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

LEGAL UPDATE: May - July 2014

 

ICC Victims’ Rights Legal Update:

 1 May - 31 July 2014

(PDF version)

Contents

Democratic Republic of the Congo                                            

Lubanga

  • Defence requests the admission of three sets of documents as new evidence on appeal; Prosecutor opposes the Defence’s request
  • Appeals Chamber rejects the Defence’s request in relation to investigations conducted pursuant to article 70 of the Statute

Ntaganda

  • PTC II confirms charges against Ntaganda
  • Review of Mr Ntaganda’s Detention
  • Trial Chamber VI schedules status conference for determination of issues at trial

Katanga

  • Germain Katanga sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment
  • Victims’ Participation in the Appeals procedure
  • Legal Representative of main group of Victims’ request for recusal of Judge C. Van den Wyngaert
  • Discontinuance of Appeals

Darfur                                                                                               

Banda

  • Further steps in Trial Proceedings

Central African Republic                                                              

Bemba

  • Trial Chamber to issue separate decisions pursuant to Articles 74 and 76 of the Statute

Ivory Coast                                                                                     

Laurent Gbagbo

  • PTC I confirms four charges of crimes against humanity against Laurent Gbagbo

Charles Blé Goudé case

  • PTC I renders decision on the participation of victims in the pre-trial proceedings

Kenya                                                                                             

Ruto and Sang

  • Appeals and Observations on Decision on Prosecutor’s application for witness summonses and resulting request for state cooperation

Kenyatta

  • Status conference held on 9 July 2014

Libya

Gaddafi & Al Senussi 

  • Appeals Chamber confirms admissibility of case against Gaddafi
  • Appeals Chamber confirms the case against Mr Al Senussi is inadmissible

 

 


 

Democratic Republic of the Congo                                            

Lubanga case

Defence requests the admission of three sets of documents as new evidence on appeal; Prosecutor opposes the Defence’s request

[Background] On 14 March 2012, Trial Chamber I convicted Mr Lubanga as a co-perpetrator of the war crime of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the Force Patriotique pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC)1. On 10 July 2012, the Trial Chamber sentenced him to 14 years of imprisonment2. On 3 October 2012, Mr Lubanga filed appeals against both the conviction and the sentence3. On 23 December 2013, Mr Lubanga filed a request seeking the admission of six documents as additional evidence and to add a new ground of appeal4, which was granted by the Appeals Chamber on 13 January 2014.5 On 19-20 May 2014 a hearing was held before the Appeals Chamber for the testimony of witnesses D-0040 and D-0041 and the parties’ oral submissions on appeal.6

On 23 May 2014, Mr Lubanga’s Defence requested the admission of three sets of documents as new evidence on appeal pursuant to Regulation 62 of the Regulations of the Court7. The first set of documents, which was the object of the previous Defence request filed on 23 December 20138, is composed of the list of names of members of the presidential guard and photographs of the 11 guards of Lubanga authorised to stay in Bunia in June 2003. The second set of document, composed of D-0041’s electoral card with his date of birth on it, serves to prove that the witness was aged over 15 years at the time of his conscription within the FPLC9. The third set of documents consists of letters from the Congolese Independent National Electoral Commission, confirming the authenticity of the electoral cards delivered to the two witnesses D-0040 and D-0041, the information contained therein and the possibility to use them as provisory identity cards10. The Defence submitted that the documents are admissible in light of their relevance and credibility and the fact that they were not available at trial. On 5 June 2014, the Prosecutor filed its response opposing the Defence’s request11.

Appeals Chamber rejects the Defence’s request in relation to investigations conducted pursuant to article 70 of the Statute

[Background] On 14 March 2012, in the final judgment against Mr Lubanga, Trial Chamber I indicated the risk that some intermediaries had persuaded, encouraged or helped witnesses deliver false testimony at trial12. On 28 February 2014, the Defence requested the Appeals Chamber to order the Prosecutor to indicate the actions she has undertaken pursuant to article 70 of the Statute concerning three victims and three intermediaries, and disclose all the evidence collected in carrying out article 70 investigations13. On 25 March 2014, the Prosecution opposed the Defence’s request14.

On 17 June 2014, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Defence’s request.15 It stated that pursuant to Rule 165(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence the decision whether to initiate or conduct investigations on alleged offenses as provided by article 70 of the Statute lies within the purview of the Prosecutor. The Appeals Chamber noted that following the Trial Chamber’s communication, the Prosecutor had undertaken a number of actions, including the decision to hire an independent consultant to examine the information available and to advise as to whether further investigations or prosecutions were warranted. These initiatives, together with the Prosecutor’s own assessment, were clearly communicated to Mr Lubanga in the Prosecutor’s response on 25 March 2014.

Ntaganda case 

PTC II confirms charges against Ntaganda

[Background] On 22 August 2006, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a first warrant of arrest against Bosco Ntaganda, former alleged deputy chief of staff of the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo.16 On 13 July 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber II, to which the situation had been reassigned, issued a second warrant of arrest.17 Mr Ntaganda surrendered to the ICC custody on 22 March 2013. The confirmation of charges hearing was held from 10 to 14 February 2014.

