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

LEGAL UPDATE Oct 2010

 

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update

1 October 2010– 10 November 2010

 

Situation in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Developments in the DRC Situation

  • PTCI denies victims’ request to review the Prosecutor’s purported decision not to prosecute Bemba’s alleged crimes in Ituri

Developments in the ongoing Katanga and Ngudjolo Trial

  • Four victims are granted the right to testify
  • Victims’ Legal Representative raises concern about Defence obtaining a statement from his client
  • 2 new victims are recognised as participants in the case

Arrest of Callixte Mbarushimana

  • Mbarushimana arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in DRC

Situation in Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the ongoing Bemba Case

  • 1,233 victim applications for participation are transmitted to the Chamber
  • CAR victims to be represented by two common legal representatives from CAR
  • Appeals Chamber dismisses appeal against admissibility and abuse of process
  • Victims and Witnesses Unit submits two protocols aimed at protecting and preparing vulnerable witnesses for trial
  • TCIII rejects leave to appeal decision on revised Second Amended DCC
  • OTP submits its amended order of witnesses: sexual violence testimony to be heard first 

Situation in Darfur, Sudan

Developments in the ongoing Jerbo and Banda Case

  • Confirmation of Charges Hearing postponed
  • Pre-Trial Chamber rules on 95 victims’ applications to participate in the proceedings

Situation in the Republic of Kenya

Developments in the Kenya situation

  • Pre-Trial Chamber II sets framework for victim participation in proceedings relating to a Situation

 

Situation in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Developments in the DRC Situation

  • PTCI denies victims’ request to review the Prosecutor’s purported decision not to prosecute Bemba’s alleged crimes in Ituri

[Background] On 28 June 2010, two victims in the DRC situation requested Pre-Trial Chamber 1 (PTC1) to review the Prosecutor’s purported decision not to prosecute Bemba’s alleged crimes in Ituri, DRC.[1]

On 25 October 2010, PTC1 rejected their request. Irrespective of whether the victims had the requisite legal capacity for filing this request, as submitted by the parties, it noted the Prosecutor’s submission that to date no decision had been made by him not to prosecute Bemba for crimes allegedly committed in Ituri. In the light of available evidence, PTC1 found no reason to disbelieve this assertion. Accordingly there was no concrete decision under Article 53 for the Pre-Trial Chamber to review.[2]

To prevent delays in the handling of proceedings in the DRC situation and any cases emanating there from, Judge Cuno Tarfusser was appointed as Single Judge of PTCI in relation to DRC situation matters where Single Judge Monageng was unavailable.[3]

Developments in the ongoing Katanga and Ngudjolo Trial

  • Four victims are granted the right to testify

[Background]  On 22 January 2010, TCII issued its Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial[4] recalling the possibility for victims to testify, which was confirmed on appeal.[5] On 15 September, victims’ legal representative, Maitre Fidel Nsita, requested leave to call four of his clients to testify.[6]  He submitted that their testimony on the Bogoro attack was relevant to the case, including the ethnic nature of the attack, and would enable them to describe the consequences that this attack had on their lives.[7] This was opposed by the Defence[8] on the grounds that:

-       The roles of the Prosecution and the Victims’ Legal Representative were being confused;

-       Victims should not present evidence relating to the guilt of the accused;

-       The witness testimony proposed lacked relevance;

-       The Legal Representative’s request was made too late.

Maitre Nsita rejected these arguments, stating that victims have an independent role and right to voice their views, and can introduce evidence if it assists the Chamber in determining the truth. [9]  He also recalled the Court’s jurisprudence which affirms that the guilt or innocence of the accused directly concerns the fundamental interests of victims.

On 9 November 2010, the Chamber authorised the four victims’ testimony. One of the four is a minor whose entire family (Hema tribe) was allegedly massacred. The minor is represented by his/her guardian, a neighbour from a different ethnicity who took in the child and whose family was spared, allegedly demonstrating the ethnic nature of the attack. The person acting on behalf of the minor will testify both in relation to the child (victim a/0363/09) but also on his/her own behalf as “witness of the Court”.[10] The Chamber underlined that these victims’ testimonies could be of use to the Chamber should it later be brought to assess the overall harm suffered by victims.

