Victims' Rights Working GroupPromoting the rights and interests of victims
September 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930

LEGAL UPDATE DEC 2012 - JAN 2013

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update

December 2012 – January 2013

(PDF version)

Contents

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga

  • Defence appeals against Lubanga’s conviction
  • Parties appeals against Lubanga’s sentence
  • Victims to participate in appeals Appeals
  • Appeals against decision on reparation admissible

Ngudjolo

  • TC II acquits Ngudjolo and orders immediate release
  • Ngudjolo requests to be released outside of Africa

Katanga

  • Defence granted leave to appeal the decision on re-characterisation

Central African Republic

Bemba

  • Defence opposes re-characterisation of facts; trial suspended until March

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo

  • Parties oppose fixing modalities of victims’ participation at this stage

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta

  • Kituo Cha Seria raises concerns about the new system for victims’ participation and representation
  • Ongoing discussions on division of responsibilities between OPCV and CLRV
  • Chamber authorises witness preparation, departing from existing practice
  • TC V to seek views on request to hold proceedings in Kenya or Tanzania
  • Ruto & Sang
  • Former Legal Representative of Victims submits observations on need to consult victims on representation

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi

  • Libya provides further information on national investigations
  • Ongoing discussions on trials allegedly starting in Libya

Ivory Coast

LaurentGgagbo

  • Decision on Ggagbo’s fitness confirmed
  • Defence’s appeal on jurisdiction challenge rejected
  • Confirmation of charges hearing to start on 19 February 2013; Defence appeals
  • Request to appear as amicus curiae on whether the Prosecutor should terminate proceedings

 

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Lubanga case

Defence appeals against Lubanga’s conviction

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Lubanga was found guilty of enlisting and conscripting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.[1] The Defence appealed the judgment on 3 October 2012.[2]

In December 2012, the Defence sought to overturn the conviction and called for Lubanga’s release,[3] raising procedural errors, including the Prosecutor’s failure to comply with its obligations to disclose all exculpatory evidence and to adequately verify the evidence it submitted. The Defence added that Trial Chamber I (TC I) had wrongly found that children below 15 had been present in the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC) and used in hostilities. It also argued that the Chamber had erred when ruling that the age of children could be determined from their physical appearance, that there was no difference between conscription and enlistment, and that the determination of a child’s participation in hostilities could be based on the risk encountered by the child rather than by the importance of his/her contribution to military operations.

The Defence also advanced grounds regarding the definition of “co-perpetration” and opposed the Chambers’ finding that no presence at the scene of the crime was necessary to establish responsibility under Article 25(3)(a). The Appeal decision is pending.

Parties appeals against Lubanga’s sentence

[Background] On 10 July 2012, TC I sentenced Lubanga to 14 years imprisonment.[4] Both the Prosecutor and the Defence appealed the sentencing.

The Prosecution submitted that TC I had failed to give sufficient weight to crucial elements – such as the gravity of the crimes, the extent of the damage caused or Lubanga’s degree of participation – and stressed that these factors demanded “a significantly higher sentence”.[5]

In contrast, the Defence requested that the sentence be quashed or reduced.[6] It argued that TC I erred in finding that the recruitment and participation of children in the FPLC was widespread. The Defence also claimed that violations of Lubanga’s fundamental rights throughout the proceedings and the period spent by Lubanga in custody in DRC warranted a reduced sentence. A decision on appeal is pending.

Victims to participate in appeals

On 13 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber allowed victims who had participated in the trial to also participate in the appeals against the conviction and sentence.[7] Victims whose right to participate had been withdrawn will not be allowed to participate.

Appeals against Decision on reparation admissible

[Background] On 7 August 2012, TC I ruled on the principles and procedure to be applied to reparations for victims.[8] The Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), the Legal Representatives of Victims (LRVs) and the Defence appealed the decision. Among the contentious issues was whether this decision constituted an “order for reparation” as understood in Article 75, directly appealable before the Appeals Chambers by the parties and participants.