On 9 June 2014, PTC II issued its decision pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute.18 It unanimously confirmed the charges consisting in 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and committed Ntaganda for trial before a Trial Chamber.19 The Chamber established that there are substantial grounds to believe that Bosco Ntaganda bears individual criminal responsibility pursuant to different modes of liability, namely: direct perpetration, indirect co-perpetration (article 25(3)(a) of the Statute); ordering, inducing (article 25(3)(b) of the Statute); any other contribution to the commission or attempted commission of crimes by a group of persons acting with a common purpose (article 25(3)(d) of the Statute); or responsibility as a military commander for crimes committed by his subordinates (article 28(a) of the Statute).20 Leave to appeal was rejected on 4 July 2014.

Review of Mr Ntaganda’s Detention

On 17 July 2014, the Single Judge of Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a decision stating that Mr Ntaganda will remain in the custody of the Court.21 In particular the Single Judge reached the conclusion that there would be a high risk that Mr Ntaganda would not appear at trial if released.22 Moreover, on the basis on the available information, the Single Judge determined that there might be a risk that if released, Mr Ntaganda could try to influence, threaten or intimidate witnesses and victims and/or their family members.23

Trial Chamber VI schedules status conference for determination of issues at trial

On 18 July 2014, Trial Chamber VI was constituted with Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Judge Robert Fremr and Judge Geoffrey Henderson.24 On 21 July 2014, an order scheduling a status conference for the 20 August 2014 and setting a provisional agenda was issued.25 The status conference will touch upon, inter alia, commencement date of the trial, modalities of disclosure of evidence, issues concerning the protection of witnesses, updates on victims’ applications and the procedure for allowing victims to participate in the trial proceedings.26 

Katanga case

Germain Katanga sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment 

[Background] On 7 March 2014, Trial Chamber II issued its judgment in the Katanga case.27 On 8 April 2014, Trial Chamber set the date for the sentencing hearing for 5 and 6 May 2014.28

On 23 May 2014, Trial Chamber II by Majority, sentenced Germain Katanga to a total of 12 years of
imprisonment.29 The Chamber ordered that the time spent in detention at the ICC – between 18 September 2007 and 23 May 2014 – be deducted from his sentence.30 The Chamber explained that when determining the sentence, the Chamber had to consider the legitimate need for truth and justice voiced by the victims and their family members, while seeking also to ensure that the sentence acts as a deterrent to potential perpetrators of similar crimes.

With regard to the gravity of the crimes, the Chamber stressed that the crimes committed on 24 February 2003 in Bogoro were committed with particular cruelty, resulted in numerous civilian victims, and had a discriminatory dimension against the Hema population living in Bogoro at the time of the events.31 Turning to Germain Katanga's degree of participation and intent, the Chamber considered that he had made a significant contribution to the commission of the crimes of attacking a civilian population, murder, pillage and destruction of property and that said contribution had been made in the knowledge of those crimes.32

The Chamber also considered, in determining the sentence, a number of mitigating factors. In particular, it established that account had to be taken of Germain Katanga's conduct after the events and, in particular, his active participation in the demobilisation process implemented in Ituri for the benefit of the child soldiers and, to a certain extent, of his personal situation.33

Victims' Participation in the Appeals procedure

On 26 May 2014, the Legal Representatives of the victim child soldiers filed a submission concerning the participation of victims in the appeal proceedings.34 The Legal Representative submitted that even though the judgement acquits Katanga of the crime of using child soldiers under article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, the debate before the Appeals Chamber will include the requalification of Katanga's mode of responsibility and its conditions, thus directly affecting the child soldiers' interests.35

On 5 June 2014, the Legal Representatives of the main group of victims filed a submission concerning the participation of victims to the appeals procedure.36 The Legal Representative requested the Appeals Chamber to determine the modalities of participation of the 339 victims already admitted to participate in the trial. He also requested the authorisation to participate of family members entitled to act on behalf of 7 deceased victims and the participation of other 14 victim applicants.

On 17 June 2014, the Prosecution filed a consolidated response to the submissions regarding victims’ participation.37 The Prosecution submitted that the applications are premature due to the limited and generalised nature of the parties’ notices of appeal, and the fact that it is difficult at this stage to discern how the personal interests of the victims will be affected on appeal.38

Legal Representative of main group of Victims’ request for recusal of Judge C. Van den Wyngaert

[Background] On 7 March 2014, the Majority of Trial Chamber II found Germain Katanga guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes.39 Judge C. Van den Wyngaert appended a dissenting opinion to the Judgment.40 On 23 May 2014, the Majority of the Chamber sentenced Mr Katanga to 12 years imprisonment.41 In a dissenting opinion, Judge Van den Wyngaert recalled her profound disagreement on Katanga’s conviction.42 On 16 April 2014, the Presidency issued a decision reconstituting Trial Chamber II and replacing two judges, thus leaving Judge Van den Wyngaert as the only judge to have participated to the entirety of the trial against Mr Katanga.43

