|
Post by wilsonle on Jul 5, 2012 18:40:18 GMT 3
Otishotish et al,ICC is a monster that can be defeated. the first step is establishment of ACC- African Criminal courtread this informative article to know the next step. here is the linkhttp://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000061185&story_title=African-presidents-in-final-bid-to-stop-ICC very soon we gonna sing...bye bye ICC neocolonialists How lazy can one get? If you go back along this thread, you will find that the link has already been posted and the story commented on. In one of the comments, you will find all the bye-byes you need. otishotish, Not that i hadn't see it big brother. but after reading your previous post on Mwalimu Mkuu's reply i figured out how forgetful you can be. My little pity and Sense of Humanity urged me to do the honour of reminding you. Thats not the way to say thank youuuuuuuuu!!!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 5, 2012 18:46:04 GMT 3
OK, Friend Sniper. Let's wait for the African court to swing into action. It's time we showed these wazungus something!
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jul 5, 2012 18:52:45 GMT 3
OK, Friend Sniper. Let's wait for the African court to swing into action. It's time we showed these wazungus something! Otishotish,yah the court should be established and get moving. But your IDEA of showing Wazungus something makes little sense kwa sababu hatuwajibiki kwao.. let them solve there own problems and we solve ours. bygones be bygones. why is US slow in Attacking SYRIA yet it was swift on LIBYA?
|
|
|
Post by job on Jul 6, 2012 7:09:49 GMT 3
From Star Newspaper.
ICC SEEKS TO CHANGE UHURU, RUTO CHARGES
Thursday, 05 July 2012 00:02 BY NZAU MUSAU
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda wants the judges to include new elements to make it easier to prove the case against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura. In a technical move, Bensouda filed an application on Tuesday that the mode of criminal liability against the Uhuru and Muthaura should be stretched to accept three elements previously not included by the Pre Trial Chamber.
The ICC Prosecutor wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues by which the court can find them guilty of crimes against humanity. The prosecutor in the Special Court for Sierra Leone found former Liberian leader Charles Taylor guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes after similar adjustments. Bensouda has also asked the trial judges to reduce the elements of “indirect co-perpetration” agreed by the Pre Trial Chamber..
The net effect of the two moves, if agreed to by the judges, will be to increase the possibilities of jailing Uhuru and Muthaura. Ekaterina Trendafilova and her fellow Pre-Trial judges confirmed the charges against them in January under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute. This attaches a criminal responsibility to a person who commits a crime individually, jointly with another or through another.
Bensouda now wants the judges to stretch this liability to include Article 25(3)(b),(c) and (d). She says that Article 25(3)(a) is not the only way to demonstrate the criminal responsibility of Uhuru and Muthaura. “The prosecution acknowledges that the accuseds’ criminal responsibility could equally be characterized as: ordering, soliciting or inducing under Article 25(3)(b); aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting under Article 25(3)(c); or contributing “in any other way” to a crime committed by a “group of persons acting with a common purpose” under Article 25(3)(d),” Bensouda argued.
Former ICC prosecutor Moreno Ocampo had originally only charged them under (a) and (d). In their summons, the judges ignored (d) and the case continued with only (a) in consideration. On Tuesday, Bensouda reminded the trial judges that the pretrial judges had confirmed that Muthaura and Kenyatta “specifically directed the Mungiki to commit the crimes in Nakuru and Naivasha”.
The judges also found that Muthaura instructed former Police boss Gen Hussein Ali to remove police obstruction to crimes in Rift Valley and that Uhuru gave “directions” and a “mandate” to an individual “to coordinate the Mungiki for the purposes of the attack in Nakuru.” The prosecutor argues that although these acts fell under (a), they could equally be categorized as “ordering, soliciting or inducing ” under Article (b).
Bensouda said by an additional element of liability was suggested by the confirmation that Muthaura and Uhuru brokered a deal with Maina Njenga to place Mungiki at their disposal, fund Mungiki activities and offer institutional support. She said these acts can be classified as aiding, abetting or assisting in commission of the crimes and as “any other form of contribution” under Article (d).
