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

LEGAL UPDATE: 27 MARCH - 31 MAY 2013

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update:

27 March–31 May 2013

(PDF version)

Contents

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga

  • Further observations on appeals against conviction and sentence
  • Victims and the Trust Fund file observations in appeals against reparation Decision
  • Parties and LRV file observations on the request to intervene as amicus curiae in appeals
  • Appeal Chamber to rule on 32 new applications for participation in the appeal proceedings

Katanga

  • Further submissions in relation to possible re-characterisation
  • Request for family member to act on behalf of deceased victim

Ntaganda

  • Mr. Ntaganda declared provisionally indigent, Mr. Desalliers appointed as his counsel
  • Prosecution requests to postpone confirmation of charges hearing
  • Simpler victims’ application form to be used

Ngudjolo

  • Chamber grants LRVs’ requests not to automatically disclose confidential information to each other

Darfur

Banda and Jerbo

  • Death of Mr. Jerbo notified by its Defence
  • Victims not allowed to participate in the interlocutory appeal lodged by the Defence

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Kenyatta

  • Second report on the situation of victims in Kenya
  • Clarification on the witness preparation Decision
  • TC V split in two Chambers
  • Parties and LRVs file observations relating to cooperation

Ruto & Sang

  • Victims and Prosecution oppose Mr. Ruto’s request not to be present at trial
  • TC V postpones the start of the Trial

Kenyatta

  • Mr. Kenyatta requests reconsideration of the charges brought against him and the postponement of the trial

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi

  • Libya challenges admissibility of the case against Mr. Al-Senussi
  • John Jones appointed counsel to Mr. Gaddafi
  • Case against Saif al Islam Gaddafi declared admissible

Ivory Coast

Ggagbo

  • Further submissions on the admissibility challenge

List of acronyms

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Lubanga case

Further observations filed on appeals against conviction and sentence

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Mr. Lubanga was found guilty of enlisting and conscripting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The Defence and the Prosecution appealed both the sentence and the conviction. Victims who participated in the trial were authorised to participate in the appeals and submitted their observations.[1] They argued, inter alia that when considering aggravating circumstances it should not be necessary to establish that the consequences of the crime could have been foreseen by the convicted person.

On 28 March 2013, the Prosecution replied and stressed that harm could only be treated as an aggravating factor if it was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the crime for which the accused had been convicted.[2] However, the Prosecution concurred that the Chamber had erred in requiring intent or knowledge from the convicted person that those consequences would occur in the ordinary course of events. In addition, it also considered that for sentencing purposes it was possible to consider aggravating factors and circumstances that fell outside the scope of the charges.

On 4 April 2013, the Defence opposed the Legal Representatives for Victims’ (LRVs) observations.[3] It argued that victims should be limited to making observations on issues affecting their personal interest and that the grounds of appeal raised by the Prosecution and the Defence did not affect such interests.

Victims and the Trust Fund file observations in appeals against reparation Decision

[Background] On 7 August 2012, Trial Chamber I (TC I) ruled on the principles and procedure to be applied to reparations for victims. The decision was appealed by victims and the Defence and on 14 December 2012. On 5 February 2013, the Defence filed its written submissions in support of its appeal.[4]

On 7 and 8 April 2013, the LRVs for victims responded to the Defence’s observations.[5] They inter alia concurred that the Chamber had wrongly delegated certain judicial functions to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) and the Registry and that it had wrongly refused to review reparation claims filed by victims. The LRV for Team V01 did not object to the creation of a new Chamber to oversee the implementation of reparation with a particular expertise in this domain. Team V02 opposed the Defence’s contention according to which the fairness of the reparation proceedings required the disclosure to the Accused of all identifying information regarding victims participating in the proceedings.

On the same date, the TFV also submitted its observations.[6] It considered inter alia that the failure to order Mr Lubanga to pay for reparations was against the legal framework of the Court. However, it stated that the non-examination of individual applications for reparations did not constitute an error in law. It noted that survivors of sexualised violence in the course of their recruitment, or use in hostilities, would qualify for reparations. Finally, it observed that the most appropriate standard of causation was to assess whether a causal link test could establish the proximity, directness and foreseeability between the harm and the convicted crime.

