Recent Court Documents in the 2 ICC Kenya Cases 10 September 2013

The Ruto/Sang Trial Chamber issued its trial directions on the following:

  1. Opening Statements
  2. Procedure for reading of charges
  3. Procedure of objections during proceedings
  4. Duration of Prosecution case
  5. Scheduling of Prosecution witnesses
  6. Examination of witnesses
  7. Use of Documents during Witness examination
  8. Introduction of evidence through a witness
  9. ‘Bar Table’ Applications
  10. Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony
  11. Self Incrimination
  12. Protective Measures
  13. Agreed Facts
  14. No Case to Answer Motion
  15. Site Visits
  16. Transcripts of Hearings

Subsequent to this decision, the OTP revised its time estimates for presenting its evidence.

The William Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang filed declarations stating that they understood the charges against them.

The Ruto Defence, in light of the Appeal Decision granting Suspensive Effect, asked that the court hold sittings in the format of ‘2 weeks on, 2 weeks off’ in order to ensure that Ruto is present at all times, but to also allow him to juggle his duties as Deputy President with his obligations to cooperate with the court. In her reply, the Prosecutor said she did not object to the application provided witnesses are allowed to complete their testimony before the 2 week breaks begin. She also suggested that ‘3 weeks on, 3 weeks off’ might be more appropriate for efficiency. The Common Legal Representative supported this view.

The Pre-Trial Chamber, through Judge Trendafilova rejected the Prosecutor’s request to amend the charges to extend the temporal scope of the crimes alleged in the greater Eldoret area from ‘1 January to 4 January 2008′ to ’30 December 2007 to 4 January 2008’.  The Prosecutor made the application confidentially several months ago; it has now been re-classified as a public document. The PTC went further and criticized the Prosecutor for inefficiency and lack of diligence that led to the request being filed- noting that she delayed the request for nearly 7 months. The judge felt that the Defence had insufficient notice and she could not assume that they would be adequately prepared to meet the new temporal elements just a few weeks before trial begins.

Pursuant to the Trial Chamber’s order, The Prosecutor, Defence and Victims filed their submissions on the Conduct of Proceedings in the Kenyatta Case.

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Following the Hague trials of 4 Kenyans to the end. A blog by Archie Nyarango

UK Constitutional Law Association

affiliated to the International Association of Constitutional Law

AfricLaw

Advancing the rule and role of law in Africa

%d bloggers like this: