannot and should not be granted for following reasons. The OP has expressed concerns that a significant number of their witnesses are not comfortable with such proposals. Indeed, issues concerning the witnesses' security have been raised and the JC is not in a position to guarantee the same or attempt to provide the same, adequately enough that it may alley the witnesses' fear. The JC takes seriously the security and comfort of any witnesses who may participate in their trials, such that where this Chamber cannot guarantee the same outside its allocated venue, such request has to therefore be denied.
Further more, JC is fully aware and informed on the events that are currently taking shape in Kenya. Indeed, the JC takes into consideration the possibility that Uhuruto may even win the presidential election in a couple of weeks' time. Out of that possibility, the Chamber is of the view that were such request to be entertained following such an outcome, it can inevitably place the two in a biased position, where the security and indeed even the proceedings of this case may be compromised.
It is this Chamber's clear and objective opinion that Uhuruto's position, should they win the forthcoming presidential elections, may yield enough influence over their neighbour's affairs, in this case Tanzania, such that their newly acquired and formed relationship as heads heads of state of their respective countries, will be a center point on how the subject proceedings may be executed thereafter.
To reiterate this point again, this Chamber is firmly of the opinion that the relocation request cannot be entertained, but must proceed as previously envisaged, in this honorable court at the Hague.
On the question of facilitating the video link for Uhuruto during the whole of the trial period, the Jukwaa Chamber must first be clear under what circumstances the statutory provision accords such a facility. Article 101 of the Rome Statute (fictitious) provides that the JC will have discretion of deciding when such request has been made by any of the parties concerned. It is in this regard that the JC has come to the following conclusions and decision:
As stated in the earlier decision, the JC is fully aware and appreciates the possibility of Uhuruto winning the presidential election as the President and his Vice President as given respectively. Much as this Chamber can foresee such a possible outcome, it cannot escape also taking into consideration the possibility that Uhuruto may indeed fail to win the elections and therefore, the bases that may have founded their request for the video link so as to facilitate the running of their country's affairs at the same whilst attending the trial (what the heck!), becomes moot and unnecessary.
Based on such circumstances as aptly stated herein, this Chamber has decided to postpone this specific and particular consideration till the end of the forth coming elections and where needs be, up to two weeks beyond the second round of the said elections should there be no confirmed winner after the first. (Yawa!) whatever that means?
Further more, this Chamber would like to clearly its stated position, that it takes matters of hearing during the actual trial and attendance of the accused, and indeed any critical witnesses very seriously. And whilst there may be circumstances that may influence the Chamber to consider facilitation of the video link as a means of attendance such the recent Status Conference, this Chamber reserves the right to decide how such attendees should make their presence at the court, whether in person or otherwise, and it is in this consideration that at least for the time being and indeed for foreseeable future into the actual trial, Uhuruto will have to attend the hearing in person, subject to the decision to be made after the said presidential elections as stated above.
This Chamber would also like to clearly emphasis the fact that its decision on the subject request stated herein, will not be determined one way or another or be dependent on the outcome of the said presidential elections, so as to be a factor of its decision, but that the outcome of that election will only be used as an aid towards making the said decision, and should only be taken at this stage as a factor in the timing of making the requested decision rather than a reason towards that determination.
These proceedings are now closed.
All rise!!
|
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 16, 2013 20:26:36 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 20:46:26 GMT 3
Abdulmote: I'm all for the Jukwaa Court! ;D In April last year the EA legislative assembly passed a resolution that the the jurisdiction of the East African Court of Justice would be extended and the ICC case would be transferred to that court. Brough back home, as they all cried. Following the traditional path of major resolutions by the EAC, AU, ... that was the last anyone heard of that great idea. |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 16, 2013 23:16:19 GMT 3
OtishO,
Thanks for your effort! At least you tried. You know, you are "all for JC"! But I was expecting more than. Some kind of a rebuttal. A challenge to the content hypothesis. Perhaps an alternative 'opinion'. At least then I would have have a rough idea of how good or improbable the 'decision' is. But all I had was a deafening silence! Not even from Kamalet or our Mwalimu. I still consider them my dear brothers you know. I hope one day we shall meet and share some mboosho na wooshoro.
|
|