Parties and LRV file observations on requests to intervene as amicus curiae in appeals

[Background] On 8 March 2013, the Appeals Chamber received requests from Justice-plus, Terre des Enfants, Fédération des Jeunes pour la Paix Mondiale, Avocats Sans Frontières, and Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice to submit observations as amicus curiae in the appeals against the reparation Decision. Child Soldiers International requested the same in the appeal against the conviction Decision.[7]

On 8 April 2013, LRV for Team V01 supported the requests stressing that a time limit ought to be set in order to avoid any disproportionate delay in the proceedings.[8]

On 9 April 2013, the Defence opposed the NGOs’ request to intervene in the reparation appeals arguing they lacked impartiality and independence.[9] The Defence also opposed the Child Soldiers’ request considering that it would contravene the rights of the Accused to a fair and expeditious trial.[10]

Appeal Chamber to rule on 32 new applications for participation in the appeal proceedings

[Background] On 7 February 2013, the Registry requested the guidance of the Appeals Chamber on whether 32 applications which appeared complete should be transmitted for determination of their status as participants in the appellate proceedings.[11] On 14 February 2013, the Appeals Chamber sought submissions on this issue. The Prosecution and the Defence opposed their consideration at this late stage, while LRVs argued in favor of their transmission.[12]

On 6 May 2013, the Appeals Chamber stated that it would rule on the participatory status of the 32 applicants in the appellate proceedings. It highlighted that had the Trial Chamber dealt with these applications, those applicants who would have been granted a right to participate in the trial proceedings, and would also have been granted the right to participate in the appeal proceedings from the start. As a result it considered that it was in the interests of justice to assess the applicants’ status at this stage.[13] The Chamber directed the Registry to transmit redacted versions of the applications as well as a redacted version of the Registry’s report thereon to the parties.

Katanga case

Further submissions in relation to possible re-characterisation

[Background] On 21 November 2012, Trial Chamber II (TC II) informed the parties and participants that it may re-characterise the facts under Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court (RoC) to consider a different mode of liability for Mr. Katanga.[14] On 27 March 2012, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the Defence’s appeal.[15]

On 8 April 2013, the Prosecution and the CLRV supported the proposed re-characterisation.[16] The CLRV added that TC II should declare Mr. Katanga guilty primarily for committing the crimes that occurred during the Bogoro attack, jointly with another and through another person (article 25-3-a of the Rome Statute) and in the alternative for contributing to the commission of those crimes (article 25-3-d of the Rome Statute).[17] The LRV for child soldiers’ victims did not oppose the re-characterisation though he stressed that the Chamber should explain the reasons why it did not consider a similar re-characterisation with regards to the crime of using children under fifteen years to take part in hostilities. With regards to that crime, he stressed that the Chamber should privilege responsibility as a result of direct individual commission under article 25-3-a) rather than direct coaction under article 25-3-d) of the Statute.[18]

On 15 April 2013, the Defence claimed that any change in the mode of liability at this stage would constitute a manifest unfairness to the Accused. It requested to be informed about the factual allegations the Chamber might use in relation to the new mode of responsibility [19] On 15 May 2013, the Chamber granted the Defence’s request and enumerated the factual allegations deriving from the confirmation of charges decision on which it could base the re-characterisation.[20]

Request for family member to act on behalf of deceased victim

[Background] On 5 August 2009, victim a/0253/09 was granted the right to participate in the proceedings.[21] On 12 April 2013, the LRV for the main group of victims informed the Chamber of the victim a/0253/09’s death.[22]

On 15 May 2013, the LRV requested that a family member be allowed to act on behalf of deceased victim a/0253/09 and that he be granted protective measures.[23]

Ntaganda case

Mr. Ntaganda declared provisionally indigent, Mr. Desalliers appointed as his counsel

[Background] On 17 March 2013, Mr. Ntaganda surrendered to the US embassy in Kigali, Rwanda and requested to be transferred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). He arrived in The Hague on 22 March 2013. On 26 March 2013, his initial appearance took place. The confirmation of charges hearing is set to start on 23 September 2013.

On 12 April 2013, the Registry declared Mr. Ntaganda provisionally indigent and decided that the costs of his defence would be covered by the Court.[24] On 25 April 2013, Mr. Ntaganda appointed Mr. Desalliers as his lead Counsel in the proceedings.[25]

Prosecution requests to postpone confirmation of charges hearing

On 23 May 2013, the Prosecution requested the postponement of the confirmation of charges hearing until mid-February 2014. It argued that the level of assessment and preparation of a case that had been dormant for 7 years could not be completed within the deadlines set by the Chamber.[26]

On 30 May 2013, the Defence opposed the Prosecution’s request arguing that it would affect Ntaganda’s right to be tried without undue delay.[27]

Simpler victims’ application form to be used

On 28 May 2013, Single Judge Trendafilova set out how victims who wish to participate in the confirmation of charges hearing could apply.[28] The Judge simplified the application form to one page, and decided that complete applications should be sent to the Victims Participation and Reparation Section (VPRS) no later than 45 days before the start of the confirmation hearing, and transmitted to the Single Judge and the parties by the Registry no later than 30 days prior to the start of the hearing.