On 30 May 2014, the Legal Representative of the main group of Victims sought the recusal of Judge C. Van den Wyngaert as judge of Trial Chamber II, due to her lack of impartiality.44 The Legal Representative argued that the views expressed in the Judge’s Dissenting Opinions are such that they reflect a bias on the case, or at least raise, from the point of view of an outside observer, justified doubts as to her impartiality.45 In particular, the Judge had expressed disagreement on the reliability of certain victims-witnesses of the case and also developed a theory of the case which, in the Legal Representative’s view, denies or minimises the crimes suffered by victims. Under these circumstances, the Legal Representative argued that she would not be able to impartially decide on the reparations to be granted to the victims.46

On 22 July 2014, the Plenary of the Judges decided on the Legal Representative’s request for recusal of Judge van den Wyngaert.47 An absolute majority of 8 judges found the application to be inadmissible on the ground that the Legal Representative has no standing to bring an application for the disqualification of a judge as article 41(2)(a) of the Statute provides that “[t]he Prosecutor or the person being investigated or prosecuted may request he disqualification of a judge under this paragraph”.48 Considering disqualification an extraordinary remedy, the Majority found that the explicit wording of the Statute should be interpreted strictly, particularly in the absence of any apparent mistake in drafting.49

The Minority found that the victims have an important role to play in the reparations proceedings, in which they arguably have the most interest, and, at this particular stage of the proceedings, should be entitled to challenge the composition of the bench through a request for the disqualification of a judge.50 The Minority maintained that the Statute must be interpreted in a manner that gives meaning to the victims’ right to participate in accordance with article 68(3).51 The Minority considered that in the instant case, the personal interests of the victims were most certainly affected by the fact or appearance of any partiality on the bench deciding the reparations proceedings.52

In any event, the Plenary unanimously considered the substance of the Application to be misplaced and unfounded.53 The Plenary considered that the entitlement of a judge to express a different opinion from the majority, whether concurring or dissenting, is safeguarded by article 74 of the Statute and the exprssion of a minority opinion does not render a judge biased or partial in the reparation proceedings.54 Judge Eboe-Osuji submitted a concurring separate opinion.55

Discontinuance of Appeals

[Background] On 9 April 2014, Mr Katanga’s Defence submitted its Notice of Appeal against the Judgment.56 On the same day, the Prosecution filed its Appeal against the Judgment.57

On 25 June 2014, the Defence filed a Notice of Discontinuance of Appeal against the Judgment, indicating Germain Katanga’s acceptance of the conclusions reached by the Trial Chamber as to his role and conduct, as well as the sentence imposed.58 This was shortly followed by a Notice of Discontinuance of the Prosecution's Appeal against the Article 74 judgement of Conviction of Trial Chamber.59

On 26 June 2014, the Legal Representative of the main group of victims submitted observations on the Prosecution’s discontinuance of appeal.60 The Legal Representative explained that he had never agreed to the Prosecutor's decision to discontinue its appeal and that he had never been informed of this possibility.61 The legal representative also indicated that the victims wish to express their surprise and disappointment with the Prosecutor's decision.62 On 30 June 2014, the Legal Representative of the victims child soldiers filed a letter to the Prosecutor expressing his surprise regarding the discontinuance of appeal.63 He explained the child soldiers feel abandone and betrayed by the Prosecutor and that he never agreed or said to be satisfied with the discontinuance of appeal.64

On 27 June and 2 July 2014, the Prosecutor responded to the Legal Representatives of Victims.65 She explained that she had informed both representatives, in advance, of her wish to discontinue the appeals and that none of them had raised any concerns or objections with the discontinuance. The Prosecutor further explained that her decision took into account all of the relevant factors, including sensitivity to the interests of victims in the present case.66

 

Darfur 

Banda case

Further steps in Trial Proceedings

[Background] On 7 March 2011, PTC I issued its decision on the confirmation of charges, in which it concluded that there were substantial grounds to believe that Abdallah Banda is criminally responsible as a direct co-perpetrator of war crimes within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Statute.67 On 6 March 2013, Trial Chamber IV set the trial start date for 5 May 2014.68 On 16 April 2014, the Chamber decided that the 5 May 2014 commencement date was clearly no longer feasible and decided to vacate the trial date.69

On 14 July 2014, the TC IV issued a decision on the further steps for the trial proceedings.70 After hearing the arguments of both the Defence and the Prosecution, the Chamber decided to postpone the trial commencement date to 18 November 2014. Having considered PTC I’s and its own previous decisions, Trial Chamber IV confirmed that the summons to appear continued to be valid and that they continued to appear sufficient to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial.

 

Central African Republic                                                              

Bemba case

Trial Chamber to issue separate decisions pursuant to Articles 74 and 76 of the Statute

[Background] On 7 April 2014, Trial Chamber III issued its Decision on closure of evidence and other procedural matters, in which it declared the submission of evidence closed.71

On 26 May 2014, Trial Chamber III issued a decision on the timetable and on the sentencing procedure.72 It established that the oral closing arguments in the case will be heard as of 13 October 2014. It also decided it will issue separate decisions pursuant to Article 74 and, in the event of a conviction, Article 76 of the statute.73 The Chamber explained that this will allow the parties to benefit from the judgment on the merits and make focused and meaningful submissions on sentencing.74

 

