Victims' Rights Working GroupPromoting the rights and interests of victims
November 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

LEGAL UPDATE JANUARY - MARCH 2013

ICC Victims' Rights Legal Update:

18 January - 27 March 2013

(PDF version)

Contents

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga

  • LRVs files submission on appeals against conviction and sentence
  • Victims and the Defence file submissions on appeals against Decision on reparation
  • Appeals Chamber seeks views on new applications to participate as victims in appellate proceedings
  • NGOs request to intervene in Lubanga appeals

Katanga

  • Registry notifies new reparation applications to the Defence
  • Parties file submissions on appeal against implementation off regulation 55

Ntaganda

  • Confirmation of charges hearing to start on 23 September 2013

Ngudjolo

  • Decision on the victims’ participation in the appeal phase

Central African Republic, Bemba

  • Trial Restarts

Uganda

  • Consolidated applications for participation transmitted to the Chamber

Darfur, Banda and Jerbo

  • Trial to start on 5 May 2014

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta

  • First periodic reports on the general situation of victims in Kenya
  • KHRC’s request to file an amicus curiae brief is rejected
  • Victims express concerns at holding the proceedings in Kenya or Tanzania
  • Submission on the witness preparation decisionStart of trials postponed
  • Charges against Muthaura droppedRequest to reinsert a factual allegation in the charges against Kenyatta is granted
  • Kenyatta requests to attend trial via Video Link

Muthaura& Kenyatta

  • Charges against Muthaura dropped
  • Request to reinsert a factual allegation in the charges against Kenyatta is granted
  • Kenyatta requests to attend trial via Video Link

Libya, Gaddafi & Al-Senussi

  • Chamber orders immediate surrender of Mr Al-Senussi to the Court
  • Further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case

Ivory Coast, Ggagbo

  • 60 additional victims granted participatory status
  • Decision on OPCV’s requests to access confidential documents
  • PTC I rejects request for leave to submit amicus curiae observations
  • Defence challenges the admissibility of the caseConfirmation of charges hearing takes place despite defense ‘s request for postponement

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Lubanga case

LRVs file submission on appeals against conviction and sentence

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Lubanga was found guilty of enlisting and conscripting children below 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.[1] He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The Defence and the Prosecution appealed against both the sentence and conviction.[2] On 13 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber allowed victims who had participated in the trial to participate in the appeals.[3]

On 4 February 2013, the LRV for Team VO1 submitted that the conviction should be upheld but that the sentence imposed did not sufficiently reflect victims’ suffering.[4] He also added 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 5 February 2013, the LRV for Team V02 requested the Appeals Chamber to confirm the decision on conviction.[5] A judgment is pending.

Victims and Defence file submissions on appeals against Decision on reparation

[Background] On 7 August 2012, Trial Chamber I (TC I) ruled on the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations for victims,[6] which was appealed by victims and the Defence.[7] On 14 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber declared the appeals by the Office of Public Council for Victims (OPCV), the Legal Representatives of Victims (LRV) and the Defence admissible.[8]

On 5 February 2013, the LRV for Team V01 requested the Appeals Chamber to direct TC I to rule anew, taking into account individual applications for reparation introduced under Rule 95(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE). He also argued against exempting Lubanga from an obligation to contribute to reparation.[9]

On the same day, the LRV for Team V02 and the OPCV also requested the Appeals Chamber to issue a new reparation order itself, setting a new reparation phase, with a deadline for the receipt of new victims’ applications and the presentation of reparation-related evidence.[10]

Appeal Chamber seeks views on new applications to participate as victims in the appellate 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 opposed the consideration of new victims’ applications at this stage arguing that there was no further opportunity for victims to present their views and concerns in writing.[12] The Defence also opposed invoking Mr. Lubanga’s right to be tried without undue delay.[13]

The LRV for Team V02 and OPCV argued in favor of the transmission of the new applications considering that victims had a legitimate interest in participating in the appeals.[14] OPCV also stressed that victims should be able to apply to participate in the appellate phase regardless of whether they participated in the trial. It added that the Appeals Chamber had an obligation to consider requests for participation presented in accordance with the RPE. Finally, OPCV stressed that victims’ right to participate in proceedings should not be negatively affected by circumstances outside of their control (here the fact that these applications, while received prior to the end of the trial, were not transmitted earlier to the Chamber).[15]

