|
|
Post by commes on Apr 1, 2011 16:54:42 GMT 3
International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's appeal to have the events in Kisumu and Kibera during the post election violence reinstated as evidence against the Ocampo Six has failed. Mr Moreno-Ocampo had appealed against the ICC judges' earlier decision to exclude police shootings and acts of forcible circumcision in violence hotspots of Kibera and Kisumu when they issued summonses to appear for the six suspects in March. ICC Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova Friday rejected the prosecutor's application on the grounds that the events did not arise from their judicial determination in the first instance. “…..the "issue" identified by the Prosecutor in his submissions with regard to the events in Kisumu and Kibera does not arise from the judicial determinations made by the Chamber in the 8 March 2011 Decision. Accordingly, the request for leave to appeal the determination made by the Chamber with respect to the events which occurred in Kisumu and Kibera must be rejected,” the judge states.www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/-/1064/1137142/-/7qa91x/-/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Apr 1, 2011 17:03:54 GMT 3
This, if true, is sad. Sad, because heinous crimes occurred in those places for which justice should be served. However, all is not lost, the small fish must still be tried locally even as the big fish are at the Hague. Further, there are ways in which Ocampo could bring up these crimes in his evidence to bolster other cases. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 1, 2011 17:40:24 GMT 3
...and Muthaura and Ali get to go home early! Poor Muigai son of Ngina...all by himselof now!
|
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Apr 1, 2011 17:44:19 GMT 3
Kamale , On his own for what ? Buying blankets and tents?
|
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Apr 1, 2011 17:44:40 GMT 3
Perhaps not because they are all tied up to the Naivasha murders
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 1, 2011 18:07:21 GMT 3
...and Muthaura and Ali get to go home early! Poor Muigai son of Ngina...all by himselof now! That is wishful thinking if ever there was one. Ali and Muthaura have three other charges which are just as deadly. Muthaura has been charged with among others ordering Ali to let Mungiki kill people and Ali did exactly what he was told. They have two other charges. Every charge at The Hague carries as much weight as the other. The judges have allowed the ones where they think clear crimes against humanity were committed and seem hesitant to include police killings as that may dilute the case. If anything this tells you the judges were very strict on what they were willing to allow. That is not bad for Ocampo. So hold on to the celebration parade. But one thing is clear, these judges hardly ever change their minds once they have reached a decision. That is real bad news for the admissibility application which the same judges had ruled on when they let Ocampo take the case. I see nothing for the impunity masters to celebrate here. adongo |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 1, 2011 18:13:42 GMT 3
...and Muthaura and Ali get to go home early! Poor Muigai son of Ngina...all by himselof now! That is wishful thinking if ever there was one. Ali and Muthaura have three other charges which are just as deadly. Muthaura has been charged with among others ordering Ali to let Mungiki kill people and Ali did exactly what he was told. They have two other charges. Every charge at The Hague carries as much weight as the other. The judges have allowed the ones where they think clear crimes against humanity were committed and seem hesitant to include police killings as that may dilute the case. If anything this tells you the judges were very strict on what they were willing to allow. That is not bad for Ocampo. So hold on to the celebration parade. But one thing is clear, these judges hardly ever change their minds once they have reached a decision. That is real bad news for the admissibility application which the same judges had ruled on when they let Ocampo take the case.I see nothing for the impunity masters to celebrate here. adongo Are you sure about you assertion on the judges never changing their minds and do you have such proof? |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 1, 2011 18:26:04 GMT 3
Kamale,That is wishful thinking if ever there was one. Ali and Muthaura have three other charges which are just as deadly. Muthaura has been charged with among others ordering Ali to let Mungiki kill people and Ali did exactly what he was told. They have two other charges. Every charge at The Hague carries as much weight as the other. The judges have allowed the ones where they think clear crimes against humanity were committed and seem hesitant to include police killings as that may dilute the case. If anything this tells you the judges were very strict on what they were willing to allow. That is not bad for Ocampo. So hold on to the celebration parade. But one thing is clear, these judges hardly ever change their minds once they have reached a decision. That is real bad news for the admissibility application which the same judges had ruled on when they let Ocampo take the case.I see nothing for the impunity masters to celebrate here. adongo Are you sure about you assertion on the judges never changing their minds and do you have such proof? Where did I say the judges "never" change their minds. Read the post again. What we know though is that this team of three judges are very consistent. In every application that has been made mostly by the Ruto mob they made their decisions and rejected all applications for leave to appeal and even at one time got pretty harsh with what they thought were frivolous appeals. In other words, first impression is very important with this court. Second chances are hard to come by. That is why I feel pretty confident about the admissibility issue. One strike and you are out. The game is on bro. Tough like nails. We are ready for the battle. I also like how fast these judges make rulings. It is chap chap. Oh dear. There is no dancing around with these amigos. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 1, 2011 18:35:49 GMT 3
Are you sure about you assertion on the judges never changing their minds and do you have such proof? Where did I say the judges "never" change their minds. Read the post again. What we know though is that this team of three judges are very consistent. In every application that has been made mostly by the Ruto mob they made their decisions and rejected all applications for leave to appeal and even at one time got pretty harsh with what they thought were frivolous appeals. In other words, first impression is very important with this court. Second chances are hard to come by. That is why I feel pretty confident about the admissibility issue. One strike and you are out. The game is on bro. Tough like nails. We are ready for the battle. I also like how fast these judges make rulings. It is chap chap. Oh dear. There is no dancing around with these amigos. ...hardly ever change ...never change Struggling to see the difference - ever/never each a finality in my mind! Is your idea that because the judges thought there was reasonable grounds to believe crimes were committed does not reach the standard required of beyond reason...and that is what Ocampo must do and which is a lot more difficult that the prevous two phases. The issue here is not the judges...but actually what is given to them by Ocampo and how credible (ouch that ODM word again!) his evidence is. On that we can agree on the consistency of the judges in throwing out rubbish! |
|
|
|
Post by job on Apr 1, 2011 18:43:52 GMT 3
... and Muthaura and Ali get to go home early! Poor Muigai son of Ngina...all by himselof now! This is the kind of impulsive, knee-jerk reaction that often leaves you disappointed when the fat lady finally sings. As per the Judges, Kenyatta and Muthaura are joint co-perpetrators of what went down in Naivasha. Naivasha was not only about plotting massacre, rapes, burnings and hackings, but also about police facilitating Mungiki the safe passage and protection to carry out the operation (as per Muthaura's orders). The Judges said Ali wasn't a co-perpetrator, but satisfied the requirement of one of the persons bearing greatest responsibility - evidence showed he indeed facilitated the Mungiki access to the said civilian targets, and as such - the Judges ordered he too must face trial for the same. As you cry for "Poor Muigai son of Ngina", take note others are striving for Justice for the VICTIMS massacred, hacked, burnt, raped, mutilated, and dispossessed of properties and homes. Watch this space! The fat lady ain't in stage yet! |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 1, 2011 18:44:14 GMT 3
Where did I say the judges "never" change their minds. Read the post again. What we know though is that this team of three judges are very consistent. In every application that has been made mostly by the Ruto mob they made their decisions and rejected all applications for leave to appeal and even at one time got pretty harsh with what they thought were frivolous appeals. In other words, first impression is very important with this court. Second chances are hard to come by. That is why I feel pretty confident about the admissibility issue. One strike and you are out. The game is on bro. Tough like nails. We are ready for the battle. I also like how fast these judges make rulings. It is chap chap. Oh dear. There is no dancing around with these amigos. ...hardly ever change ...never change Struggling to see the difference - ever/never each a finality in my mind! Is your idea that because the judges thought there was reasonable grounds to believe crimes were committed does not reach the standard required of beyond reason...and that is what Ocampo must do and which is a lot more difficult that the prevous two phases. The issue here is not the judges...but actually what is given to them by Ocampo and how credible (ouch that ODM word again!) his evidence is. On that we can agree on the consistency of the judges in throwing out rubbish! No problem ndugu yangu. The Kibaki lawyers will meet more than Ocampo at The Hague and Ocampo has already done a good job. Now the whole lot is coming to town. Expect your most dreaded amigos, from the civil society in full force at The Hague. Wembe ni ule ule. Remember UNSC, New York round. Round two is upon us. May the people of Kenya win and may justice prevail. Ready like yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by mintos on Apr 1, 2011 18:58:56 GMT 3
Could this be because they could not obtain the minutes for the security meetings that Justice Rawal was to preside over the statement taking but was ruled out by court?