Ivory Coast                                                                                     

Laurent Gbagbo case

PTC I confirms four charges of crimes against humanity against Laurent Gbagbo

[Background] On 23 November 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III issued, under seal, a warrant of arrest for Laurent Gbagbo, and unsealed it upon his arrest and transfer to the ICC Detention Centre on 30 November 2011.75 The confirmation of charges hearing took place from the 19 to the 28 February 2013. On 3 June 2013 Pre-Trial Chamber I, by Majority, decided to adjourn the hearing on the confirmation of charges and requests the Prosecutor to consider providing further evidence or conducting further investigation with respect to all charges.76 On 13 January 2014, the Prosecutor filed the amended document containing the charges and the amended list of evidence.77

On 12 June 2014, PTC I confirmed by Majority four charges of crimes against humanity (murder, rape, other inhumane acts or – in the alternative – attempted murder, and persecution) against Laurent Gbagbo and committed him for trial before a Trial Chamber.78 The Pre-Trial Chamber found substantial grounds to believe that Mr Gbagbo is criminally responsible for committing these crimes, jointly with members of his inner circle and through members of the pro-Gbagbo forces (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute) or, in the alternative, for ordering, soliciting and inducing the commission of these crimes (article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute) or, in the alternative, for contributing in any other way to the commission of these crimes (article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute).79 Judge Van den Wyngaert appended a Dissenting Opinion explaining that in her view, the evidence presented in the case is still insufficient.80

Charles Blé Goudé case

PTC I renders decision on the participation of victims in the pre-trial proceedings

[Background] On 21 December 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III issued a warrant of arrest for Charles Blé Goudé, which was made public by Pre-Trial Chamber I on 30 September 2013.81 On 3 December 2012, the Registrar transmitted to Ivory Coast a request for the arrest and surrender of Mr Blé Goudé.82 On 22 March 2013, Charles Blé Goudé was surrendered to the ICC by the Ivorian national authorities. Consequently, Pre-Trial Chamber I convened a hearing for his first appearance for 27 March 2014.83 The confirmation of charges hearing is scheduled to begin on 18 August 2014.84 On 16 and 22 April 2014, the Registrar transmitted to the Chamber two requests from the OPCV, seeking the admission of the 199 victims authorised to participate at the confirmation of charges hearing in the Laurent Gbagbo case as participants in the proceedings against Mr Blé Goudé.85

On 11 June 2014, the Single Judge of PTC I rendered a decision on victims’ participation in the pre-trial proceedings.86 The Single Judge: (i) granted the OPCV requests and admitted the 199 applicants as victims participating at the confirmation of charges hearing and related proceedings in the Blé Goudé case; (ii) appointed a team composed of a counsel from OPCV assisted by a team member based in Ivory Coast, as the common legal representative of all victims admitted to participate; (iii) granted the Common Legal Representative of victims, inter alia, the right to attend all public sessions of the confirmation of charges hearing and the right to make opening and closing statements at the confirmation of charges hearing.

In particular, the Single Judge was satisfied that all the requirements of rule 85 of the Rules were met as it was established in the Laurent Gbagbo case.87 PTC I found that the charges against Blé Goudé are so similar to the ones against Laurent Gbagbo that applicants fulfilling the criteria of rule 85 in one case do in principle satisfy the criteria in the other.88 The Single Judge also found it unnecessary for the applicants to fill a second application form and instructed the Registrar to file the existing 199 victims’ applications for participation in the record of the case. The Single Judge decided that the same team representing victims in the Gbagbo case should also represent victims in the Blé Goudé case because of the bond of trust already established and the experience of the procedure.89 On VPRS’ recommendation, the Single Judge accepted individual standard application forms in the present case, as opposed to the collective application form elaborated and adopted in the Gbagbo case.90

 

Kenya       

Ruto and Sang case

Appeals and Observations on Decision on Prosecutor’s application for witness summonses and resulting request for state cooperation

[Background] On 17 April 2014, Trial Chamber V(A) issued, by Majority, a decision establishing that it has the power to compel witness testimony and obligate the Government of Kenya to serve summonses and assist in compelling the appearance of witnesses subject to subpoena.91

On 5 June and 26 June 2014, the two Defence teams appealed against the Trial Chamber’s decision, requesting the Appeals Chamber to reverse it.92 The Defence for Mr Sang submitted that the Court does not have the power to compel witnesses to testify because it has no enforcement mechanism. In its Appeal, Mr Ruto submitted that a Trial Chamber may issue, and request a State Party to serve, a summons requiring a person to appear as a witness before it. However, the Chamber may not order a State to enforce such summons, nor is there any independent duty on a State arising from the Statute to enforce it.93

On 25 June 2014, the Government of Kenya (GoK) submitted its observations in relation to the Defence Appeals.94 The GoK accepted that it has an obligation to cooperate with the Court to serve summons on witnesses whose testimony has been requested.95 However, it submitted that the Majority erred in determining that the Government is further obliged to compel the appearance of witnesses subject to a subpoena.96 On 11 July 2014, the Government provided clarifications on its observations.97

Kenyatta case

Status conference held on 9 July 2014

On 4 July 2014, Trial Chamber V(B) issued a Scheduling order setting the date for a status conference as 9 July 2014.98 The aim of the status conference was for the Prosecution and the Kenyan Government to provide an update to the Chamber on the status of their cooperation and consultations and to discuss the envisaged next steps and timeline in relation to such cooperation.