NGOs request to intervene in the Lubanga appeals

On 8 March, the Appeals Chamber received three requests to submit observations.[16]

Justice-plus, Terre des Enfants, Fédération des Jeunes pour la Paix Mondiale and Avocats Sans Frontières requested to submit observations in relation to the appeals against the reparation decision.[17] Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice also sought to submit observations on reparation indicating it would provide a gender perspective on issues being considered on appeal.[18] Finally, Child Soldiers International sought leave to submit observations in relation to the appeal lodged by T. Lubanga against the conviction.[19]

 

Katanga case

Registry notifies new reparation applications to the Defence

On 15 February 2013, the Registry transmitted four reparation applications to the Defence.[20] This brings the total number of reparation requests transmitted in the case to 49.

Parties file submissions on appeal against decision on implementation of regulation 55

[Background] On 21 November 2012, Trial Chamber II (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.[21] On 28 December 2012, TC II granted the Defence’s leave to appeal the decision.[22]

On 21 January, the Prosecution submitted that the appeal should be rejected, considering that the Chamber had stayed within the boundaries of Regulation 55 of the RoC and had not exceeded the facts and circumstances contained in the charges.[23] The Legal Representatives of Victims also requested that the appeal be dismissed.[24]

On 27 March 2013, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the appeal.[25]

Ntaganda case

Confirmation of charges hearing to start on 23 September 2013

[Background] On 22 August 2006 and 13 July 2012 two arrest warrants were issued against Bosco Ntaganda.[26] As the former alleged Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), 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.

On 17 March 2013, Bosco Ntaganda surrendered himself to the US embassy in Rwanda and requested to be transferred to the ICC. He arrived in The Hague on 22 March 2013. His initial appearance took place on 26 March 2013, during which Single Judge Trendafilova set the date for the start of the confirmation of charges hearing to 23 September 2013. During the hearing, Ntaganda’s lawyer indicated that he would be seeking interim release.[27]

Ngudjolo case

Decision on victims’ participation in the appeals phase

[Background] On 18 December 2012, TC II acquitted Ngudjolo and ordered the Registrar to take all necessary measures to secure his immediate release.[28] On 20 December 2012, the Prosecutor lodged an appeal against the acquittal.[29]

On 6 March, the Appeals Chamber authorised victims who participated in the trial proceedings and whose victim status had not been revoked, to participate in the appellate proceedings.[30]

Central African Republic (CAR)

Bemba case

Trial restarts

[Background] On 21 September 2012, Trial Chamber III (TC III) informed the parties and participants of a possible re-characterisation of the facts to consider, under the same mode of responsibility, the alternate form of knowledge provided for under Article 28(a) of Rome Statute.[31] On 13 December 2012, TC III temporarily suspended the proceedings.[32] The Defence’s request to appeal the decision was rejected on 16 January 2013.[33]

On 6 February 2013, TC III lifted the temporary suspension of the proceedings at the Defence’s request. The Trial restarted on 25 February 2013.

Uganda

Situation in Uganda

Consolidated applications for participation transmitted to the Chamber

[Background] On 9 March 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II) deferred the decision on the participatory status of 33 victim applicants pending the receipt of further information. Some of these applications have been pending since 2008.[34]

On 15 February 2013, the Registry transmitted to PTC II the consolidated versions of 9 applications relating to the Situation in Uganda.[35]

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo case

Trial to start on 5 May 2014

[Background] On 7 March 2011, the charges against Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus were confirmed. Submissions on the possible start of the trial were made at the end 2012. The Prosecutor had favored a start of the trial requested that the trial start at the earliest at the end of March 2013 while the CLRV had suggested April 2013.[36] In turn, the Defence had indicated that the trial could not start until October 2014.[37]