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 1, 2011 19:08:50 GMT 3
Could this be because they could not obtain the minutes for the security meetings that Justice Rawal was to preside over the statement taking but was ruled out by court? May be but I doubt it. No government or any entity for that matter will keep minutes that incriminates it, I think Ocampo knew that. As for the statements from the PPOs and PCs it seems they actually could have been more helpful to the Kibaki chaps. It sure could have helped them with the admissibility case to show how cooperative the cops have been. Now by refusing to do that even after all the conditions they asked for were allowed it is just another nail in that bad coffin. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamadar on Apr 1, 2011 19:36:56 GMT 3
Could this be because they could not obtain the minutes for the security meetings that Justice Rawal was to preside over the statement taking but was ruled out by court? May be but I doubt it. No government or any entity for that matter will keep minutes that incriminates it, I think Ocampo knew that. As for the statements from the PPOs and PCs it seems they actually could have been more helpful to the Kibaki chaps. It sure could have helped them with the admissibility case to show how cooperative the cops have been. Now by refusing to do that even after all the conditions they asked for were allowed it is just another nail in that bad coffin. Adongo, How about you look at it from this angle: The judges are not buying the fact that the ultimate responsibility for police shootings rests with Muthaura or Ali and is basically telling Ocampo to give them a clear case - talk of command responsibility! |
|
|
|
Post by commes on Apr 1, 2011 20:02:21 GMT 3
Decision on the "Prosecution's Application for Leave to Appeal the 'Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohamed Hussein Ali'" www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1050257.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 1, 2011 20:14:10 GMT 3
Decision on the "Prosecution's Application for Leave to Appeal the 'Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohamed Hussein Ali'" www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1050257.pdfcommes, Thanks I have perused through it. I will read it later. It is not a bad ruling for Ocampo. The judge clarified some of Ocampo's fears and assured him that nothing is really being lost by excluding those specific cases. Interesting stuff. But I will comb it with my double tooth pick when I get home. But mintos and polticalguru are right. The judges are saying Ocampo needs to prove that what happened in Kisumu was part of state policy. If Ocampo was to do that then Kibaki is the one reponsible not Ali or Muthaura. |
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Apr 1, 2011 20:37:57 GMT 3
The judges are saying Ocampo needs to prove that what happened in Kisumu was part of state policy. If Ocampo was to do that then Kibaki is the one reponsible not Ali or Muthaura. It amazes me, just how high the threshold of evidence is, that the prosecutor needs to furnish, in order to get going through the ICC process and get a conviction. Reading the tea leaves here, this decision should worry those accused, the ICC6. And given that the case is on going, that evidence continues to be collected, this application by Ocampo may get enjoined at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by merkeju on Apr 1, 2011 20:54:52 GMT 3
Part of the single judge ruling is
10. Taking due account of the Prosecutor's arguments as well as the different judicial
determinations made by the Chamber in its 8 March 2011 Decision, the Single Judge
deems it necessary to proceed first with the assessment as to whether the
requirements under article 82(l)(d) are fulfilled with respect to the findings made on
the events that took place in Kisumu and Kibera. The same examination with regard
to the findings of the Chamber on the crimes committed in Nakuru and Naivasha
will be conducted thereafter.