Victims’ Representative raises concerns about Defence obtaining a statement from his client

[Background] On 24 September 2010, Me Nsita voiced concerns about the conditions in which his clients had been approached by the Defence. He asserted that participating victims should have the right to have copies of statements obtained by the defence and be able to discuss them with their lawyers.[11]

While the Prosecution supported the request[12], the Defence argued that in the same way that there is no statutory provision requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence by victims’ representatives to the accused, there is no provision requiring disclosure of the results of defence investigations to the victims’ representatives.[13]

2 new victims are recognised as participants in the case

On 16 March 2010, the Chamber ordered the Registry to assist legal representatives in obtaining missing information for four applicants.[14] In May and August 2010, the Victims Participation and Reparation Section transmitted the information for two of the four victims.[15] These have now been recognised as victims participating in the case, and have been assigned to Me Gilissen,[16] bringing the total number of participating victims to 364. The Chamber reminded Me Gilissen that the missing documentation for the two remaining applicants was required by 15 December 2010.  

Arrest of Callixte Mbarushimana

  • Mbarushimana arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in DRC

On 11 October 2010, the Chamber publicly confirmed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Callixte Mbarushimana was responsible, under 25(3)(d) of the Statute, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the FDLR[17] in North and South Kivu, and ordered a warrant for his arrest.[18]

Crimes were allegedly committed in the context of armed conflict during from 20 January to 25 February 2009 and 2 March to 31 December 2009, between the FDLR and government forces. As leader of the FDLR, it was alleged that Mbarushimana was aware of these attacks giving rise to command responsibility for six counts of war crimes and three counts of crimes against humanity. He was arrested on 11 October by French authorities in Paris who have subsequently indicated that he would be transferred to the ICC, though proceedings in France are still ongoing.

Situation in Central African Republic (CAR)

Developments in the ongoing Bemba Case

  • 1,233 victim applications for participation are transmitted to the Chamber

[Background] Trial Chamber had set 15 September 2010 as the deadline for submitting newvictims’ applications for participation in the initial stages of the proceedings.[19] This led the Registry to transmit 218 applications to the Chamber on 24 September,[20] followed by submissions in batches during October, totalling 1,233.[21]

The Prosecution supported 701 of 777 applications[22] and recommended that the rest either be deferred pending further evidence or be left to the Chamber’s discretion.[23]

The Defence complained that the volume of applications led to the cessation of its trial preparations.[24] As previously argued, it opined that the extent of redactions made discerning the true facts and credibility of events difficult. It also claimed that the majority of applications failed to link the harm suffered to Bemba, or to crimes allegedly committed by Bemba and that the events cited were not contained in the Document Containing the Charges (DCC). It further argued that the crimes lacked specificity, proof of identity and proof of relationships between applicants and deceased victims. Finally the defence claimed that the applications had not been completed by applicants themselves. They requested that they be rejected.

  • CAR victims to be represented by two common legal representatives from CAR

On 10 November 2010, Trial Chamber III (TCIII) ordered the Registry to designate two common legal representatives from the Central African Republic to represent the totality of the victims who will be allowed to participate in the Bemba case.[25] Two teams are to be established on a geographical basis. Group 1 comprising victims of crimes committed in or around Bangui ; Group 2 comprising victims of crimes committed in or around Damara, Sibut, Boali, Bossembele, Bossangoa, Bozoum and Mongoumba.

The Chamber underlined the importance of respecting “local traditions” and considered it advisable that the common legal representatives speak the victims’ language, share their culture and know their realities in order for the representation to be more meaningful. The Chamber recommended that Me Douzima, who already represents victims in the case, be appointed to represent all dual status individuals (victim/witnesses) and  indicated that she may be chosen as one of the common legal representatives.

The Chamber adopted the same approach as in the Katanga case regarding the establishment of a support structure in the field. It endorsed the Registry’s suggestion that the teams should be composed of one counsel (P5 level) and one assistant (P1 level). It added that each team should be composed of 2 persons, one in The Hague and the other in the CAR, as the minimum.

