Victims' Rights Working GroupPromoting the rights and interests of victims
July 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31

LEGAL UPDATE: June October 2013

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update:

1 June–31 October 2013

(PDF version)

Contents

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga

  • Child Soldiers International’s request to appear as amicus curiae rejected
  •  31 new victims to participate in Appeals against conviction and sentence

Katanga

  •  New reparation applications notified to the Defence
  •  Request for family member to act on behalf of deceased victim granted

Ntaganda

  • PTC II postpones the confirmation of charges hearing
  • Registry reports on the implementation of the partly collective application process in the Gbagbo case
  • PTC II postpones the confirmation of charges hearing
  •  Victims must fill out new applications
  •  Ntaganda requests interim release; OPCV’s request to participate rejected

Ngudjolo

  • Appeals Chamber confirms the participation of anonymous victims; deceased
  • victims no longer considered as participating. 

Darfur

Banda and Jerbo  

  • Defence request termination of the proceedings, case terminated against Mr Jerbo

Central African Republic

Bemba 

  • Defence requests restrictions on LRV’s questioning of witnesses

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi                                                                                 

  • Al-Senussi case found inadmissible
  • Appeal on Mr Gaddafi’s case

Kenya      

Ruto & Sang and Kenyatta

  • Kenya’s submissions on potential withdrawal from the Rome Statute
  • Ruto trial to proceed in The Hague; Chamber in Kenyatta case also considering
  • the issue
  • Fourth and Fifth reports on the situation of victims in Kenya

Ruto & Sang

  • Trial starts following postponements
  • Appeals Chamber rules in relation to request of the accused not to be present all the time during his trial

Kenyatta

  • LRV granted access to confidential filings
  • Chamber rules on alleged Defence disclosure of confidential information
  • Kenyatta conditionally excused from continuous presence at trial 

Walter Osapiri Barasa

  • Arrest Warrant issued for Walter Osapiri Barasa

Ivory Coast 

 Laurent Gbagbo

  • Chamber adjourns hearing on the confirmation of charges; Parties appeal
  • D. Robinson, M. DeGuzman, C. Jalloh and R. Cryer intervene as amici
  • Request from Professors T. Zwart and G.Knoops to intervene is rejected
  • Case against Mr Gbagbo declared admissible
  • Gbagbo to remain in detention

 Simone Gbagbo

  • Ivory Coast submits an admissibility challenge

Charles Blé Goudé

  •  Arrest Warrant issued for Charles Blé Goudé

 


 

 

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Lubanga case

Child Soldiers International’s request to appear as amicus curiae rejected

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Mr Lubanga was convicted for enlisting and conscripting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities. He was later sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Both decisions have been appealed.[1]  On 8 March 2013, Child Soldiers International requested leave to intervene in the appeal against conviction.[2]

On 16 August 2013, the Appeals Chamber rejected the request. It considered that the observations were not “desirable for the proper determination of the case,” given that the three issues upon which Child Soldiers International wished to intervene were of an essentially legal nature, whereas the NGO was a “research advocacy organisation.” [3]

31 new victims to participate in Appeals against conviction and sentence

[Background] On 7 February 2013, the Registry requested guidance from the Appeals Chamber on whether 32 applications that appeared complete should be transmitted for determination of their status as participants in the appeals against Mr Lubanga’s conviction and sentence.[4] On 6 May 2013, the Appeals Chamber stated that it would rule on the applications.[5]

On 27 August 2013, the Appeals Chamber granted 30 of the applications, noting that they ought to have been ruled upon earlier, by the Trial Chamber.[6] In order not to deprive the newly accepted victims from the opportunity to present their views and concerns in the appeals, the Chamber directed their legal representatives to ascertain their views and, should they differ from those already submitted, file them by 23 September (this deadline was later extended).[7] On 3 October 2013, following the receipt of further information, another victim was admitted in the proceedings.[8]

Katanga case

New reparation applications notified to the Defence

On 13 August 2013, the Registry transmitted eight applications for reparation to the Defence, [9] bringing the total number of reparation requests in the case to 57.

Request for family member to act on behalf of deceased victim granted

[Background] On 15 May 2013, the Legal Representative for Victims (LRV) for the main group of victims requested that a family member be allowed to act on behalf of a deceased victim and that he be granted protective measures vis-à-vis the public.[10]

On 10 June 2013, Trial Chamber II (TC II) granted the request.[11] It considered that the relatives of a deceased participating victim could continue the action in the name of the victim, as long as it remained within the views and concerns set out in the victim’s initial request. TC II added that protective measures granted to victims participating in proceedings also applied to persons authorised to participate on behalf of deceased victims.

Ntaganda case

PTC II postpones the confirmation of charges hearing

[Background] Mr Ntaganda is suspected of seven counts of war crimes (enlistment of children under the age of 15, conscription of children under the age of 15, using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities; murder; attacks against the civilian population; rape and sexual slavery; and pillaging) and three counts of crimes against humanity (murder, rape and sexual slavery, and persecution) allegedly committed in Ituri (Democratic Republic of the Congo) between 1 September 2002 and the end of September 2003. [12]  On 17 March 2013, he surrendered himself to the US embassy in Rwanda and requested to be transferred to the ICC. The confirmation of charges hearing was initially scheduled to open on 26 September 2013.[13] On 23 May 2013, the Prosecution requested that the confirmation of charges hearing be postponed, arguing that the level of preparation for a case that had been dormant for 7 years could not be completed within the deadlines set by the Chamber.[14]

 A new date for the confirmation of charges was set for 10 February 2014.[15

Registry reports on the implementation of the partly collective application process in the Gbagbo case