On 14 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber found that the “reparation decision” did constitute an order for reparation and declared the appeals under Article 82(4) admissible.[9] The Chamber recognised victims as “parties” in the appeals but rejected OPCV’s request to appear on behalf of unidentified victims whose interests might be affected by collective reparations. It found that only the following categories of victims were eligible to appeal: 1) individuals represented by the LRVs in the reparations proceedings before TC I; 2) individuals who participated in the trial as victims and requested reparations (including those whose right to participate was later withdrawn); 3) individuals whose application for participation in the trial had been rejected, but who nevertheless requested reparations; and 4) individuals who participated in the trial, but did not apply for reparations.

The Chamber also upheld Lubanga’s right to appeal and invited the Trust Fund for Victims to file observations. The implementation of the reparation decision will not start until this appeal as well as the one against the conviction, are resolved. Requests for leave to submit amicus curiae observations in the appeals must be filed by 8 March 2013.

Ngudjolo case

TC II acquits Ngudjolo and orders immediate release

[Background] Ngudjolo and Katanga’s trial closed on 23 May 2009. On 21 November 2012, Trial Chamber II (TC II) severed the cases.[10] Ngudjolo was accused of three counts of crimes against humanity (murder, rape, sexual slavery) and seven counts of war crimes (using children under the age of fifteen to take active part in hostilities, directing an attack against civilians, willful killing, destruction of property, pillaging, sexual slavery, rape).

On 18 December 2012, TC II acquitted Ngudjolo and ordered the Registrar to take all necessary measures to secure his immediate release.[11] TC II found that the evidence pertaining to Ngudjolo’s alleged position as commander in chief of the Bedu-Ezekere militia was insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was in charge of the combatants during the Bogoro attack. TC II found that child soldiers were present amongst the combatants; however it was not certain of the link between Ngudjolo and these children in relation to the attack.

The judges stressed that the non guilty verdict did not mean that no crimes were committed but that the evidence was simply not enough to form a conviction “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Prosecution indicated its intention to appeal and requested that Ngudjolo remain in detention until resolution of the appeal.[12] On 20 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber confirmed that Ngudjolo would be released.[13]

Ngudjolo requests to be released outside of Africa

On 21 December 2012, the ICC released Ngudjolo from custody.[14] He will temporarily stay in the Netherlands while awaiting for the United Nations to lift the travel ban against him. The same day, the Defence requested the international relocation of Ngudjolo outside of Africa.[15] It also indicated he wished to claim political asylum in Belgium. The Defence argued that if returned to DRC, Ngudjolo would be at risk of persecution due to his testimony accusing the Congolese authorities in relation to the Bogoro attack.

Katanga case

Defence granted leave to appeal the decision on re-characterisation

[Background] On 21 November 2012, TC II informed 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 Katanga.[16]

On 21 December 2012, the Defence sought leave to appeal. It argued, inter alia, that the modification exceeded the facts and circumstances set out in the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, that it was incompatible with fair trial requirements and compromised the expeditiousness of the trial. LRVs have requested to participate in the appeal.

On 28 December 2012, TC II granted the Defence’s appeal and on 16 January 2013 also granted the Defence’s request for the suspension of the decision until resolution of the appeal.[17] The 364 victims participating in the case have been authorised to participate in the appeal.[18]

Central African Republic (CAR)

Bemba case

Defence opposes re-characterisation of facts; trial suspended until March

[Background] On 21 September 2012, Trial Chamber III (TC III) announced a possible re-characterisation of the facts pursuant to Regulation 55 of the RoC to consider under the same mode of responsibility the alternate form of knowledge stated in Article 28(a).[19] On 18 October 2012, the Defence opposed the proposed re-characterisation.

On 13 December 2012, TC III temporarily suspended the proceedings to allow the Defence to conduct further investigations, interview potential witnesses or gather relevant material.[20] On 18 December 2012, the Defence sought leave to appeal the decision and also argued that the proposed modification exceeded the scope of Regulation 55 and violated Bemba’s rights. The request was dismissed by TC III.[21] The Defence’s presentation of evidence is due to resume on 4 March 2012.

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo case

Parties oppose fixing modalities of victims’ participation at this stage

[Background] On 7 November 2012, the LRV requested Trial Chamber IV to fix the modalities of victims’ participation in the proceedings to enable victims to expose their views and concerns before the trial begins.[22] No date for the trial has yet been set.