On 6 March 2013, Trial Chamber IV (TC IV) set the date for the commencement of the trial to 5 May 2014 stating that a number of issues such as disclosure by the Prosecution and operational and logistical issues needed to be resolved before the opening statements and the presentation of evidence could commence.[38]

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta cases

First periodic reports on the general 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 every two months in cooperation with the CLRV a report on the general situation of victims, including statistics about the victims' population.[39]

On 23 January 2003, the Registry transmitted its first report to the Chamber.[40] Among the issues covered in the report, were the respective roles of the VPRS and the CLR with regards to the new registration system. VPRS envisaged that it would inter alia: review the applications that had been received to date to determine which applicants remained within the scope of the cases; assist in the classification of victims based on current geographic location; assist in setting up meetings of victims with the CLRs; continue the mapping exercise to identify, as accurately as possible, victims linked to the cases and continue to train intermediaries to enable them to assist in identifying and mapping victims within the scope of the cases. The CLR will be responsible for verifying that the individuals whose views and concerns he conveys qualify as victims in the cases.

KHRC’s request to file an amicus curiae brief rejected

[Background] On 8 January 2013, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) confidentially requested to present amicus curiae observations regarding the general risks that witnesses may face in an international criminal trial and the law relating to witness protection.[41]

On 1 February 2013, Trial Chamber V (TC V) rejected the request considering that the submission would not provide information beyond that which it had already received, or could obtain, from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) and the Victim and Witness Unit (VWU).[42]

Submission in relation to the decision on witness preparation

[Background] On 2 January 2013, TC V departed from existing practice and authorised the preparation of witnesses in relation to the Kenya trials.[43] TC V authorised pre-testimony meetings between witnesses and the calling party and highlighted that such preparation would facilitate a fair, effective and expeditious trial. On 9 January 2013, the Counsels for Ruto and Sang sought to appeal.[44]

On 11 February 2013, TC V rejected their request for leave to appeal. [45]

Victims express concerns at holding the proceedings in Kenya or Tanzania

[Background] On 17 January and 1 February 2013 in the Muthaura and Kenyatta,[46] and the Ruto and Sang[47] cases, respectively, 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 the Muthaura and Kenyatta case, Mr. Fergal Gaynor indicated that the vast majority of the victims he had consulted opposed the holding of proceedings in Kenya or in Tanzania raising security concerns. He stressed that victims feared that the Accused may be more easily able to mobilise their supporters to interfere with and intimidate those involved in the proceedings.[48]

In the Ruto and Sang case, Mr Wilfred Nderitu stated that over 80 of the victims consulted wanted the trial to be held in The Hague. In addition to security issues, victims indicated that holding the trial in East Africa may also create tensions between communities.[49] Nevertheless, Mr Nderitu - stressing that these were his own views - added that holding proceedings in Arusha may give victims this case increased levels of participation and would increase the visibility of the proceedings and make them affordable to attend.

The Prosecution indicated that the risks of interference with witnesses would increase if the trial were held in Kenya and, to a lesser extent, in Arusha. It suggested that only parts of the proceedings be held in Kenya or Tanzania such as the hearing of opening/closing statements or testimonies of international experts.[50]

Start of the trials postponed

[Background] On 9 July 2012, TC V set the start of the trials in the Ruto and Sang case and in the Muthaura and Kenyatta case to 10 and 11 April 2013, respectively.[51]

On 21 and 22 February 2013, the Defence for Ruto and Sang,[52] and for Muthaura[53] and Kenyatta[54], requested TC V to postpone the start of the trial in order to ensure effective defence preparation, arguing that the Prosecution carried out its disclosure obligations with extensive delay. On 25 February 2013, the Prosecutor, while stressing that disclosure had been carried out in accordance with the deadlines, indicated that she did not object to a reasonable adjournment.[55]

On 7 and 8 March 2013, TC V acceded to the requests. It set the provisional start of trial to 9 July 2013 in the Muthaura and Kenyatta case and to 28 May 2013 in the Ruto and Sang case.[56]