The Single Judge also stressed the need for outreach to take place to pave the way for the collection of forms by VPRS. She also recognised that intermediaries may assist victims with their applications however she stressed that they would need to be properly trained and to act under the control of VPRS. Finally, the Judge requested that VPRS consult applicants on their choice of legal representation and in particular on whether they could be represented by a common legal representative from the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) to be assisted by an assistant counsel in the field.

Ngudjolo case

Chamber grants LRVs’ requests not to automatically disclose confidential information to each other

[Background] On 28 March 2013, the Registry, following instructions from the Appeals chamber, transmitted a non-redacted list of victims authorised to participate in the appellate proceedings to the parties and both LRVs’ teams, revealing the victims’ identities.[29]

Both LRV’s teams considered that in transmitting the victims’ list, the Registry had wrongly disclosed the identities of all victims to both legal representatives. They stressed that the two groups of victims participating in the proceedings should remain anonymous from one another in light of the conflict of interest that exists between them. Therefore, they requested the reclassification of the list of victims as confidential ex parte - only available to the Prosecution, and the Defence.[30]

On 18 April 2013, the Appeals Chamber granted the requests.[31]

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo case

Death of Mr. Jerbo notified by his Defence

[Background] On 7 March 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) confirmed the charges of war crimes against Mr. Jerbo, and committed him to Trial.[32] The Chamber held that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was criminally responsible as a direct co-perpetrator with Mr. Banda under article 25(3)(a) of the Statute for the attack that took place on 29 September 2007 at Haskanita against a military observer group of the African Union Mission in Sudan. The commencement of the Trial has been scheduled for 5 May 2014.

On 21 April 2013, the Defence of Mr. Jerbo notified Trial Chamber IV (TC IV) that Mr. Jerbo had allegedly been killed.[33] On 6 May 2013, the LRVs pointed out that his death put an end to the trial proceedings against Mr Jerbo however, in the interest of victims the Sudanese authorities should establish a death certificate promptly. They also requested the Chamber to disjoin the cases against Mr Banda and Mr Jerbo. [34] The Registry and the Prosecution recommended that proceedings continue until Mr. Jerbo’s death is officially confirmed.[35]

Victims not allowed to participate in the interlocutory appeal lodged by the Defence

[Background] On 23 January 2013, TC IV dismissed the Defence request for the disclosure of documents in the possession of the Prosecution that were linked to the Omar Al Bashir’s case.[36] On 21 March 2013, the Defence’s request to appeal the Decision was granted.[37]

On 12 April 2013, the LRV requested to participate in the interlocutory appeal lodged by the Defence.[38]

On 18 and 19 April, both the Defence and the Prosecution did not oppose the victims’ request.[39] On 6 May 2013, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the LRV’s request considering that the issues on appeal concerned the scope of the Prosecutor's obligations to disclose the Requested Material to Mr Banda and Mr Jerbo and therefore did not affect the personal interests of the victims. Judge Sang-Hyun Song partly disagreed with the majority stating that victims who did not participate in proceedings giving rise to an appeal had no right to file a response to the document in support of the appeal.[40]

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Kenyatta cases

Second report on the situation of victims in Kenya

[Background] On 3 October 2012, Trial Chamber V (TC V) set out a new procedure for victims wishing to participate in the Kenya trials. It ruled that victims who did not wish to appear in person did not have to fill in an application but could register with the Registry. It ordered the Registry to file a report on the general situation of victims every two months in cooperation with the CLRV, including statistics about the victims' population.[41] On 21 and 25 March 2013 respectively, the Registry transmitted its second reports on the situation of victims regarding both Kenya cases.[42] Among the issues covered were the activities of the CLR in the field; information pertaining to the security situation of victims; the Victims Participation and Reparations Section’s (VPRS) assessments regarding victims who participated at the confirmation hearing but now fall outside the scope of the case; and information concerning the activities of the VPRS in the field.

In the Kenyatta case, VPRS identified 18 victims who appeared to fall outside the scope of the case; the total number of victims remaining within the scope of the case is now 208 (from 233 originally). In the Ruto and Sang case, VPRS received supplementary information in relation to 25 victims. 58 victims’ applications remained uncertain and two victims had died. The total number of victims remaining within the scope of the case is now provisionally set at 120 (from 149 originally).