On 28 and 29 November 2012, the Defence and the Prosecutor opposed the request.[23] Both concurred that the request was inconsistent with the practice of other Trial Chambers and premature given the period of time remaining until the start of the trial.

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta cases

Kituo Cha Sheria raises concerns about the new system for victims’ participation and representation

[Background] On 3 October 2012, Trial Chamber V (TC V) set up a new system for the participation and representation of victims in the trials.[24] The Chamber ruled that the Common Legal Representative’s (CRLV) would be based in Kenya and assisted by OPCV which will attend hearings on his/her behalf and act under his/her instructions. The Victims Participation and Reparations Section was also instructed to provide a periodic “comprehensive report” on statistics of the victims’ population. On 15-16 November 2012, Kituo Cha Sheria (Kituo), a Kenyan NGO, was granted leave to intervene as amicus curiae on issues relating to the implementation of the new system regarding the representation of victims.[25]

On 23 November 2012, Kituo submitted its observations.[26] It stressed that due to the CLRV permanent presence in Kenya the Court should ensure he/she has adequate equipment and security tools in order to access confidential documents in the cases. The NGO also called for the CLRV to dispose of sufficient resources in order to be able to maintain a common line of communication between the staff in The Hague and in Kenya and to conduct systematic consultations with the victims. Kituo argued in favour of a clear division of the roles between OPCV and the CLRV and further suggested that it was “what the victims [had] to say about the process, as opposed to how many they [were], that should be most relevant”.

Kituo also stressed that victims needed to be adequately informed about the new system and called on TC V to provide clarity on the procedure to be followed to apply for reparations.

Ongoing discussions on division of responsibilities between OPCV and CLRV

[Background] On 3 October 2012, TC V instructed the Registry and OPCV to submit a joint proposal on the division of responsibilities and effective functioning of the common legal representation system. On 17 October 2012, the Registry and OPCV notified TC V that they were unable to submit such proposal.

On 27 November 2012, the Registry updated the Chamber on its ongoing discussions with OPCV.[27] It highlighted inter alia that some OPCV staff suggested for secondment to the legal representation teams may have been involved in both Kenya cases and could thus be tainted. The Registry concluded that in absence of further information from the OPCV, it could not decide on whether the appointed OPCV staff met the position’s requirements.

Chamber authorises witness preparation, departing from existing practice

[Background] Until now, Trial chambers have rejected witness proofing – i.e., preparation of witnesses by the calling party shortly before testifying. Chambers had ruled that only the familiarisation of witnesses prior to testimony was allowed (which includes the opportunity for the witness to review or correct his/her previous statements – through the neutral Victims and Witnesses Unit only – and a short ‘courtesy’ meeting with the representatives of the parties).[28]

On 2 January 2013, TC V, Judge Eboe-Osuji partly dissenting, departed from the existing practice and authorised the preparation of witnesses in relation to the Kenya trials.[29] TC V authorised pre-testimony meetings between witnesses and the party calling them in order to enable the latter to “determine the most effective way to question its witnesses” as well as the topics which will provide the most relevant and probative evidence in Court. The Chamber highlighted that such preparation would facilitate a fair, effective and expeditious trial by increasing the likelihood of clear and focused testimony. The Chamber also found that witness preparation would “[enhance] the protection and well-being of witnesses” by helping to reduce their stress and anxiety linked with testifying.

To ensure that witness preparation would not “become an improper rehearsal of in-court testimony”, TC V requested that pre-testimony meetings be video recorded to allow judicial review, as appropriate.[30] The judges also stressed that cross-examination by the Chamber on the extent of preparation would act as a safeguard and annexed a protocol setting out guidelines on permissible and prohibited conduct.