Yesterday, Nick Kaufman, a lawyer practicing at the ICC, told the Star that Bensouda's proposals, if granted, would give her more latitude to secure a conviction. “As far the prosecution is concerned, it shows that they are casting their net extremely wide and, to a certain extent, are insecure as to their chances of securing a conviction on the basis of the original selection as to the posited mode of liability," he said.
In the second proposal, Bensouda wants the trial judges to revise the threshold of proving that the two are “indirect co-perpetrators." She said the threshold laid down by the Pre Trial Chamber was “largely correct but requires certain adjustment." Bensouda told the judges that Article 21 (2) of the statute does not bind them to the Pre Trial Chamber's interpretation of Article 25(3) which is at the heart of the test for indirect co-perpetration developed by Trendafilova.
Bensouda wants to rely on the findings of the court that convicted Thomas Lubanga to determine the threshold for conviction. The prosecution is supposed to prove the existence of a common plan but Bensouda has argued that the prosecution is not required to prove that the plan was specifically directed at committing a crime. “It is sufficient to establish that the common plan included “a critical element of criminality”, she argued. "Moreover, the common plan need not be explicit and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the subsequent concerted action of the co-perpetrators,” she said.
Bensouda also argued that she need not prove the specific contribution of Uhuru or Muthaura under Article 25(a) if the Lubanga judgment is considered. According to the Lubanga judges, the responsibility of the co-perpetrators arises from mutual attribution based on the joint agreement or common plan. During the status conference on June 12, Muthaura's defence opposed a notice of these changes saying it amounted “to alternative charging by the back door”. In her filing, Bensouda insisted that her proposals do not seek to extend the charges against Uhuru and Muthaura
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 6, 2012 17:49:46 GMT 3
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda wants the judges to include new elements to make it easier to prove the case against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura. In a technical move, Bensouda filed an application on Tuesday that the mode of criminal liability against the Uhuru and Muthaura should be stretched to accept three elements previously not included by the Pre Trial Chamber. The ICC Prosecutor wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues by which the court can find them guilty of crimes against humanity. The prosecutor in the Special Court for Sierra Leone found former Liberian leader Charles Taylor guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes after similar adjustments. Bensouda has also asked the trial judges to reduce the elements of “indirect co-perpetration” agreed by the Pre Trial Chamber.. [/blockquote][/quote] So far, the local media has done a half-decent job on reporting this one; so I was going to leave it at that. But it seems necessary to clarify some things and point out others that they have missed. This might also be useful to those who seem to think that the prosecutor is changing or wants to change the charges or whatever. It is not the case that the prosecutor "wants the judges to include new elements"; nor is it the case that she "wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues". First, it is not correct to state that the Bensouda wants the judges to allow her to add charges, change modes of liability, etc. What she has done is make two types of filings. One of these consists of "observations", and "observations" alone of how individual criminal responsibility may be characterized. This has been done in both cases: icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436787.pdfwww.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436934.pdfThese submissions are made in respect of a regulation that allows the judges to re-characterize the charges, modes of liability, etc. She is, in effect, telling the judges that this is something they may have to do; she is not asking that she herself be allowed to do so. The only specific requests in these filings, it is that the chamber give notice as to the possibility and to give notice that it may differ from the pre-trial chamber. The significant aspect of these filings is what, essentially, they ask the judges to consider: "ordering, soliciting or inducing" and "aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting". For good measure, there is the catch-all "contributing in any other way". It is important to note that any actual re-characterization by the chamber is likely happen only after all (or a very substantial portion) of the evidence had been presented. Second, a similar but more specific request for notice has been made in the Uhuru-Muthaura case: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436956.pdfThe specifics here concern the characterization of penile amputation as "sexual violence", rather than "inhumane act", and the inclusion, somewhere of looting and destruction of property. The first is very significant in that criminal courts generally tend to view sexual violence as worse than other forms of violence and so punish it more severely. The second is something that the victims have been asking for for quite some time; Ocampo did not do anything about that, but Bensouda is trying. Sureta Chana has also repeated her requests in that regard: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1426649.pdfSo it seems highly likely that the chamber will consider doing something about it.
