prosecutor vs lubanga

8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga

1/157

No.01/0401/06 1/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation

fannex

Original:French No.:

ICC

01/04

01/06

Date:29January2007

PRETRIALCHAMBERI

Before: JudgeClaudeJorda,PresidingJudge

JudgeAkuaKuenyehia

JudgeSylviaSteiner

Registrar: MrBrunoCathala

SITUATIONINTHEDEMOCRATICREPUBLICOFTHECONGO

INTHECASEOF

THEPROSECUTORv.THOMASLUBANGADYILO

PublicRedactedVersion

withAnnexI

Decisionontheconfirmationofcharges

TheOfficeoftheProsecutor

MrLuisMorenoOcampo

MsFatouBensoudaMrEkkehardWithopf

LegalRepresentativesofVictimsa/0001/06

toa/0003/06anda/0105/06

MrLucWalleynMrFranckMulendaMsCarineBapitaBuyangandu

CounselfortheDefence

MrJeanFlamme

MsVroniquePandanzyla

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 1/157 SL PT


2/157


TableofContents

I.INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5

A.FACTUALBACKGROUND................................................................................................... 51.TheDistrictofIturibefore1July2002...................................................................... 52.ThomasLubangaDyilo .............................................................................................. 53.ProsecutionallegationsagainstThomasLubangaDyilo ...................................... 6

B.MAJORPROCEDURALSTEPS ............................................................................................... 7

II.PRELIMINARYEVIDENTIARYMATTERS............................................................. 12

A.THESTANDARDUNDERARTICLE61(7)OFTHESTATUTE ............................................... 12B.MATTERSRELATINGTOTHEADMISSIBILITYOFEVIDENCEANDITSPROBATIVEVALUE . 14

1.Preliminaryobservations ......................................................................................... 142.JudgementsoftheAppealsChamberonthefirstandseconddecisionson

theProsecutionrequestsforredactionsunderrule81...................................... 153.Challengesbythepartiesrelatingtotheadmissibilityandprobativevalueof

theevidenceadmittedforthepurposeoftheconfirmationhearing .............. 26

III.PROCEDURALMATTERS .......................................................................................... 51

A.DEFENCEAPPLICATIONREGARDINGTHEFORMOFTHEDOCUMENTCONTAININGTHECHARGES ................................................................................................................ 51

B.MATTERSRELATINGTOTHEDISCLOSUREPROCESSFORPOTENTIALLYEXCULPATORYEVIDENCEOREVIDENCEWHICHCOULDBEMATERIALTOTHEPREPARATIONOFTHE

DEFENCE ........................................................................................................................ 53C.DEFENCEREQUESTTOEXCLUDECERTAINPARTSOFTHEPROSECUTIONSFINAL

OBSERVATIONS............................................................................................................... 54D.DEFENCEREQUESTFORACCESSTOAREPORTREGISTEREDINTHERECORDOFTHE

SITUATION ..................................................................................................................... 54E.JURISDICTIONOFTHECOURTANDADMISSIBILITYOFTHECASEOFTHEPROSECUTOR

V.THOMASLUBANGADYILO ......................................................................................... 55

IV.MATERIALELEMENTSOFTHECRIME................................................................ 57

A.EXISTENCEANDNATUREOFTHEARMEDCONFLICTINITURI ........................................ 571.Analysisoftheevidencerelatingtotheexistenceandnatureofthearmed

conflict ...................................................................................................................... 572.Thecharacterisationofthearmedconflict............................................................. 71

B.EXISTENCEOFTHEOFFENCEUNDERARTICLES8(2)(B)(XXVI)AND8(2)(E)(VII)OFTHESTATUTE......................................................................................................................... 82

1.Enlistingorconscriptingchildrenundertheageoffifteenyears ...................... 832.Activeparticipationinhostilities............................................................................ 903.Discreteelementsinthetwoarticles:intothenationalarmedforcesor

