On July 262010, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) found Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, making him the first Khmer Rouge defendant to be brought to justice. Duch, who ran the infamous Tuol Sleng prison camp in Phnom Penh, is the only senior Khmer Rouge member, so far, to admit his guilt.
He was sentenced to 35 years in prison, shortened to 19 years because of time already served in prison and in compensation for a period of illegal detention by a military court in Cambodia.
The full judgment is available here. The dissenting opinion of Judge Lavergne is available here.
The verdict has prompted appeals from both the Co-Prosecutors and Duch’s lawyers, and has sparked worldwide opinion, analysis and debate.
Prosecutors seek to increase Duch prison sentence
The Office of the Co-Prosecutors had originally sought a 40-year sentence so it is of no surprise that they filed an appeal on the 16 August 2010. The appeal states that the sentence handed down to Duch is “arbitrary and manifestly inadequate and … outside the range of sentences available to the Trial Chamber..” Prosecutors have identified three grounds for appeal arising from errors of law regarding sentencing discretion, cumulative convictions and enslavement.
Duch’s lawyers also filed an appeal before the Trial chamber on the 24 August 2010 against the single prison sentence of 35 years. The appeal concludes by asking the Supreme Court chamber to set aside the Trial Chamber Judgment in its entirety and to acquit Duch. Click here to read the full appeal.
Ahead of this appeal, Duch had recently appointed a new lawyer, Kang Ritheary to represent him. His decision to dismiss his international co-counsel, Maitre Francois Roux, in early July after sending a letter to ECCC President Nil Nonn, resulted from his lack of confidence in the French lawyer.
Duch’s position has been inconsistent in the past. In March 2009, he accepted responsibility and apologized for this conduct. He admitted guilt and asked Cambodian people to condemn him to the “harshest punishment” for their sorrow and suffering. Yet on the final day of trial, he asked for a full acquittal and release. His Co-Defenders adopted differing stances during the closing arguments, Kar Savuth asking for acquittal and Roux for clemency.
Duch sentencing raises questions of justice (or lack thereof)
As aforementioned, 67 year old Duch now faces just under 19 years in prison. This sentencing has raised responses across a wide spectrum of opinion from human rights groups, court observers and the Cambodian and international media.
Some, particularly victims, condemn what is seen as an inadequate sentence. Others, in particular the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, congratulate the tribunal on delivery of the verdict and the good example that it sets for domestic courts. The reduction in sentence due to illegal detention in Cambodia is seen as a positive thing and a reminder of the “universality of human rights.” This is particularly significant in a country long mired by human rights abuses in the justice system.
Human Rights Watch have called it “an important step in the search for justice for the victims of the Khmer Rouge” and significant in that there is finally accountability for Duch’s crimes. One senses overall that despite its shortcomings and criticisms, the verdict is symbolic and an important milestone on the road to closure for Cambodia.
To read some of the reactions, click the links below.
Amid the debate swirling around the Duch sentencing, Irish photojournalist and author Nic Dunlop has written an interesting article regarding his discovery of Duch in the Cambodian jungle in 1999. Click here for the article.
Duch verdict to be distributed nationally
On 5th August, the ECCC began production of 5,000 printed copies of the entire Duch judgment and 17,000 copies of the judgment summary in Khmer language. The publications are to be distributed to the public free of charge. Mr. Reach Sambath, Head of Public Affairs at the ECCC stated that the purpose is to ensure that Cambodians understand the genuine importance of the trials and to make sure that the focus is not solely on the length of prison sentence handed down to Duch. The official press release is available here.
The verdict was also formally recognized at a verdict distribution ceremony at Kandal Provincial Court, neighbouring province to Phnom Penh. Mr. Huot Heang, a judge, said that he was optimistic that the printed copies of the verdict would play an important role in re-enforcing the reform of Cambodia’s justice system and would serve as an important reference point for better understanding of the judicial system and improved case handling. The press release is available here.
Case Number Two:
Genocide Indictment sought in Case 002
On the 16 August, the Co-Prosecutors filed their Final Submission in Case 002 with the Co-Investigating Judges. In the submission, they have formally requested the indictment of Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and violations of the 1956 Cambodian Penal Code. The document is an extensive summary of the relevant facts, 931 pages, in support of the Co-Prosecutors’ allegations, which are legally characterised by both the type of crimes committed and the nature of the Charged Persons’ participation in those crimes.