Finally, OPCV who had been representing victims applicants, is to revert to what the Chamber called its core function : providing support and assistance to the legal representatives of victims and victims who have applied to participate. In the present case, the Chamber ruled that the appropriate role of OPCV was to assist legal representatives in particular by way of legal research and advice and through the provision of assistance by OPCV’s assistants in the court room, as opposed to representing individual victims in court. 

  • Appeals Chamber dismisses appeal against admissibility and abuse of process

[Background] On 28 June 2010, the Defence appealed the Trial Chambers’ decision on admissibility and the his request to adjourn the case for abuse of process.[26] The trial date was postponed pending the Appeal. [27]

On 19 October 2010 the Appeals Chamber dismissed all grounds of appeal confirming the Trial Chamber’s decision that the case was admissible.[28]

A new trial date was set for 22 November 2010.

  • Victims and Witnesses Unit submits two protocols aimed at protecting and preparing vulnerable witnesses for trial

On 22 and 25 October 2010, the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) submitted two protocols aimed at protecting and preparing vulnerable witnesses for trial. The first protocol[29] builds on the current witness familiarisation procedures and jurisprudence and addresses practical considerations aimed at assisting witnesses prior to and during the trial. The second focuses on the psychological assessment of vulnerable victims and how best to facilitate their testimony. [30]

In summary, the protocols include the following recommendations concerning:

-       Witness preparation by the VWU before travel to the location of testimony, including identifying vulnerability and special measures; preparatory psychological assessment of the ability of witnesses to testify at Court and subsequent consultation with the VWU as to how best to prepare them;

-       Familiarisation and support at the location of testimony, including literacy assessment and assistance, as well as further psychological assessment;

-       Non-separation of witnesses at the location of testimony and protective measures;

-       Procedure for dual-status witnesses;

-       Possibility of continuing assistance post trial with regard to vulnerable witnesses. 

As regards the first protocol, the Victims’ Legal Representative supported it but suggested that it could more clearly reflect that it is designed for victims as well as witnesses;[31] the Defence also largely supported it whilst suggesting that witnesses who started giving evidence should be separated from those who have not.[32]

  • TCIII rejects leave to appeal decision on revised Second Amended DCC

[Background] On 15 June 2009, PTC II issued its decision confirming the charges against Bemba.[33]  On 7 October 2009, TCIII asked whether OTP could file a fresh Document Containing the Charges (DCC) which reflected the way in which the Pre-Trial Chamber had confirmed them.[34] Following a complaint from the defence on the new document’s wording and meaning[35], TCIII ordered minor changes[36] that OTP complied with.[37] On 22 September the Defence asserted that the current DCC still failed to reflect the confirmation of charges decision.

This was rejected in limine on 8 October on the grounds that the filing had been made too late. TCIII reiterated that in cases where there is “any disparity between the charges contained in the revised Second Amended DCC and the […] Confirmation Decision, the latter document takes precedence.”[38] The Defence applied to appeal this decision,[39] but it was rejected as not appealable.[40]

  • OTP submits its amended order of witnesses: sexual violence testimony to be heard first

[Background] On 21 September 2010, the Prosecution submitted an updated witness list indicating the order and timeframe for presenting 40 witnesses, including four experts.[41] At the status conference of 24 September, the Chamber requested that the Prosecution shorten the time allocated for witness questioning. The Prosecution submitted a new, tighter schedule indicating that sexual violence victims would be heard first, followed by the experts and military command evidence.[42] The Chamber approved the new schedule but will continue to review the matter to prevent unnecessary delays.[43]

On 12 October, the Trial Chamber granted a request by OPCV, that a dual status witness should testify by video link, stating that “given in person” did not imply that testimony must absolutely be given live in court but would be decided on personal circumstances. The said witness was unable to travel outside the CAR.[44]

Situation in Darfur, Sudan

Developments in the ongoing Jerbo and Banda Case

  • Confirmation of Charges Hearing postponed

 On 19 October 2010, OTP filed its Document Containing the Charges (DCC) as well as a joint submission with the Defence on agreed facts contained therein for the purposes of the confirmation hearing.[45] The Defence informed the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) that, at the confirmation hearing, it would neither object to the charges in the DCC, nor challenge the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, nor otherwise present evidence.