|
|
|
Post by job on Jul 6, 2012 22:35:07 GMT 3
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda wants the judges to include new elements to make it easier to prove the case against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura. In a technical move, Bensouda filed an application on Tuesday that the mode of criminal liability against the Uhuru and Muthaura should be stretched to accept three elements previously not included by the Pre Trial Chamber. The ICC Prosecutor wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues by which the court can find them guilty of crimes against humanity. The prosecutor in the Special Court for Sierra Leone found former Liberian leader Charles Taylor guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes after similar adjustments. Bensouda has also asked the trial judges to reduce the elements of “indirect co-perpetration” agreed by the Pre Trial Chamber.. [/blockquote][/quote] So far, the local media has done a half-decent job on reporting this one; so I was going to leave it at that. But it seems necessary to clarify some things and point out others that they have missed. This might also be useful to those who seem to think that the prosecutor is changing or wants to change the charges or whatever. It is not the case that the prosecutor "wants the judges to include new elements"; nor is it the case that she "wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues". First, it is not correct to state that the Bensouda wants the judges to allow her to add charges, change modes of liability, etc. What she has done is make two types of filings. One of these consists of "observations", and "observations" alone of how individual criminal responsibility may be characterized. This has been done in both cases: icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436787.pdfwww.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436934.pdfThese submissions are made in respect of a regulation that allows the judges to re-characterize the charges, modes of liability, etc. She is, in effect, telling the judges that this is something they may have to do; she is not asking that she herself be allowed to do so. The only specific requests in these filings, it is that the chamber give notice as to the possibility and to give notice that it may differ from the pre-trial chamber. The significant aspect of these filings is what, essentially, they ask the judges to consider: "ordering, soliciting or inducing" and "aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting". For good measure, there is the catch-all "contributing in any other way". It is important to note that any actual re-characterization by the chamber is likely happen only after all (or a very substantial portion) of the evidence had been presented. Second, a similar but more specific request for notice has been made in the Uhuru-Muthaura case: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436956.pdfThe specifics here concern the characterization of penile amputation as "sexual violence", rather than "inhumane act", and the inclusion, somewhere of looting and destruction of property. The first is very significant in that criminal courts generally tend to view sexual violence as worse than other forms of violence and so punish it more severely. The second is something that the victims have been asking for for quite some time; Ocampo did not do anything about that, but Bensouda is trying. Sureta Chana has also repeated her requests in that regard: www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1426649.pdfSo it seems highly likely that the chamber will consider doing something about it. [/quote] Thanks for this summary. Just today over lunch, a friend mulled possibility that Bensouda's evidence folder (on the BOSS and Mutha) was thin; thus what he termed "these belated filings" by the OTP. All I need to do in rebuttal is forward this response (above) from you. The misinterpretation of Bensouda's filings has been made by many thus far; from Ruto during a recent talk show (Cheche), sections of media, and even some debators here in JUKWAA. What others may consider a 'desperate' move by the OTP could in fact turn out to be the midas touch for a sure conviction. I think a lot of folks aren't also aware that actual re-characterization may only be granted long after substantial evidence has been presented. The significant aspect of these filings is what, essentially, they ask the judges to consider: "ordering, soliciting or inducing" and "aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting". For good measure, there is the catch-all "contributing in any other way".
It is important to note that any actual re-characterization by the chamber is likely happen only after all (or a very substantial portion) of the evidence had been presented.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 7, 2012 0:38:45 GMT 3
Job: What Bensouda has done may be viewed by some as premature, in that the judges will not formally re-characterize anything until they have gone through a great deal of the evidence. But to my mind, it is quite smart, in that the judges will now have to think about it right from the git-go; they will hardly serve the sought notices and then forget about them.