Clarification on the witness preparation Decision

[Background] On 2 January 2013, TC V departed from existing practice and authorised the preparation of witnesses in relation to the Kenya trials.[43]

On 11 April 2013, TC V clarified that non-substantive contact between the calling party and the witness in the 24 hours preceding the witness' testimony would be appropriate. TC V considered that from the time a witness begins to testify until the end of his/her testimony, the contact would be restricted to the examination in Court, unless authorised by the Chamber.[44]

TC V split in two Chambers

On 21 May 2013, the Presidency decided to split TC V into two Chambers: TC V (a) composed of Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, Presiding, Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia and Judge Robert Fremr will sit on the Ruto and Sang trial and TC V (b) composed of Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Presiding Judge, Judge Robert Fremr and Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji will sit on the Kenyatta trial.[45] On 26 April 2013, Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert had been replaced by Judge Fremr.[46]

Parties and LRVs file observations relating to cooperation

[Background] On 8 March 2013, the Prosecutor alleged a lack of cooperation from the Kenyan Government stressing notably its failure to assist her office in uncovering evidence that would have been useful in the case against Mr. Muthaura.[47]

On 8 April 2013, the Republic of Kenya submitted that it had fully cooperated, supported and assisted the Court and the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and continued to do so.[48]

On 6 May 2013, the LRV in the Kenyatta case, Mr. Gaynor,considered that the Government’s submissions lacked sincerity. He also pointed out that the steps the Kenyan Government had identified fell far short of genuine complementarity. He added that there had been very few prosecutions of alleged perpetrators, and that the Government had only provided little assistance to victims and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).[49]

On 10 May 2013, the Common Legal Representative for Victims (CLRV) in the Ruto and Sang case, Me. Nderitu, questioned the Kenyan government’s commitment to cooperation recalling that Kenya had not respected its treaty obligations as a State Party to the Rome Statute in inviting President al Bashir to the inauguration of President Kenyatta. Mr. Nderitu added that while Kenya had a Witness Protection Agency, this agency was not established to deal with witnesses relating to the Post-Election Violence of 2007-8 and thus its existence did not constitute evidence of Kenya’s cooperation. Finally, he stressed that the International Crimes Division referred to by Kenya, was not yet functional. [50]

Both Defences’ teams supported the Kenyan Government submissions.[51] The Prosecution argued that it had encountered serious difficulties in securing full and timely cooperation from the Kenyan Government which compromised its ability to investigate the crimes in these cases.[52] On 20 May 2013, the Kenyan Government denied the Prosecution’s allegations.[53]

Ruto & Sang case

Victims and Prosecution oppose Mr. Ruto’s request not to be present at trial

[Background] On 28 February 2013, Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang sought to attend their trial via video link from Kenya. A decision is pending.[54] On 4 March 2013, Mr. Ruto was elected Deputy President of Kenya.

On 17 April 2013, the Defence for Mr. Ruto indicated his wish to waive his right to be present at trial. His defence team proposed that he be permitted to attend the opening and closing hearings of the trial, judgment and all hearings at which his attendance would expressly be requested by the Chamber as well as any other session he might choose to attend in person. In the alternative, his Defence submitted that he should be allowed to attend the entire trial via video link.[55]

On 22 April 2013, the CLRV opposed the Defence’s request stating that it would undermine the trial process and the Court’s authority.[56] On 1 May 2013, the Prosecution also opposed the request considering that the physical presence of the Accused during trial was a statutory requirement central to the integrity of the proceedings and to how the Court was perceived by the public, victims and witnesses.[57] On 22 May 2013, following the status conference that was held on 14 and 15 May 2013, the CLRV re iterated its objections to the Defence’s request adding that the Rome Statute required the physical presence of the accused at trial.[58]

TC V postpones the start of the trial

[Background] On 21-22 February 2013, the Defence for Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang requested TC V to postpone the trial in order to ensure effective defence preparation.[59] On 7 and 8 March 2013, TC V granted the requests and set the provisional start of trial to 28 May 2013.[60]

On 22 April 2013, the Defence for Mr. Ruto requested that the trial be postponed again and that a new trial date be set for no earlier than November 2013. The Defence cited the OTP’s failure to provide timely and effective disclosure as a reason for the request.[61] The LRV stressed that delays were an injustice to victims who expected an expeditious conclusion of the trial.[62]

On 6 May 2013, TC V provisionally postponed the trial in order to get additional submissions by the parties.[63] A new date for the start of the trial is yet to be set.