On 22 October the PTC postponed the hearing, until 8 December. Defence Counsel for both accused subsequently filed a request to waive their right of attendance[46] in the interest of expediting the proceedings.  The Chamber rejected it on the ground that a request waiving one’s right to be present at the hearing had to be done by the accused themselves rather than by their counsel. The two accused were given until 15 November to do so.[47]

  • Pre-Trial Chamber rules on 95 victims’ applications to participate in the proceedings

[Background] On 6 July 2010, 87 victims participating in the Abu Garda proceedings applied to participate in the Banda and Jerbo proceedings.[48] Neither the Prosecution nor the Defence opposed their participation.[49] Thereafter, eight additional victims’ applications for participation in the confirmation of charges proceedings were transmitted to the Chamber.

On 29 October 2010, PTCI accepted that the first 87 applicants fulfilled the victim criteria necessary to participate in the proceedings. With regard to the later eight applications, PTC1 granted two of these and rejected five others due to their inability to link harm to the crimes, and for want of authority to act on behalf of an institution regarding one application.[50]  In addition, PTCI ordered that the names of seven victims who are also witnesses in the case should be disclosed to the Defence.

Situation in the Republic of Kenya

Developments in the Kenya situation

  • Innovative framework set for victim participation in Kenya Situation proceedings

On 3 November 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II set a framework for victim participation in proceedings in the Kenya Situation.[51] The Chamber stated that victims may participate in proceedings related to the situation stage but stressed that participation may only take place when an issue arises which may require judicial determination.

It outlined three different hypotheses which may lead it to assess the merits of victims’ applications at the stage of a situation, namely:

  1. The Chamber is seized of a request that is not submitted by victims (ie a motion filed by the Prosecution or Defence);
  2. The Chamber decides to act proprio motu (seeking the views of victims on an issue);
  3. The Chamber is seized of a request emanating from victims applicants or victims who have been recognised as victims participating in the proceedings.[52]

Only when the Chamber has decided that a request will lead to judicial proceedings will it resort to assess whether rule 85 criteria are fulfilled and only with respect to applications that are linked to the issue which forms the subject matter of judicial proceedings.

As regards implementation, the Chamber stated that unless victims explicitly indicated their wish to participate in the proceedings, VPRS should consider their applications for reparations alone. The VPRS would have 60 days to assess whether an application is complete.  The Chamber highlighted that for the Kenya Situation, natural persons or organisations, would have to show harm as a result of a crime against humanity committed in Kenya between 1 June 2005 and 26 November 2009.

Finally, VPRS was asked to endeavour to group victims in view of ensuring common legal representation if/when relevant proceedings arise. The judges ordered VPRS to seek information as to the counsel community in Kenya and possible needs for training.


[1]Demande du représentant légal de VPRS 3 et 6 aux fins de mise en cause de Monsieur Jean-Pierre Bemba en sa qualité de chef militaire au sens de l'article 28-a du Statut pour les crimes dont ses troupes sont présumées coupables en Ituri, 28 June 2010, ICC-01/04-564, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc902732.pdf

[2] Decision on the request of the legal representative of victims VPRS 3 a n d VPRS 6 to review an alleged decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed, 25 October 2010, ICC-01/04-582, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc957796.pdf

[3] Decision on the designation of a Single Judge of Pre-Trial Chamber I, 25 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-918, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944588.pdf ; the same decision was also rendered in the Ntaganda case, ICC-01/04-02/06-29, 26 October 2010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc958011.pdf

[4]Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc831030.pdf

[5]Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Katanga Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 22 January 2010 Entitled "Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial", 16 July 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2288, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc909021.pdf

[6]Requete aux fins d’autorisation de comparution des victimes a/381/09, a/0018/09, a/191/08 et pan/0363/09 agissant au nom de a/363/09, 15 September 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2393-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc937059.pdf

[7]Réplique aux observations des Défenses de Mathieu NGUDJOLO et Germain KATANGA sur la requête aux fins d’autorisation de comparution de quatre victimes, 1 October 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2432, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944641.pdf

[8]Defence response to the Requête aux fins d’autorisation de comparution des victimes, ICC-01/04-01/07-2407-Conf, 23 September 2010 ; see also Réponse de la Défense de Mathieu Ngudjolo à la Requête aux fins d’autorisation de comparution des victimes, ICC-01/04-01/07-2405-Conf, 23 September 2010 

[9]Réplique aux observations des Défenses de Mathieu Ngudjolo et Germain Katanga sur la requête aux fins d’autorisation de comparution de quatre victims, 1 October 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2432, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944641.pdf

[10] 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

[11]Requête aux fins d’obtention d’une déclaration d’une victime participante recueillie par la Défense de Germain Katanga, 24 September 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2416, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc942119.pdf (see also July-Aug legal update).

[12]Prosecution’s Observations, 1 October 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2433, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944784.pdf

[13] Defence Response to the Requête aux fins d’obtention d’une déclaration d’une victime participante recueillie par la Défence de Germain Katanga, 1 October 2010,ICC-01/04-01/07-2434, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944789.pdf

[14] Motifs de la troisième décision relative à 8 demandes de participation de victimes à la procédure, 16 March 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1967, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc845824.pdf ; see also Motifs de la deuxième décision relative aux demandes de participation de victimes à la procédure, 22 December 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1737, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc797065.pdf

[15] Sixième rapport du Greffe sur les informations supplémentaires reçues concernant des demandes de participation de victimes, 18 mai 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2104-Conf-Exp avec Annexe confidentielle ex parte ; Septième rapport du Greffe sur les informations supplémentaires reçues concernant des demandes de participation de victimes, 20 août 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2307-Conf-Exp avec Annexe confidentielle ex parte

[16] Quatrième Décision relative à 2 demandes de participation de victimes à la procédure, ICC-01/04-01/07-2516, 8 November 2010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc964599.pdf

[17] Forces Démocratique pour la Libération de Rwanda

[18] Decision on the Prosecutor's Under Seal Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte Mbarushimana, 28 September, ICC-01/04-01/10-1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc942811.pdf ; see also Warrant of Arrest for Callixte Mbarushimana,28 September 2010, ICC-01/04-01/10-2-tENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc954979.pdf   

[19] Decision setting a time-limit for the submission of new victims' applications for participation, 7 September 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-875,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc934437.pdf

[20] Third transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 24 September 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-900, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc941634.pdf

[21]176 on 1 October, 2 transmissions of 104 and 82 on 8 October, 373 on 15 October, 280 on 29 October – see: Fourth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 1 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-913, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944496.pdf; Fifth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 8 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-932, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc947737.pdf ; Sixth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 8 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-936, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc948671.pdf ;  Seventh transmission to the parties and legal representatives of redacted versions of applications for participation in the proceedings, 15 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-955, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc952863.pdf; Eighth transmission to the Trial Chamber of applications for participation in the proceedings, 29 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-981, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc960096.pdf

[22] 212, 167, 322 respectively

[23] See: Corrigendum to Prosecution’s Observations on 218 Applications for Victim’s Participation in the Proceedings, 14 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-946-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc951785.pdf ; Prosecution’s Observations on 104 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 21 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-966, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc955863.pdf ; Prosecution’s Observations on 82 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 21 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-967, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc955872.pdf ; Prosecution’s Observations on 373 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 28 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-979, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc958956.pdf

[24] Defence Response to the Third Transmission of Victimsʹ Applications for Participation in the Proceedings, 11 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-945,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc949581.pdf ; Defence Observations on the ʺFourth Transmission to the parties and legal representatives of redacted versions of applications for participation in the proceedings, 22 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-968, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc956486.pdf, ;Observations de la Défense sur les 104 demandes de participation à la procédure en qualité de victimes, 4 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-995, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962723.pdf

