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

LEGAL UPDATE OCT-NOV 2012

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update

1 Octobre - 23 Novembre 2012

(PDF version)

 

Contents

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga

  • Appeal Observations against Reparation Decision
  • Decisions on conviction and sentencing appealed

Katanga and Ngudjolo

  • Cases severed, new mode of liability considered for Katanga, date for judgment in Ngudjolo announced

Central African Republic

Situation in CAR

  • TFV to start activities in CAR

Bemba

  • 777 victims granted participatory status

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo

  • Disagreement on how to interview double status victims
  • Defence’s request for stay of proceedings rejected
  • LRV requests TC IV to fix the modalities of victims’ participation

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta

  • TC V rules on victims’ representation & participation
  • No agreement on division of responsibilities between CLRV and OPCV
  • Kituo Cha Sheria to intervene on victims’ issues
  • Protocol issued on confidential information relating to victims and parties’ contacts with victims

Ruto & Sang

  • Wilfred Nderitu appointed as CLRV of victims, previous CLRV expresses concerns over new approach

Muthaura & Kenyatta

  • Fergal Gaynor appointed as CLRV
  • Defence’s request for changing the place of proceedings rejected

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi

  • Friend of Gaddafi seeks to intervene

Ivory Coast

Situation in Ivory Coast

  • Arrest warrant against Simone Ggabgo unsealed

Gbagbo

  • OPCV’s right to submit observations on suspect's fitness to stand trial confirmed
  • Continued detention of Gbagbo confirmed
  • Ggabgo is fit to stand in court, Defence appeals

 

 

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lubanga case

Appeals Observations against the Reparation Decision

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Mr Lubanga was found guilty of enlisting and conscripting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.[1] On 7 August 2012, Trial Chamber I (TC I) ruled on the principles and procedure to be applied to reparations for victims.[2]

On 29 August 2012, the Defence was partially granted leave by TC I to appeal the Decision (interlocutory appeal under article 82(1)(d)).[3] On 24 August, 3 and 6 September 2012, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), the Legal Representatives of Victims (LRV) of Teams V01 and V02 and the Defence also appealed the Decision, but did so directly before the Appeals Chamber, basing their appeal on the fact that the impugned order was a reparations order under Article 75 (direct appeal under article 82(4)).[4]

On 1 October 2012, parties and participants filed observations on four issues to be decided prior to the consideration of the various appeals. [5]

1. Whether the Decision constitutes an ‘order for reparation’ under Article 75 of the Statute

The statement from TC I that the Reparation Decision did not amount to an order for reparation is contested by the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), OPCV, the Defence and the LRVs. They advanced the following reasons: 1) the Decision is the sole comprehensive ruling on reparations in Lubanga; 2) TC I has ordered the automatic transfer of individual applications’ for reparation and their examination to the TFV; and 3) TC I has delegated its reparation mandate to two non-judiciary entities (Registry and TFV) and transferred to another Chamber the monitoring and supervision of the TFV’s work. The Prosecution supported the Chamber’s interpretation.

2. Who has standing in the Defence’s interlocutory appeal?

OPCV and LRVs of Team V02 requested to participate in the appeal, in the name of victims who had applied for reparation but also of victims who participated at the Trial stage but had not yet sought reparations, victims whose participatory status had been withdrawn by the Chamber as well as victims who were not participating at Trial and had not yet claimed reparations. They noted that the Appeals Chamber had no jurisprudence on interlocutory appeals at the reparation stage and submitted that there were “convincing grounds” justifying the participation of victims in such appeal.

3. Who has standing to appeal the Decision directly?

Parties and participants disagreed on whether only those victims who have applied for reparations should be allowed to appeal the Reparation Decision directly. For OPCV and LRVs of Team V02, all victims should have such right – regardless of the filing of a claim for reparations or participation. This was opposed by the Defence who stated that only victims with participatory status, who have filled a reparation form and disclosed their identity to the Defence, should be allowed to appeal.