The statement from Co-Prosecutors is available here.
Co-Investigating Judges release the first decisions regarding admissibility of Civil Parties in Case 002
Co-Investigating Judges Marcel Lemonde and You Bunleng have begun to issue decisions regarding the large volume of Civil Party applications in the second case file facing the ECCC. There have been 3988 applications to join Case 002 as Civil Parties. To be admissible as Civil Parties, victims must show that they have suffered personal injury directly connected to one of the specific facts that the Co-Prosecutors have sent for investigation in their introductory and supplementary submissions.
To see the official press release, please click here.
In a Decision rendered during the court recess, ICTY President Robinson, denied early release to Momčilo Krajišnik. Krajišnik, who has been serving his sentence in the UK since September 2009, would have been eligible for release there on 2 April 2010, having served half of his 20 year sentence (including time served during trial and appeal proceedings). Judge Robinson’s finding was that:
“While Mr. Krajisnik has displayed some evidence of rehabilitation, I am of the view that there remain significant factors that weigh against granting him early release. Mr. Krajisnik’s crimes are of a very high gravity, involving a widespread displacement of the non-Serb population in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which caused great suffering. Moreover, in respect of the requirement that the President shall take into account the treatment of similarly-situated prisoners, the practice of the Tribunal is to consider the eligibility of a convicted person only after he has served two-thirds of his sentence; therefore, the fact that Mr. Krajisnik has only recently completed serving half of his sentence does not weigh in favour of his early release.”
Two Week Adjournment in Karadzic Trial
On Friday last, the Trial Chamber granted a two week adjournment in the Karadžić Trial. This break in proceedings is to give the Accused time to review new disclosure by the Prosecution – audio and video cassettes and CDs seized from the Belgrade residence of Bosiljka Mladić, wife of General Ratko Mladic. In granting the motion for an adjournment, the Chamber found that:
There is no suggestion made by the Accused that the Prosecution acted inappropriately or with any delay in its disclosure to him of the cassettes and CDs, which are discussed in the Motion. Indeed, he acknowledges that there is no “fault” on the part of the Prosecution in the recent discovery of the material seized from the Mladić residence. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a substantial quantity of material, which may include potentially exculpatory evidence, was provided to the Accused on 4 and 6 August 2010. While a detailed index to that material prepared by the Serbian authorities may have been provided to the Accused, which would suggest which tapes he should initially focus his attention upon, such an index cannot substitute for his own detailed review of all the material (no doubt also being conducted by the Prosecution) so that the Accused can be satisfied as to the nature of its content and whether it contains anything exculpatory or otherwise important for his defence.
…..
The Chamber is also not satisfied that continuing with the trial proceedings, and allowing the Accused to later recall certain witnesses for further cross-examination following his review of the seized material, if necessary, is sufficient, in this instance, to ensure his fair trial rights. Moreover, it will not be, in practical terms, conducive to the smooth conduct of the trial.
Investigation into Prosecution Misconduct Ordered in Seselj Case
The Trial Chamber in the Seselj Case has ordered the appointment of an amicus curiae to “investigate possible intimidation or pressure, albeit indirect, exerted by certain investigators for the Prosecution in this case and to investigate techniques used by these investigators to obtain preliminary written statements from witnesses, particularly insofar as concerns” certain persons who have testified or may potentially testify.
The order comes about as a result of complaints made by the accused, including a motion for contempt against prosecutors Carla Del Ponte, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Daniel Saxon, of 23 March 2007. A decision on that motion had been stayed until the end of the Trial. The Chamber now reconsiders that stay, noting that since the trial began, certain witnesses, when testifying before the Chamber, referred to pressure or to attempts to intimidate to which they were subjected by investigators for the Prosecution as well as to irregularities during their preliminary interviews by the Prosecution.
As outlined in the Decision, the Chamber finds that the testimony of these witnesses, and other material received since the start of trial, constitute new facts that justify reconsideration of the Stay and that it is necessary for the Chamber to be seized sua sponte of the Motion for Contempt at this stage of the proceedings, without waiting for proceedings to conclude, out of concern for the expeditious conduct of the trial and in order to have a clear glimpse of the grievances alleged by the Accused, based on the findings of the amicus curiae.