As I see it the real service of notice is on the judges. Bensouda is basically saying "regardless of what is on the charge sheets, you will have to consider these other factors". I can't see how and why they would now not do that, even if they do not---which is somewhat unlikely---issue the requested notices.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jul 8, 2012 17:07:24 GMT 3
As we await the judges' decision on the trial dates which should be public by the time the ICC goes into recess (14 July), here is a warning about threats to witnesses that just landed in my inbox. One of them is very specific and concerns a forum called BIKAP Nandi county. Does anyone know of this forum? Press Release Concerns over security of potential witnesses and victims ad Trial Chambers of ICC set to issue day of Trials against Accused 4 Sunday July 8, 2012 In the next few days or hours the Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Court deliver ruling on the day for beginning of trials against for accused individuals namely Uhuru Kenyatta, Francis Muthaura, Joshua Sang and William Ruto for crimes against humanity. Security of witnesses is the cornerstone for justice. Their testimonies is indispensable not only to the International Criminal Court but also to the national courts. By accepting to volunteer and provide information and evidence, they play essential role in contributing to justice, form core basis for courts’ judgments and reveal truth about the crimes committed. In this regard, the witnesses and their immediate families who stand up for the truth are owed reliable and durable support and protection. International Center for Policy and Conflict remain however concerned about security and safety of potential witnesses, victims and intermediaries. Witnesses are key players in fair justice system. Without obtaining cooperation and availability of victims and witnesses in order to provide crucial information and evidence will adversely affect credibility of prosecutions and hence undermine justice delivery. It has come to our attention that in the last couple of months, there are increasing incidents of a section of the Accused 4 using social media and other subtle means to issue intimidating and threatening messages against perceived witnesses and/or collaborators of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Some of the accused individuals are using the information and communication technology to aggravate threats and coordinated their illicit operations. Such threats are being deliberately ‘coded’ and presented as historical and cultural sins that sections of Kenyan communities committed and that need cleansing. They are being issued through forums presented as political discussion groups drawing memberships from persons coming from hotspots of the 2007/08 PEV. Communities in the Rift Valley and Central have been particularly targeted. We wish to indicate that the International Center for Policy and Conflict is systematically, and continuously monitored these incidents and report s. It is evidently clear some of the accused persons and their supporters may be expressly violating terms issued by the ICC by openly threatening victims of PEV and perceived ICC witnesses. In particular, in the last few days we are aware one of the accused person and supporters through a forum called BIKAP NANDI COUNTY (people of Nandi) has consistently issued threats and profiled persons they perceive to be ‘betrayers’ of the community for allegedly ‘cooperating’ with the ICC. These threats and profiling are tantamount to abuse of due process of law. They are expressly in violation the terms issued by the ICC to the accused persons.In confirming the charges against the four suspects, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II extended the conditions imposed on the suspects, which include that they desist from hate speech and contact with potential witnesses and victims of PEV. By openly naming individuals and issuing threatening messages, the accused persons and their supporters are therefore in violation of these conditions. We accordingly call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions and International Criminal Court to launch immediate investigations on these groups in the social media with a view to bringing criminal prosecutions against those who are improperly using ICC prosecution to threaten victims and those they consider witnesses in the name of ‘cleansing’ their respective “ communities� of “traitors� and “thorns� . We recall that it was overlooking of these ‘minor’ incidents that exacerbated the 2007/08 violence. We also urge the Office of Attorney General to intensify witnesses’ protection programme so as to cover this group. Meanwhile, as an institution, ICPC reiterates its commitment to the course of justice for Post-election violence victims. We are urging the government to take appropriate steps and fast-track the prosecution of the middle and lower suspects who are still looming large and remain destabilizing elements. The government has to give true meaning to complementarity principle of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court without further delay. We appreciate alot of ground is yet to be travelled to transform the criminal justice system in order to gain full trust and confidence among Kenyans to handle such sensitive cases but the successful prosecution of two cases related to post-election violence in recent past is sufficient prove that with will prosecution of the lower and middle is possible. Signed Ndung’u Wainaina Executive Director This press release is so new that it is not yet up on the ICPC website. But once it gets published there you should be able to find it here. www.icpcafrica.org/index.php/news-a-events.html________________________________________[/i]
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on Jul 8, 2012 23:08:45 GMT 3
Job, Otishotish;
On the re-characterisation, here is how i see it. If you enter and a house and rape a woman, tearing her nighties and muffling her protest; and you are subsequently arrested and charged with rape. That is fine. You will go to hell. However, the very same evidence and witnesses can be used to charge you with breaking and entering, trespass, assault among other charges. No new witnesses, no new evidence required.