Victims submitted that Lubanga, who has not been ordered to contribute financially to reparations, should not be allowed to appeal the Reparation Decision. The Prosecutor opposed both Lubanga’s and the victims’ right to appeal recalling her position that the Decision on reparations did not constitute an order for reparation appealable under article 82(4).[6]

4. Whether implementation of reparations should wait until the final determination of the appeals

TheDefence requested that the implementation of the Reparation Decision be suspended until a final determination of the appeals is made. While the Prosecution opposed the Defence’s request, the TFV and OPCV concurred with Lubanga and found that it would be undesirable to halt, revise or reverse the implementation of reparation should the conviction be overturned.

Decisions on conviction and sentencing appealed

On 3 October 2012, the Prosecutor appealed the decision of 10 July 2012 sentencing Mr Lubanga and requested the Appeals Chamber to revise upwards the 14-year sentence.[7] The same day, the Defence appealed both the decision convicting Lubanga and the one sentencing him, requesting for the latter that the sentence be quashed or reduced.[8]

Katanga and Ngudjolo case

Cases severed, new mode of liability considered for Katanga, date for judgment in Ngudjolo announced

[Background] On 10 March 2008, Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I) joined the cases against Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo.[9] Their trial opened on 24 November 2009 and the closing statements took place from 15 to 23 May 2009.

On 21 November 2012, Trial Chamber II (TC II) informed parties and participants that it may consider a different mode of liability for Katanga pursuant to Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court.[10]

Katanga is being prosecuted under Article 25(3)(a) as 1) ‘indirect co-perpetrator’ for three crimes against humanity (murder; sexual slavery; rape) and six war crimes (wilful killing; destruction of property; pillaging; sexual slavery; rape; deliberately directing an attack on a civilian population or against individual civilians or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities) and 2) ‘direct co-perpetrator’ for the war crime of using children under 15 to take active part in hostilities. TC II suggested that his responsibility as ‘indirect co-perpetrator’ for the crimes described above might also be considered under Article 25(3)(d) (contributing in any other way to the commission of the crimes by a group of persons acting with a common purpose). Judge Van den Wyngaert dissented and stressed that such re-characterisation went “beyond any reasonable application of the provision” and fundamentally infringed Katanga’s right to a fair trial.

The Chamber also severed the charges against both accused considering the different mode of liability now envisaged and ruled that victims authorised to participate so far would continue to participate in both cases. The judgement on Ngudjolo’s guilt or innocence is expected on 18 December 2012.

Central African Republic (CAR)

Situation in CAR

TFV to start activities in CAR

[Background] On 30 October 2009, the Board of Directors of the TFV notified Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II) of its intention to undertake activities in CAR pursuant Regulation 50(a)(ii) of the Regulations of the TFV, which grants the TFV with a mandate to undertake specified activities if “necessary to provide physical or psychological rehabilitation or material support for the benefit of victims and their families”. On 16 November 2009, PTC II ruled that the notification lacked specificity.

On 11 October 2012, the Board presented a new list of six specified activities following a consultation process with local NGOs which started in May 2011.[11] The focus is on assistance to victims survivors of sexual and gender based violence. On 23 October 2012, PTC II authorised the Board to carry out the said activities.[12]

Bemba case

777 victims granted participatory status

[Background] Between 27 January 2012 and 5 April 2012, the Victims’ Participation and Reparations Section transmitted 799 new applications to participate in the proceedings to Trial Chamber III (TC III).

On 5 November 2012, TC III granted participatory status to 777 victims and rejected 14 applications.[13] This brings to 4,898 the number of victims authorised to participate in the case.[14]

Darfur

Banda & Jerbo case

Disagreement on how to interview double status victims

[Background] On 31 August 2012, the Prosecutor submitted confidentially a Draft Protocol on the handling of non-public information and contact between one of the parties to the proceedings with witnesses of the opposing party.[15] On 21 September 2012, the LRV asked that the Protocol also include 1) the requirement for the Defence to warn the LRV of its intentions to contact a double status victim, and 2) the authorisation for the LRV to attend the interview.