It came out of the status conference that not much development had been made in the Kenyan Government’s cooperation with the Prosecution.99 The Kenyan Government stated it is acting in good faith and is bound by domestic law when it comes to disclosing to the ICC information about his nationals.100 The Defence submitted that there is no sufficient evidence against Mr Kenyatta, and that this case should be closed.101 The LRV requested the Chamber to take all necessary steps to ensure Kenya’s full compliance with its obligations.102

 

Libya

Gaddafi and Al Senussi case

Appeals Chamber confirms admissibility of case against Gaddafi

[Background] On 27 June 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest against Mr Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi.103 A request for Mr Gaddafi's arrest and surrender was issued on 4 July 2011.104 On 1 May 2012, Libya submitted its challenge to the admissibility of the case.105 On 4 June 2012, both OTP and OPCV submitted their responses to the Admissibility Challenge.106 Amicus curiae observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were filed on 8 June 2012.107 The Defence for Mr Gaddafi filed its response to the Admissibility Challenge on 24 July 2012.108 Following further filings from all parties and participants, on 31 May 2013, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued its decision finding the case against Mr Gaddafi to be admissible.109 On 7 June 2013, Libya filed its appeal against the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Decision, requesting the Appeals Chamber to declare the case against Mr Gaddafi inadmissible.110

On 21 May 2014, the Appeals Chamber by Majority confirmed the admissibility of the case against Mr Gaddafi and rejected the appeal brought by the State of Libya.111 The Appeals Chamber ruled that the parameters of a "case", as referred to in article 17(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, are defined by the suspect under investigation and the conduct that gives rise to criminal liability under the Statute. The "conduct" that defines the "case" is both that of the suspect and that described in the incidents under investigation which is imputed to the suspect. The Appeals Chamber explained that in assessing admissibility, what is required is a judicial assessment of whether the case that the State is investigating sufficiently mirrors the one that the Prosecutor is investigating. To be able to carry out the assessment as to whether the same case is being investigated, it is necessary for a Chamber to know the contours or parameters of the investigation being carried out both by the Prosecutor and by the State.

 Appeals Chamber confirms the case against Mr Al-Senussi is inadmissible

[Background] On 27 June 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest against Mr Al-Senussi.112 A request for Mr Al-Senussi's arrest and surrender was issued on 4 July 2011.113 On 2 April 2013, Libya filed the "Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute."114 Libya challenged the admissibility of the case on the grounds that its national judicial system is actively investigating Mr Al-Senussi for his alleged criminal responsibility for multiple acts of murder and persecution, committed pursuant to or in furtherance of State policy, amounting to crimes against humanity.115 On 24 April 2013, the Prosecutor filed its Response to Libya’s admissibility challenge.116 Following further filings from all parties and participants, on 11 October 2013, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued the “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi” finding the case inadmissible.117The Defence for Mr Al-Senussi filed an appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision on 17 October 2013.118

On 24 July 2014, the Appeals Chamber by Majority dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the case against Mr Al-Senussi is inadmissible.119 In particular, with reference to the issue of whether the case investigated by Libya is the same as the one before the ICC, the Appeals Chamber found that the Pre-Trial Chamber considered all relevant incidents when assessing whether Libya was investigating the same case. The Appeals Chamber also found that the conduct underlying the crime of persecution is sufficiently covered in the Libyan proceedings so that the conduct being investigated is substantially the same as that alleged before the ICC. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber established that for a case to be admissible because the State is unwilling genuinely to investigate or prosecute in terms of article 17(2)(c) of the Statute, it must be shown that the proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially and that the proceedings were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

 

 

 

List of acronyms

LRV      Legal Representative for Victims

IDPs      Internally Displaced Persons

ICC        International Criminal Court

OPCD    Office of Public Counsel for the Defence

OTP       Office of the Prosecutor

OPCV    Office of Public Counsel for Victims

PTC I     Pre-Trial Chamber I, etc.

RoC       Regulations of the Court

TC I       Trial Chamber I, etc.

TFV        Trust Fund for Victims

VPRS     Victims Participation and Reparation Section

These are summaries of ICC decisions and related pleadings relevant to victims’ rights. For further information please consult linked documents.Comments to Gaia Pergolo: Gaia@redress.org

 


 

[1] Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Rome Statute, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1438370.pdf

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

[3] Notice of Appeal lodged by the Defence for Mr Thomas Lubanga against Trial Chamber I’s Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute of 14 March 2012, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2934; http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519587.pdf ; original in French: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479593.pdf ; Notice of Appeal lodged by the Defence for Mr Thomas Lubanga against Trial Chamber I’s Decision on sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute of 10 July 2012, 3 October 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2935, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519602.pdf ; original in French: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1479606.pdf

[4] Requête de la Défense aux fins d’admission d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du « Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut » et de la « Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application, 23 December 2013 (made public on 6 January 2014), ICC-01/04-01/06-3056-Red, (original in French) http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1707477.pdf (no English translation available).

