Decision on the Ruto Defence Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule.pdf

7/30/2019 Decision on the Ruto Defence Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-on-the-ruto-defence-application-to-vary-court-sitting-schedulepdf 1/6

Cou r

Pé n a l e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l e

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C r i mm a l

C o u r t

Original: English No.: ICC-01/09-01/11

Date: 29 A ug ust 2013

TRIAL CHAMBER V(A)

Before: Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, Pres iding

Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia

Judge Robert Fremr

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE CASE OF

THE PROSECUTOR v. WILLIAM SAMO EI RUTO and JOSHU A AR AP SANG

Public

Decision on the Ruto Defence Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule

No. ICC-01/09-01/11 1/6 29 A ugu st 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 1/6 RH T



Decision to be notified, in accordance with Regu lation 31 of the Reg ulations of the Court, to:

Th e Off ice of the Prosecu tor Co uns el for W il l iam Sam oei Ru to

Ms Fatou Bensoud a Mr Karim Khan

Mr Anton S teynbe rg Mr David Hoo per

M r Essa Faal

Ms Shyamala Alagendra

Cou nse l fo r Joshu a Arap Sang

Mr Joseph Kipchumba Kigen-Katwa

Mr Silas Chekera

Legal Representa t ives of Vic t ims

Mr Wilfred N deri tu

Legal Representa t ives of Appl icants

Unrepresen ted Vic t ims Unrepresen ted Appl i can t s fo r

Pa r t i c ipa t ion /Repara t ion

The Off ice of Publ ic Counsel for

Vic t ims

Ms Paol ina Massidda

The Off ice of Publ ic Counsel for the

Defence

S ta te s Re presen ta t ives Amicus Curiae

REGISTRY

Regist rar

Mr Herman von Hebe l

Deputy Regi s t ra r

Vic t ims and Wi tnesses Uni tMr Patrick Craig

De ten t ion Sec t ion

Vic t ims Pa r t i c ipa t ion and Repara t ions O the rs

Sect ion

N o. ICC-01/09-01/11 2/6 29 Au gu st 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 2/6 RH T



Tria l Chamber V(A) ( the 'Chamber ' ) o f the Internat ional Criminal Court ( the 'Court ' ) , in

the case of The Prosecutor v William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, in consideration of

Article 64(2) of the Rom e Statute (the 'Statute ') , ren ders the following Decision on the Ru to

Defence Applicat ion to Vary Court Sit t ing Schedule.

1. On 19 Au gu st 2013, the Defence team for Mr Sang requ ested that the Cham ber h ear

the pres ent case in blocks of 4-6 wee ks, in al ternation w ith the Kenyatta case, w he n the

latter trial commences.^

2. On 20 Au gu st 2013, the Appea ls Cham ber gr anted susp ensiv e effect with respect to

the Chamber's decision excusing Mr Ruto from continuous presence at t rial .^

3. On the same day, the defence team for Mr Ruto (the 'Ruto Defence ') fi led the 'Defence

Ap plica tion to Va ry Co urt Sitting Sche du le' (the 'Application'),"^ in whic h it reque sts

that the Chamber vary the si t t ing schedule, in the effect of si t t ing two weeks on and

two weeks off, beginning from the start of trial until further notice, and, in any event,

unti l the Appeals Chamber renders i ts decision on the Prosecution's appeal against the

Ch am ber 's decision on the presence of Mr Ruto at trial.^ The Ruto D efence arg ues that

the schedule proposed in the Appl ica t ion would a l low Mr Ruto to cont inue

cooperat ion with the Court whilst discharging his consti tut ional responsibil i t ies as

D epu ty Presid ent of the R epublic of Kenya.^ It sub mits that n o legit imate interests of

the Office of the Prosecutor ( 'Prosecution') or the vict ims, would be imperil led or

placed in jeop ardy if the Applicat ion w ere granted.^ The Ruto D efence ob serves tha t at

' Email communication from the defence team for Mr Sang sent to Trial Ciiamher V(A) Communications on 19 August

2013 at 12:12; ICC-01/09-01/11-T-24-CONF-ENG, p. 52, lines 2-8, 14-16.' Decision on the request for suspensive effect, ICC-01/09-01/11-862 , 20 August 201 3.

MCC-01/09-01/11-863.

^ Decision on Mr Ruto's Request for Excusai from Continuous Presence at Trial, ICC-01/09-01/11-777, 18 June 2013.-'lCC-01/09-01/11-863, para. 7.

^ Ibid., para. 9.