Closing Arguments Next Week in Gotovina et al
Closing arguments in the case of Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač will he held from Monday 30 August to Thursday 2 September. The Prosecution has been allotted six hours to deliver its closing arguments, and the three Defence teams will each have two and a half hours. The Prosecution will then have one hour for rebuttal arguments, and the Defence will have one hour for their rejoinder.
According to Bangladeshi media, two detained leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami have petitioned the High Court to revoke the first amendment to the constitution that enabled the establishment of the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). They are also also seeking the repeal of some sections of the International Crimes Tribunal Act, as inconsistent with the constitution.
The ICT was established to try those accused of committing war crimes during the 1971 liberation war, in which Bangladeshi forces gained independence from Pakistan. Jamaat are suspected of having collaborated with Pakistani forces during the war. Arrest warrants for four Jamaat leaders were issued in July, they have since been arrested and appeared before the ICT on 2 August 2010 on charges of committing crimes against humanity. They are assistant secretaries general Mohammad Kamaruzzaman and Abdul Quader Molla, Jamaat chief Matiur Rahman Nizami and secretary general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed. They are being detained until further order from the court.
A free database of customary IHL rules and practice is now available online courtesy of the ICRC. It provides an online, user-friendly version of the ICRC study on customary IHL published by Cambridge University Press in 2005. The ICRC press release is pasted below:
New legal database launched to enhance protection for war victims
Geneva (ICRC) – To mark the 12 August anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is launching a new database of the organization’s major study of customary international humanitarian law.
Developed in association with the British Red Cross, the database is designed to be used as a legal reference in international and non-international armed conflicts, including by courts, tribunals and international organizations. As one of the principal sources of international humanitarian law, customary law enhances the legal protection of victims of armed conflict.
“The majority of armed conflicts are non-international, and current treaty law doesn’t regulate them in sufficient detail. Customary law therefore provides men, women and children caught up in such conflicts with essential protection. Respect for customary law reduces the human cost of conflict,” said Jean-Marie Henckaerts, the ICRC’s head of project for customary law. “The new database is a significant step towards ensuring that the rules of customary international humanitarian law and the practice underlying them are easily accessible.”
Customary international humanitarian law is a set of unwritten rules derived from a general, or common, practice which is regarded as law. It is the basic standard of conduct in armed conflict accepted by the world community and is universally applicable. In contrast to treaty law, it is not necessary for a State to formally accept a rule of custom in order to be bound by it, as long as the overall State practice on which the rule is based is widespread, representative and virtually uniform.
“The formation of customary international humanitarian law is a dynamic process,” continued Mr Henckaerts. The new database provides a means of following developments in the application and interpretation of the law. It facilitates reflection and discussion and contributes to further clarification of the law.
The new customary international humanitarian law database features 50 per cent more content than the original study – a printed version would run to more than 8,000 pages. Divided into two parts, the first includes 161 rules which the original study assessed to be of customary nature. The second part contains the practice on which the conclusions in part one are based. The database offers practitioners and academics easy access to the rules of customary international humanitarian law identified in the ICRC study and gives them the opportunity to investigate underlying practice by means of three search parameters: subject matter, type of practice and country.
The database also contains new international materials, in particular international case law and United Nations material up until the end of 2007. As the formation of customary international humanitarian law is an ongoing process, regular updates, including of national practice, will be provided on the basis of contributions by ICRC delegations and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which will be processed by a team of lawyers based at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.
Since its publication in 2005, the ICRC study of customary international humanitarian law has been used as a legal reference in connection with international and non-international armed conflicts such as those in Israel and the occupied territories, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia and Sri Lanka. The ICRC uses the study in its dialogue with parties to conflict in order to identify rules by which combatants or parties must abide. The study has also been used by the United Nations, international and mixed criminal courts and tribunals, national courts and non-governmental organizations. For example, on the basis of practice collected by the study, the Special Court for Sierra Leone concluded that the recruitment of child soldiers is a war crime in non-international armed conflicts, thus enhancing the protection for children against being recruited and used as child soldiers.