[5] Decision and order in relation to the request of 23 December 2013 filed by Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 13 January 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3057, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1710462.pdf

[6] Scheduling order and decision in relation to the conduct of the hearing before the Appeals Chamber, 30 April 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3083, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771420.pdf

[7] Requête de la Défense aux fins de présentation d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du «Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut» et de la «Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application», 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3105, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771105.pdf

[8] Requête de la Défense aux fins d’admission d’éléments de preuve  supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du «Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut» et de la «Décision  relative à la peine, rendue en application, 23 Décembre 2013 (made  public on 6 January 2014), ICC-01/04-01/06-3056-Red, (original in French) http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1707477.pdf

[9] Requête de la Défense aux fins de présentation d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du « Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut » et de la « Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application, 23 mai 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3105, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771105.pdf

[10] Requête de la Défense aux fins de présentation d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du « Jugement rendu en application de l’Article 74 du Statut » et de la « Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application, 23 mai 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3105, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771105.pdf

[11] Prosecution’s Response to «Requête de la Défense aux fins de présentation d’éléments de preuve supplémentaires dans le cadre des appels à l’encontre du «Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut» et de la «Décision relative à la peine, rendue en application de l’article 76 du Statut» conformément à la Norme 62 du Règlement de la Cour», 5 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3110, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1785663.pdf

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

[13] Requête de la Défense de M. Lubanga aux fins de communication d’éléments de preuve recueilis par le Procureur dans le cadre des enquêtes conduites en vertu de l’Article 70, 28 February 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3066, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1740972.pdf

[14] Prosecution Response to “Requête de la Défense de M. Lubanga aux fins de communication d’éléments de preuve recueilis par le Procureur dans le cadre des enquêtes conduites en vertu de l’Article 70“, 25 March 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3069, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1753007.pdf

[15] Decision on the request of the Defence in relation to investigations conducted pursuant to article 70 of the Statute, 17 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/06-3114, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1789849.pdf

[16] Warrant of arrest against Bosco Ntaganda, 22 August 2006, ICC- 01/04-02/06-2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc305328.PDF (original: in French), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc305330.pdf

[17] Public redacted version - Decision on the Prosecutor's Application under Article 58, 13 July 2012, ICC-01/04-02/06-36-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1441449.pdf

[18] Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, 9 June 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-309, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783301.pdf

[19] Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, 9 June 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-309, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783301.pdf

[20] Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, 9 June 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-309, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783301.pdf

[21] Third Decision on Bosco Ntaganda's Interim Release, 17 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-335, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1804165.pdf

[22] Third Decision on Bosco Ntaganda's Interim Release, 17 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-335, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1804165.pdf

[23] Third Decision on Bosco Ntaganda's Interim Release, 17 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-335, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1804165.pdf

[24] Decision constituting Trial Chamber VI and referring to it the case of The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, 18 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-337, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1804810.pdf

[25] Order Scheduling a Status Conference and Setting a Provisional Agenda, 21 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-339, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1805930.pdf

[26] Order Scheduling a Status Conference and Setting a Provisional Agenda, 21 July 2014, ICC-01/04-02/06-339, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1805930.pdf

[27] Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut, 7 March 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1744366.pdf

[28] Ordonnance relative aux requêtes du Procureur et de la Défense en vue de faire déposer des témoins lors de l'audience sur la peine, 8 April 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3458, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1759228.pdf

[29] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[30] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[31] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[32] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[33] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[34] Soumission concernant la participation des victimes à la procédure d’appel relative au jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut à l’encontre de Germain Katanga, 26 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3486, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1781890.pdf

[35] Soumission concernant la participation des victimes à la procédure d’appel relative au jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut à l’encontre de Germain Katanga, 26 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3486, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1781890.pdf

[36] Soumission relative à la participation de victimes à la procédure d’appel contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga, 4 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3483-Red3-Corr, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1785720.pdf

[37] Prosecution Consolidated Response to “Soumision concernant la participation des victimes à la procédure d’apel relative au jugement rendu en aplication de l’article 74 du Statut à l’encontre de Germain Katanga” of 27 May 2014 and “Soumision relative à la participation de victimes à la procédure d’apel contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga” of 5 June 2014, 17 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3494, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1789820.pdf

[38] Prosecution Consolidated Response to “Soumision concernant la participation des victimes à la procédure d’apel relative au jugement rendu en aplication de l’article 74 du Statut à l’encontre de Germain Katanga” of 27 May 2014 and “Soumision relative à la participation de victimes à la procédure d’apel contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga” of 5 June 2014, 17 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3494, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1789820.pdf

[39] Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut, 8 March 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1744366.pdf

[40] Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, 8 March 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-AnxI, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1744372.pdf

[41] Décision relative à la peine (article 76 du Statut), 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771079.pdf

[42] ​Dissenting opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, 23 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3484-Anx1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771078.pdf

[43] Decision replacing two judges in Trial Chamber II, 16 April 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3468, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1766061.pdf

[44] Requête sollicitant la récusation de Mme la juge C. Van den Wyngaert, 30 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3487, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783714.pdf

[45] Requête sollicitant la récusation de Mme la juge C. Van den Wyngaert, 30 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3487, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783714.pdf

[46] Requête sollicitant la récusation de Mme la juge C. Van den Wyngaert, 30 May 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3487, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783714.pdf