Kenyatta case

Mr. Kenyatta requests reconsideration of the charges brought against him and the postponement of the trial

[Background] On 11 March 2013, the Prosecution notified TC V that it was withdrawing all charges against Mr. Muthaura while stressing that it had no legal and factual impact on Mr. Kenyatta’s case.[64] On 18 March 2013, TC V authorised the Prosecution to withdraw the charges against Mr. Muthaura.[65]

On 3 April 2013, Mr. Kenyatta requested TC V to terminate, stay the proceedings, or remit the case back to the Pre-Trial Chamber for reconsideration. He argued that the decision to withdraw the charges against Mr. Muthaura as well as the Prosecution’s decision not to rely on a witness destroyed the factual and legal matrix of the common plan as confirmed by Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II).[66] According to the Prosecution the withdrawal of charges against one alleged indirect co-perpetrator has no legal consequence on a co-accused, who is also charged as an indirect co-perpetrator and against whom charges remain in place.[67] The LRV concurred.[68]

On 26 April 2013, the Chamber ruled that the most appropriate remedy for the prejudice caused to the accused was to provide the Defence with further time to prepare for the trial.[69] The Chamber also stated that the Prosecution should have conducted more of its investigation prior the confirmation of charge hearings. Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert in her concurring opinion also voiced concerns at the Prosecution’s failure to conduct a full investigation prior to the confirmation of charges hearing.[70]

On 14 May 2013, the Defence requested that the trial be postponed until January 2014.[71]

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi case

Libya challenges the admissibility of the case against Mr. Al-Senussi

[Background] On 4 December 2011, Mr. Al-Senussi, former Colonel in the Libyan Armed Forces and head of the Military Intelligence was arrested. He is yet to be transferred to the ICC by Libya.

On 2 April 2013, Libya challenged the admissibility of the case. It argued that it was already investigating Mr. Al-Senussi at the national level in accordance with the principle of complementarity and made a request to postpone his surrender.[72] On 24 April 2013, the Defence for Mr. Al-Senussi requested PTC I to reject Libya’s request.[73]

John Jones appointed counsel to Mr. Gaddafi

On 4 March 2013, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCD) requested the authorisation of the Chamber to withdraw its counsels' representation of Mr. Gaddafi and to recognise the appointment of Mr. Jones as replacement defence counsel. On 17 April 2013, PTC I granted the request.[74]

Case against Saif al Islam Gaddafi declared admissible

[Background] On 1 May 2012, Libya challenged the admissibility of the case against Mr. Gaddafi arguing that it was already investigating him domestically.[75] On 25 January 2013, the Government of Libya indicated that their criminal investigation in the case of Mr. Gaddafi was now close to being transferred to the Pre-Trial Chamber.[76] On 4 March 2013, Libya submitted that it had established on-going national proceedings with respect to Mr. Gaddafi and had satisfied all the requisite elements of the ICC Statute for a finding of inadmissibility.[77]

On 31 May 2013, Pre Trial Chamber I rejected Libya’s challenge to the admissibility of the case stating that Libya had not provided enough evidence to demonstrate that its investigation covered the same conduct for which Mr. Gaddafi was sought by the ICC. Although, the Chamber took note of the efforts deployed by Libya under extremely difficult circumstances to improve security conditions, rebuild institutions and restore the rule of law, it was not convinced that Libya was able to genuinely carry out an investigation and prosecute Mr. Gaddafi due to: Libya’s inability to obtain the transfer of Mr. Gaddafi from the custody of the Zintan militia into State authority; the lack of an adequate witness protection programme for victims and witnesses shedding doubts on Libya’s courts’ ability to obtain testimonies; and challenges to ensuring Mr. Gaddafi could appoint a lawyer. The Chamber recalled Libya’s obligation to surrender Mr. Gaddafi.[78]

Ivory Coast

Laurent Gbagbo case

Further submissions on the admissibility challenge

[Background] On 15 February 2013, the Defence challenged the admissibility of the case under the principle of complementarity (Article 17 of the Statute) and requested that the Chamber order a permanent stay of proceedings and the immediate release of Laurent Gbagbo.[79] On 14 March 2013, PTC I granted leave to Côte d'Ivoire to submit observations.[80]

On 28 March 2013, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, the Prosecution and the OPCV opposed the admissibility challenge. The Republic of Côte d’Ivoire considered that the criteria for inadmissibility under Article 17 were not fulfilled.[81]

The Prosecution and the OPCV argued that the Defence had not provided evidence of domestic investigations against Mr. Gbagbo for the same charges as those he faces before the ICC. In addition, the Prosecution noted that Cote d’Ivoire had expressly relinquished its jurisdiction over Mr. Gbagbo to the ICC.[82]

After collecting the views of victims through a questionnaire, the OPCV pointed out that the current state of the Ivorian justice system could not allow investigations and/ or prosecution against Mr. Gbagbo in accordance with Article 17 of the Rome Statute. It also stressed that victims opposed the prosecution of Mr. Gbagbo at the national level considering that the ICC was the only Court that was able to deal with this case. OPCV added that victims feared that an amnesty law, based on national reconciliation, could be passed by the government in favour of Mr. Gbagbo.[83]

List of acronyms

CLRV - Common Legal Representative for Victims

IDPs - Internally Displaced Persons

ICC - International Criminal Court

LRV - Legal Representatives for Victim

OPCD - Office of Public Counsel for Victims

OTP - Office of the Prosecutor

OPCV - Office of Public Counsel for Victims

PTC I - Pre-Trial Chamber I

RoC - Regulations of the Court

TC I - Trial Chamber I

TC II - Trial Chamber II

TC IV - Trial Chamber IV

TC V - Trial Chamber V

TFV - Trust Fund for Victims

 

VPRS - Victims Participation and Reparation Section

We are grateful for the support of the

John D. and Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation.

