Post by Onyango Oloo on Apr 14, 2016 10:20:02 GMT 3
Judge Olga Venecia del C. HERRERA CARBUCCIA (Dominican Republic)
Judge as of 11 March 2012, for a term of nine years. Assigned to the Pre-Trial Division. Elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, list A.
Judge Herrera Carbuccia (1956) has a Doctorate of Law from the University Autónoma of Santo Domingo. She has over 30 years of experience in the judicial function in the fields of criminal law, criminal proceedings and justice administration as Judge and Public Prosecutor. As Public Prosecutor she was part of the Peace Courts, as well as Assistant Attorney at the Public Prosecutor’s bureau of the National District. She served as a Criminal Judge of First Instance Chamber, subsequently she was designated Judge Member for the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals in Santo Domingo for 11 years, and then in 2003 designated President of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Santo Domingo. She has extensive practical experience in the fields of criminal law, human rights protection, perjury to women and children, the prosecution of crimes of a sexual nature, drug crime, money laundering and as well as the elimination of the judicial delay with an emphasis on effective judicial administration to strengthen judicial effectiveness and efficiency. Judge Herrera Carbuccia has also excelled in the academic area with a long career of teaching. Her academic competence as a teacher of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the National University Pedro Henríquez Ureña led her to take over 9 years (1995-2004) the position of dean of the Faculty. Recognized for her high independence she has also been awarded with several national awards, including the "Women’s Medal of Merit" in law and justice aspects granted by the President of the Dominican Republic in 2003.
EXCERPT:
Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia based her dissenting opinion on a previous decision the trial chamber made setting out the criteria it would use to assess any “no case to answer” motion in the trial of Deputy President William Samoei Ruto and former journalist Joshua arap Sang.
Judge Carbuccia dissented from the majority decision of Trial Chamber V(a), which terminated the case against Ruto and Sang and vacated the three counts of crimes against humanity they had faced for their alleged roles in the violence that followed the December 2007 presidential election in Kenya.
The decision she referred to is from June 3, 2014 in which Trial Chamber V(a) set out the framework to determine the merits of a “no case to answer” motion.
In that June 2014 decision, the judges unanimously stated that they would not use the beyond reasonable doubt standard to weigh the prosecution’s evidence because that standard applied to the chamber’s final judgement. The judges were of the view that any “no case to answer” motion would be made at the mid-point of the trial, and all that was needed was to assess whether there was prima facie evidence to warrant the defense to present its case.
Another key point in that decision is the judges said that unless a witness’s testimony was beyond belief they would not make any determination on the credibility or reliability of such a witness.
NOW READ THE FULL STORY:
www.ijmonitor.org/2016/04/dissenting-judge-said-majority-did-not-stick-to-earlier-decision-on-no-case-to-answer-motions/