[25] Decision on common legal representation of victims for the purpose of trial, ICC-01/04-01/08-1005, 10 November 2010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc965368.pdf

[26] Corrigendum Acte dʹAppel de la Défense contre la décision de la Chambre de Première Instance III du 24 Juin 2010 intitulée ʺDecision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challengeʺ, 28 June 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-804-Corr2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc902692.pdf and  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc903055.pdf (English version)

[27]Order postponing the commencement of the trial, 7 July 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-811, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc905652.pdf 

[28] Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of 24 June 2010, 19 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-962, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc955029.pdf

[29] Unified Technical protocol (“E-court Protocol”) for the provision of evidence, witness and victims information in electronic form for their presentation during the Trial, 25 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-971-Anx1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc957490.pdf

[30] Protocol on the vulnerability assessment and support procedure used to facilitate the testimony of vulnerable witnesses, ICC-01/05-01/08-974-Anx2, 25 October 2010, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc957719.pdf

[31]Legal Representative’s Observations on the Unified Protocol on the practices used to prepare and familiarise witnesses for giving testimony at trial, 3 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-991, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962353.pdf    

[32] Defence Observations on the VWU Unified Protocol on Practices for Witnesses Giving Testimony at Trial, 3 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-992, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962381.pdf  

[33] Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc699541.pdf

[34] Transcript of hearing on 7 October 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-14-ENG ET WT, page 13, lines 5-10, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc752384.pdf

[35] Requête aux fins d’obtenir une Décision ordonnant la correction et le dépôt du Second Document Amendé Contenant les Charges, 12 February 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-694, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc821578.pdf

[36] Decision on the defence application for corrections to the Document Containing the Charges, 20 July 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-836, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc907898.pdf ; See also Redress Legal Update of July-August

[37] Prosecution’s Submission of the Revised Second Amended Document Containing the Charges, 18 August 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-856, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc924730.pdf

[38] Decision on the defence application to obtain a ruling to correct the revised Second Amended Document containing the Charges, 8 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-935, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc948152.pdf

[39]Démande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Chambre de Première Instance III 13 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-949, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc951484.pdf  

[40] Decision on the defence request for leave to appeal, 28 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-980, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc959037.pdf

[41]Prosecution’s Updated Order of Witnesses, 21 September 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-891, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc939673.pdf ; ICC-01/05-01/08-891-AnxA, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc939674.pdf

[42] Prosecution’s Updated Order of Presentation of its Witnesses at Trial, 1 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-918, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc944588.pdf 

[43]Order on the "Prosecution's Revised Order of its Witnesses at Trial and Estimated Length of Questioning", 4 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-996, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962730.pdf  

[44]Redacted Decision on the Public "Request for the conduct of the testimony CAR-OTP-WWWW-0108 by video-link", 12 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-947-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc950782.pdf

[45]Joint submission by the OTP and the Defence as to agreed facts and submissions regarding modalities for the conduct of the Confirmation hearing, 19 October 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-80,  http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc955335.pdf

[46] Decision postponing the confirmation hearing and setting a deadline for the submission of the suspects' written request to waive their right to attend the confirmation hearing, 22 October 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-81, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc956512.pdf ;

[47]Second decision setting a deadline for the submission of the suspects' written request to waive their right to attend the confirmation hearing , 27 October 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-87, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc958720.pdf; Banda submitted his on 4 October 2010: ICC-02/05-03/09-93, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962723.pdf

[48] ICC-02/05-03/09-50-Conf-Exp.

[49] Prosecution’s Observations on Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Proceedings, 13 August 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-64, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc923458.pdf ; Joint Defence Reply to the 87 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 13 August 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-63, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc923453.pdf

[50] Decision on Victims' Participation at the Hearing on the Confirmation of the Charges, 29 October 2010, ICC-02/05-03/09-89, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc959401.pdf

[51] Decision on Victims' Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, 3 November 2010, ICC-01/09-24, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc962483.pdf

[52] For instance, the recent proceedings in the DRC situation whereby victims attempted to trigger a review by the Chamber of the alleged decision of the Prosecution not to prosecute Bemba for crimes committed in DRC.