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 VRWG Legal update Jan-March 2013 at http://www.vrwg.org/Legal_Update/Legal-Update-January_March-2013-.pdf.

[2] Prosecution’s Response to the Observations of Legal Representatives Group V01, 28 March 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3004, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1574922.pdf.

[3] Réplique de la Défense aux observations des Représentants légaux des groupes de victimes V0l et V02 sur les appels de la Défense relatifs au Jugement et à la Décision sur la peine et sur l'appel du Procureur relatif à la Décision sur la peine, déposées les 4 et 7 février 2013, 4 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3005-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1576552.pdf.

[4] For more details, please see VRWG Legal update Jan-March 2013 at http://www.vrwg.org/Legal_Update/Legal-Update-January_March-2013-.pdf.

[5] Réponse au Mémoire de la Défense relatif à l’appel contre la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations » du 7 août 2012, 7 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3007, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1576949.pdf; Joint Response to the "Mémoire de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga relatif à l’appel à l’encontre de la 'Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations', 8 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577205.pdf.

[6] Observations of the Trust Fund for Victims on the appeals against Trial Chamber I ‘s ‘’Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations”, 8 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3009, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577200.pdf.

[7] For more details, please see VRWG Legal update Jan-March 2013 at http://www.vrwg.org/Legal_Update/Legal-Update-January_March-2013-.pdf.

[8] Réponse aux demandes d’intervention comme amici curiae au stade de l’appel contre la Décision en réparations, 8 avril 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3008, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1576958.pdf.

[9] Observations de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga concernant les procédures, ICC-01/04-01/06-2993 et ICC-01/04-01/06-2994 déposées le 8 mars 2013, 9 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3015-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577958.pdf

[10] Observations de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga concernant la demande présentée par l’organisation Child Soldier International le 8 mars 2013, 9 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-3013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577718.pdf;

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

[12] For more details, please see VRWG Legal update Jan-March 2013 at http://www.vrwg.org/Legal_Update/Legal-Update-January_March-2013-.pdf .

[13] Victims’ Response to the Government of Kenya’s Submissions on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 6 May 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-731, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590033.pdf.

[14] Décision relative à la mise en œuvre de la norme 55 du Règlement de la Cour et prononçant la disjonction des charges portées contre les accusés, 21 November 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1511676.pdf.

[15] Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, 27 mars 2013
ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1529337.pdf

[16] Prosecution’s observations on Article 25(3)(d), 8 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3367, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577306.pdf.

[17] Observations du représentant légal quant à la responsabilité de G. Katanga en vertu de l’article 25-3-d) du Statut, 8 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3365, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577277.pdf.

[18] Observations du Représentant légal des victimes enfants soldats déposées en application de la décision ICC-01/04-01/07-3319 relative à la mise en œuvre de la norme 55 du Règlement de la Cour et à la disjonction des charges, 8 April 2013,ICC-01/04-01/07-3366, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577294.pdf.

[19] Defence Observations on Article 25(3)(d), 15 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3369, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1580076.pdf.

[20] Décision relative à la transmission d'éléments juridiques et factuels complémentaires (norme 55-2 et 3 du Règlement de la Cour), 15 May 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3371, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1592682.pdf

[21] Corrigendum du dispositif de la décision relative aux 345 demandes de participation de victimes à la procédure, 5 August 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1347-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541558.pdf.

[22] Observations du représentant légal sur la liste des victimes participant à la procédure, 15 April 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3368. http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1579474.pdf

[23] Demande de reprise de l’action introduite par la victime décédée a/0253/09, ICC-01/04-01/07-3372, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1592935.pdf

[24] Enregistrement de la "Décision du Greffier sur la demande d'aide judiciaire aux frais de la Cour déposée par M. Bosco Ntaganda", 12 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-48, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1579479.pdf.

[25] Registration in the record of the case the appointment of Mr. Marc Desalliers as Lead Counsel of Mr. BoscoNtaganda, 25 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-52, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585064.pdf.