The Defences for Ruto and Sang are seeking to appeal.[31]

TC V to seek views on request to hold proceedings in Kenya or Tanzania

[Background] On 28 May 2012, the suspects requested that the trial be held in Kenya or at the premises of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Tanzania. On 8 November 2012, TC V rejected the request, finding that they ought to have been addressed to the Presidency.[32]

On 3 December 2012 and 24 January 2013, the Defence for Muthaura and the Defences for Ruto & Sang respectively forwarded their request to the Presidency, which in turn instructed TC V to seek the parties’ views on the issue.[33] On 17 January 2013, TC V requested the parties, the LRV and the Registry in the Muthaura & Kenyatta case to submit observations on the issue at stake by 7 February 2013.[34]

Ruto & Sang case

Former Legal Representative of Victims submits observations on need to consult victims on representation

[Background] On 3 October, TC V fixed the criteria for the selection of the new CLRV. On 6 November 2012, Ms Chana, who represented victims at pre-trial stage, sought leave to present the victims’ views and concerns on their legal representation at trial. On 23 November 2012, TC V appointed Mr Nderitu as new CLRV.[35]

On 13 December 2012, the Chamber rejected her request. However, in light of Ms Chana’s “unique perspective on the victims' views and concerns in this trial”, TC V indicated she could seek leave to file an amicus on the issue.[36] On 24 December 2012, Ms Chana filed her observations and reaffirmed that victims, as the persons most directly affected, should have been directly consulted in relation to their legal representation.[37] She emphasized that the right to participate in proceedings belonged to victims, not their LRV.

TC V is yet to decide whether it grants the leave or not.

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi case

Libya provides further information on national investigations

[Background] On 1 May 2012, Libya challenged the admissibility of the case arguing that it was already investigating Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi domestically.[38]

On 7 December 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) found that Libya’s assertions regarding its investigation of Gaddafi needed further substantiation and appropriate evidence.[39] PTC I required information on, inter alia, 1) the status and timeline of domestic proceedings; 2) whether the security situation inhibited progress of the investigation; and 3) who had custody of Mr Gaddafi.

The Defence sought leave to appeal, arguing that given Gaddafi’s lengthy detention, PTC I should not wait any longer to issue a decision on the merits of the admissibility challenge.[40] It nevertheless filed the requested submissions and mentioned, inter alia, that the domestic criminal investigations were nearing the stage of being transferred to the Chambre d’Accusation for pre-trial proceedings, i.e. the accusation phase.[41] It confirmed the crimes and their scope (both geographical and temporal) would be broader than – or at least inclusive of – the ones before the ICC. It also indicated the crimes for which Gaddafi might be charged (such as intentional murder, torture, incitement to civil war and – since he would qualify as a public officer – torture of prisoners, abuse of authority against individuals or arrest of people without cause). It ensured the trial would not start without a counsel being appointed for Gaddafi, who is staying in Zintan while awaiting his transfer to a detention facility in Tripoli.

Ongoing discussions on trials allegedly starting in Libya

On 15 January 2013, Libya refuted allegations that Gaddaffi and Al-Senussi’s trials were due to start in February in Libya though it confirmed that the investigation phase was coming to an end and that the cases would be imminently transferred to the Chambre d’Accusation.[42]

On 21 January 2013, the Defence for Gaddafi reaffirmed that the Libyan authorities were putting Gaddafi on trial while discussions on the case’s admissibility challenge are still ongoing before the ICC.[43] Hence it urgently requested PTC I to rule on the admissibility challenge and “to order [Libya] to immediately surrender Mr. Gaddafi to the custody of the ICC”.

Ivory Coast

Laurent Gbagbo case

Decision on Ggagbo’s fitness confirmed

[Background] On 2 November 2012, PTC I found Mr Gbagbo fit to stand in court, provided some adjustments were made.[44] The Defence sought leave to appeal.

On 29 November 2012, PTC I rejected the Defence’s request, finding that it had failed to indicate a legal or factual error or to identify an appealable issue.[45]

Defence’s appeal on jurisdiction challenge rejected

We are grateful for the support of the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Humanity United.

[Background] On 15 August 2012, PTC I rejected the Defence’s challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction in the case.[46] The Defence appealed the decision.

On 12 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal.[47] It ruled that, when a State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, such acceptance was “not limited to specific events or a specific ‘situation’ but [was] general and [could] cover crimes committed after the acceptance of jurisdiction” unless otherwise stipulated by the State.

Confirmation of charges hearing to start on 19 February 2013; Defence appeals

On 14 December 2012, PTC I fixed the start of the confirmation of charges hearing to 19 February 2013.[48] The Chamber also extended the Registrar’s timeframe to file additional complete victims' applications for participation until 18 January 2013.