Muthaura & Kenyatta case

Case against Muthaura is dropped

On 11 March 2013, the Prosecution notified TC V that it was withdrawing all charges against Mr Muthaura for lack of sufficient evidence to secure conviction. The Prosecution indicated that it was unable to gather enough evidence in light of a number of security issues affecting witnesses.[57]

The Muthaura Defence and the CLRV both responded orally, during a status conference on 11 March 2013. The CLRV submitted that a decision by the Chamber to dismiss the charges against Mr Muthaura should be without prejudice to the right of the Prosecution to bring charges against him in the future, should circumstances change.[58]

On 18 March 2013, TC V authorised the Prosecution to withdraw the charges against Mr Muthaura. In doing so, the Chamber reminded Mr Muthaura that protective measures ordered in respect of victims and witnesses shall continue to have full force and effect after the proceedings have been concluded. [59]

Request to reinsert a factual allegation in the charges against Mr Kenyatta granted

On 22 January 2013, the Prosecution sought to re-insert a factual allegation into the Document Containing the Charges, namely that “victims were also killed by gunshot in Naivasha”, stressing that it had obtained additional evidence.[60] The Pre Trial Chamber had previously rejected the allegation for lack of factual support.[61]

The LRV supported the Prosecution’s request stating that, for his clients, it was in the interest of justice to hear the full truth of what had taken place. However, he highlighted that victims felt strongly that nothing should delay the start and completion of the trial highlighting that some victims had died since they were granted the right to participate.[62] The Defence for both accused opposed the request on the basis that it relied upon evidence obtained after the hearing on the confirmation of charges.[63]

On 21 March 2013, Single Judge Trendafilova granted the Prosecution's request.[64] She considered that the Prosecutor had provided the Chamber not only with evidence supporting the existence of the factual allegation, but also with a reasonable justification for the continuation of her investigation subsequent to the confirmation hearing.

Kenyatta requests to attend trial via Video Link

On 28 February 2013, the Defence submitted a request for Mr Kenyatta to attend the trial via video link from Kenya. It mainly argued that the presence of an accused via video link was tantamount to presence in the courtroom and that Mr Kenyatta’s presence at trial via video link would not impact on his ability to comply with the summons’ conditions. [65]

On 8 March 2013, the LRV opposed the request. [66] He stressed that anyperson accused of participation in murder, rape or other serious crimes should be physically present in court. He also indicated that victims had raised concerns that the accused may refuse to surrender in the event of conviction, or might abandon the trial prior to conviction.

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi case

Chamber orders immediate surrender of Mr Al-Senussi to the Court

[Background] On 9 January 2013, the Defence of Mr Al-Senussi requested inter alia that the Chamber order Libya to transfer Mr Al-Senussi into the custody of the Court.[67]

On 6 February 2013, the Chamber ordered the Libyan authorities to proceed with the immediate surrender of Mr Al-Senussi and to refrain from taking any action which would frustrate, hinder or delay Libya's compliance with its obligation to surrender him to the Court.[68] The Government of Libya’s request to appeal the decision was rejected on 25 February 2013.[69]

Further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case

[Background] On 1 May 2012, Libya challenged the admissibility of the case arguing that it was already investigating Gaddafi domestically.[70] On 7 December 2012, PTC I found that Libya’s assertions regarding its investigation of Gaddafi needed further substantiation and appropriate evidence.[71]

On 25 January 2013, the Government of Libya indicated that the Libyan criminal investigation in the case of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi was now close to being transferred to the Accusation Chamber for pre-trial proceedings.[72] The Prosecution, stressing that Libya appeared willing to genuinely investigate and prosecute Saif Gaddafi, called for Libya to be afforded more time to provide additional material in support of its admissibility challenge.[73]

OPCV remained opposed to the challenge and added that an assessment of the victims’ participation system in Libya should form part of the elements to consider when determining the admissibility of the case.[74]

Ivory Coast

Laurent Gbagbo case

60 additional victims granted participatory status

On 6 February 2013, PTC I granted participatory status to 60 new applicant-victims.[75] The Chamber noted that there was no indication that the current legal representation arrangements needed to be modified and ruled that counsel from OPCV would represent the victims.

Decision on OPCV’s request to access confidential documents

On 7 February 2013, OPCV requested to receive information and access certain confidential documents including the Defense’s list of evidence.[76]

On 13 February 2013, PTC I ruled that while access to the confidential documents would still be ruled upon on a case-by-case basis, OPCV should be granted access to a redacted version of the Defense’s list of evidence.[77]

PTC I rejects request for leave to submit Amicus Curiae observations

On 18 January 2013, Professors Zwart and Knoops 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.[78] On 14 February 2013, PTC I rejected the request, considering that the proposed observations were not necessary for the proper determination of any issues before the Chamber.[79]

Defence challenges the admissibility of the case

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.The Defence argued that Côte d'Ivoire was determined and capable of conducting prosecutions relating to the events that followed the presidential elections.[80]

On 14 March 2013, PTC I granted leave to Côte d'Ivoire to submit observations on the admissibility challenge. [81]

Confirmation of charges hearing takes place despite request for postponement

On 7 February 2013, the Defence requested to postpone the confirmation of charges hearing, due to start on 19 February. It argued that it needed more time to analyse documents that were disclosed by the Prosecution.[82] On 14 February 2013, PTC I rejected the request. [83]

From 19 until 28 February 2013, the confirmation of charges hearing took place with statements from the OPCV, the Defence and the Prosecutor. Laurent Gbagbo addressed the Bench and described himself as a fighter for democracy. The Victim’s LRV highlighted the mental suffering and material loss suffered by victims. She pointed out that while the crime of looting was not included in the charges, victims had lost their means of subsistence and their resources. She expressed her hope that the voice of the victims would be heard through their participation in the proceedings and that these proceedings would make it possible for the prejudice suffered to be addressed.[84]

On 14 March 2013, OPCV submitted its written observation following the confirmation of charges hearing requesting PTC I to confirm the charges against Mr Gbagbo, and commit him to trial. It , however, pointed out that the places identified by the Prosecution as well as the timeframe of certain events referred to in the document containing the charges did not reflect the truly systematic nature of the violence.[85]

The Defence had until 28 March 2013 to submit its final written submission on issues discussed at the confirmation of charges hearing.[86] Within 60 days from the receipt of the Defence’s final submission, the judges will render a decision on whether to commit the case to trial.

We are grateful for the support of the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur 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] 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://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479593.pdf.

[3]Decision on the participation of victims in the appeals against Trial Chamber I's conviction and sentencing decisions, 13 December 2012, ICC-01/04/-01/06-2949, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1527405.pdf.

[4]Observations sur les appels contre les décisions prises en vertu des articles 74 et 76 du Statut de Rome, 4 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2966, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1547966.pdf.

[5]Observations consolidées de l’équipe VO2 sur les appels interjetés par la Défense et le Procureur contre le jugement et la sentence, 5 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2976-Corr-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1551325.pdf.

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

[7] 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 », rendue par la Chambre de première instance le 7 août 2012, 5 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2972, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1548460.pdf.

[8]For more details on the appeals against the Decision of 7 August 2012, please see VRWG Legal update Aug-Sept 2012 at http://www.vrwg.org/legal-update/legal-update-aug-sept-2012; Decision on the admissibility of the appeals against Trial Chamber I's "Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations", 14 December 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2953, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1528678.pdf.

[9] Document à l’appui de l’appel contre la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations » du 7 août 2012, 5 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2973,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1548559.pdf.

[10]Document déposé à l'appui de l'appel à l'encontre de la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations » délivrée par la [CPI I] le 7 août 2012, 5 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2970, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1548346.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]Prosecution’s Submissions on Victim Applications at Appeals Stage, 25 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2987, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557179.pdf.

[13]Observations de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga conformément à l’ordonnance de la Chambre d’appel portant le numéro ICC-01/04-01/06-2978, 25 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2985, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557098.pdf.

[14] Observations sur l’admissibilité de 29 demandes de participation à la phase d’appel dans la procédure Le Procureur c/ Thomas Lubanga, 25 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2986, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557142.pdf.

[15] Observations sur la question de savoir si la Chambre d'appel doit considérer les demandes de participation au stade de l'appel, 25 February 2013, CC-01/04-01/06-2984-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557027.pdf.

[16] On 14 December 2012, the Appeals Chamber ruled that any request for leave to submit amicus curiae observations in the appeals against the Reparation Decision, had to be filed by 8 March 2013, Appeals Chamber, 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, ICC-01/04-01/06-2953, 14 December 2012, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1528678.pdf.

[17] Demande d'autorisation d'intervenir comme amicus curiae, 8 March 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2994,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565305.pdf.

[18] Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice Request for Leave to Submit Observations, 8 March 2013, ICC-01/04-01/06-2993,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565242.pdf

[19]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.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565333.pdf; ICC-01/04-01/06-2995-AnxI, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565334.pdf.

[20]Notification à la Défense de formulaires de demande de réparation en application de la règle 94(2) du Règlement de procédure et de preuve, 15 February 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3353, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549791.pdf.

[21]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.

[22] 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.

[23]Prosecution Response to Defence Document in Support of Appeal against the Decision on the implementation of regulation 55, 21 January 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3347, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1543347.pdf

[24] Observations du représentantlégalsur le document déposépar la Défense à l’appui de son appelcontre la Décision de la [CPI I]I n° 3319, 25 January 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3349, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1550931.pdf;Submissions of the Legal Representative of child soldier victims on the Defence’s “Document in Support of the Appeal Against the ’Decision on the implementation of regulation 55, 25 January 2013, ICC-01/04-01/07-3348, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1550811.pdf.

[25]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

[26] 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.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1441449.pdf. 

[27] ICC-01/04-02/06-T-2-ENG ET WT 26-03-2013 1-17 NB PT, 26 March 2013, ICC-01/04-02/06-T-2 -, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1572997.pdf

[28]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.

[29]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 (A), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1531064.pdf.

[30]Decision on the participation of victims in the appeal against Trial Chamber II's "Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut", 6 March 2013, ICC-01/04-02/12-30, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1563643.pdf.

[31]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.

[32]Decision on the temporary suspension of the proceedings, 13 December 202, ICC-01/05-01/08-2480, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1527887.pdf.

[33]"Decision on 'Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Temporary Suspension of the Proceedings, 16 January 2013, ICC-01/05-01/08-2487-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1541327.pdf.

[34] Decision on Victim's Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in Uganda, 9 March 2012, ICC-02/04-191, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1368784.pdf

[35] Transmission of consolidated applications including supplementary information, 15 February 2013, ICC-02/04-199, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549802.pdf.

[36] Public Redacted Version of "Prosecution's Submissions on the Possible Date for Commencement of the Trial" filed on 19 November 2012, 19 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-42l-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1509570.pdf; Soumission des représentants légaux communs proposant une date pour le début du procès, 19 November 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-418, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1509161.pdf.

[37] Public Redacted Version of "Defence Submissions on the Possible Date for the Commencement of the Trial" filed on 19 November 2012, 21 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-422-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1511461.pdf.

[38] Decision concerning the trial commencement date, the date for final prosecution disclosure, and summonses to appear for trial and further hearings, 6 March 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-455,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1563646.pdf.

[39] 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.

[40]First periodic report on the general situation of victims in Kenya, 23 January, 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-566-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1544394.pdf, First periodic report on the general situation of victims in Kenya, 21 January 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-606-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519072.pdf.

[41] Request for leave to present a brief in the capacity of amicus curiae pursuant to rule 103(1) of the rules of procedure and evidence, 9 January 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-594,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1538484.pdf,.

[42]Decision on the Kenya Human Rights Commission's request to file an amicus curiae brief, 1 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-618,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1547657.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] 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.

[45] Decision on the joint defence request for leave to appeal the decision on witness preparation, 11 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-596, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1551021.pdf.

[46]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.

[47]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.

[48]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.

[49]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.

[50]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.

[51]Decision on the schedule leading up to trial, 9 July 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-440, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1439279.pdf.

[52]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.

[53] Muthaura Defence’s Additional Submissions on the Viability of the Commencement Date of Trial, 22 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-662-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557281.pdf.

[54]Muthaura Defence’s Additional Submissions on the Viability of the Commencement Date of Trial, 22 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-662-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557281.pdf; ICC-01/09-02/11-662-Corr-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557282.pdf.

[55] Prosecution’s response to the “Joint Defence Submissions on Impact of Delayed Prosecution Disclosure and Shift in Case on the Scheduled Start Date for Trial” (ICC-01/09-01/11-613-Corr), 25 February 2013, ICC-01/09-01/11-622, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557286.pdf; Prosecution response to Defence submissions on the 11 April 2013 trial date, 25 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-663, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557154.pdf;

[56] 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.

[57] Public Redacted Version of the 13 March 2013 “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

[58] ICC-01/09-02/11-T-23-ENG ET WT 11-03-2013-28 NBT, 11 March 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565837.pdf

[59] 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

[60]See Decision Requesting Observations on the "Prosecution's Request to Amend the Final Updated Document Containing the Charges Pursuant to Article 61(9) of the Statute", 29 January 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-614,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1546087.pdf.

[61]Decision on the content of the updated document containing the charges, 28 December 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-584, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1532400.pdf.

[62]Victims’ Observations pursuant to “Decision Requesting Observations on the "Prosecution's Request to Amend the Final Updated Document Containing the Charges Pursuant to Article 61(9) of the Statute", 7 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-630,http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549481.pdf. .

[63]Defence Observations on the “Prosecution’s Request to Amend the Final Updated Document Containing the Charges Pursuant to Article 61(9) of the Statute”, 7 February 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-634, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549561.pdf.

[64] Corrigendum to "Decision on the 'Prosecution's Request to Amend the Final Updated Document Containing the Charges Pursuant to Article 61(9) of the Statute'", 21 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-700-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1571050.pdf.

[65] Defence Request for Mr Kenyatta to be Present During Trial via Video Link, 28 February 2013,ICC-01/09-02/11-667, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1560270.pdf.

[66] Victims’ Response to the “Defence Request for Mr. Kenyatta to be Present During trial via Video Link”, 8 March 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-686, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1565347.pdf.

[67] Urgent Application on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi for Pre-Trial Chamber to order the Libyan Authorities to comply with their obligations and the orders of the ICC, 9 January 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-248,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1538905.pdf,.

[68] Decision on the "Urgent Application on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi for Pre-Trial Chamber to order the Libyan Authorities to comply with their obligations and the orders of the ICC", 6 February 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-269,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549214.pdf.

[69] Decision on the "Government of Libya's Application for Leave to Appeal the "Decision on the Urgent Application on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi for Pre-Trial Chamber to order the Libyan Authorities to comply with their obligations and the orders, 25 February 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-287, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1557277.pdf .

[70]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.

[71] 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.

[72]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.

[73]Prosecution’s Response to “Libyan Government’s further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi”, 12 February 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-276-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1551639.pdf.

[74]OPCV’s observations on “Libyan Government’s further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi”, 18 February 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-279, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1553657.pdf.

[75]Second decision on victims' participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings, 6 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr,http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1550292.pdf.

[76]Requests to receive information and access documents for the effective participation of victims at the confirmation of charges hearing, 7 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-388, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549531.pdf.

[77] Decision on the OPCV's "Requests to receive information and access documents for the effective participation of victims at the confirmation of charges hearing", 13 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-400, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1552205.pdf.

[78] 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

[79]Decision on the "Urgent Request to Leave to Submit Amicus Curiae observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence", 14 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-402, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1552484.pdf.

[80]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 .

[81] 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.

[82]Requête de la Défense en report de l'audience de confirmation des charges prévue le 19 février 2013, 7 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-390, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549712.pdf.

[83] Decision on the "Requête de la Défense en report de l'audience de confirmation des charges prévue le 19 février 2013", 14 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-403, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1552590.pdf.

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

[85] Final written submissions of the Common Legal Representative of Victims following the confirmation of charges hearing, 14 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-419, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1567498.pdf.

[86] At the time of writing, the Defence’s reply did not appear in the public court record of the case.