In a controversial decision, the ICTY Appeals Chamber (Judge Robinson dissenting) partially quashed the acquittals of Ramush Haradinaj (Kosovo’s ex-Prime Minister and former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA), Idriz Balaj (former KLA member of commander of the Black Eagles), and Lahi Brahimaj (former deputy commander of the KLA Dukagjin Operative Staff). The Appeals Chamber ordered a partial re-trial of the case, although no details were provided as to when that would take place and before which Trial Chamber.
Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj were acquitted on 3 April 2008 for insufficient evidence of a joint criminal enterprise to consolidate total KLA control of the Dukagjin area through the unlawful removal and mistreatment of civilians who were perceived to be collaborating with Serb forces. Haradinaj and Balaj were acquitted of all alternative charges but Brahimaj was found guilty of torture and sentenced to six years imprisonment.
The majority judgment (Judges Meron, Pocar, Vaz, Daqun) ruled that the Trial Chamber erred by refusing the Prosecution’s requests for additional time to exhaust all reasonable steps to secure the testimony of two witnesses and ordering the close of the Prosecution case before such reasonable steps could be taken. The majority stated that the Trial Chamber “failed to appreciate the gravity of the threat that witness intimidation posed to the trial’s integrity” which “undermined the fairness of the proceedings as guaranteed by the Statute and Rules and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
The Appeals Chamber rejected the Prosecution’s other two grounds of appeal by upholding Balaj’s acquittal for aiding and abetting the murder of three women, and for the rape, cruel treatment and torture of a female victim.
Presiding Judge Robinson issued a strongly worded dissent focusing on the proper limits of the trial and appellate functions. Paragraph 32 reads:
“The Majority Opinion constitutes an overstepping by the Appeals Chamber of its boundaries, and in doing so, confuses the appellate with the trial function. This is a dangerous precedent, which militates against the proper discharge by the Tribunal of its mandate to try persons for serious breaches of international humanitarian law.”
Judge Robinson disagreed with the majority for three reasons:
The Trial Chamber was sensitive to the importance of both witnesses’ testimony for the Prosecution’s case and the general atmosphere of fear and intimidation of witnesses by extending the case three times, and remaining open to the possibility of granting a further extension upon a showing by the Prosecution of a dramatic change in circumstances.
The majority opinion amounts to “a substitution of its own discretion for the discretion exercised by the Trial Chamber, and that can only be done where a discernible error on the part of the Trial Chamber can be demonstrated.” No error was demonstrated for the same reasons listed above.
By prioritizing the Prosecution’s right to present its case through these witnesses over the right of the accused to an expeditious trial, the majority “wrongly interpreted the relationship between Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute, completely ignoring the fact that the rights enumerated under Article 20 are to be applied “with full respect for the rights of the accused” under Article 21(4)”.
Idriz Balaj is represented by ICLB members Gregor Guy-Smith and Colleen Rohan.
A summary and the full text of the Appeals Judgement is below, along with other links:
Following its decision, dated 8 July, 2010, imposing an unconditional stay on the proceedings of the case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today, 15 July, ordered the release of the accused. According to the judges, an accused cannot be held in preventative custody on a speculative basis, namely that at some stage in the future the proceedings may be resurrected.
However the order will not be implemented with immediate effect. “This order shall not be enforced until the five day time limit for an appeal has expired”, stated presiding Judge Adrian Fulford in a hearing today. “If an appeal is filed within the five day time limit against this order granting release, and if a request is made to suspend its effect, the accused shall not leave detention until the Appeals Chamber has resolved whether this order granting release is to be suspended”, Judge Fulford continued. The Chamber also noted that an order releasing the accused shall only be put into effect after arrangements have been made for his transfer to a State that is obliged to receive him. In its oral decision, Trial Chamber I also granted the Prosecutor’s 15 July application for leave to appeal the decision to stay the proceedings.
The Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC has issued a second warrant of arrest against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, adding genocide to the charges against him. The Pre-Trial chamber considers, according to the ICC press-release, “that there are reasonable grounds to believe him responsible for three counts of genocide committed against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, that include: genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.”
This second arrest warrant does not replace or revoke the first warrant against al-Bashir , issued on 4 March, 2009. In that warrant, the Chamber considered “that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Al Bashir is criminally responsible for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape) and two counts for war crimes (intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, and pillaging).”