On 4 October 2012, the Defence requested Trial Chamber IV (TC IV) to reject the LRV’s proposal, arguing that such measures 1) risked interfering with the Defence’s investigation, 2) could contaminate evidence, and 3) would involve issues of confidentiality of the case material.[16] It proposed alternative measures such as obtaining the Prosecutor’s authorization or informing the victim of the possibility for the LRV to attend the interview.

Defence’s request for stay of proceedings rejected

[Background] On 6 January 2012, the Defence requested a temporary stay of proceedings due, inter alia, to the impossibility of entering Sudan and securing witness testimony and critical evidence.[17]

On 26 October 2012, TC IV rejected the request.[18] It found the Defence had not met the standard of proof required and that allegations in relation to missing evidence had to be “specific as opposed to vague speculations that lost documents or unavailable witnesses might have assisted the defendants”. On 5 November 2012, the Defence sought leave to appeal.[19]

LRV requests TC IV to fix the modalities of victims’ participation

On 7 November 2012, the LRV requested TC IV to fix the modalities of victims’ participation in the proceedings to enable victims to expose their views and concerns before the trial begins.[20] She stressed that the absence of information on the modalities of participation barred her from fulfilling her duties and asked TC IV to grant her the right to: 1) access all documents of the case, including confidential ones if they affect victims’ interests; 2) participate in status conferences and hearings; 3) to submit evidence and question the admissibility of evidence brought by the parties.

Kenya

Ruto & Sang and Muthaura & Kenyatta cases

TC V rules on victims’ representation & participation

On 3 October 2012, Trial Chamber V (TC V) set out a new procedure for victims wishing to participate in the Kenya trials.[21] TC V departed from the approach of other Chambers which required all victims wanting to participate in the proceedings to file an application. It distinguished direct individual participation (individuals who wish to appear in person before Court) from participation through a common legal representative (‘CLRV’) (victims who only wish to be recognised as ‘participants’). It ruled that those who do not wish to appear in person did not have to fill in an application but could register with the Registry through a less detailed process.

TC V further stated that victims’ CLRVwill represent all victims (registered or not); will act as the main point of contact for the victims he/she represents and will appear on their behalf in key hearings only. The CLRV should have a presencein Kenya and will be assisted by OPCV who will attend hearings on his/her behalf and act under his/her instructions.

The CLRV will be able to access confidential material on a case-by-case basis, provided it is “relevant to the personal interests of the victims”. The CLRV will also be able to make opening and closing statements at trial. Provided some conditions are fulfilled, individual victims will be granted the right to present their views and concerns in person at trial including during the opening and closing hearings. Victims appearing in person will need to disclose their identity to the parties.

In the Ruto case, victims’ LRV expressed concerns over the new approach (see below).

No agreement on division of responsibilities between CLRV and OPCV

On 17 October 2012, the Registry and OPCV informed TC V that they were unable to submit a joint proposal on the division of responsibilities and effective functioning of the new system of legal representation.[22]

Among the contentious issues was the financing of OPCV’s staff members to be devoted to the cases. OPCV indeed suggested to devote up to two staff members to each case in order to assist the CLRV but stressed that this would require additional resources, to be provided under the legal aid budget. The Registry opposed this suggestion and stressed that the legal aid scheme was not aimed at funding such purposes.

OPCV also highlighted concerns over legal and practical impediments in acting on behalf of the CLRV. Both OPCV and the Registry called on the setting up of a dispute resolution mechanism to arbitrate possible disputes between the CLRV and OPCV staff working on his/her behalf.