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 2/157 SL PT


3/157


intoarmedforcesorgroups .............................................................................. 94C.EXISTENCEOFANEXUSBETWEENTHEARMEDCONFLICTANDTHEALLEGEDCRIMES..98

V.THEPRINCIPLEOFLEGALITYANDMISTAKEOFLAW............................... 102

VI.CRIMINALRESPONSIBILITY................................................................................. 109

A.MODESOFLIABILITY..................................................................................................... 1091.Scopeoftheanalysis ............................................................................................... 1092.TheconceptofcoperpetrationasembodiedintheStatute.............................. 1113.Elementsofcoperpetrationbasedonjointcontroloverthecrime................. 116

B.ISTHERESUFFICIENTEVIDENCETOESTABLISHSUBSTANTIALGROUNDSTOBELIEVETHATTHOMASLUBANGADYILOISCRIMINALLYRESPONSIBLEASACOPERPETRATORWITHINTHEMEANINGOFARTICLE25(3)(A)OFTHESTATUTEFORTHECRIMESWITHWHICHHEISCHARGED?........................................................................ 125

1.

Objective

Elements .................................................................................................. 125

2.Subjectiveelements ................................................................................................. 1483.Conclusion................................................................................................................ 153

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 3/157 SL PT


4/157


PRETRIALCHAMBER Iof the InternationalCriminalCourt (theChamberand

the Court respectively), having held the confirmation hearing in the case ofThe

Prosecutorv.ThomasLubangaDyilo,

HEREBYRENDERSTHEFOLLOWINGDECISION.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 4/157 SL PT


5/157


I. INTRODUCTION

A. FactualBackground

1. TheDistrictofIturibefore1July2002

1. Ituri isadistrict in theOrientaleProvinceof theDemocraticRepublicof the

Congo (theDRC). It isborderedbyUganda to theeastandSudan to thenorth. Its

populationisbetween3.5and5.5millionpeople,ofwhomonlyabout100,000livein

Bunia, the district capital. Ituris population consists of some 20 different ethnic

groups, the largestbeing the Hemas, the Alurs, the Biras, the Lendus and their

southernsubgroup,theNgitis.

2. Ituri is rich in natural resources, such as gold, oil, timber, coltan and

diamonds. For example, the Mongwalu mine, which is located about fortyfive

kilometresnorthwestofBunia,isthemostimportantgoldmineintheDRCandone

ofthemostimportantinCentralAfrica.

3. ThemajorityofthepopulationofIturimakes its livingfromagriculture,and

the

rest

from

trade,

animal

husbandry

and

fishing.

Agriculture

is

the

principal

economic activity of the Lendus, while the Hemas are more active in livestock

farming.

4. In the summer of 1999, tensions developed as a result of disputes over the

allocation of land in Ituri and the appropriation of natural resources. During the

secondhalfof2002,therewasrenewedviolenceinvariouspartsofthedistrict.

2. ThomasLubangaDyilo

5. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo wasborn in 1960 inJiba (Djugu territory of Ituri,

OrientaleProvince,DRC),andbelongstotheHemaethnicgroup.Hestudiedatthe

University of Kisangani, where he obtained a degree in psychology. From 1986 to

1997,heallegedlyheadedanorganisationcalledVotura.From1990to1994,hewas

also allegedlyassistant at the CEPROMAD University.Throughout that period, he

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 5/157 SL PT


6/157


also engaged in other incomegenerating activities, ranging from farming to gold

trading.

6. On the evidence presented for the purpose of the confirmation hearing, it

would appear that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo entered politicsbetween late 1999 and

early2000.Soonthereafter,hewaselectedtotheIturiDistrictAssembly.1

7. On15September2000, thestatutesof theUniondesPatriotsCongolais (UPC)

were signedby Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, as the first signatory, and several other

personswhosubsequentlyheld leadershippositionswithinthepartyanditsarmed

military wing, theForcesPatriotiquespour laLibration duCongo (FPLC). In August

2002,theUPCtookcontrolofBunia.2

8. In early September 2002, the UPC was renamed Union des Patriotes

Congolais/Rconciliation etPaix (UPC/RP) and Thomas Lubanga Dyilo appointed its

President. A few days later, in Bunia, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo signed the decree

appointing themembersof the firstUPC/RPexecutive for the IturiDistrict.At the

same time, a second decree officially established the FPLC. Immediately after the

establishmentoftheFPLC,ThomasLubangaDyilobecameitsCommanderinChief.