Normally, in many judicial systems a judge can look at the evidence, see a crime that the prosecution did not verbalise or 'characterise' and proceed to find you culpable. Sometimes in the course of trial, you can commit a crime that the judge sees (such as contempt or perjury or even assault if you attack a witness) and you are sentenced on the spot. But Bensouda is making it easy by drawing attention to the large number of crimes possible when they thugs were in a free-for all.
I could be wrong.
Perhaps this is clever prosecution strategy to send the defence on a wild goose chase while keeping the really deadly cards concealed. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jul 9, 2012 0:46:26 GMT 3
Job, Otishotish;On the re-characterisation, here is how i see it. If you enter and a house and rape a woman, tearing her nighties and muffling her protest; and you are subsequently arrested and charged with rape. That is fine. You will go to hell. However, the very same evidence and witnesses can be used to charge you with breaking and entering, trespass, assault among other charges. No new witnesses, no new evidence required. Normally, in many judicial systems a judge can look at the evidence, see a crime that the prosecution did not verbalise or 'characterise' and proceed to find you culpable. Sometimes in the course of trial, you can commit a crime that the judge sees (such as contempt or perjury or even assault if you attack a witness) and you are sentenced on the spot. But Bensouda is making it easy by drawing attention to the large number of crimes possible when they thugs were in a free-for all. I could be wrong. Perhaps this is clever prosecution strategy to send the defence on a wild goose chase while keeping the really deadly cards concealed. We shall see. Roughrider: Yes, ideally the re-characterisation would not involve any new witnesses, new evidence, etc. Nevertheless, the ICC, in the event of a re-characterisation, does allow the accused to call new witnesses, present new evidence, etc. but it limits the chamber as to how far it can go with respect to the facts and charges. Also, unlike the example you mention in your first paragraph, where it would be the prosecutor bringing new charges, here it would essentially be the judges. There is also the requirement that some evidence---by implication a substantial amount---will have been presented. Lastly, in many a a "normal" jurisdiction, there would be quite a few constraints to a judge considering charges that the prosecutor had not considered---even if the judge did "see a crime that the prosecution did not verbalise or 'characterise'". (The examples you give are "offences against the court" and so fall into a different category from those in your first paragraph.) Regulation 55: Authority of the Chamber to modify the legal characterisation of facts2. If, at any time during the trial, it appears to the Chamber that the legal characterisation of facts may be subject to change, the Chamber shall give notice to the participants of such a possibility and having heard the evidence, shall, at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, give the participants the opportunity to make oral or written submissions. The Chamber may suspend the hearing to ensure that the participants have adequate time and facilities for effective preparation or, if necessary, it may order a hearing to consider all matters relevant to the proposed change.