Kituo Cha Sheria to intervene on victims’ issues

On 30 October 2012, Kituo Cha Sheria, a Kenyan NGO, sought leave to intervene as amicus curiae on issues relating to the implementation of the new system for victims to apply and participate in proceedings.[23] It suggested providing the Chamber with information on inter alia, the importance of consultation with victims, security issues relating to the new system’s implementation and the need for coordination between OPCV and the CLRV.

On 15-16 November 2012, TC V granted the request though stressed that the issue of the CLR’s appointment and selection criteria, which Kituo also sought to address, did not need further submissions.[24]

Protocol issued on confidential information relating to victims and parties’ contacts with victims

On 9 November 2012, TC V issued a protocol concerning the handling of confidential information concerning victims and contacts of a party with victims. The Chamber ruled inter alia that 1) a party wishing to contact a victim must notify its intention to the CLR who will ask the victim and facilitate the contact, if the victim consents; 2) if present during the interview, the CLRV cannot interfere with the victim answering questions freely; 3) any disagreement between the CLRV and the relevant party will be referred to the Chamber.[25]

Ruto & Sang case

Wilfred Nderitu appointed as CLRV of victims, previous CLRV expresses concerns over new approach

On 3 October 2012, TC V fixed the criteria to be applied for the selection of the CLRV, including the need to have a presence in Kenya, and instructed the Registry to make a recommendation in that regard. The Registry did so on 5 November, indicating that it had not consulted victims given the short timeframe given to submit the recommendation (30 days).[26]

On 6 November 2012, Ms Chana, who represented victims at Pre Trial stage, sought leave to present the victims’ views and concerns on their legal representation at trial. She stressed that as the trial was not due to start until April 2013, there was no reason not to consult victims directly prior to making changes to their legal representation.[27] She highlighted her concerns regarding the division between direct individual participation and participation through a CLR and the possible division between “first” and “second-class” victims. She also raised concerns over the fact that potential disagreements between OPCV and CLRV could jeopardize an accurate reflection of the victims’ views during trial.

On 23 November 2012, TC V appointed Mr Wilfred Nderitu as CLRV despite Ms Chana’s interest in continuing the representation.[28] Judge Eboe-Osuji dissented, finding that TC V had not given due weight to Ms Chana’s longstanding familiarity with the case and that the willingness to reside in Kenya should not have become an overriding or exclusive criterion.

Muthaura & Kenyatta case

Fergal Gaynor appointed as CLRV

On 3 October 2012, TC V fixed the criteria to be applied for the selection of the CLRV. On 5 November 2012, the Registry confidentially transmitted a said recommendation in that regard.[29] Mr Anyah, who represented victims during the Pre Trial stage declined to be considered for the position. On 20 November 2012, TC V appointed Mr Fergal Gaynor as CLRV.[30]

Defence’s request for changing the place of the proceedings rejected

[Background] On 28 May 2012, the suspects requested the holding of the trial either in Kenya or at the premises of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania.[31]

On 8 November 2012, TC V rejected the requests, finding that they ought to have been addressed to the Presidency rather than the Chamber.[32]

Libya

Gaddafi & Al-Senussi case

Friend of Gaddafi seeks to intervene

On 9 November 2012, Ms Hosseinioun sought leave to submit amicus curiae observations.[33] She wished to provide the Chamber with a copy of a recent decision by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruling on Libya’s compliance with provisional measures ordered in respect of the detention of Mr. Gaddafi in Libya. These measures included the access for Mr Gaddafi to his lawyers; the disclosure of the location of his detention and the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court. She stressed it was relevant to the proper determination of the admissibility of Mr. Gaddafi’s case.