3. ProsecutionallegationsagainstThomasLubangaDyilo

9. In the Document Containing the Charges, Article 61(3)(a),3 filed on 28

August 2006, the Prosecution charges Thomas Lubanga Dyilo under articles

8(2)(e)(vii) and 25(3)(a) of the Statute with the war crimes of conscripting and

enlistingchildrenundertheageoffifteenyearsintoanarmedgroup(inthiscase,the

FPLC,militarywingoftheUPCsinceSeptember2002)4andusingthemtoparticipate

1CurriculumVitaeofThomasLubanga,DRCOTP00920378.2 DRCOTP00910047, Statement of [REDACTED], DRCOTP01050109, para.137 and DRCOTP

0105

0148,

para.

342.

3ICC01/0401/06356ConfAnx2.4Ibid.,para.14.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 6/157 SL PT


7/157


actively in hostilities.5 The Prosecution submits that the crimes occurred in the

contextofanarmedconflictnotofaninternationalcharacter.6

10. TheProsecutionassertsthatevenpriortothefoundingoftheFPLC,theUPC

activelyrecruitedchildrenundertheageoffifteenyearsinsignificantnumbersand

subjected them to military training in its military training camp in Sota, amongst

otherplaces.7

11. TheProsecution furthersubmits that,after its foundinganduntil theendof

2003, theFPLC continued to systematicallyenlistand conscript childrenunder the

ageoffifteenyearsinlargenumbersinordertoprovidethemwithmilitarytraining,

and use them subsequently to participate actively in hostilities,8 including as

bodyguards for senior FPLC military commanders.9 The FPLC military training

campsincludedcampsinCentrale,Mandro,Rwampara,IrumuandBule.10

12. TheProsecutionsubmitsthatThomasLubangaDyiloiscriminallyresponsible

for the crimes listed in the Document Containing the Charges as a coperpetrator,

jointlywithotherFPLCofficersandUPCmembersandsupporters.11

B. Majorproceduralsteps

13. On 5July 2004, the Presidency of the Court assigned the Situation in the

DemocraticRepublicoftheCongototheChamber.12

14. On16September2004,JudgeClaudeJordawasdeclaredPresidingJudgeof

theChamber.13

5Ibid.,para.27.6Ibid.,para.7.7Ibid.,para.26.8Ibid.,para.27.9Ibid.,para.40.10Ibid.,para.34.11

Ibid.,

paras.

20

and

23.

12ICC01/041.13ICC01/042.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 7/157 SL PT


8/157


15. On 12 January 2006, the Prosecution filed the application requesting the

issuanceofawarrantofarrestagainstThomasLubangaDyilo.14

16. On10February2006,theChamberissuedawarrantofarrestagainstThomas

LubangaDyilo.15Arequestforhisarrestandsurrenderwasthentransmittedtothe

Democratic Republic of the Congo on 24 February 2006.16 On 16 and 17 March,

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was arrested in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

surrendered to the Court and transferred to the Courts detention centre in The

Hague.

17. On20March2006,ThomasLubangaDyilomadehis firstappearancebefore

theChamberatahearingduringwhichtheChambersatisfieditselfthathehadbeen

informedofthecrimeswhichhe isalleged tohavecommittedandofhisrights.At

thathearing, theChamberannounced that theconfirmationhearingwouldbeheld

on27June2006.