[26] 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.

[27] Version publique expurgée - Réponse de la Défense de M. Bosco Ntaganda à la « Prosecution’s Urgent Request to Postpone the Date of the Confirmation Hearing » déposée le 24 mai 2013, 30 May 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-69-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599025.pdf.

[28] Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims' Application Process, 28 May 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1597384.pdf; ICC-01/04-02/06-67-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1597385.pdf.

[29] Transmission of the List of Victims in compliance with the Decision ICC-01/04-02/12-30, 28 March 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-55, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1572304.pdf.

[30] Observations du représentant légal sur la liste des victimes participant à la procédure d’appel transmise par le Greffe et demande de re-classification du document ICC-01/04-02/12-55-Conf-Anx3-Corr, 12 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-62, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1579458.pdf; Demande de re-classification de la liste des victimes déposée par le Greffe sous la référence ICC-01/04-02/12-55-Conf-Anx2-Red-Corr, ICC-01/04-02/12-66,16 April 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1580492.pdf

[31] Order on the reclassification of documents ICC-01/04-02/12-55-Conf-Anx3-Corr and ICC-01/04-02/12-55-Conf-Red-Corr, 18 April 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-66, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1582409.pdf.

[32] Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, 8 March 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-121-Corr-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1036947.pdf.

[33] 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

[34] Observations des Représentants Légaux Communs sur la Notification de la Défense (ICC-02/05-03/09-466), 6 May 2013,ICC-02/05-03/09-472, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590133.pdf.

[35] Registry’s observations on the “ “Defence Notification of the Death of Mr Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, 6 May 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-473, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1581988.pdf; Prosecution’s Observations Regarding the Defence Notification of the Death of Mr. Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, 6 May 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-469, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590079.pdf.

[36] Decision on the Defence's Request for Disclosure of Documents in the Possession of the Office of the Prosecutor, 23 January 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-443, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1544336.pdf.

[37] Decision on the Defence Application for Leave to Appeal the "Decision on the Defence's Request for Disclosure of Documents in the Possession of the Office of the Prosecutor", 21 March 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-457,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1570400.pdf

[38] Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs aux Fins de Participer à l’Appel Interlocutoire interjeté par la Défense contre la Décision Rejetant sa Demande de Divulgation des Documents en Possession, 12 April 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-461, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1579464.pdf.

[39] Prosecution’s Response to the « Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs aux Fins de Participer à l’Appel Interlocutoire interjeté par la Défense contre la Décision de la Chambre de Première Instance IV du 23 Janvier 2013 Rejetant sa Demande de Divulgation des Documents en Possession du Procureur », 18 April 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-464, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1582390.pdf;Defence Response to “Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs aux Fins de Participer à l'Appel Interlocutoire interjeté par la Défense contre la Décision de la Chambre de Première Instance IV du 23 Janvier 2013 Rejetant sa Demande de Divulgation des Documents en Possession du Procureur (ICC-02/05-03/09-443)”, 19 April 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-465, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1582665.pdf.

[40] Decision on the participation of victims in the appeal, 6 May 2013,ICC-02/05-03/09-470, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590039.pdf; ICC-02/05-03/09-470-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590871.pdf .

[41] For more information on the new system implemented in the Kenya case, please see the Q/A - ICC Decision on Victims' Representation and Participation in the Kenya Cases on VRWG website, http://www.vrwg.org/home/home/post/39-q--a---the-landmark-icc-decision-on-victims--representation-and-participation-in-the-kenya-cases. Decision on victims' representation and participation, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-460, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479374.pdf.

[42] Second periodic report on the general situation of victims in Kenya, 21 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-701, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1550205.pdf; Second periodic report on the general situation of victims in Kenya, 25 March 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-661-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1572251.pdf;

[43] See ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update: December 2012 – January 2013, http://www.vrwg.org/legal-update/legal-update-dec-2012---jan-2013.

[44] Decision on VWU submission regarding witness preparation, 11 April 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-676, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1578522.pdf.

[45] Decision constituting Trial Chamber V(a) and Trial Chamber V(b) and referring to them the cases of The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang and The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, 21 May 2013,ICC-01/09-01/11-745, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1594914.pdf .

[46] Decision replacing a judge in Trial Chamber V, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-729, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585637.pdf.

[47] Additional Prosecution observations on the Defence’s Article 64 applications,filed in accordance with order number ICC-01/09-02-11-67, 8 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-683-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565410.pdf.

[48] Government of Kenya's Submissions on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, or, in the alternative, Application for Leave to file Observations pursuant to Rule 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 8 April 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-670, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1577521.pdf.

[49] Victims’ Response to the Government of Kenya’s Submissions on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 6 May 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-731, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590033.pdf.