On 24 December 2012, the Defence sought leave to appeal arguing that the Chamber had wrongly assumed that the parties should have been ready since August 2012 and made it impossible for the Defence to prepare in time for the hearing. On 14 January 2013, PTC I rejected the Defence’s request.[49]

Request to appear as amici curiae on whether the Prosecutor should terminate proceedings

On 18 January 2013, Professors Zwart and Knoops from the AU-ICC project sought leave to submit amici curiae observations on the scope of the Prosecutor’s discretionary power to terminate proceedings (nolle prosequi) and whether she should do so in the Gbagbo case.[50] The applicants referred to the US Political Question Doctrine, according to which a court – despite being legally empowered to hear a case and the issues having merits – should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction “when weighty policy or prudential considerations caution against taking on the case.”

 

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

We are grateful for the support of the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Humanity United.

 

[1] Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1379838.pdf.

[2] Acte d’appel de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga à l’encontre du « Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut du Statut », 3 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2934, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479593.pdf.

[3] Mémoire de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga relatif à l’appel à l’encontre du « Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut » rendu le 14 mars 2012, 3 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2948-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1529983.pdf.

[4] Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, 10 July 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2901, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1438370.pdf.

[5] Prosecution’s Document in Support of Appeal against the "Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute" (ICC-01/04-01/06-2901), 3 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2950, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519360.pdf

[6] Mémoire de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga relatif à l’appel à l’encontre de la «Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application de l’article 76 du Statut », 3 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2949, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519325.pdf.

[7] Decision on the participation of victims in the appeals against [TC] I's conviction and sentencing decisions, 13 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2951, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1527405.pdf.

[8] Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations, 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1447971.pdf.

[9] Decision on the admissibility of the appeals against Trial Chamber I's "Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations" and directions on the further conduct of proceedings, 14 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2953, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1528678.pdf.

[10] Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, 21 November 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1529337.pdf.

[11] Jugement rendu en application de l'article 74 du Statut, 18 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-3, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1529535.pdf.

[12] Prosecution’s Appeal against Trial Chamber II’s “Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut”, 20 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-10, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531064.pdf; Prosecution’s Appeal against Trial Chamber II’s oral decision to release Mathieu Ngudjolo and Urgent Application for Suspensive Effect, 19 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-5, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1530361.pdf

[13] Decision on the request of the Prosecutor of 19 December 2012 for suspensive effect, 20 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-12, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531199.pdf.

[14] ‘ICC released Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui from custody following his acquittal’ (online) 21 December 2012, at http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/news%20and%20highlights/Pages/pr868.aspx.

[15] Requête urgente de la Défense en vue de solliciter la relocalisation internationale de Mathieu Ngudjolo hors du continent africain et sa présentation devant les autorités d’un des Etats parties au Statut de la Cour pénale internationale aux fins de diligenter sa procédure d’asile, 21 November 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-15, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531907.pdf.

[16] 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.

[17] Decision on the "Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision 3319", 28 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3327, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1532429.pdf; Defence’s Document in Support of Appeal Against the Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 and severing the charges against the accused persons, 10 January 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3339, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc 1539247.pdf; Decision on the request for suspensive effect of the appeal against Trial Chamber II's decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court, 16 January 2012, ICC-01/04-01/07-3344, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541349.pdf.

[18] Decision on the application of victims to participate in the appeal against Trial Chamber II's decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court, 17 January 2013, CC-01/04-01/07-3346, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1542145.pdf.

[19] Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2), 21 September 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2324, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1472172.pdf.

[20] Defence further submissions on the notification under Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court and Motion for notice of material facts and circumstances underlying the proposed amended charge, 30 November 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2451-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1517915.pdf; Decision on the temporary suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court and related procedural deadlines, 13 December 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2480, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1527887.pdf.

[21] "Decision on 'Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Temporary Suspension of the Proceedings pursuant to Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court and related Procedural Deadlines'" of 11 January 2013, 16 January 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2487-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541327.pdf.

[22] Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs demandant à la Chambre de Fixer les Modalités de Participation des Victimes dans la Procédure, 7 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-414, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1503617.pdf.