18. On 22 March 2006, the Chamber designatedJudge Sylvia Steiner as Single

Judge responsible for exercising the functions of the Chamber in the instant case,

includingthosefunctionsprovidedfor inrule121(2)(b)oftheRulesofProcedureand

Evidence (the Rules).17 On 15 and 19 May 2006, the SingleJudge rendered two

decisionsonthesystemofdisclosureandtheestablishmentofatimetable.18

19. On 28July and 20 October 2006, the Chamber granted the status of victims

authorised to participate in the case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas LubangaDyilo to

Applicants

a/0001/06,

a/0002/06,

a/0003/06

and

a/0105/06.19

According

to

the

decision,

the status of victim within the meaning of rule 85 of the Rules is subject to the

14ICC01/0498USExp.15ICC01/0401/062UStEN.Thewarrantofarrestandrelateddocumentswereunsealedon17March(ICC01/0401/0637).16ICC01/0401/069US.17

ICC

01/04

01/06

51

tEN.

18ICC01/0401/06102.19ICC01/0401/06228tEN;ICC01/0401/06205ConfExptEN;ICC01/0401/06601tEN.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 8/157 SL PT


9/157


existenceofadirectcausallinkbetweentheharmsufferedbytheapplicantandthe

chargesbroughtagainstThomasLubangaDyilo.

20. In the Document Containing the Charges, filed on 28 August 2006, the

Prosecution submits that between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2003, Thomas

LubangaDyilo,asacoperpetrator,conscriptedandenlistedchildrenundertheage

offifteenyearsandusedthemtoparticipateactivelyinhostilities.20

21. On22September2006,theChamberrenderedadecisiononthearrangements

fortheparticipationofvictimsattheconfirmationhearing.21

22. On 3 October 2006, the Chamber rejected the challenge to the Courts

jurisdictionmadebytheDefenceunderarticle19(2)(a)oftheStatute.22Inadecision

rendered on 14 December 2006, the Appeals Chamber upheld the impugned

decision.23

23. On 2 August,24 15 and 20 September25 and 4 October 2006,26 the Chamber

rendered four decisions on applications concerning redactions and summary

evidencefiledbytheProsecutionpursuanttorule81oftheRules.

24. On 5 October 2006, the Chamber designatedJudge ClaudeJorda as Single

JudgeinthecaseofTheProsecutorv.ThomasLubangaDyiloresponsibleforexercising,

amongstotherfunctions,thefunctionsprovidedforinrule122(1)oftheRulesuntil

theendoftheconfirmationhearing.

25.

On

18

October

2006,

Single

Judge

Claude

Jorda

rejected

the

application

for

interimreleasesubmittedbytheDefenceforThomasLubangaDyilo.27

20Crimepunishableunderarticle8(2)(b)(xxvi)oftheStatute;modeofliabilityprovidedforinarticle25(3)(a)oftheStatute.21ICC01/0401/06462tEN.22ICC01/0401/06512.23ICC01/0401/06772.24

ICC

01/04

01/06

235.

25ICC01/0401/06437;ICC01/0401/06455.26ICC01/0401/06515ConfExp.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 9/157 SL PT


10/157


26. On19and20October2006,theChamberrenderedtwodecisionsauthorising

theProsecutor to calla staffmemberof theUnitedNationsOrganization to testify

beforetheChamberattheconfirmationhearing.Italsoauthorisedanobserverfrom

theUnitedNationstoattendthehearing.

27. On20October2006also,theProsecutionaddresseditsfinalListofEvidenceto

the Chamber under rule 121(3) of the Rules.28 On 2 and 7 November 2006, the

DefencefileditsListofEvidence.29

28. At thehearingof26October2006, theProsecution informed theChamberof

its intention to proof the witness whom it intended to call to testify at the

confirmationhearing.

29. On 8 November 2006, the Chamber rendered a decision on the proofing of

witnessesbefore they testifybefore theCourt30 inwhich itordered theVictimsand

Witnesses Unit to familiarise the witness with the Court, to explain to her how

proceedings are conducted before the Court, with particular reference to the

confirmation hearing, and to discuss with the witness matters relating to her

protection.TheChamberalsoorderedtheProsecutionnottoproofthewitnessandto

refrainfromallcontactwithheroutsidethecourtroomfromthemomentshemade

thesolemnundertakingprovidedforinrule66oftheRules.