[50] Response of the Common Legal Representative for Victims to the “Government of Kenya's Submissions on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court or, in the alternative, Application for Leave to file Observations pursuant to Rule 103(1), 6 May 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590866.pdf.

[51] Defence Response to the Government of Kenya's Observations on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court”, 8 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-727-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590765.pdf; Sang Defence Response to Submissions by the Government of the Republic of Kenya, 8 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-729, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1590776.pdf.

[52] Prosecution response to the “Government of Kenya's Submissions on the Status of Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, or, in the alternative, Application for Leave to file Observations pursuant to Rule 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” (ICC-01/09-01/11-670), 10 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-730-Red , http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1591097.pdf.

[53] Registry Transmission of a document received from the Government of the Republic of Kenya, represented by the Attorney General of Kenya, 20 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-754, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1596010.pdf.

[54] Joint Defence Submissions on Legal Basis for the Accused’s Presence at Trial via Video Link, 28 February 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-629, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1560298.pdf; Decision replacing a judge in Trial Chamber V, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-729-AnxI, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585639.pdf.

[55] 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.

[56] Submissions of the Common Legal Representative for Victims on the Defence Request Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Rome Statute, 22 April 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-694, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1583187.pdf.

[57] Prosecution’s Observations on “Defence Request pursuant to Article 63 (1) of the Rome Statute”, 1 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-713, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1587847.pdf.

[58] Submissions of the Common Legal Representative for Victims on Partial Absence of the Accused During Trial in Relation to Article 63(1) of the Rome Statute, 22 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-749, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1595232.pdf.

[59] 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.

[60] Order concerning the start date of trial, 7 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-677, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1564494.pdf; Decision concerning the start date of trial, 8 March 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-642, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565257.pdf.

[61] Public Redacted Version of "Second Defence Request to Vacate the Trial Commencement Date” submitted on 22 April 2013, 25 April 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-692-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585127.pdf.

[62] Response of the Common Legal Representative for Victims to the Second Defence Request to Vacate the Trial Commencement Date, 1 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-714, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1587879.pdf.

[63] Order scheduling status conferences and provisionally vacating the trial start date, 6 May 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-722, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200109/related%20cases/icc01090111/court%20records/chambers/trial%20chamber%20v/Pages/11-722.aspx.

[64] Prosecution observations on the impact of the withdrawal of the charges against Mr Muthaura on Mr Kenyatta” 13 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-692-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1567050.pdf.

[65] Decision on the withdrawal of charges against Mr Muthaura, 18 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-696,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1568411.pdf.

[66] ‘Corrigendum of “Defence Observations regarding the Impact of the Withdrawal of the Charges Against Mr Muthaura on the Case Against Mr Kenyatta, 3 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-707-Corr-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575911.pdf .

[67] “Additional Prosecution observations on Mr Kenyatta’s Article 64 application, 28 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-708-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575029.pdf;

[68] Victims’ observations relating to the “Order requesting written submissions following 18 March 2013 status conference”, 28 March 2013,ICC-01/09-02/11-709,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575033.pdf

[69] Decision on defence application pursuant to Article 64(4) and related requests, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-728, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585619.pdf.

[70] Decision on defence application pursuant to Article 64(4) and related requests, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-728-Anx2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1585626.pdf.

[71] Public Redacted Version of the 13 May 2013 “Defence Observations on Estimated Time Required to Prepare for Trial with Confidential Annexes, 14 May 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-735-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1592247.pdf.

[72] 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.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575650.pdf.

[73] Response on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi to the Submission of the Government of Libya for Postponement of the Surrender Request for Mr. Al-Senussi, ICC-01/11-01/11-319, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1581852.pdf.

[74] Decision on the "Request to Withdraw", 17 April 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-311-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1581647.pdf.

[75] Application on behalf of the Government of Libya pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 1 May 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-130, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1405819.pdf.

[76] Libyan Government’s further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 25 January 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-258-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1545015.pdf.

[77] Public and Redacted - Libyan Government’s consolidated reply to the responses of the Prosecution, OPCD, and OPCV to its further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 4 March 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-293-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1562659.pdf.

[78] 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.

[79] 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 .

[80] Decision on the "Demande d'’autorisation de la République de Côte d'Ivoire aux fins de déposer des observations 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. Lauren, 14 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-418,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1567471.pdf.

[81] Publique expurgée – Observations de la Republique de Cote d’Ivoire sur la requete relative a la recevabilite de l’affaire en vertu des articles 19 et 17 du statut desposee par l’equipe de la Defence de M. Laurent Gbagbo, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-427-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575091.pdf.

[82] 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.

[83] 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.