The Pre-Trial Chamber had previously rejected the Prosecutor’s application to add the crime of genocide. The Prosecution appealed this Decision, and, on 3 February, 2010, the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal, reversing the Pre-Trial Chamber decision. It referred the matter back to the Pre-Trial Chamber, so it could to decide anew whether or not the arrest warrant should be extended to cover the charge of genocide.
For further analysis and commentary follow the links below:
For the first time in ICTY history, an Appeals Judgement will be reviewed in the case of Veselin Šljivančanin. The ICTY has seen eleven previous applications filed by the Defence or the Prosecution (one case) and each has been rejected.
Today’s decision of the Appeals Chamber (Judge Meron, Presiding, Judge Guney, Judge Pocar, Judge Liu, and Judge Vaz) follows Šljivančanin’s public hearing on 3 June 2010 which considered a ‘new fact’ from his unit commander General Miodrag Panić.
Panić testified that he was present during the conversation between Mile Mrkšić and Šljivančanin on 20 November 1991, and that Mrkšić did not tell Šljivančanin about any order to withdraw the JNA protection for the prisoners of war at Ovčara. According to the Appeals Chamber, this information could, if proved, “fundamentally alter the balance of evidence relating to this case, eliminating the basis for the Mrkšić and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement’s conclusion that Šljivančanin possessed the mens rea for aiding and abetting murder.”
The Appeals Chamber further stated while this new fact was discoverable through due diligence, review is “necessary because the impact of the Panić New Fact, if proved, is such that to ignore it would lead to a miscarriage of justice.”
This echoes the Barayagwiza Review Decision of the ICTR which granted the Prosecutor’s Application for Review even though the facts “could have been discovered”, citing the decisive nature of the new fact and the “possible miscarriage of justice”.
The Review Hearing will allow the parties to provide supporting and rebuttal evidence concerning the new fact.
As reported on the ICLB blog, Šljivančanin has made a number of motions to reopen his case following the Appeals Judgement which quashed his acquittal for aiding and abetting the murder of prisoners of war at Ovčara, and increased his sentence from 5 to 17 years.
The ICLB posted the Bangladesh International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 on the blog and Facebook site 2 weeks ago. That statute applies rules of evidence and procedure which are not part of the regular Bangladesh criminal law.We now post the national rules of procedure and evidence which govern all other criminal trials in that state.
These laws replicate the criminal procedures of England & Wales from the late 19th century and many of which still remain in force in this jurisdiction. Recently, certain laws have been altered (hearsay, bad character etc), but the procedures of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, definitely do not reflect the current laws of England & Wales.
Yesterday, Trial Chamber I of the ICC ordered a stay of proceedings in The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The basis for that stay is that the fair trial of the accused is no longer possible due to non-implementation of the Chamber’s orders by the Prosecution. The judges had previously ordered the Office of the Prosecutor, on the issue of “intermediaries” (persons such as aid-workers who liaise between witnesses and the Prosecution), to confidentially disclose to the Defence the names and other necessary identifying information, of intermediary 143. The Prosecution failed to comply with the Trial Chamber’s order.
Readers may recall that in November 2008, the Chamber also ordered a stay of proceedings due to the Prosecution’s failure to comply with the rules on disclosing exculpatory materials to the Defence.
In yesterday’s Decision, the Chamber held:
27. No criminal court can operate on the basis that whenever it makes an order in a particular area, it is for the Prosecutor to elect whether or not to implement it, depending on his interpretation of his obligations. The judges, not the Prosecutor, decide on protective measures during the trial, once the Chamber is seized of the relevant issue, as regards victims, witnesses and others affected by the work of the Court, and the prosecution cannot choose to ignore its rulings. It is for the Chamber to determine whether protective measures are necessary (following consultation with the VWU under Article 68(4) of the Statute); their nature; and whether they are consistent with the accused’s right to a fair trial. These are issues for the Court, and the Court alone, to determine, having heard submissions and having considered all the information the judges consider necessary and relevant. The Prosecutor now claims a separateauthority which can defeat the orders of the Court, and which thereby involves a profound, unacceptable and unjustified intrusion into the role of the judiciary.