Ivory Coast

Situation in Ivory Coast

Arrest warrant against Simone Ggabgo unsealed

On 22 November 2012, PTC I unsealed an arrest warrant against Simone Gbagbo, wife of former President of Ivory Coast Laurent Ggagbo. She is allegedly responsible, as indirect co-perpetrator of four counts of crimes against humanity (murder; rape and other forms of sexual violence; other inhumane acts; persecution) allegedly committed in Ivory Coast between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.[34]

The arrest warrant stresses that Ms Gbagbo was “ideologically and professionally very close” to her husband, had “participated in all the meetings during the relevant period [and] acted as an alter ego for her husband”. It also alleges that she had joint control over the crimes as she had the power to control/give instructions to the youth militia. She is under house arrest in Ivory Coast, facing domestic proceedings.

Laurent Gbagbo case

OPCV’s right to submit observations on suspect's fitness to stand trial confirmed

[Background] On 15 August 2012, PTC I authorized OPCV to submit general observations on the legal principles applicable to the determination of a suspect's fitness to stand trial.[35] On 21 August 2012, the Defence sought to appeal the decision.[36]

On 11 October 2012, PTC I rejected the Defence’s request and recalled that victims’ participation would be confined to appropriate stages of the proceedings and in a manner not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the suspect and the principles of a fair and impartial trial.[37]

Continued detention of Gbagbo confirmed

[Background] On 30 November 2011, Mr Gbagbo was transferred to The Hague. On 13 July 2012, PTC I rejected the Defence’s request for interim release.[38] On 23 July 2012, the Defence appealed the decision.[39]

On 26 October 2012, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the Defence’s appeal.[40] On 12 November 2012, PTC I reviewed again Mr Gbagbo’s detention pursuant Article 60(3) and confirmed his detention stressing that the circumstances justifying custodial detention had not changed.[41] However, in light of the Appeals Chamber’s finding that Mr Gbagbo’s “health require[d] heightened attention”, PTC I requested the Registry to provide a report on the possible treatments that would improve the suspect’s health.

Gbagbo is fit to stand in court, Defence appeals

[Background] On 26 June 2012, PTC I appointed three medical experts to examine whether Mr Gbagbo was physically and mentally fit to participate in the confirmation of charges proceedings. Their reports were filed by the Registry on 19 July 2012.

On 2 November 2012, PTC I found Mr Gbagbo able to exercise his trial rights and fit enough to take part in the proceedings, provided some adjustments are made.[42] PTC I referred to the diverging conclusions of the experts, including the findings of one expert according to which, the PTSD suffered by Gbagbo was minimal and did not justify ending his detention nor undermine his capacity to attend Court. PTC I will set a new date for the confirmation of charges hearing separately.

The Defence confidentially sought leave to appeal the decision without notifying victims’ counsel. On 13 November 2012, OPCV who represents victims in the case, requested PTC I 1) to indicate whether a leave to appeal the decision had indeed been filed and if so, 2) to make the document available to enable victims to respond.[43] On 14 November 2012, PTC I ordered the Defence to file a public redacted version of the application.[44]

 

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

Produced for the Victim’s Rights Working Group by REDRESS

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

 

[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] 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; for further detail, see VRWG, ‘Lubanga Case – Q & A on ICC Landmark Decision on Reparations for Victims’ (August 2012) at www.vrwg.org/Lubanga_Reparations%20principles%20Final.pdf.

[3] Decision on the Defence request for leave to appeal the Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations, 29 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2911, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1461050.pdf.

[4] Acte d’appel à l’encontre de la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparation » délivrée par la Chambre de première instance I le 7 août 2012, 24 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2909, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1458961.pdf; Acte d'appel des représentants légaux des victimes, équipe V01 contre la "Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparation" du 7 août 2012 de la Chambre de première instance I, 3 Septembre 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2914, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1469944.pdf; Acte d’appel de la Défense de M. Thomas Lubanga à l’encontre de la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparation » rendue par la Chambre de première instance I le 7 août 2012, 6 September 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2917, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1467508.pdf.