16. In particular, the Prosecutor alleges that the First Issue arises out of the 8 March
2011 Decision since "the Chamber decided that as a matter of law [State actors]
cannot be charged with participating in an organizational policy because they are
State agents" but that "they cannot be properly charged with participating in State
policy because the attacks to which their conduct contributes are in furtherance of
the policy of the organization not the State" .^ As a consequence, according to the
Prosecutor, the 8 March 2011 Decision "threatens to protect an entire category of
persons from criminal charges - State officers who contribute State machinery to an
attack against the civilian population in furtherance of a non-State policy (rather
than acting pursuant to an official State policy)".
19. Secondly, the arguments of the Prosecutor completely disregard the findings of
the Chamber that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Muthaura and Ali
were responsible for the crimes committed in the context of a widespread and
systematic attack against the civilian population carried out pursuant to the
organizational policy of the Mungiki. The Chamber indeed found that both
Muthaura and Ali - pursuant to different modes of liability - contributed to the
commission of the crimes in Nakuru and Naivasha, using their authority over the
Kenyan Police Forces and thus by virtue of their position within the State apparatus.
Summonses to appear were accordingly issued for both suspects.^^ Therefore it is
clear that no issue of impunity as presented by the Prosecutor could arise from the 8
March 2011 Decision in relation to State officers that utilized the State machinery for
the commission of crimes against humanity committed in the context of an attack
conducted pursuant to a non-State organizational policy.
31. The Single Judge notes that the findings made by the Chamber with respect to
the appropriate characterization of the acts of forcible circumcision as "inhuman
acts" were grounded on the evidence and the information submitted to the Chamber
for the purposes of the Prosecutor's Application under article 58. This finding does
not preclude the Prosecutor from charging the suspects with acts of forcible
circumcision as "other forms of sexual violence", as it does not preclude the
Chamber from accepting the Prosecutor's allegation to that effect, if supported by
sufficient evidence to meet the evidentiary standard as required by article 61(7) of
the Statute. The Single Judge is thus not persuaded by the above-mentioned
arguments put forward by the Prosecutor that are all grounded on an alleged
prejudice that the relevant finding in the 8 March 2011 Decision would cause in the
context of the following proceedings leading to the hearing on the confirmation of
charges.
|
|
|
|
Post by the2ruth on Apr 2, 2011 5:09:25 GMT 3
The threshold for cases at this stage of the process is very low at the ICC, it allows for the prosecutor to make a case without being challenged. Therefore, the fact that one entire pillar of his case has been thrown out at this stage is a blow for Ocampo. Because if there was no plan to attack Kibera a perceived ODM stronghold in Nairobi, then why PLAN to attack a predominantly PNU stronghold like Naivasha. If there is no PLAN there is no case
|
|
|
|
Post by toddo on Apr 2, 2011 6:17:26 GMT 3
I think this is a sober judgement and it is actually good for Ocampo.
He has evidence that the Judges believe will provide fairness and justice to both the accused and the victims (Kenyans included)for the other remaining charges and perhaps he will now focus on those for now The onus is on the defense because they now have to deal with the other charges.
We should remember that they are not lighter charges either and therefore those who think that the ICC6 will be free are simply dreaming. The fact that UK, Muthaura and Ali are given some breathing room now does not mean that these charges or evidence will not come up sooner or later. The wheels of justice they do roll albeit slow...but they will still answer one day.
One more week! And looking forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 2, 2011 13:08:39 GMT 3
At the pre-trial stage all the judges needed to do was to have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed. On the Kibera and Kisumu situation, Ocampo did not convince the judges.
The next stage is the most difficult. Ocampo must move from 'reasonable grounds to believe' to "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". That is the problem with the case Ocampo has presented"
|
|