28. The Prosecutor has chosen to prosecute this accused. In the Chamber’s judgment, he cannot be allowed to continue with this prosecution if he seeks to reserve to himself the right to avoid the Court’s orders whenever he decides that they are inconsistent with his interpretation of his other obligations. In order for the Chamber to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, it is necessary that its orders, decisions and rulings are respected, unless and until they are overturned on appeal, or suspended by order of the Court. (…)
31. Therefore, the Prosecutor has elected to act unilaterally in the present circumstances, and he declines to be “checked” by the Chamber. In these overall circumstances, it is necessary to stay these proceedings as an abuse of the process of the Court because of the material non-compliance with the Chamber’s orders of 7 July 2010, and more generally, because of the Prosecutor’s clearly evinced intention not to implement the Chamber’s orders that are made in an Article 68 context, if he considers they conflict with his interpretation of the prosecution’s other obligations. Whilst these circumstances endure, the fair trial of the accused is no longer possible, and justice cannot be done, not least because the judges will have lost control of a significant aspect of the trial proceedings as provided under the Rome Statute framework.
Joseph Nzirorera, an accused in the ongoing Karemera et al. case, passed away in Arusha on 1 July 2010, following sudden complications of a long illness. Nzirorera was former President of the National Assembly and Secretary-General of the Mouvement Républicain pour la Démocratie et le Développement (MRND). He was jointly tried with Edouard Karemera, former Minister of Interior and Vice-President of the MRND and Mathieu Ngirumpatse former Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The defendants are jointly charged with seven counts of conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, genocide, complicity in genocide (as an alternative to genocide), crimes against humanity (rape, extermination) and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II.
Nzirorera was represented by Peter Robinson. His defence case was in its final stages, with his last witness undergoing cross-examination.
On 30 June 2010, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) found Yussuf Munyakazi guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity, and sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment. The Chamber, presided over by Cameroonian Judge Florence Rita Arrey, found that Munyakazi was responsible for “committing”, pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the ICTR Statute, killings against approximately 5,000 Tutsis at Shangi Parish on 29 April 1994 and another group of Tutsis housed at Mibilizi Church on 30 April 1994.
The Judges ruled that, although there was no direct evidence that Munyakazi harboured any animosity towards Tutsis, they could infer on the basis of circumstantial evidence that Munyakazi intended to destroy, in whole or in part, the Tutsi civilian group. The Chamber did not, however, find sufficient evidence to hold that Munyakazi participated in a joint criminal enterprise. It was further ruled that the Prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Munyakazi had recruited and trained Interahamwe, distributed weapons to the Interahamwe, or that he participated in an attack in Nyamasheke Parish on 16 April 1994.
Lead Defence Counsel for Munyakazi, Jwani Mwaikusa and Senior Prosecutor Richard Karegyesa have both indicated that they may appeal against the ruling.
Munyakazi, the father of 13 children with two wives, was arrested in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 5 May 1994. He will remain in custody in the UN Detention Facility in Arusha until his transfer to a country where he will serve his sentence.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone will allow prosecutors to call supermodel Naomi Campbell to testify over a “blood diamond” she was allegedly given by Liberian ex-president Charles Taylor, it said on Wednesday. Actress Mia Farrow can also be called to the stand over claims that Campbell was given the rough diamond by Taylor after a dinner hosted by former South African president Nelson Mandela in September 1997. – http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/war-crimes-prosecutors-cleared-call-naomi-campbell
Former Transavia pilot Julio Poch, of Dutch-Argentinean nationality, will be prosecuted for his role in the ‘death flights’ carried out during Argentina’s last military dictatorship. – http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/node/129041
The world’s first pirate court was opened in the Kenyan port town of Mombasa. Set up with the help of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the high-security courtroom will hear cases of maritime piracy and other serious criminal offences. – http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/pirate-court-opens-kenya
For these and more interesting news stories see here – http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/
Former VRS Assistant Commander Milan Gvero Granted Early Release
Milan Gvero, former Assistant Commander for Morale, Legal and Religious Affairs of the VRS Main Staff, was granted early release yesterday by ICTY President Judge Robinson.
Gvero was indicted together with six other high ranking military and police officers of Republika Srpska for genocide and crimes against humanity for their role in the crimes committed in Srebrenica. In the Popovic et al. judgment delivered on 10 June 2010, Gvero was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
The reasons for Gvero’s early release were as follows:
“In the particular circumstances in the case of Mr Gvero – his very serious health conditions for which immediate treatment is required (in combination with his relatively advanced age) and the fact that he has served over two-thirds of the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Chamber – I am of the view that, based upon humanitarian grounds, it is in the interests of justice to grant him early release, despite the high gravity of his crimes.”