3. For the purposes of sub-regulation 2, the Chamber shall, in particular, ensure that the accused shall: .... (b) If necessary, be given the opportunity to examine again, or have examined again, a previous witness, to call a new witness or to present other evidence admissible under the Statute in accordance with article 67, paragraph 1 (e).You may be interested in what happened in the Lubanga case when the Trial Chamber issued a notice that was in some ways similar* to the sort the OTP is requesting. (*What the OTP is asking for is more like a notice of a notice.) www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc790147.pdfI don't think Bensouda is sending anyone on a wild goose-chase. I think that she wants three things: First, to make sure that after the details of the crimes have been presented, the judges do get these guys on something---on the basis of what they actually did---and not allow them to escape on some technicality to do with how their charge-sheet is currently framed. Second, by doing things so early, I imagine she wants to avoid the sorts of problems that arose in the Lubanga case. Third, whether or not the judges issue the notice, they will all the while be thinking about the re-characterisation; my bet/best-guess is that they will initially decline to issue the reqested notice but that they will definitely do so at some point and then proceed with the re-charaterisation.
|
|
|
Post by commes on Jul 9, 2012 10:29:37 GMT 3
These ICC characters are proving every passing day that they have their own hollywood at the Hague. After running around like headless chickens eti oh we have the evidence and want to make the Kenyan case an example, now they are all over the map trying to justify their cases. Mara oh we want to recharacterize Ruto case, mara we want to reframe Uhuru and Muthaura's responsibility and actions etc. This Bensouda fellow has started on a very wrong footing, or is that she inherited a very flawed case? In the case of Uhuru and Muthaura, how can one even contemplate placing such a responsibility to individuals who are not Mungiki themselves, leave alone being its leaders? This just goes to prove the fact that tge court has a predetermined outcome and is only looking for a way to arrive at that outcome. My friend...... Is this not clutching at straws?........
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Dec 21, 2012 4:42:59 GMT 3
ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda wants the judges to include new elements to make it easier to prove the case against Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and former Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura. In a technical move, Bensouda filed an application on Tuesday that the mode of criminal liability against the Uhuru and Muthaura should be stretched to accept three elements previously not included by the Pre Trial Chamber. The ICC Prosecutor wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues by which the court can find them guilty of crimes against humanity. The prosecutor in the Special Court for Sierra Leone found former Liberian leader Charles Taylor guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes after similar adjustments. Bensouda has also asked the trial judges to reduce the elements of “indirect co-perpetration” agreed by the Pre Trial Chamber.. [/blockquote][/quote] So far, the local media has done a half-decent job on reporting this one; so I was going to leave it at that. But it seems necessary to clarify some things and point out others that they have missed. This might also be useful to those who seem to think that the prosecutor is changing or wants to change the charges or whatever. It is not the case that the prosecutor "wants the judges to include new elements"; nor is it the case that she "wants the court to allow her to introduce many avenues". First, it is not correct to state that the Bensouda wants the judges to allow her to add charges, change modes of liability, etc. What she has done is make two types of filings. One of these consists of "observations", and "observations" alone of how individual criminal responsibility may be characterized. This has been done in both cases: icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436787.pdfwww.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1436934.pdfThese submissions are made in respect of a regulation that allows the judges to re-characterize the charges, modes of liability, etc. She is, in effect, telling the judges that this is something they may have to do; she is not asking that she herself be allowed to do so. The only specific requests in these filings, it is that the chamber give notice as to the possibility and to give notice that it may differ from the pre-trial chamber. The significant aspect of these filings is what, essentially, they ask the judges to consider: "ordering, soliciting or inducing" and "aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting". For good measure, there is the catch-all "contributing in any other way". It is important to note that any actual re-characterization by the chamber is likely happen only after all (or a very substantial portion) of the evidence had been presented.