N o. ICC-01/09-01/11 3/6 29 A ug us t 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 3/6 RH T



present , the Court does not have the physical capacity necessary for the consecutive

sittings of all its cases.^

4. On 26 August 2013, the Prosecution fi led the 'Prosecution's observations on Defence

Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule (ICC-01/09-01/11-863)', ^ in which the

Prosecution informs the Chamber that i t does not object ' in principle ' to the

Appl ica t ion. However , the Prosecut ion st resses tha t the schedule should be

sufficiently flexible so as to allow witnesses to finish their testimonies prior to any

schedu led break. I t subm its tha t a l te rnat ing three week per iod s of sessions and breaks

would be a more pract ica l proposi t ion because i t would a l low two wi tnesses to

com plete their test imo ny before a break.^

5. On 27 August 2013, the Common Legal Representat ive for Vict ims (the 'Legal

Representat ive ') f i led the 'Response of the Common Legal Representat ive for Vict ims

to the "Defence A pplicat ion to Vary Co urt Sit t ing Schedule '",^^ in which h e sub mits

that he does not object to the Applicat ion, al though he requests that the Court be in

session for periods of three to four weeks before breaking for a period of a similar

length. The Legal Representat ive submits that the schedule proposed in the

Appl ica t ion wou ld be disrupt ive of his wo rk."

6. O n the same day, the Registry fi led the 'Registry's observation s on D efence

Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule (ICC-01/09-01/11-863)', ^̂ in which the

Registry submits that there are no technical obstacles to the schedule proposed in the

Appl ica t ion and recommends tha t the wi tnesses should be a l lowed to comple te the i r

^/^/W.,para. 10.^ICC-01/09-01/11-873.

^ Ibid., paras 2, 7.^^ICC-01/09-01/11-882.

^'lCC-01/09-01/11-883-Conf.^'/^/J., paras 6-8.^'lCC-01/09-01/1]

N o . ICC-01/09-01/11 4/6 29 A u g u st 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 4/6 RH T



test imony and that only two witnesses be heard in each period of court si t t ing before a

break.

7. The Chamber recognises that Mr Ruto has consti tut ional responsibil i t ies. But, i t is the

imp erative s of spee dy trial , pu rsu an t to the dictates of Article 64(2) of the Statute, tha t

command the dominant considera t ion in the mat ter of the Chamber 's s i t t ing schedule .

While appreciat ing the part ies' and the Legal Representat ive 's preference for a

schedule based on two to four weeks ' breaks, the Chamber i s no t persuaded that this

is an efficient w ay to con duc t the proc eedin gs in the pres ent case. The Ch am ber agrees

with the Ruto Defence that there may be a need to modify the si t t ing schedule in the

present case once the trial in the Kenyatta case commences.^^ However, there is no such

need at the present t ime. On the contrary, the Chamber stresses the significance of

advancing as much as possible before the constraints identified by the Ruto Defence

affect the present case.

8. The Ch am ber recalls i ts ann ou nce me nt ma de at the status conference of 19 Au gu st

2013 that i t intends to si t on a daily basis unti l 4 October 2013.^^ The Chamber shal l

then adjourn for a period of one week, following which i t wil l continue to si t on a

daily basis unti l the commencement of the Kenyatta case, scheduled for 12 November

2013, with an adjournment of one week before the commencement of that t rial . The

Ch am ber w ill issue further si t t ing sched ules in dt ie course.

9. The Prose cution is directed to l iaise with the Vict ims and W itnesses Unit (the 'VW U')

in order to manage in an orderly way the test imonies of the first batch of witnesses in

accordance with the aforesaid schedule, so as to avoid interruption of witnesses'

test imonies in view of the indicated adjournment periods.

^̂ Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Puhlic redacted version of 'Decision on commencement date of trial', ICC-

01/09-02/11-763-Red, 20 June 2013, p. 16.'^ ICC-01/09-01/11-T-24-CONF-ENG, p. 53, lines 9-19.

No . ICC-01/09-01/11 5/6 29 A ug us t 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 5/6 RH T



F O R T H E F O RE G O I N G RE A S O N S , T H E CH A M BE R H EREBY

REJECTS the Applicat ion;

CONFIRMS that the Chamber shall si t on a daily basis from 10 September to 4 October

2013;

DE CID ES that i t wil l si t on a daily basis from 14 October to 1 N ove m ber 2013; an d

DIRECTS the Prosecution to l iaise with the VWU in order to manage the test imonies

of the first batch of witnesses in accordance with the aforesaid sched ule.

Done in both English and French, the English version being authori tat ive.

Judge CJ i l e Eboe -Osuj i

(Presiding)

Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Rober t F remr

Dated 29 Au gus t 2013

At Tlie Ha gue, The N ether land s

N o . ICC-01/09-01/11 6/6 29 August 2013

ICC-01/09-01/11-889 29-08-2013 6/6 RH T

Decision on the Ruto Defence Application to Vary Court Sitting Schedule.pdf

Documents