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

LEGAL UPDATE July-August 2011

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update

4 July 2011- 22 August 2011 

(pdf version)

 

Note: The summaries below are unofficial summaries of ICC decisions and related pleadings relevant to victims’ rights issues. The summary does not purport to be complete. For a more in-depth review, please review the documents hyper-linked in this summary. Any comments on this Legal Update should be directed to Gaelle Carayon at gaelle@redress.org.

 

Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 

Developments in the DRC Situation

  • 8 victims deemed to meet the requirement of Rule 85 in the DRC Situation

Developments in the Lubanga case

  • Parties and participants submit closing briefs
  • 5 victims granted participatory status

Developments in the Katanga and Ngudjolo case

  • Detained witnesses could be returned to the DRC if protective measures are put in place
  • 2 victims have their participatory status withdrawn by the Chamber

Developments in the Mbarushimana case

  • 130 victims are granted participatory status while 470 other applications will not be considered
  • Defence challenges the jurisdiction of the Court

Situation in the Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the Bemba case

  • 307 victims granted status in the case; Deadline for all new applications for participation in the trial set for 16 September 2011

Situation in Sudan

Developments in the Banda and Jerbo case

  • Registry’s approach on common legal representation opposed by current legal representatives
  • Observations on the Parties’ agreement on contested issues limited to non anonymous victims

Situation in Kenya 

Developments in the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case

  • Prosecutor granted access to unredacted applications for participation
  • Ms. Sureta Chana to represent all 327 victims admitted to participate in the confirmation of charges hearing
  • Victims’ requests to make submissions on the scope of the charges is rejected

Developments in the Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali case

  • The Defence’s request for an “interim status of victim” is rejected

Situation in Ivory Coast

  • VPRS to prepare a report on victims’ observations on the opening of an investigation

 

Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 

Developments in the DRC Situation

8 victims deemed to meet the requirement of Rule 85 in the DRC Situation

[Background] On 18, 19 and 26 November 2010, the Parties submitted their observations on 13 applications for victims’ participation in the DRC Situation.[1] On 11 April 2011, Pre Trial Chamber I (PTC I) issued a framework decision on victims’ participation in the context of the situation and ruled that only when a judicial proceeding arises, will the Chamber assess new victims’ applications for participation in the situation.[2] However the Single Judge also stated that she would assess victims’ applications for which observations had been submitted with respect to the requirements of rule 85 of the Rules.

On 18 August 2011, Single Judge Monageng ruled that eight of the 13 applicants, including one non-profit organisation, met the requirement of Rule 85.[3] However, she held that the five other applicants had not provided sufficient information regarding their identity or the one of the relatives they allegedly had lost.

Developments in the Lubanga case

Parties and participants submit closing briefs

On 1st June 2011, legal representatives of victims filed their final observations in the case, calling on the Chamber to take into account the views of victims in determining the penal responsibility of T.Lubanga.[4]

On 21 July 2011, the Prosecution requested the Chamber to find T. Lubanga criminally responsible for the crimes of conscription, enlistment and use of children under the age of 15 years to participate actively in hostilities.[5] The Prosecution argued, inter alia, that the term ‘child soldiers’ should not be restricted to children who actively fought, but should “also include children whose roles are essential to the functioning of the armed group, such as those working as cooks, reporters, messengers, as well as girls recruitment for sexual purposes and forced marriage”.

On 11 August 2011, the Defence, in its final brief, requested the Chamber to acquit T. Lubanga of all charges and to order his immediate release.[6]  The Defence argued, inter alia, that some intermediaries had prepared false evidence, which made a fair trial and a finding that T.Lubanga was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” impossible.[7]

5 victims granted participatory status

On 8 March 2011, Trial Chamber I (TC I) ordered the transmission to the parties of seven victim applications for participation.[8] On 25 July 2011, TC I granted participation status to five of the seven applicants bringing the number of victims admitted in the case to 123.[9] In doing so, the Chamber recalled that:

  • An applicant only needed to provide evidence establishing prima facie his/her identity and the link between the alleged harm suffered and the charges against the accused;
  • Similarities among victims’ applications were “unsurprising and [did not] undermine their credibility”.

Developments in the Katanga and Ngudjolo case

Detained witnesses could be returned to the DRC if protective measures are put in place

[Background] On 9 June 2011, Trial Chamber II (TC II) suspended the immediate return to DRC of three Defence witnesses who have requested asylum in the Netherlands on protection grounds.[10] On 14 July 2011, the Prosecutor and the Governments of the Netherlands and the DRC were directed to directly seize the Appeals Chamber if they wished to appeal.[11]

On 22 July 2011, TC II ruled that should specific protective measures proposed by the DRC government and the Victims and Witness Unit be put in place, it would consider its protection obligations under Article 68 of the Statute fulfilled. Thus, the detained witnesses could in principle be returned to the DRC if their request for asylum is rejected.[12]

2 victims have their participatory status withdrawn by the Chamber

[Background] On 9 November 2010, 4 victims were granted the right to testify in the case.[13] Their legal representative subsequently withdrew victim a/0381/09 and victim a/0363/09 from the list of victims due to appear before the Chamber following allegations that pan/0363/09 might not have told the whole truth.[14]

On 7 July 2011, Trial Chamber II ruled that, in accordance with Rule 91(1), victims a/0381/09 and a/0363/09 were to be stripped of their status as participant in case.[15] The Chamber noted that doubts had arisen as to the credibility of the information given by the victims in their applications for participation in the case, which justified the modification of its original decision to grant them participatory status.

Developments in the Mbarushimana case

130 victims are granted participatory status while 470 other applications will not be considered

[Background] On 31 May 2011, the Chamber set 30 June as the deadline for transmission of victims’ applications for participation in the confirmation of charges hearing. Since 20 May 2011, a total of 138 victims’ applications for participation had been transmitted to the Chamber. However 470 applications will not be considered at this stage by the Chamber due to the Victims’ Participation and Reparation Section (VPRS) inability to process them ahead of the deadline.[16] They should however be processed by VPRS for the purpose of further relevant proceedings.

On 11 August 2011, 130 applications were granted, 4 were rejected and a decision was deferred on a further 4.[17] The Single Judge also ordered that unrepresented victim-participants be assigned a common legal representative from one of the three counsels currently representing victims in the case. [18] Victims’ legal representatives will be allowed to access the document containing the charges, attend all public hearings and make an opening and closing statement at the confirmation of charges hearing, which has now been postponed to 16 September 2011.[19]

Defence challenges the jurisdiction of the Court

On 19 July 2011, the Defence confidentially challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the proceedings did not fall within the scope of the situation referred by the Government of the DRC to the ICC. The Defence alleged that the DRC’s referral was limited to events pre-dating 3 March 2004 and was restricted to crimes within the Ituri district. On 28 July 2011, the Prosecution opposed the challenge, arguing that neither the Statute nor the referral limit investigations to conduct alleged to have occurred prior to a referral.[20]

On 16 August 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) invited the DRC and “victims who have communicated with the Court” to submit their observations on the Defence’s challenge by 12 September 2011.[21

Situation in the Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the Bemba case

307 victims granted status in the case; deadline for all new applications for participation in the trial set for 16 September 2011

[Background] On 21 April and 22 June 2011, VPRS respectively transferred 401 and 203 victims’ applications for participation to the parties.[22]

On 8 July 2011, Trial Chamber III (TC III) ruled on the first set of applications and granted participatory status to 307 victims while rejecting 23 applications.[23] It deferred its decision on 71 applications. Both parties submitted their observations on the second transmission by VPRS on 14 and 15 July 2011.[24] A decision is awaited.  

To date, 1713 victims have been granted participatory status in the Bemba trial and TC III has set the deadline for the submission to the Registry of any new victims’ applications for participation in the trial proceedings to 16 September 2011. On 15 July 2011, VPRS transferred an additional 269 applications to the parties and victims’ legal representatives.[25]

Situation in Sudan

Developments in the Banda and Jerbo case

Registry’s approach on common legal representation opposed by current legal representatives

[Background] On 21 April 2011, the Registry was ordered to consult victims with a view to appointing a common legal representative.[26] On 21 June 2011, the Registry indicated that it had not been able to consult victims and requested additional time to implement the Chamber’s order.[27] It also suggested an approach whereby it could assess the work conducted so far by victims’ current counsels with a view to selecting a common legal representative and, if necessary, identify a new representative from the list of counsel maintained by the Registry applying a set of criteria which were provided as an annex.[28]

On 22 June 2011, the Chamber granted the extension and ordered the Registry to inform the Chamber of the victims’ choice of common legal representative by 8 August, or if victims were unable to choose, to provide a proposal to the Chamber by 15 August.[29]  

On 18 July 2011, all but one of the victims’ current legal representatives requested that three groups of victims be created, to be represented by 3 common legal representatives.[30]  The proposal was opposed on 5 August 2011 by the Registry, which argued that it constituted an agreement among the current counsels rather than a choice by the victims.[31]

Observations on the Parties’ agreement on contested issues limited to non anonymous victims

On 16 May 2011, the Parties informed Trial Chamber IV (TC IV) that the Defence would only contest at trial the following issues:

  1. Whether the attack on the MGS Haskanita on 29 September 2007 was unlawful;
  2. If the attack is deemed unlawful, whether the Accused persons were aware of the factual circumstances that established the unlawful nature of the attack; and
  3. Whether AMIS was a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.[32]

On 22 June 2011, TC IV invited non anonymous victims to submit observations on the parties’ joint submission.[33] On 8 August 2011, Maître Cisse submitted that the agreement contravened the interests of justice and seriously impeded victims’ right to participation and to the truth.[34]  On the same day, counsels for the two Darfuri victims, also filed observations and added that their clients may be of assistance to the Trial Chamber in finding the truth.[35

Situation in Kenya 

Developments in the Ruto, Kosgey and Sang case

Prosecutor granted access to unredacted applications for participation

[Background] On 3 June 2011, the two Defence teams requested inter alia that the Prosecution receive unredacted versions of victims’ applications for participation, arguing that it would allow the prosecution to disclose any exculpatory evidence contained therein.[36]

On 8 July 2011, the Single Judge confirmed that the Prosecution would be granted access to unredacted versions of all victims’ applications received in the case, so that it is placed in a position to verify whether information in the possession of the applicants could be considered exculpatory in nature. However Judge Trendafilova emphasized that victims’ applications could under no circumstances be considered evidence subject to disclosure within the legal framework of the Court.[37] A similar decision was adopted in the Muthaura et al. case.[38]

On 4 August 2011, the Registry informed Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II) that due to resource constraints, it had not been in a position to transmit to the Prosecutor all the applications received.[39]

Ms. Sureta Chana to represent all 327 victims admitted to participate in the confirmation of charges hearing

[Background] On 30 March 2011, VPRS was ordered “to take appropriate steps with a view to organizing common legal representation for the purposes of the confirmation of charges hearing”.[40] On 18 May, 24 June and 8 July 2011, the Registry transmitted 59, 105 and 230 victims’ application for participation to the Chamber.[41

On 1 August 2011, the Registry submitted that it had commenced a process of establishing a systematic approach to common legal representation under Rule 90(3). It stated that in addition to considering counsels already representing victim applicants in the case, it would also consider additional candidates, applying clear and transparent criteria.[42]  On 5 August 2011, a similar approach was suggested by the Registry in the Muthaura et al. case.[43]

On 5 August 2011, Single Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova granted participatory status to 327 victims and appointed Ms. Sureta Chana as common legal representative.[44] She ruled that Ms Chana would be allowed to attend all public hearings and to make a brief opening and closing statement. Furthermore, upon a motivated request, Ms. Chana may also be authorised: to attend in camera or ex parte hearings; to make oral submissions; to access those decisions, filings or evidence that are classified as “confidential”; to question witnesses; and to make written submission on specific issues of law and/or fact.

Victims’ requests to make submissions on the scope of the charges is rejected

On 15 August 2011, the victims’ legal representative noted that it was unclear whether acts of destruction and/or burning of property had been included within the scope of the charges.[45] She requested to make observations inter alia, on whether, at a confirmation of charges hearing, the Pre-Trial Chamber had the power to add a charge, or to clarify that a charge includes acts in addition to those specified by the Prosecutor.

This was rejected on 19 August 2011 by Single Judge Trendafilova who stressed that the Chamber did not have the power to modify the charges brought by the Prosecutor.[46]  She however highlighted that under article 61(7)(c)(ii) the chamber might decide, once the confirmation of charges has started, to adjourn the hearing and request the Prosecutor to consider amending a charge if there are grounds to do so.

Developments in the Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali case (developments which occurred in both the Ruto et. Al case and Muthaura et. Al Case are covered under the previous section).

The Defence’s request for an “interim status of victim” is rejected

[Background] On 28 July 2011, 245 victims’ applications for participation were transmitted to the parties for observations.

On 11 August 2011, the Defence for Mr.Muthaura indicated that it would not have the time to review all applications before the set deadline. For the purpose of the confirmation of charges hearing, he requested that victim applicants who appeared to qualify for participation in the case be granted “interim status”.[47] He also requested to be given an opportunity, after the hearing, to file observations on the “final” status of these applicants. In the alternative, additional time to review the applications was requested.[48]

On 12 August 2011, Single Judge Trendafilova rejected the Defence submission that an “interim victim status” be granted, stressing that such status had no foundation in the legal texts and caselaw of the Court.[49]  It however granted a time extension for the filing of observations.[50]

Situation in Ivory Coast

VPRS to prepare a report on victims’ observations on the opening of an investigation

[Background] On 17 June 2011, the Prosecution invited victims of the post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire to submit by 17 July 2011, observations regarding the opening of an investigation.[51]

On 6 June 2011, Pre Trial Chamber III, stating that it would cause disproportionate delay, refused to follow the procedure which had been adopted in relation to the situation in Kenya, whereby VPRS conducted extensive consultation with victims and affected groups.[52]  Instead, the Chamber requested VPRS to prepare a report compiling observations that victims will have sent to the court in response to the Prosecutor’s appeal, leaving open the possibility to request further information at a later stage. It also held that victims’ representations should include sufficient information about their identity, the harm suffered, as well as the link between the alleged harm and crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court. VPRS was tasked with undertaking an initial prima facie assessment of victims’ representations under rule 85 of the Rules.



[1] Prosecution’s Observations on 12 Applications for Victim Participation in the Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 29 November 2011, ICC-01/04-585-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc973842.pdf; Prosecution’s Observations on one additional Applications for Victim Participation in the Situation in the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, 7 December 2010, ICC-01/04-588-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc980782.pdf; Observations du Bureau du Conseil Public pour la Défense sur les 13 demandes de participation en tant que victime dans la situation en République Démocratique du Congo, ICC-01/04-586, 16 december 2010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc986316.pdf

[2] Decision on victims’ participation in proceedings relating to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 11 April 2011, ICC-01/04-593, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1053881.pdf

[3] Decision on 13 applications for victims’ participation in proceedings relating to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 18 August 2011, ICC-01/01-597-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1205607.pdf

[4]  Conclusions finales pour les victimes a/0001/06, a/0002/06, a/0003/06, a/0007/06, a/00049/06, a/0149/07, a/0155/07, a/0156/07, a/0162/07, a/0149/08, a/0404/08, a/0405/08, a/0406/08, a/0407/08, a/0409/08 , a/0523/08, a/0610/08, a/0611/08, a/0053/09, a/0249/09, a/0292/09, et a/0398/09, ICC-01/04-01/06-2746-Red, 1 June 2011 (made public on 18 August 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204726.pdf ; Mémoire final du groupe de victimes VO2, ICC-01/04-01/06-2747-Red, 1 June 2011 (made public on 22 August 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1208005.pdf

[5] Prosecution’s Closing Brief, 1 June 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, http://212.159.242.180/iccdocs/doc/doc1123809.pdf

[6] Conclusions finales de la Défense, 15 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2773-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1200922.pdf.

[7] The public redacted version of the prosecutor’s response was filed on 16 August, Prosecution’s Reply to the “Conclusions finales de la Défense”, 16 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2778-Red http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204257.pdf; The Defence’s Response was publicly filed on  17 August 2011, Réplique de la Défense à la Prosecution’s Reply to the « Conclusions finales de la Défense » datée du 1er août 2011, 17 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2786-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204467.pdf

[8] Order on the transmission of 7 new victims’ applications and the submission of observations, 8 March 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2698, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1036606.pdf.

[9] Redacted version of the Decision on the applications by 7 victims to participate in the proceedings, 25 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/06-2764-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1126935.pdf.

[10] Decision on an Amicus Curiae application and on the “Requête tendant à obtenir présentations des témoins DRCD02P0350, DRCD02P0236, DRCD02P0228 aux autorités néerlandaises aux fins dʹasile” (articles 68 and 93(7) of the Statute), 9 June 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3003, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1093334.pdf .

[11]Prosecution’s Application for leave to Appeal Trial ChamberII’sDecision, 15 June 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3021, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1092933.pdf; Application of the DutchGovernment for leave to Appeal the Trial Chamber’sDecision ICC-01/04-01/07 dated 9 June 2001, 15 June 2011, ICC-01/04-07-3020, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1092094.pdf; Demande de la République Démocratique du Congo d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la Décision, 15 june 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3023, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1093697.pdf; Decision on three applications for leave to appeal Decision ICC-01/04-01/07-3003 of 9 June 2011, 14 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3073, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1127969.pdf

[12] Decision on the security situation of three detained witnesses in relation to their testimony before the Court (art. 68 of the Statute) and Order to request cooperation from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to provide assistance in ensuring their protection in accordance with article 93(1)(j) of the Statute, 22 June 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3033, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1095863.pdf.

[13] Décision aux fins de comparution des victimes a/0381/09, a/0018/09, a/0191/08 et pan/0363/09 agissant au nom de a/0363/09, 9 November 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2517, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc964978.pdf.

[14] Notification du retrait de la victime a/0381/09 de la liste des témoins du représentant légal, 31 January 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-2669,; ICC-01/04-01/07-2674, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1011356.pdf; Notification du retrait de la victime a/0363/09 de la liste des témoins du représentant légal, 10 février 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-2695-Conf 

[15] Décision relative au maintien du statut de victime participant à la procédure des victimes a/0381/09 et a/0363/09, 7 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/07-3064, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1108203.pdf

[16] Second transmission to the Pre-Trial Chamber of applications to participate in the proceedings, 30 June 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-261, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1101333.pdf;  Decision requesting the Parties to submit observations on 124 applications for victims’ participation in the proceedings, 4 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-265, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1103372.pdf.

[17] Decision on the 138 applications for victims’ participation in the proceedings, 11 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-351, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1200401.pdf.

[18] Decision on “Defence request to deny the use of certain incriminating evidence at the confirmation hearing” and postponement of confirmation hearing, 16 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-378, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204104.pdf.

[19] Decision postponing the commencement of the confirmation hearing. 16 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-374, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1203623.pdf

[20] Prosecution’s response to Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court ICC-01/04-01/10-290, 28 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-320, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1132615.pdf.

[21] Decision requesting observations on t he "Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court", 16 August 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-377, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204089.pdf

[22] Ninth transmission to the parties and legal representatives of the applicants of redacted versions of applications for participation in the proceedings, 21 April 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1382, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1063742.pdf; Tenth transmission to the parties and legal representatives of the applicants of redacted versions of applications for participation in the proceedings, 22 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1560, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1096813.pdf.

[23] Decision on 401 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings and setting a final deadline for the submission of new victims’ applications to the Registry, 8 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1590, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1114216.pdf

[24] Observations de la Défense sur la “Dixième transmission aux parties et aux représentants légaux des versions expurgées des demandes de participation à la procédure”, 14 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1599, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1119785.pdf; Prosecution’s Observations on 203 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 15 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1603, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1120894.pdf.

[25] Eleventh transmission to the parties and the legal representatives of the applicants of redacted versions of applications for participation in the proceedings, 15 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1605, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1121062.pdf.

[26] Order instructing the Registry to start consultations on the organisation of common legal representation, 21 April 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-138, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1056932.pdf.

[27] Report on the implementation of the Chamber’s order instructing the Registry to start consultations on the organisation of common legal representation, 21 June 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-164-Red, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1093059.pdf.

[28] The registry held that although continuity of representation is an important factor, other criteria must also be taken into account when appointing a common legal representative under Rule 90(3) including: 1) Relationship of trust with the victims; 2) Demonstrated commitment to working with vulnerable persons; 3) Familiarity/connection with the situation country; 4) Sufficient availability; 5) Relevant litigation expertise/experience; 6) and information and technology skills; Annex: Registry’s proposal general criteria for selection of common legal representatives under rule 90(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 21 June 2011, IC-02/05-03/09-164-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1093062.pdf; one of the current legal representatives indicated on 7 July that the Registry’s report contained many material inaccuracies, Submissions on behalf of victims […]in response to the Interim Report of the Registrar regarding the issue of Common Legal Representation of Victims Participating in the Case, 7 July 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-177, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1117313.pdf

[29] The decision is not available but is referred to in Joint Observations of Victims’ Legal Representatives on Common Legal Representation, 18 July 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-182, para 7, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1122027.pdf

[30] Joint Observations of Victims’ Legal Representatives on Common Legal Representation, 18 July 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-182, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1122027.pdf.

[31] Report on the organization of common legal representation, 5 August 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-187, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1190082.pdf.

[32] Joint Submission by the Office of the Prosecutor and the Defence Regarding the Contested Issues at the Trial for the Accused Persons, 16 May 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-148, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1073345.pdf.

[33] Order requesting observations from the legal representatives on the agreement as to evidence pursuant to Rule 69 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 22 June 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-165, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1093068.pdf.

[34] Observations du Représentant Légal sur l’accord relatif aux éléments de preuve en applications de la Règle 69 du Règlement de Procédure et de Preuve, 8 August 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-190, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1192147.pdf.

[35] Observations by the Legal Representatives for Victims a/1646/10 and a/1647/10 on the “Joint Submission by the Office of the Prosecutor and the Defence”, 8 August 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-194, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1192270.pdf.

[36] Response on behalf of Mr.Ruto and Mr. Sang to the First transmission of redacted applications to participate in the proceedings, 3 June 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-102, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1083743.pdf

[37] Decision on the Defence Requests in Relation to the Victims’ Application for Participation in the Present Case, 8 July 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-169, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1116229.pdf.

[38] Decision on the Defence Request in Relation to the Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Present Case, 8 July 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-164, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1116230.pdf.

[39] Submissions on the Decision on the Defence Requests in relation to Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Present Case, 3 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-247, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1189557.pdf; Submissions on the Decision on the Defence Requests in Relation to Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Present Case, 4 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-213, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1189560.pdf.

[40] First decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, 30 March 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-17, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1049619.pdf.

[41]First transmission to the Pre-Trial Chamber of applications to participate in the proceedings, 17 May 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-91, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1057169.pdf; Second transmission to the Pre-Trial Chamber of applications to participate in the proceedings, 24 June 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-141, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1097805.pdf; Third transmission to the Pre-Trial Chamber of applications to participate in the proceedings, 8 July 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-170, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1116234.pdf.

[42]Proposal for the common legal representation of victims, 1 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-243, http://www.icc-cpi.int/ic-cdocs/doc/doc1135396.pdf; Annex 1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1135398.pdf.

[43]Registry’s proposal on common legal representation, 5 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-214, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/73902C42-A426-4833-AE04-8C941060273C.htm

[44]Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, 5 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1190486.pdf.

[45] Request by the Victims’ Representative for authorisation by the Chamber to make written submissions, 15 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-263, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/2C843A80-5FBD-45AC-8063-DC6C2E7ADE24.htm

[46] Decision on the "Request by the Victims' Representative for authorization by the Chamber to make written submissions on specific issues of law and/or fact", ICC-01/09-01/11-274, 19 August 2011, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1207106.pdf

[47] Defence submits observations on 245 applications for participation, 11 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-229,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/3E3A298F-E3E4-47B3-86DD-B4AAE79906A3.htm

[48] Defence for Mr.Ali also requested an extension of time, Defence request for extension of time to file observaitons on applications to participate in the proceedings. 10 August 2011 ICC-01/09-02/11-224, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/902DD2A2-3B0E-4D4D-81C9-37A15C2C83C8.htm

[49] Decision on extension of time limit to file observations on Victims’ applications for participation in the proceedings, 12 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-234, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/C89B9932-2154-445D-8514-7D0D88AF779F.htm

[50] Defence Observations on 245 Applications for Victim Participation in the Proceedings, ICC-01/09-02/11-248, 16 august 2011, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1204444.pdf ; Prosecution’s Observations on 245 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, ICC-01/09-02/11-231, 11 August 2011, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1200405.pdf  

[51] OTP Public Notice: Victims of violence committed since the 2010 Presidential Elections in Côte d’Ivoire have 30 days to make representations to ICC in The Hague on the opening of an investigation by the Prosecutor, 17 June 2011, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/EBF86FD2-CF42-400E-B47A-71FFA771AA04.htm.

[52] Order to the Victims Participation and Reparations Section Concerning Victims’ Representations Pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Statute, 6 July 2011, ICC-02/11-6, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1106693.pdf; Decision on the VPRS request for an extension of time to report on victims’ representations pursuant to Regulation 35 of the Regulations of the Court, 28 July 2011, ICC-02/11-9, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1130105.pdf.