The full text of President Robinson’s decision is available here.
Delic Proceedings Terminated by Appeals Chamber
Yesterday, the Appeals Chamber terminated appellate proceedings in the Rasim Delic case by refusing a motion on continuation of proceedings by Delic’s son. The Appeals Chamber held that Delic’s son “is not and cannot qualify as a party to any existing proceedings before the Tribunal” and therefore “has no standing to submit a motion before the Tribunal.” Delic passed away on 16 March 2010 while on provisional release pending the appeal of the Trial Chamber’s judgement of 15 September 2008.
The former Commander of the Main Staff of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH), Delic was found guilty of failing to prevent and punish one instance of cruel treatment committed by the El Mujahed Detachment, part of the 3rd Corps of the ABiH. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
The Appeals Chamber decision is available here, and commentary on the decision is below:
President Robinson Reports to UN Security Council, Calls for Trust Fund for Victims
ICTY President Robinson, delivered his fourth Completion Strategy report to the Security Council on 18 June 2010. The latest completion strategy report estimates that all first instance trials will be completed by mid-2012, with the exception of that of Radovan Karadžić, which is expected to finish in late 2012. Most appellate work is scheduled to be completed by early 2014.
Robinson highlighted problems with staff attrition and reiterated his call for an ICTY Trust Funds for Victims, stating, “In order to contribute to a lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia, justice must not only be retributive—it must also be restorative.”
The Association of Defence Counsel Practicing before the ICTY (ADC-ICTY) seeks a candidate with an understanding of the work of International Courts and Tribunals and the skills and experience to develop and promote the role of the Defence before the ICTY. The Head of Office reports directly to the Executive Committee of the ADC-ICTY and lends supports the work of the President with a view on tenaciously implementing the abovementioned ADC-ICTY objectives.
If you are interested in this position, please send the following to bvandenberg@icty.org before 2 July 2010:
A curriculum vitae;
A cover letter describing your interest in the position and defence issues;
According the ruling by High Court President Johnston Busingye: “Having referred to all circumstances of the case, and without dwelling further into all the appellant’s physical and mental records, I have sufficient reasons to believe that here is a case of the accused still at the pre-trial phase—you need to have relevant positions because physical and mental health must take precedent in the case in question.”
Reuters has reported that during Erlinder’s bail hearing on Monday, June 14, he retracted all statements which could have violated the country’s anti-genocide laws. According to Rwanda’s Chief Prosecutor Martin Ngoga, “He said during questions that ‘I am retracting my comments, my provocations and anything that you think violates your law.”
Erlinder was arrested for alleged “genocide denial” upon his arrival in Rwanda on June 28 to represent opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire, who herself has been charged with promoting “genocide ideology”. Erlinder had previously been denied bail for failing to provide medical reports linking his ill health to his detention.
Peter Robinson, defence counsel before the ICTR and ICTY, was charged with contempt on June 8 for refusing to examine a witness in his defence of Joseph Nzirorera at the ICTR, in protest of Erlinder’s continued detention. Transcripts, motions and other documents on the contempt proceedings are available at www.peterrobinson.com.
Erlinder is expected to hold a press conference today in Nairobi before flying back to New York. More information on Erlinder’s release is below:
A few weeks ago, the ICC launched a new campaign in association with the International Bar Association to encourage African female lawyers to become counsel at the court. Last night, the ICC and the IBA presented the campaign in London. The event was introduced by Mr Nicholas Green QC (Chairman of the Bar Council) and presented by Mr Mark Ellis (Executive DIrector of the IBA). HHJ Monageng spoke passionately about the role and challenges facing female counsel practicing at the ICC followed by a concise explanation of the functioning of the court by Ms Sonia Robla (Head of the Public Information and Documentation Section, ICC). Zubair Ahmad and Gillian Higgins (ICLB) shared their experiences and motivations for signing up to the list of counsel, while Mr Sam Shoamanesh presented useful and practical information about the application process to become counsel at the ICC.
The ICLB wishes the ICC and the IBA good luck in the coming months with the continuation of its important work.
On Friday last, the Trial Chamber 