[47] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[48] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[49] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[50] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[51] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[52] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[53] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[54] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[55] Decision of the Plenary of Judges on the Application of the Legal Representative for Victims for the disqualification of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert from the case of The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, 22 July 2014, ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3504-Anx, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1806449.pdf

[56] Defence Notice of Appeal against the decision of conviction ‘Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut’ rendered by Trial Chamber II, 7th March 2014’, 9 April 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3459, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1759481.pdf

[57] Prosecution’s Appeal against Trial Chamber II’s “Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut”, 9 April 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3462, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1759535.pdf

[58] Defence Notice of Discontinuance of Appeal against the ‘Jugement rendu en application de l’article 74 du Statut’ rendered by Trial Chamber II on 7 April 2014, 25 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3497, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1794409.pdf

[59] Notice of Discontinuance of the Prosecution’s Appeal against the Article 74 Judgment of Conviction of Trial Chamber II dated 7 March 2014 in relation to Germain Katanga, 25 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3498, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1794475.pdf

[60] Observations des victimes sur le désistement d’appel du Procureur contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga, 26 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3499, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1792881.pdf

[61] Observations des victimes sur le désistement d’appel du Procureur contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga, 26 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3499, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1792881.pdf 

[62] Observations des victimes sur le désistement d’appel du Procureur contre le jugement concernant G. Katanga, 26 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3499, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1792881.pdf

[63] Communication du Représentant légal des victimes enfants soldats relative au double désistement d’appel dans le dossier Le Procureur c. Germain Katanga et Annexe publique, 30 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3501, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797304.pdf and Public Annexe ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3501-Anx, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797305.pdf

[64] Communication du Représentant légal des victimes enfants soldats relative au double désistement d’appel dans le dossier Le Procureur c. Germain Katanga et Annexe publique, 30 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3501, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797304.pdf and Public Annexe ​ICC-01/04-01/07-3501-Anx, (original in french) http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797305.pdf

[65] Prosecution’s Response to the Observations of the Legal Representative of the main group of Victims filed on 26 June 2014, 27 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3500, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1796079.pdf; Prosecution’s Response to the Communication of the Legal Representative of the child soldier group of victims, 2 July 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3502, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797709.pdf 

[66] Prosecution’s Response to the Observations of the Legal Representative of the main group of Victims filed on 26 June 2014, 27 June 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3500, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1796079.pdf; Prosecution’s Response to the Communication of the Legal Representative of the child soldier group of victims, 2 July 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07-3502, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1797709.pdf

[67] Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, 7 March 2011, ICC-02/05-03/09-121-Corr-Red, http://icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1036947.pdf

[68] Decision concerning the trial commencement date, the date for final prosecution disclosure, and summonses to appear for trial and further hearings, 06 March 2013, ICC-02/05-03/09-455, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1563646.pdf

[69] Public redacted Decision vacating the trial date of 5 May 2014, 16 April 2014, ICC-02/05-03/09-564-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1766386.pdf

[70] Decision as to the Further Steps for the Trial Proceedings, 14 July 2014, ICC-02/05-03/09-590-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1802983.pdf

[71] Decision on closure of evidence and other procedural matters, 7 April 2014, ICC-01/05-01/08-3035, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1758729.pdf

[72] Decision on the timetable and on the sentencing procedure, 26 May 2014, ICC-01/05-01/08-3071, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1781492.pdf

[73] Decision on the timetable and on the sentencing procedure, 26 May 2014, ICC-01/05-01/08-3071, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1781492.pdf

[74] Decision on the timetable and on the sentencing procedure, 26 May 2014, ICC-01/05-01/08-3071, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1781492.pdf

[75] Warrant of Arrest for Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, 23 November 2011, ICC-02/11-01/11-1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1276751.pdf

[76]  Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute, 3 June 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-432, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599831.pdf

[77] Prosecution’s Submission of Document amendé de notification des charges, l’Inventaire amendé des éléments de preuve à charge, and le Tableau amendé des éléments constitutifs des crimes, and Response to issues raised by Pre-Trial Chamber I’, 13 January 2014, ICC-02/11-01/11-592-Anx1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1710471.pdf

[78] Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo, 12 June 2014, ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783399.pdf

[79] Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo, 12 June 2014, ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783399.pdf

[80] Dissenting opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, 12 June 2014, ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Anx, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783397.pdf

[81] Warrant of Arrest of Charles Blé Goudé, 21 December 2011, ICC-02/11-02/11-1, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1292069.pdf; Decision reclassifying the warrant of arrest against Charles Blé Goudé and other documents, 30 September 2013, ICC-02/11-02/11-30, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1292069.pdf

[82] Demande d'arrestation et de remise de Charles Blé Goudé adressée à la République de Côte d'Ivoire, 3 December 2012 (made public: 3 December 2013), ICC-02/11-02/11-19, original in French: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1519492.pdf

[83] Order convening a hearing for the first appearance of Charles Blé Goudé, 24 March 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-46, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1752115.pdf

[84] Transcript of Charles Blé Goudé before Pre-Trial Chamber I, 27 March 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-T-3-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1754996.pdf