30. Theconfirmationhearinginthiscasewasheldfrom9to28November2006in

accordance with the terms set on 7 November 2006 pursuant to rule 122(1) of the

Rules.31

31. Following thehearing,on1and4December2006, theRepresentativesof the

Victims filed written observations on points of fact and law discussed at the

27ICC01/0401/06586tEN.28TheProsecutionhadfiledafirstListofEvidenceon28August2006(ICC01/0401/06595ConfExpAnx7). It filed an Amended List of Evidence on 20 October 2006 (ICC01/0401/06595ConfExpAnx1).29

ICC

01/04

01/06

644;

ICC

01/04

01/06

673.

30ICC01/0401/06679.31ICC01/0401/06678.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 10/157 SL PT


11/157


hearing.32TheProsecutionsobservationsaddressingmatters thatwerediscussedat

theconfirmationhearingwerefiledon4December2006.33On6December2006,the

Defencefileditsbriefonpointsoffactandlawdiscussedatthehearing.34

32. On14December2006,theAppealsChamberreversed35thedecisionsof15and

20September2006on the redactionsmadeby theProsecutionunderrule81of the

Rules.36 The Appeals Chamber held that the PreTrial Chambers decision lacked

sufficientreasoningauthorising theredactions forthepurposeofprotectingfurther

investigations under rule 81(2) of the Rules or to protect the identity of victims,

wherenecessary,underrule81(4)oftheRules.TheAppealsChamberheldthatthis

errormateriallyaffected the ImpugnedDecision in that itcouldnotbeestablished,

on thebasis of the reasoning that was provided, how the PreTrial Chamber had

arrivedatitsdecision.37

32ICC01/0401/06745tEN;ICC01/0401/06750tEN.33 ICC01/0401/06749; ICC01/0401/06749Anx; ICC01/0401/06755Conf; ICC01/0401/06755ConfAnx.34 ICC01/0401/06763tEN; ICC01/0401/06764; ICC01/0401/06758Conf; ICC01/0401/06759ConftEN.35

ICC

01/04

01/06

773;

ICC

01/04

01/06

774.

36ICC01/0401/06437;ICC01/0401/06455.37ICC01/0401/06773,para.53.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 11/157 SL PT


12/157


13/157


respecttotheconfirmationofthecharges,theChambermustestablishthatserious

presumptionsexist.39

36. Approaching this from the perspective of the conviction of an accused, the

DefenceconsidersthattheevidencepresentedbytheProsecutionmustbesufficient

toreasonablysustainaconviction.40

37. In the opinion of the Chamber, the purpose of the confirmation hearing is

limited to committing for trial only those persons against whom sufficiently

compellingchargesgoingbeyondmeretheoryorsuspicionhavebeenbrought.41This

mechanism is designed to protect the rights of the Defence against wrongful and

whollyunfoundedcharges.

38. Todefinetheconceptofsubstantialgroundstobelieve,theChamberrelies

on internationally recognised human rightsjurisprudence. In this regard, in its

judgementof7July1987inSoeringv.UnitedKingdom,theEuropeanCourtofHuman

Rights(ECHR)definedthisstandardasmeaningthatsubstantialgroundshavebeen

shown for believing.42In a joint partially dissenting opinion appended to the

judgementinMamatkulovandAskarovv.Turkey,JudgesBratza,BonelloandHedigan

considered that substantial grounds to believe should be defined as strong

grounds forbelieving.43 Moreover, in that case, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR

assessedthematerialplacedbeforeitasawhole.44

39. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that for the Prosecution to meet its

evidentiary

burden,

it

must

offer

concrete

and

tangible

proof

demonstrating

a

clear

lineofreasoningunderpinningitsspecificallegations.Furthermore,thesubstantial

39ICC01/0401/06745tEN,paras.510.40ICC01/0401/06764,paras.3741.41UnitedNationsHighCommissionforHumanRights,ReportoftheCommitteeagainstTorture,UnitedNationsDocument,A/53/44,AnnexIX,para.6.42 European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom,Judgement of 7July 1989,ApplicationNo.14038/88.43EuropeanCourtofHumanRights,GrandChamber,MamatkulovandAskarovv.Turkey,Judgementof

4

February

2005,

Applications

Nos.