[Background] In view of deciding which approach to implement in the Ntaganda case, Single Judge Trendafilova requested the Registry to report on the implementation of the partly collective application process in the Laurent Gbagbo case.[16] On 28 May 2013, the Judge set out a fully individual process for victims to apply to participate in the confirmation of charges hearing, with grouping taking place as part of the Registry’s processing.[17]

The Registry’s report indicated that the partly collective approach had resulted in the receipt of less information, overall, than the current standard application form.[18]  However it also stressed that numerous supplementary documents received from victims had led to significant challenges in putting the files in order. The Registry noted that dealing with victims in a more collective way may be positively viewed by victims and could prove more efficient. However, it stressed that it would not always be feasible or advisable to bring together groups of victims to collectively complete applications, noting security concerns and the fact that not all victims felt comfortable speaking in front of a group. The Registry also noted that challenges could arise should individual victims linked to a group need to be considered separately.

Victims must fill our new applications
[Background] On 10 June 2013 the LRV for nine victims recognised as participants in the Lubanga case requested that her clients also be admitted as participants in the Ntaganda case, which covers some identical charges and facts.

On 26 June 2013, Single Judge Trendafilova rejected the request stating that there was no right for victims of one case to be automatically recognised in another case. The Judge also highlighted that it could not be assumed that victims participating in the Lubanga case, wished to also participate in proceedings against Mr Ntaganda and that a new form was required. The Judge requested the LRV to facilitate communications between intermediaries in contact with her clients and the Victims Participation and Reparation Section (VPRS), in order for the VPRS to assist them in filling in the simplified application form. 

Ntaganda requests interim release; OPCV’s request to participate rejected

On 20 August 2013, the Defence applied for the interim release of Mr Ntaganda.[19]

On 30 August 2013, Single Judge Trendafilova rejected an OPCV request to submit observations pursuant to Rule 119(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which requires the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) to consider the views of victims who have communicated with the Court before imposing or amending conditions restricting the liberty of an accused.[20]. She acknowledged the duty of the Chamber to seek the views of victims in such instances but ruled that she would only seek such views after having considered the observations of the parties.[21]

Ngudjolo case

Appeals Chamber confirms the participation of anonymous victims; deceased victims no longer considered as participating. 

[Background] On 15 April 2013, the Defence requested that anonymous victims and deceased victims, on behalf of whom no-one had been identified to act, be withdrawn from the list of participants in the appeal against the decision to acquit Mr. Ngudjolo.[22] It is the first time that the issue is being considered by the Appeals Chamber.

On 3 June 2013, the LRV teams opposed Mr Ngudjolo’s request.[23] They stressed that the participation of anonymous victims in the proceedings was not necessarily prejudicial to the Defence or inconsistent with a fair trial. The LRV for the main group of victims also stressed that he had faced challenges in identifying, locating and contacting deceased victims’ family members due to scant information on the application forms, poor communication infrastructure in areas where victims lived and limited ability to carry out field missions.

On 23 September 2013 the Appeals Chamber confirmed that anonymous victims could participate through their LRV in the appeals proceedings, stressing, however, that should they wish to participate as individuals at a hearing or to make individual observations they would then have to disclose their identities to the parties. The Chamber also ruled that deceased victims could no longer be considered as participants in the proceedings. The Chamber stressed that the views and concerns previously expressed by participating victims who were now deceased remained part of the case record, and would continue to be considered. [24]

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo case

Defence request termination of the proceedings, case terminated against Mr Jerbo

[Background] On 21 April 2013, the Defence of Mr Jerboa notified Trial Chamber IV (TC IV) that Mr Jerbo had allegedly been killed.[25]

On 5 September 2013, the Defence for both accused also requested that all charges be dropped and proceedings be terminated.[26] The Prosecution and the LRV opposed the request.[27]  On 4 October 2013, despite indication by Mr Jerbo’s Defence that it was not feasible to obtain an official document certifying his death, TC IV terminated the case against him.[28] The Chamber ruled that should there be a need to reopen the case against Mr Jerbo, the case would proceed from the stage of the proceedings at which it currently stood.[29]

Central Afrian Republic

Bemba case

Defence requests restrictions on LRV’s questioning of witnesses

On 19 July 2013, the Defence requested Trial Chamber III (TC III to limit the right of the Legal Representatives of Victims to question Defence witnesses arguing their questions had been repetitive, rarely neutral and compromised the fairness of the trial.[30] The Defence advanced that TC III had allowed questioning of witnesses by LRVs to be virtually unrestrained and allowed LRVs to ask follow up questions without prior justification or authorisation. The Chamber dismissed the request on 21 August 2013.[31] The Defence’s request to appeal was rejected.[32]

107 new reparation applications transmitted to the Chamber

On 25 October 2013, the Registry transmitted 107 new applications for reparation to the Chamber and parties.[33] This brings the total number of applications for reparation in the case to 478.

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi case

Al-Senussi case found inadmissible

[Background] On 27 June 2011, the Chamber issued a warrant of arrest against Mr Al-Senussi for his alleged criminal responsibility for the crimes against humanity of murder and persecution committed in Benghazi from 15 February 2011 until at least 20 February 2011.[34] On 2 April 2013, Libya challenged the admissibility of the case, submitting that it was actively investigating Mr Al-Senussi for the same crimes and that it was both willing and able to investigate and prosecute the case.[35] On 14 June 2013 PTC I ruled that Libya could postpone the transfer of Mr Al-Senussi’s pending the determination of the admissibility challenge.[36]

The Prosecutor mostly agreed with Libya and submitted that Libya did not appear unwilling to carry out the investigation.[37] The Defence for Al-Senussi called for the proceedings to take place before the ICC.[38] The OPCV submitted that Libya lacked the ability to ensure the safety of proceedings and an independent judiciary. The Defence, Prosecutor and OPVC all submitted that the lack of a witness protection program in Libya could result in witnesses being unwilling to testify.

On 11 October 2013, PTC I found the case against Mr Al-Senussi inadmissible, concurring that Libya was already carrying out proceedings for the same conduct and was both willing and able to genuinely carry out the proceedings.[39] The Defence for Mr Al-Senussi has appealed the Decision.[40]

Appeal on Mr Gaddafi’s case

[Background] On 31 May 2013 the case against Saif Gaddafi was deemed admissible.[41] The Chamber ruled that Libya had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its investigation covered the same conduct for which Mr Gaddafi was sought by the ICC.

Libya appealed this decision on 7 June 2013 requesting that the transfer of Mr Gaddafi be suspended until resolution of the appeal.[42] The Prosecution and the Defence for Mr Gaddafi both submitted that the appeal should be dismissed, arguing that Libya was not prosecuting the same case, and was unable to prosecute these crimes due to the unavailability of the national system.[43] On 21 August, the OPCV also opposed the appeal drawing attention to the Government’s inability to implement protective measures for witnesses. [44] On 18 July 2013, the Appeals Chamber rejected Libya’s request for suspensive effect and recalled Libya’s obligation to surrender Mr Gaddafi.[45]

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Kenyatta cases
Kenya’s submissions on potential withdrawal from the Rome Statute

On 5 and 10 September 2013, Kenya’s Parliament voted a motion to withdraw from the Rome Statute.[46] On 17 September, the Trial Chamber requested submissions on whether this was relevant for the case and whether it would have an impact on the safety, physical and psychological wellbeing of witnesses.

On 15 October 2013, the Kenyan Government submitted that the status of the Rome Statute in Kenya was still intact. The Government further stated that it wished to continue to fully cooperate with the Court, and would notify the Court of any material changes in circumstances.[47]

Ruto trial to proceed in The Hague; Chamber in Kenyatta case also considering the issue

[Background] On 17 January and 1 February 2013 in the Muthaura and Kenyatta,[48] and the Ruto and Sang[49]cases, respectively, Trial Chamber V (TC V) requested observations on the possibility to hold proceedings in Kenya or at the seat of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Tanzania. In both cases, the LRVs indicated that the vast majority of the victims opposed the holding of proceedings in Kenya or in Tanzania raising security concerns.[50] The Prosecution suggested that only parts of the proceedings be held in Kenya or Tanzania.[51]

On 3 June 2013, TC V(a) in the Ruto & Sang case notified the Plenary of its support for holding part of the trial in Kenya, stressing that it would strike the right balance between security concerns and the need to ensure a fair trial, and bring justice closer to victims.[52] On 26 August 2013, the Plenary of Judges ruled that the trial would take place in The Hague.[53]  Judges who voted against considered the security of the proceedings and whether it would be against the express will of some of the participants. They noted that many of the victims had expressed their concerns over safety and their preference for the trial to be held in The Hague. On 6 September 2013, a Defence request for the Plenary decision to be vacated was dismissed.[54]

On 29 July 2013, in the Kenyatta case, Trial Chamber V (b) (TC V(b)) sought the views of the parties and participants on whether it should continue to consider the issue given that the original request had been filed by Mr Muthaura, against whom all charges were dropped.[55] The Defence argued in favour of holding the opening of the trial or portion of the trial in Kenya or Tanzania, while the Legal Representative for Victims (LRV) reiterated victims’ opposition to such a move.[56] However, he stressed that victims were supportive of a site visit by the Trial Chamber to relevant locations in Kenya.[57] On 13 August 2013, the Prosecutor opposed changing the location of the trial.[58]

Fourth and Fifth reports on the situation of victims in Kenya

 On 22 July 2013, the Registry transmitted its fourth reports on the situation of victims regarding both Kenyan cases.[59] The reports noted that many of the victims were suffering from extreme poverty and in many cases untreated physical or psychological ailments stemming from the post-election violence. It was reported that victims would welcome the engagement of the Trust Fund for Victims in Kenya.  On 23 September 2013, the Registry’s fifth reports on the situation of victims regarding both Kenyan cases were also filed.[60

Ruto & Sang case

Trial starts following postponements

[Background] On 21 February 2013, the Defence requested TC V to postpone the start of the trial (then due to start on 10 April 2013) in order to ensure effective defence preparation.[61] The Prosecutor agreed on a reasonable adjournment. On 8 March 2013, TC V set the provisional start of trial for 28 May 2013. On 3 June 2013, the Chamber decided to further postpone it to 10 September 2013 in order to give the Defence sufficient time to carry out its preparation.[62]

On 10 September, the trial opened. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Appeals Chamber rules in relation to request of the accused not to be present all the time during his trial

[Background] On 4 March 2013, Mr Ruto was elected Deputy President of Kenya. On 17 April 2013, his Defence indicated his wish to waive his right to be present at trial.[63] The LRV and the Prosecution opposed the request stating that it would undermine the trial process and the Court’s authority.[64] 

On 18 June 2013, TC V (a) conditionally excused Mr Ruto from continuously appearing at trial:[65]  he would still have to attend specific hearings including the opening and closing statements of all parties and participants, when victims present their views and concerns in person, the entirety of the victim impact hearings (if applicable), the entirety of the reparation hearings (if applicable), and any other attendance directed by the Chamber. On 18 July the Trial Chamber, granted the Prosecution leave to appeal.[66]

On 25 October 2013, the Appeals Chamber reversed the decision.[67] The Appeals Chamber required the Trial Chamber to decide anew based on the following limitations: i) the absence of the accused must be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and must not become the rule, ii) the possibility of alternative measures must have been considered, iii) the excusal must be strictly necessary, iv) the accused must have voluntarily waived his right,  v) the rights of the accused must be fully ensured,  and vi) the Trial Chamber must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the accused can be absent from a given hearing. Later that day the Chamber, applying the AC’s six part test, allowed Mr. Ruto to be excused from trial from 28-30 October.

Kenyatta case

LRV granted access to confidential filings

 [Background] On 23 May the LRV requested access to some confidential filings and evidence.[68]  He argued that the Prosecution and Defence had failed to notify him of documents, which may be relevant to the personal interests of victims, as required by a decision on victims' representation and participation on 3 October 2012.

On 22 August 2013, TC V(b) reminded the parties that the LRV was entitled to access confidential documents that were relevant to the personal interests of victims.[69] The Chamber stressed that it expected the parties to notify all such filings to the Legal Representative and OPCV unless they could identify clear reasons not to do so. Objections would be assessed on a case by case basis.

Chamber rules on alleged Defence disclosure of confidential information

On 13 August 2013, the LRV enquired about an alleged wrongful transmission of confidential information by the Defence, which could lead to the identification of victims or protected witnesses in the case.[70] The LRV referred to reports in the Kenyan media according to which the Defence had submitted a confidential petition to the High Court of Kenya requesting access to mobile telephone records relating to witnesses. On 22 August 2013 the Defence sought to dismiss the request, stressing that the Prosecution was aware and supported the application which did not relate to participating victims.[71] On 30 September 2013, TC V (b) found that the investigative steps taken by the Defence in conjunction with the Prosecution in that case was appropriate.[72]

Kenyatta conditionally excused from continuous presence at trial

[Background] On 23 September 2013, Mr Kenyatta requested not to continuously attend his trial so as to discharge his functions as head of State.[73] He requested to attend other hearings by way of video link. Both the Prosecution and the LRV opposed the request.[74

On 18 October 2013, TC V (b) partially granted the request.[75] The Chamber required Mr Kenyatta’s mandatory presence at specific sessions, including the opening and closing statements of all parties and participants, hearings when victims present their views and concerns in person, the delivery of the judgement, the entirety of victim impact hearings, as well as reparation hearings.

On 28 October 2013, in light of the appeals Judgment rendered on the same issue in the Ruto and Sang case (see above), the Prosecution requested the Chamber to vacate the Kenyatta decision.[76] In the alternative, the Prosecution sought leave to appeal the matter.

TC V (b) further postpones trial start date following Defence’s request for permanent stay of proceedings

[Background] On 20 June 2013, TC V (b) further postponed the commencement of the trial to 12 November 2013, despite the LRV’s request that the trial start as soon as possible.[77]

On 10 October 2013, the Defence for Mr Kenyatta requested a permanent stay of proceedings claiming that an abuse of process had taken place.[78] The Defence alleged that some Prosecution witnesses and intermediaries had interfered significantly and irreparably with the ability of the Defence to conduct investigations. On 25 October 2013 the Defence requested that the start of the trial be further postponed..[79] While the Prosecutor did not oppose the request, the LRV underlined that victims had repeatedly and forcefully communicated their total opposition to any further delay.[80]

On 31 October 2013, the Chamber postponed the start date of the trial to 5 February 2014 and urged both parties to accelerate their preparation in order to ensure that no further postponements would be required.[81]

Walter Osapiri Barasa case

Arrest Warrant issued for Walter Osapiri Barasa

On 2 October 2013, an arrest warrant was made public against Walter Osapiri Barasa, a former prosecution intermediary.[82] The Prosecution alleges that he is criminally responsible as direct perpetrator, under article 25(3)(a) or alternatively article 25(3)(f) of the Rome Statute for three counts of offences against the administration of justice consisting in corruptly or attempting to corrupt influence three witnesses.

Ivory Coast

Laurent Gbagbo case

Chamber adjourns hearing on the confirmation of charges; Parties appeal

[Background] From 19 until 28 February 2013, the confirmation of charges hearing took place in the case against Mr Gbagbo. Mr Gbagbo faces charges of crimes against humanity for murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution, allegedly committed in Côte d'Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.[83]

On 3 June 2013, PTC I,postponed its decision on whether the charges should be confirmed.[84] The Chamber found that the Prosecution had relied too heavily on NGO reports and press articles in order to establish the contextual elements of crimes against humanity, falling short of what was required for a full and proper investigation. The Prosecutor was asked to submit a new amended Document Containing Charges (DCC) as well as a new list of evidence no later than 15 November 2013. On 10 June 2013, the Prosecution and the Defence both sought leave to appeal the decision.[85]  

On 31 July 2013, the Chamber (Judge Fernández de Gurmendi dissenting) granted the Prosecution leave to appeal in relation to the following issue: whether, when the Prosecutor alleges that an attack against a civilian population consists of multiple smaller incidents, each of these incidents has to be supported with sufficient evidence to determine whether an “attack” took place.[86] On 29 August 2013, the Appeals Chamber authorised victims participating in the case to file observations in the appeal.[87] A judgement is pending.

D. Robinson, M. DeGuzman, C. Jalloh and R. Cryer intervene as amici

On 5 September 2013, Darryl Robinson, Margaret deGuzman, Charles Jalloh and Robert Cryer applied for leave to submit amicus curiae observations in the above appeal in relation to the contextual elements required to establish crimes against humanity under article 7(1) and 7(2)(a) of the Statute.[88] Their request was granted on 1 October 2013.[89]

The amici submitted that the Appeals Chamber should clarify that 1) an “attack” required the multiple commission of acts (where the term ‘multiple’ should not be conflated with ‘widespread’), 2) evidence of formal adoption of a policy was not required and that 3) the policy element needed not be proven in relation to particular perpetrators nor in relation to particular incidents. [90]

On 9 October 2013 the Appeals Chamber rejected a request from the LRV to respond to amici stating that the LRV had failed to show what value the victims’ observations would add.[91]

Request from Professors T. Zwart and G.Knoops to intervene is rejected

On 16 September 2013, Professors T Zwart and G. G. J. Knoops also requested to intervene as amicus curiae in the above appeal in relation to issues pertaining to prosecutorial discretion and the Political Question Doctrine.[92] On 1 October 2013, the Appeals Chamber rejected the request, finding that the issues that the Applicants proposed to address were not related to the Prosecutor's appeal. [93]

Case against Mr Gbagbo declared admissible

[Background] On 15 February 2013, the Defence challenged the admissibility of the case and requested that the Chamber order a permanent stay of proceedings and the immediate release of Laurent Gbagbo.[94] On 28 March 2013, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Prosecution and the OPCV opposed the challenge.[95]

On 11 June 2013, PTC I declared the case admissible considering that although a prosecution for economic crimes may have been initiated against Mr Gbagbo at the domestic level and some initial procedural steps may have been undertaken prior to Mr Gbagbo's surrender to the Court in November 2011, there had been no activity in relation to the suspect since that date. [96

Gbagbo to remain in detention

On 11 July 2013, PTC I decided that Mr Gbagbo would remain in detention, stating that the circumstances requiring Mr Gbagbo's detention had not changed since its previous ruling on the issue.[97] The Defence appealed.[98]  On 27 August, the Appeals Chamber authorised victims participating in the case to submit observations in the appeal.[99] On 29 October, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal (Judge Anita Usacka Dissenting).[100]

Simone Gbagbo case

Ivory Coast challenges admissibility of the case

[Background]  An arrest warrant for Simone Gbagbo, the wife of Laurent Gbagbo, was unsealed on 22 November 2012 for allegedly bearing individual criminal responsibility, as an indirect co-perpetrator, for four counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape and other sexual violence, persecution and other inhuman acts, allegedly committed in the context of post-electoral violence in Côte d’Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.[101]  

On 30 September 2013, Ivory Coast challenged the admissibility of the case, arguing that it was already carrying out national proceedings and investigations against her.[102] Ivory Coast submitted that its judicial system was competent to carry out these proceedings and requested that execution of the arrest warrant be suspended, pending the examination of the admissibility challenge.

Charles Blé Goudé case

Arrest Warrant unsealed against Charles Blé Goudé

On 30 September 2013, an arrest warrant was against Charles Blé Goudé was unsealed.[103] He is wanted in relation to his alleged responsibility as indirect co-perpetrator, for four counts of crimes against humanity: murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhumane acts, allegedly committed in the context of post-electoral violence in the territory of Côte d’Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.[104]

 

List of acronyms

LRV   Legal Representative for Victims

IDPs      Internally Displaced Persons

ICC        International Criminal Court

LRV       Legal Representatives for Victim

OPCD    Office of Public Counsel for the Defence

OTP       Office of the Prosecutor

OPCV    Office of Public Counsel for Victims

PTC I     Pre-Trial Chamber I, etc.

RoC       Regulations of the Court

TC I       Trial Chamber I, etc.

TFV        Trust Fund for Victims

VPRS     Victims Participation and Reparation Section

 

These are summaries of ICC decisions and related pleadings relevant to victims’ rights. For further information please consult linked documents. Comments to Gaelle Carayon: gaelle@redress.org



[1] For more details, please see ICC Victims' Rights Legal Update Jan-March 2013 at http://www.redress.org/downloads/Legal-Update-January_March-2013-.pdf.

[2] Application by Child Soldiers International for leave to submit observations to Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 8 March 2013,ICC-01/04-01/06-2995, http://www.icccpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565333.pdf; Annex I- Draft Submission of Child Soldiers International to the Appeals Chamber, 8 March, ICC-01/04-01/06-2995-AnxI, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565334.pdf.

[3] Decision on the application by Child Soldiers International for leave to submit observations pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 16 August 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3044, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1633961.pdf.

[4] Request for guidance regarding applicants for participation in the appeal phase, 7 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2977, http://www.icccpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549737.pdf.

[5] Decision on the request of the Registrar relating to the transmission of applications for participation in the appeal proceedings and on related issues, 6 May 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3026, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590182.pdf.

[6] Decision on 32 applications to participate in the proceedings, 27 August 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3045-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1636835.pdf.

[7] "Decision on requests for an extension of the time limit," 20 September 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3050, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1648382.pdf.

[8] Decision on a/2922/11's application to participate in the appeals proceedings, 3 October 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3052-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1658575.pdf.

[9] Notification à la Défense de 8 formulaires de demande de réparation en application de la règle 94(2) du Règlement de procédure et de preuve, 13 August 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3395, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1626334.pdf.

[10] Decision on the application to resume action, submitted by a family member of deceased Victim a/0253/09, 10 June 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3383-tENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1636345.pdf.

[11] Décision relative à la demande de reprise d'instance formée par un proche de la victime décédée a/0253/09, 10 June 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3383, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1602403.pdf.

[12] Warrant of Arrest, 22 August 2006, ICC-01/04-02/06-2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc305330.PDF; Public redacted version - Decision on the Prosecutor's Application under Article 58, 13 July 2012, ICC-01/04-02/06-36-Red, http://www.icccpi. int/iccdocs/doc/doc1441449.pdf.

[13] Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Request to Postpone the Date of the Confirmation Hearing" and Setting a New Calendar for the Disclosure of Evidence Between the Parties, 17 June 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-73, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1605646.pdf.

[14] Prosecution’s Urgent Request to Postpone the Date of the Confirmation Hearing, ICC-01/04-02/06-65, 23 May 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1595638.pdf.

[15] Decision on the "Prosecution's Urgent Request to Postpone the Date of the Confirmation Hearing" and Setting a New Calendar for the Disclosure of Evidence Between the Parties, 17 June 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-73, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1605646.pdf

[16] Decision Requesting the Victims Participation and Reparations Section to Submit Observations, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585388.pdf.

[17] For more details, please see VRWG Legal update Mar_May 2013 at http://www.redress.org/downloads/Legal_Update_Mar_May-2013.pdf

[18] While the filing is dated 6 May 2013, it was only made public on 28 May 2013 and posted online recently. Registry Observations in compliance with the Decision ICC-01/04-02/06-54-Conf, 6 May 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-57, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590257.pdf.

[19] Defence application for the interim release of Mr Bosco Ntaganda,20 August 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-87-Red-tENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1641375.pdf.

[20] Request to appear before the Chamber on the Defence’s Application for interim release, 29 August 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1637563.pdf.

[21] Decision on the "Request to appear before the Chamber on the Defence's Application for interim release" 30 August, ICC-01/04-02/06-97, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1637862.pdf.

[22]Observations and objections of the Defence team for Mathieu Ngudjolo as to the Registry document “Transmission of the List of Victims in compliance with the Decision ICC-01/04-02/12-30” 15 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-63-tENG (A), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1588971.pdf.

[23] Observations on the participation of anonymous victims in the appellate proceedings and on maintaining deceased victims on the list of victims authorised to participate, 3 June 2013,ICC-01/04-02/12 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1604977.pdf; Observations on the participationof anonymous victims and on maintaining victims who died in the course of proceedings on the list of victims participating at appeal, 3 June 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1604759.pdf.

[24] Decision on the participation of anonymous victims in the appeal and on the maintenance of deceased victims on the list of participating victims, 23 September 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-140, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1648871.pdf.

[25] Public Redacted Version “Defence Notification of the Death of Mr Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus” submitted on 21 April 2013, 23 April 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-466-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1583390.pdf.

[26] Public Redacted Version of “Defence Request for Termination of Proceedings,” 5 September 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-503-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1640860.pdf.

[27] Public redacted version of “Prosecution’s Response to the “Defence Request for Termination of Proceedings” (ICC-02/05-03/09-503-Conf),” filed on 24 September 2013, 27 September 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-506-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1651514.pdf; Réponse des Représentants Légaux Communs à la Requête de la Défense pour mettre fin au Procès (ICC-02/05-03/09-503), September 26 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-509, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1651433.pdf. 

[28] Public redacted Decision terminating the proceedings against Mr Jerbo, 4 October 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-512-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1658908.pdf.

[29] Public redacted Decision terminating the proceedings against Mr Jerbo, 4 October 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-512-Red,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1658908.pdf.

[30] Defence Motion on the Questioning of Defence Witnesses by the Legal Representatives of Victims, 19 July 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2733-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1648573.pdf.

[31] Decision on the Legal Representative's request for access to confidential filings and evidence, ICC-01/09-02/11-794, 22 August 2013http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1635435.pdf.

[32] Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Defence Motion on the Questioning of Defence Witnesses by the Legal Representatives of Victims, 23 August 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2767-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1648585.pdf; Decision on Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Defence Motion on the Questioning of Defence Witnesses by the Legal Representatives of Victims, 11 September 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2800, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1643647.pdf.

[33] Notification to the Defence and the Legal Representatives of the Applicants of applications for reparations pursuant to rule 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 25 October 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2847, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1670668.pdf.

[34] Pre-Trial Chamber I, "Warrant of Arrest for Abdullah Al-Senussi", 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-4, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099332.pdf.

[35] Public and redacted - Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 2 April 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-307-Red2, http://www.icccpi.

int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575650.pdf.

[36] Decision on Libya's postponement of the execution of the request for arrest and surrender of Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to article 95 of the Rome Statute and related Defence request to refer Libya to the UN Security Council, 14 June 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-354, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1604667.pdf.

[37] Prosecution’s Additional Observations to the "Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute" 14 July 2013 ICC-01/11-01/11 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1604728.pdf.

[38] Defence Response on behalf of Mr. Abdullah Al-Senussi to 'Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute', 14 June 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-356, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1604790.pdf; Addendum to 'Filing on behalf of Mr. Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to 'Decision on additional submissions in the proceedings related to Libya's challenge to the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi' of 19 August 2013' and Urgent Application pursuant to Regulation  35, 5 September 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-432 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1640810.pdf.

[39] Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, 11 October 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-466-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1663102.pdf.

[40] Appeal on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi and Request for Suspensive Effect, 17 October 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-468-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1666694.pdf.

[41] Public redacted-Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 31 May 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-344-Red,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599307.pdf.

[42] The Government of Libya’s Appeal against Pre‑Trial Chamber I’s ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi,’ 7 June 2013, ICC‑01/11‑01/11, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1601846.pdf; Document in Support of the Government of Libya’s Appeal against the “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi,” 24 June 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-370-Red3, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1652844.pdf.

[43] Prosecution Response to the “Document in Support of the Government of Libya’s Appeal against the Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi,” 22 July 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-384-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1622443.pdf; Defence Response to the “Document in Support of the Government of Libya’s Appeal against the Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi,” 18 July, 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-386-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1620793.pdf.

[44] Observations on behalf of victims on the Government of Libya’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi,” 21 August 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-411-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1634932.pdf.

[45] Decision on the request for suspensive effect and related issues,18 July 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-387, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1620847.pdf.

[46] Government of Kenya's Application Pursuant to Rule 103 (l) for Leave to file Observations Pursuant to Rule 103 (1) to file Submissions on the Proposed Motion by Kenya's National Assembly and Senate to Withdraw Kenya from the Rome Statute, 30 September 2013, ICC-01/09-121, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1652871.pdf.

[47] Submissions of the Government of Kenya, Pursuant to Rule 103 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court, on the Proposed Motion by Kenya’s National Assembly and Senate to Withdraw Kenya from the Rome Statute, 15 October 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-1043, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1666073.pdf.

[48]Order requesting observations in relation to the "Defence Application for change of place where the Court shall sit for Trial", 17 January 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-602, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541557.pdf.

[49]Order requesting observations in relation to the "Joint Defence Application for change of place where the Court Shall Sit for Trial", 1 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-580, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1547535.pdf.

[50]Victims’ Observations in relation to the “Defence Application for change of place where the Court shall sit for Trial”, 7 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-629, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549471.pdf; Common Legal Representative for Victims’ Observations in Relation to the “Joint Defence Application for Change of Place Where the Court Shall Sit for Trial”, 22 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-620, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1556944.pdf.

[51]Prosecution observations on the possibility of the trial being held in Kenya or, alternatively, in Arusha, Tanzania, 7 February 2013. ICC-01/09-02/11-631, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549489.pdf, Prosecution Observations on the possibility of the trial being held in Kenya or, alternatively, in Arusha, Tanzania, 21 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-615,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1556205.pdf.

[52]Recommendation to the Presidency on where the Court shall sit for trial, ICC-01/09-01/11-763 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599761.pdf.

[53] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Joint Defence Application for a Change of Place where the Court Shall Sit for Trial in the case of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, 26 August 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-875-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1636031.pdf.

[54]The Defence had advanced that it should have been given an opportunity to respond to a late filing from the Prosecution which had been considered by the judges in their decision.  Defence Application to Vacate the Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the “Joint Defence Application for a Change of Place where the Court Shall Sit for Trial,” 1 September 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-897, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1638088.pdf; Decision on the Defence Application to Vacate the Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the “Joint Defence Application for a Change of Place where the Court Shall Sit for Trial” in the case of the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, 6 September 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-911, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1641257.PDF.

[55] Order for further observations on where the Court shall sit for trial, 29 July 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-781, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1626997.pdf.

[56] Defence’s Observations Pursuant to Trial Chamber V(b)’s “Order for Further Observations on Where the Court Shall Sit for Trial,”12 August 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1631804.pdf.

[57] Victims’ further observations on where the Court shall sit for trial, ICC-01/09-02/11-786, 13 August 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/docA9RF701.pdf

[58] Public redacted version of the 13 August 2013 Prosecution’s observations on the Chamber’s “Order for further observations on where the Court shall sit for trial” (ICC-01/09-02/11-781) 13, August 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-790-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1632738.pdf.

[59] Fourth periodic report on the general situation The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and the activities of the VPRS and the Common Legal Representative in the field, 22 July 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-776-AnxA, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1611619.pdf; Fourth periodic report on the general situation of victims in the case of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang and the activities of the VPRS and the Common Legal Representative 23 July 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-825-AnxA, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1611633.pdf.

[60] Fifth periodic report on the general situation of victims in the case of The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and the activities of the VPRS and the Common Legal Representative in the field, 23 September 2013,ICC-01/09-02/11-810-AnxA, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1649210.pdf; Fifth periodic report on the general situation of victims in The case of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang and the activities of the VPRS and the Common Legal Representative, 23 September 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-980-AnxA,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1649204.pdf.

[61]Corrigendum to Joint Defence Submissions on Impact of Delayed Prosecution Disclosure and Shift in Case on the Scheduled Start Date for Trial, 21 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-613-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1556187.pdf.

[62] Decision on prosecution requests to add witnesses and evidence and defence requests to reschedule the trial start date, 3 June 2013, 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-762, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599758.pdf .

[63] Defence Request pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Rome Statute, 17 April 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-685, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1580797.pdf.

[64] For more details, please see VRWG Legal update March- May 2013 at http://www.vrwg.org/documents/legal-update.

[65] Decision on Mr Ruto's Request for Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial, 18 June 2013,ICC-01/09-01/11-777, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1605793.pdf.

[66] Decision on Prosecution's Application for Leave to Appeal the 'Decision on Mr Ruto's Request for Excusai from Continuous Presence at Trial,' 18 July 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-817, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1620766.pdf; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eboe-Osuji, 18 July 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-817-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1620767.pdf.

[67] Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber V(a) of 18 June 2013 entitled “Decision on Mr Ruto's Request for Excusai from Continuous Presence at Trial", 25 October 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-1066, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1669852.pdf;  Joint Separate Opinion of Judge Erkki Kourula and Judge Anita Usacka, 25 Ocotber 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-1066-Anx,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1669856.pdf.

[68] Victims’ request for access to confidential filings and evidence, 23 May 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-742, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1595541.pdf.

[69] Decision on the Legal Representative's request for access to confidential filings and evidence, 22 August 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-794, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1635435.pdf.

[70]Victims’ application relating to possible disclosure of confidential information, 13 August 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-789 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1632654.pdf.

[71] Public Redacted Version of the 20 August 2013 ‘Defence Response to the “Victims’ application relating to possible disclosure of confidential information”’(ICC01/0902/11793Conf), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1635458.pdf.

[72] Redacted version of Decision concerning 'Victims' application relating to possible disclosure of confidential information,' 30 September, ICC-01/09-02/11-814-Red2,  2013 http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1652164.pdf.

[73] Defence Request for Conditional Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial, 23 September 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-809, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1649093.pdf.

[74] Prosecution’s Response to the Defence Request for Conditional Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial,  1 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1653372.pdf, and Victims’ Response to “Defence Request for Conditional Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial,” 1 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-819, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1653381.pdf.

[75] Decision on Defence Request for Conditional Excusai from Continuous Presence at Trial, 18 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-830, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667182.pdf; Partially Dissenting Opinion Of Judge Ozaki, 18 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-830-Anx2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1667185.pdf; Separate Further Opinion Of Judge Eboe-Osuji, 28 Ocotber 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-830-Anx3-Corr2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1669149.pdf.

[76] Prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration of the “Decision on Defence Request for Conditional Excusal from Continuous Presence at Trial”, 28 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-837, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1671357.pdf.

[77] Decision on commencement date of trial', 20 June 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-763-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1606644.pdf; Victims’ Response to the Defence Observations on Estimated Time

Required to Prepare for Trial, 7 June 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-752, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1601828.pdf.

[78] Defence Application for a Permanent Stay of the Proceedings due to Abuse of Process, 10 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-822-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1662752.pdf.

[79] Defence Application to Vacate the 12 November 2013, Date for the Commencement of Trial, 25 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-835-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1670204.pdf.

[80] Public redacted version of the Prosecution response to the Defence application to vacate the 12 November 2013 date for the commencement of trial, 30 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11- 842-Red,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1673321.pdf; Victims’ Response to the public redacted version of the “Defence Application to Vacate the 12 November 2013 Date for the Commencement of Trial,” 31 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-845, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1674130.pdf

[81] Decision adjourning the commencement of trial, 31 October 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-847,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1674618.pdf

[82] Warrant of arrest for Walter Osapiri Barasa, 2 August 2013, ICC-01/09-01/13-1-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1650592.pdf.

[83] Transcript, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-21-ENG, 28 February 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1560499.pdf.

[84] Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute, 3 June 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-432, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599831.pdf; Dissenting opinion of Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, ICC-02/11-01/11-432-Anx-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1601088.pdf.   

[85] Prosecution’s application for leave to appeal the “Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges, 11 June 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-435, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1602412.pdf; Demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la « décision d’ajournement de l’audience de confirmation des charges, 24 June 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-439,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1608916.pdf.

[86] Decision on the Prosecutor's and Defence requests for leave to appeal the decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges, 31 July 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-464, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1628570.pdf;  Dissenting opinion of Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, 31 July 2013,  ICC-02/11-01/11-464-Anx,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1628571.pdf.

[87]Decision on the participation of victims in the Prosecutor's appeal against the Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges, 29 August 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-492, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1637674.pdf.

[88]Request for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations, 5 September 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-499-Anx1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1641833.pdf.

[89] Decision on the Request for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 1 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-516, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1653622.pdf.

[90] Amicus Curiae Observations of Professors Robinson, de Guzman, Jalloh and Cryer, 9 October 2013,ICC-02/11-01/11-534,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1662514.pdf.

[91] Decision on the "Request by the Common Legal Representative for leave to present observations on submission under rule 103,' 9 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-533, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1662485.pdf.

[92] Request for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 16 September 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-505, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1645112.pdf.

[93] Decision on the Request for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae Observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence," 1 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-517, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1653635.pdf.

[94] Version publique expurgée de la requête relative à la recevabilité de l’affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut, 15 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-404-Red,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1553300.pdf .

[95] Publique expurgée – Observations de la République de Cote d’Ivoire sur la requête relative à la recevabilité de l’affaire en vertu des articles 19 et 17 du statut déposée par l’équipe de la Défense de M. Laurent Gbagbo, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-427-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575091.pdf; Prosecution's response to Defence's request challenging the admissibility of the case pursuant to Article 17 and 19 of the Rome Statute, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-428,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1574938.pdf; Version publique expurgée des observations du Représentant légal commun des victimes à la Requête de la Défense déposée le 15 février 2013 aux fins de contestation de la recevabilité de l'affaire, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-426-Red,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1574709.pdf.

[96] Decision on the "Requête relative à la recevabilité de l’affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut", 11 June 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-436-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1602934.pdf.

[97] Third decision on the review of Laurent Gbagbo's detention pursuant to article 60(3) of the Rome Statute, 11 July 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-454, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1618385.pdf.

[98] Acte d’appel de la Défense relatif à la « Third decision on the review of Laurent Gbagbo’s, 19 juillet 2013,ICC-02/11-01/11-459-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1621913.pdf.

[99] Decision on the application by victims for participation in the appeal, 27 August 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-491, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1636281.pdf.

[100] Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 July 2013, 29 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-548-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1671846.pdf; Separate Opinion of Judge Erkki Kourula, 29 October 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-548-Anx1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1671844.pdf; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, 29 Ocotber 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-548-Anx2,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1671845.pdf.

[101] Warrant of Arrest for Simone Gbagbo, 29 February 2012, ICC-02/11-01/12-1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1344439.pdf.

[102] Requête De La République De Côte D'ivoire Sur La Recevabilité De L'affaire Le Procureur C. Simone Gbagbo, Et Demande De Sursis À Exécution En Vertu Des Articles 17, 19 Et 95 Du Statut De Rome, 30 September 2013,  ICC-02/11-01/12-11-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1653132.pdf.

[103] Decision reclassifying the warrant of arrest against Charles Blé Goudé and other documents, 30 September 2013, ICC-02/11-02/11-30, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1292069.pdf.

[104] Warrant Of Arrest For Charles Blé Goudé, 21 December 2011, ICC-02/11-02/11-1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1292069.pdf.