[85] Transmission of a submission by the OPCV, 16 April 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-62, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1757011.pdf; Registry transmission of the second submission by the OPCV, 22 April 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-64, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1757054.pdf; Transmission of a submission from Mr. Mayombo Kassongo received on 15 May 2014, 16 May 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-74, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1778136.pdf

[86] Decision on victims’ participation in the pre-trial proceedings and related issues, 11 June 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-83, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783345.pdf

[87] ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 9 September 2012, ICC-ASP/1/3 (Part.II-A), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/legal-texts/RulesProcedureEvidenceEng.pdf; Decision on Victims’ Participation and Victims’ Common Legal Representation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, 4 June 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-138, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1423293.pdf; Second Decision on victims’ participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings, 6 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-384, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1549195.pdf

[88] Decision on victims’ participation in the pre-trial proceedings and related issues, 11 June 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-83, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783345.pdf

[89] Annex 1 to: Transmission of a submission by the OPCV, 16 April 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-62-Anx1, original in French: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1757012.pdf; Decision on victims’ participation in the pre-trial proceedings and related issues, 11 June 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-83, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783345.pdf

[90] Decision on victims’ participation in the pre-trial proceedings and related issues, 11 June 2014, ICC-02/11-02/11-83, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1783345.pdf

[91] Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 17 April 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1274-Corr2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1771401.pdf

[92] Defence Appeal against “Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation”, 5 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1345, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1785733.pdf; Corrigendum to Sang Defence appeal against the Decision on Prosecutor’s Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 26 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1344-Corr, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1792879.pdf

[93] Defence Appeal against “Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation”, 5 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1345, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1785733.pdf

[94] The Government of the Republic of Kenya’s Observations under Rule 103 in relation to the Defence Appeal against the Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 25 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1406, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1794863.pdf

[95] The Government of the Republic of Kenya’s Observations under Rule 103 in relation to the Defence Appeal against the Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 25 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1406, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1794863.pdf

[96] The Government of the Republic of Kenya’s Observations under Rule 103 in relation to the Defence Appeal against the Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 25 June 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1406, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1794863.pdf

[97] Clarification to the Government of the Republic of Kenya’s Observations under Rule 103 in relation to the Defence Appeal against the Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Witness Summonses and resulting Request for State Party Cooperation, 11 July 2014, ICC-01/09-01/11-1431, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1802581.pdf

[98] Scheduling order and agenda for status conference on 9 July 2014, 4 July 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-929, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1796778.pdf

[99] Transcript of the Status Conference, 9 July 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-T-30-ENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1801302.pdf

[100] Transcript of the Status Conference, 9 July 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-T-30-ENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1801302.pdf

[101] Transcript of the Status Conference, 9 July 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-T-30-ENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1801302.pdf

[102] Transcript of the Status Conference, 9 July 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-T-30-ENG, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1801302.pdf

[103] Warrant of Arrest for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11 -01/11-3, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1101345.pdf

[104] Request to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the arrest and surrender of Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, 4 July 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-5, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1102510.pdf

[105] Application on behalf of the Government of Libya pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 1 May 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-130, icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc(...)

[106] Prosecution response to Application on behalf of the Government of Libya pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 4 June 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-167-Conf (a public redacted version was filed on 5 June 2012 (ICC-01/11-01/11-167-Red) http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1423546.pdf) and Public redacted version - Observations on behalf of victims on the Government of Libya’s Application pursuant to Article 19 of the Rome Statute, 4 June 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-166-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1422979.pdf

[107] Lawyers for Justice in Libya and Redress Trust's Observations pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 8 June 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-172, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1424525.pdf

[108] Defence Response to the 'Application on behalf of the Government of Libya pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, ICC-01/11-01/11-190-Conf. A corrigendum was filed on 31 July 2012 (ICC-01/11-01/11-190-Conf-Corr) and a public redacted version of the corrigendum was filed on the same day (ICC-01/11-01/11-190-Corr-Red), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1446165.pdf

[109] Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 31 May 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-344-Conf. A public redacted version was filed on the same day (ICC-01/11-01/11-344-Red), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1599307.pdf

[110] The Government of Libya's Appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I's 'Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, 7 June 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-350, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1601846.pdf

[111] Judgment on the appeal of Libya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 31 May 2013 entitled “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi", 21 May 2014, ICC-01/11-01/11-547-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1779877.pdf

[112] Warrant of Arrest for Abdullah Al-Senussi, 27 June 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-4, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1101360.pdf

[113] Request to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the arrest and surrender of Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, 4 July 2011, ICC-01/11-01/11-5, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1102510.pdf

[114] Public and redacted - Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 2 April 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-307-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575650.pdf

[115] Public and redacted - Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute, 2 April 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-307-Red2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1575650.pdf

[116] Prosecution’s Response to “Application on behalf of the Government of Libya relating to Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to Article 19 of the ICC Statute”, 2 May 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-321-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1589209.pdf

[117] Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, 11 October 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-466-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1663102.pdf

[118] Appeal on behalf of Abdullah Al-Senussi against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, and Request for Suspensive Effect, 17 October 2013, ICC-01/11-01/11-468-Red, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1666694.pdf

[119] Judgment on the appeal of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi'”, 24 July 2014, ICC-01/11-01/11-565, http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1807073.pdf