[5] Directions on the conduct of the appeal proceedings, 17 September 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2923, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc 1469799.pdf; Observations in response to the Direction on the conduct of appeal proceedings, 1 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2927, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1477945.pdf; Observations sur les questions relatives à la recevabilité des appels interjetés par la Défense, le BCPV et les équipes V01 et V02 à l'encontre de la « Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparation » délivrée par la Chambre de première instance I le 7 août 2012 », 1 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2928, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1478124.pdf; Observations de la Défense conformément aux “Directions on the conduct of the appeal proceedings” transmises le 17 septembre 2012, 1 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2929, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/do c1478278.pdf; Observations de l’équipe V02 de représentants légaux de victimes, conformément aux directives ICC 01/04 01/06 2923 A A3 A4 0A31, 1 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2931, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1478336.pdf; Prosecution’s Submissions further to the Appeals Chamber’s ”Directions on the conduct of the appeal proceedings” , 1 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2930, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1478282.pdf.

[6] Prosecution’s Response to the “Requête de la Défense aux fins de faire declarer irrecevable la ‘Prosecution’s Response to the Defence Appeal against the ‘Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations’”, 12 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2939, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1485597.pdf

[7] Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal against Trial Chamber I’s “Decision Sentence pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2933, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479544.pdf.

[8] 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 » rendu par la Chambre de première instance I le 14 mars 2012, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2934, http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479593.pdf.

[9] Decision on the Joinder of the Cases against Germain KATANGA and Mathieu NGUDJOLO CHUI, 10 Mars 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-257, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc452993.pdf.

[10] 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.

[11] Notification by the Board of Directors in accordance with Regulation 50 a) of the Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims to undertake activities in the Central African Republic including Annexes, 11 October 2012, ICC-01/05-39, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1483047.pdf. On 6 May 2011, TFV published a Call for Expression of Interests to solicit project proposals supporting victims of sexual and gender-based violence in CAR. Nine organisations were preselected and invited to present a project. After review, some projects were transmitted to the Board in August. http://www.trustfundforvictims.org/news/clarification-de-la-position-du-fvp-en-r%C3%A9publique-centrafricaine); See the detailed list of activities in Annex III of the decision: “Annex III – Central Africa Republic – Six Proposed Assistance Projects for Implementation by the Trust Fund for Victims, 11 october 2012, ICC-01/05-39-AnxIII, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1483052.pdf.

[12] Decision on the "Notification by the Board of Directors in accordance with Regulation 50 a) of the regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims to undertake activities in the Central African Republic'', 23 October 2012, ICC-01/05-41, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1496856.pdf.

[13] Decision on 799 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings, 5 November 2012, ICC-01/05-01/08-2401, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1502260.pdf.

[14] As explained here: http://www.bembatrial.org/2012/11/another-777-victims-to-participate-in-bemba-trial/.

[15] Public Redacted Version of “Prosecution's Submission of a Draft Protocol on the Handling of Non-Public Information and Contact of a Party With Witnesses of the Opposing Party, and Prosecution's Update on Expert Witness”, filed on 27 August 2012, 31 August 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-389-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1462040.pdf.

[16] Defence Reply to the "Observations en Réponse des Représentants Légaux Communs à la Version Publique Expurgée de la Soumission du Procureur relative au Projet de Protocole Concernant la Gestion des Informations Non Publiques et des Contacts par une Partie des Témoins de la Partie Adverse (ICC-02/05-03/09-389-31/08/2012) avec la Version Publique de son Annexe A (ICC-02/05-03/09-AnxA-31/08/2012)", 4 October 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-399, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1480096.pdf.

[17] Defence Request for a Temporary Stay of Proceedings, 6 January 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-274, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1296602.pdf.

[18] Decision on the defence request for a temporary stay of proceedings (and concurring separate opinion of Judge Eboe-Osuji), 26 October 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-410, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1498141.pdf.