[23] Defence Response to the “Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs demandant à la Chambre de Fixer les Modalités de Participation des Victimes dans la Procédure”, 28 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-425, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1516455.pdf; Prosecution Response to the “Requête des Représentants Légaux Communs demandant à la Chambre de Fixer les Modalités de Participation des Victimes dans la Procédure”, 29 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-426, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1517139.pdf.

[24] For more details see legal update 1 Octobre - 23 November 2012, available athttp://www.vrwg.org/documents/legal-update-oct-nov-2012

[25] Decision granting the application by Kituo Cha Sheria for leave to submit observations, 16 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-473, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1508480.pdf; Decision granting the application by Kituo Cha Sheria for leave to submit observations, 15 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-532, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1508481.pdf.

[26] Amicus Curiae Observations of Kituo Cha Sheria pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 23 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-478, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1513302.pdf; Amicus Curiae Observations of Kituo Cha Sheria pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 23 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-540, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1513316.pdf.

[27] Registry’s Observations Completing its Proposal on the Division of Responsibilities and Effective Functioning of the Common Legal Representation System, 27 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-483, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1515084.pdf; Registry's Observations Completing its Proposal on the Division of Responsibilities and Effective Functioning of the Common Legal Representation System, 27 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-542, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1515130.pdf.

[28]Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarization and Witness Proofing, 8 November 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06-679, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc247590.pdf; Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, 30 November 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-1049, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc371733.PDF; Decision on the Unified Protocol on the practices used to prepare and familiarize witnesses for giving testimony at trial, 18 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-1016, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc969083.pdf.

[29] Decision on witness preparation, 2 January 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-524, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1533650.pdf; Decision on witness preparation, 2 January 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-588, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1533653.pdf.

[30] The guidelines are established in the Protocol annexed to the decisions: Witness preparation protocol, 3 January 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-524, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1533651.pdf; Witness preparation protocol, 3 January 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-588, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1533654.pdf.

[31] Joint Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Witness Preparation, 9 January 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-539, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1538766.pdf.

[32] Decision on the defence request to change the place of the proceedings, 8 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-522, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1504485.pdf.

[33] Decision on "Defence Application for a change of place where the Court shall sit for Trial", 21 December 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-581, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531739.pdf; Decision on "Joint Defence Application for a Change of Place where the Court Shall Sit for Trial", 24 January 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-568, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1544825.pdf.

[34] 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.

[35] Request to present views and concerns of victims on their legal representation at the trial phase, 6 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-469, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1503303.pdf.

[36] Decision on the request to present views and concerns of victims on their legal representation at the trial phase, 13 December 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-511, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1527314.pdf.

[37] Request pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence for leave to submit observation as amicus curiae, 24 December 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-519, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531998.pdf.

[38] 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.

[39] Decision requesting further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case, 7 December 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-239, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1522448.pdf.

[40] Request for Leave to Appeal the “Decision requesting further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 12 December 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-243-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1526548.pdf.

[41] 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.

[42] Observations by Libya in response to the OPCD Notification of 8 January 2013, 15 January 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-251, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1540718.pdf.

[43] Urgent Defence Request, 21 January 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-255, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1543240.pdf.

[44] Decision on the fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to take part in the proceedings before this Court, 2 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-286-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1501444.pdf.

[45] Decision on three applications for leave to appeal, 29 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-307, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1517445.pdf.

[46] Requête en incompétence de la Cour Pénale Internationale […] présentée par la défense du Président Gbagbo, 24 May 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-129, http://212.159.242.180/iccdocs/doc/doc1417734.pdf; Decision on the "Corrigendum of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of articles 12(3), 19(2), 21(3), 55 and 59 of the Rome Statute filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo (ICC- 02/11-01/11-129)", 15 August 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-212, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1454492.pdf.

[47] Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Koudou Gbagbo against the decision of [PTC] I on jurisdiction and stay of the proceedings, 12 December 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-321, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1526463.pdf.

[48] Decision on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto, 14 December 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-325, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1528879.pdf.

[49] Decision on the "Demande d'autorisation d'interjeter appel de la décision de la Chambre Préliminaire du 14 décembre 2012 'on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto' (ICC-02/11-01/11-325)", 14 January 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-350, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1540153.pdf.

[50] Urgent Request for Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 18 January 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-367, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1543029.pdf.