[/quote] I just had dinner with some compatriots. A couple of them produced (in a most excited fashion) a newspaper report quoting Evans Monari, to the effect that our local villains might get off on the basis of the dissenting opinion. I'll skip the bit about how this is just the opinion of one judge. But I thought I would revisit this thread and point out a couple of things: 1. Muthaura, Uhuru, and Ruto are all charged under Article 25(3)(a): [Individual] commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;2. Sang is charged under the catch-all Article 25(3)(d): [Individual] in any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. 3. Last month the court separated the previously joint case of Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo, both of whom had been charged under 25(3)(a). It also did something especially significant, which is in this statement: "In the view of the Majority, Mr Katanga’s liability must henceforth be considered on the basis of article 25(3)(d) of the Statute (complicity in the commission of a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose) and no longer solely on the basis of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute (commission of a crime in the form of indirect co-perpetration)."(I think Katanga may be in hotter soup that his friend who just got acquitted, although he too may be helped by lying and forgteful witnesses. We'll find out in a couple of months.) I believe that something like (3) will happen in the Kenyan cases, but, of course, we won't know for a few years. I won't be suprised if, on the basis of the dissenting opinion in the DRC, the lawyers for the Kenay villains tried to eat extra, but that's ultimately a dead end.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Jan 3, 2013 0:18:09 GMT 3
Mwalimu, we could go back and forth on this until the oceans run dry. So, here it is: there is no stopping the ICC train. Unless there is something you think you can do about it, for your peace of mind, I encourage you to move on.another alternative is to encourage the consiglieri , one Muthaura, to do what 'brothers' in the Mafia family did. Maintain the 'honor' by not rat'ting' but by committing suicide. In The Godfather: Part II, does Michael bring Frankie Pentangeli's brother to the Senate hearing as a threat (like he'd kill the brother if Frankie squeals) or to shame Pentangeli (as in the brother is a serious, old school gangster from Sicily who'd never rat and his younger brother better not). Of course, the line between "shame" and "threat" is certainly a fine one--as the source of his family's shame, Pentangeli's own life (in Godfather) would have been under threat, and presumably any member of a shamed family would be regarded as an infamia by other mob families (to draw a parallel from another mob film, it's reminiscent of how Tommy justifies shooting Spider in Goodfellas--"his whole family is rats, he'd grow up to be a rat.") I always thought it was a threat. Michael was demonstrating to Frankie that he was putting his entire family in jeopardy, not just in the US but in Italy as well. The brother had no idea what was actually going on. The fact that Frankie's conversation with Tom is all about seeing that his family is taken care of if he commits suicide also indicates that Frankie knew what the deal was if he did not. so consiglieri M is destined to die rather than rat or as the headline says ' Muthaura Should Cut ICC Deal'
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 3, 2013 3:03:07 GMT 3
Podp: I love those Godfather movies and have watched all of them several times, especially the first one. But I'm glad they stopped when they did: by III the ideas were obviously running out. Anyway ... back to Our Man. He's had a full life--fame, fortune, and ... now, a bit of misfortune. He probably could, or could be persuaded, to take a bullet for the "Greater Good". Maybe The Devils that recently conned Uhuru could work on him---convince him that the best path is for him to drag this out as long as possible, thereby having a few more years, and then "do the right thing". The "dragging out" should be easy, given that he keeps giving the ICC hints of stress, ill health, etc. The part about taking care of his family should be easy: The Devils have already proved their "worth"; for example, just take a look at the rapid rise his favourite son. "Mzee, you've had you time and your share. Kamwana might be a little too fond of recreational substances, but he's an Owner, and the people will go with him. Remember when you started in the senior civil service? That workshop on 'succession planning'? Well. we've planned it. So, therefore." That's what I imagine The Devils saying. "Interesting" footnote: Last year, just as the Ambassador was getting into very hot soup over there at the Hague, he got hot with a new website. The website proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is one heck of a guy. (No mention of unfriendly annoyances, such as the ICC.) Anway ... the decision to confirm charges seem to have taken a bit of wind out of the sails of the webmaster. www.muthaura.co.ke/index.htmlThe original story-line: Great and Humble man. Servant Of The People, first and last and always. As proved by these here links and photos. Caught in mindless mayhem, takes a stray bullet. Bleeds. Hyenas follow scent of blood and pounce. Hero escapes.With the confirmation of charges, the webmaster is (since early 2012) awaiting a new story-line. So are we.
|
|