[19] Defence Application for Leave to Appeal the “Decision on the defence request for a temporary stay of proceedings”, 5 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-412, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1502540.pdf; see the submissions from the LRV and Prosecutor requesting TC IV to reject the Defence’s request, 9 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-415, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1505176.pdf and Prosecution’s Response to “Defence Application for leave to Appeal the ‘Decision on the defence request for a temporary stay of proceedings’”, 9 November 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-416, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1505235.pdf.

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

[21] Decision on victims' representation and participation, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-498, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479387.pdf; Decision on victims' representation and participation, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-460, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479374.pdf.

[22] Registry's Proposal on the Division of Responsibilities and Effective Functioning of the Common Legal Representation System, 17 October 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-463, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1491344.pdf; OPCV’s Proposal on the Division of Responsibilities and Effective Functioning of the Common Legal Representation System including Annexes, 17 October 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-462, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1491260.pdf.

[23] Application by Kituo Cha Sheria for Leave to Submit Observations, 30 October 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-464, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1499290.pdf; Application by Kituo Cha Sheria for Leave to Submit Observations, 30 October 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-514, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1499291.pdf.

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

[25] Decision on the supplementary protocol concerning the handling of confidential information concerning victims and contacts of a party with victims, 9 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-472, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1505579.pdf; Decision on the supplementary protocol concerning the handling of confidential information concerning victims and contacts of a party with victims, 9 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-524, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1505586.pdf.

[26] Recommendation for the position of Common Legal Representative of victims including Annexes, 5 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-467, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1502396.pdf.

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

[28] Decision appointing a common legal representative of victims, 23 November 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-479, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1513301.pdf.

[29] Recommendation for the position of Common Legal Representative of victims including Annexes, 5 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-517, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1502441.pdf.

[30] Decision appointing a common legal representative of victims, 20 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-537, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1510980.pdf.

[31] Defence Submissions on the status conference agenda items contained in the Trial Chamber's "Order scheduling a status conference" of 14 May 2012, 28 May 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-427, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1418991.pdf; Defence for Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta Submissions on Status Conference Agenda In Response to Trial Chamber Order dated 14 May 2012 (ICC-01/09-02/11-422), 28 May 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-429, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1419027.pdf.

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

[33] Application on behalf of Mishana Hosseinioun for Leave to Submit Document to the [PTC] pursuant to Rule 103, 9 November 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-232, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1505148.pdf.

[34] Warrant of Arrest for Simone Gbagbo, 29 February 2012, ICC-02/11-01/12, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1344439.pdf.

[35] Decision on the OPCV's "Request for leave to submit observations and Request to access the Expert Reports", 15 August 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-211, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1454489.pdf.

[36] Demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Juge unique portant sur la question de la participation des victimes à la procédure relative à l’état de santé du Président Gbagbo et à son aptitude à être jugé (ICC-02/11-01/11-211), 21 August 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-222, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1456551.pdf.

[37] Decision on the « Demande d'autorisation d'interjeter appel de la décision de la Juge unique portant sur la question de la participation des victimes à la procédure relative à l'état de santé du Président Gbagbo et à son aptitude à être jugé, 11 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-265, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1482712.pdf.

[38] Decision on the "Requête de la Défense demandant la mise en liberté provisoire du président Gbagbo", 13 July 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-180-Red, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1441665.pdf.

[39] Version publique expurgée de l'Acte d'appel de la Défense relatif à la Décision de la Chambre préliminaire I rejetant la demande de mise en liberté provisoire du Président Gbagbo, 1 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-193-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1501030.PDF.

[40] Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Koudou Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 13 July 2012, 26 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-278-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1498173.pdf.

[41] Decision on the review of Laurent Gbagbo's detention pursuant to article 60(3) of the Rome Statute, 12 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-291, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1506526.pdf.

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

[43] Request in relation to the “Decision on the fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to take part in the proceedings before this Court”, 13 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-293, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1506675.pdf.

[44] Decision on the OPCV's "Request in relation to the 'Decision on the fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to take part in the proceedings before this Court'", 14 November 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-296, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1507535.pdf.