46827/99

and

46951/99.

44SeealsoEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,Chahalv.theUnitedKingdom,Judgementof15November1996,ApplicationNo.22141/93,para.97.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 13/157 SL PT


14/157


groundstobelievestandardmustenablealltheevidenceadmittedforthepurpose

of theconfirmationhearingtobeassessedasawhole.Afteranexactingscrutinyof

alltheevidence,theChamberwilldeterminewhether it isthoroughlysatisfiedthat

the Prosecutions allegations are sufficiently strong to commit Thomas Lubanga

Dyilo for trial. In this regard, the Chamber will consider the various witness

statementsinthecontextoftheremainingevidenceadmittedforthepurposeofthe

confirmationhearing,withouthoweverreferencingalloftheminthisdecision.

B. Mattersrelatingtotheadmissibilityofevidenceanditsprobativevalue

1. Preliminaryobservations

40. TheChamberrecalls that, inaccordancewith theDecisionon thescheduleand

conductoftheconfirmationhearing,renderedon7November2006:45

any item included in the Prosecution Additional List of Evidence filed on 20October2006shallbeadmitted intoevidence forthepurposeof theconfirmationhearing,unlessitisexpresslyruledinadmissiblebytheChamberuponachallengebyanyoftheparticipantsatthehearing;and

any item included in theDefenceListofEvidence filedon2November2006andthe Defence Additional List of Evidence filed on 7 November 2006 shall be

admitted into evidence for the purpose of the confirmation hearing, unless it isexpressly ruled inadmissibleby the Chamber upon a challengeby any of theparticipantsatthehearing;

41. In addition, in its oral decision of 10 November 2006, rendered pursuant to

rule122(3)oftheRules,theChamberconsideredthat:

Firstly,theDefencechallengedtheadmissibilityofallevidenceincluded intheListofEvidenceoftheProsecutorof20October2006,forwhichredactionswereauthorisedand, inparticular, documents containing redactionsconcerning the

sourcesofinformationoftheProsecutor,aswellasthesummaries.

Secondly,theChambernotesthatthefirstappealwasauthorisedinadecisionof28September2006,andthesecondon4October2006.TheChamberalsonotesthat the Defence did not request suspensive effect for these two decisions.Consequently, the two decisions of the PreTrial Chamber are still applicable[]subjecttothesamereservationsthatIexpressedawhileago.

Therefore,partiesmustbeable topresent theirevidenceduring theconfirmationhearing. However, the Chamber would like to inform the participants that thematter of the admissibility of evidence mustbe attached to the decision on themerits. In this regard, the Chamberwould like to reassure theparties that if the

45ICC01/0401/06678.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 14/157 SL PT


15/157


Appeals Chamber goes against these decisions in whole or in part, the evidencethatisaffectedbysuchdecisionwillbeautomaticallydeclaredinadmissible.46

2. Judgementsof theAppealsChamberon thefirstand seconddecisionson

theProsecutionrequestsforredactionsunderrule81

a.

Items

included

in

the

List

of

Evidence

filed

by

the

Prosecution on 20 October 2006 which are affectedby theFirstJudgementonAppeal

42. IntheJudgmentontheappealofMrThomasLubangaDyiloagainsttheDecisionof

PreTrial Chamber I entitled FirstDecision on the Prosecution Requests andAmended

RequestsforRedactionsunderRule81(theFirstJudgementonAppeal),renderedby

theAppealsChamberon14December2006,undertheheadingAppropriateRelief,

theAppealsChamberstated:

The Appeals Chamber has found that the Impugned Decision lacked sufficientreasoninginrelationtothefindingofthePreTrialChamberthattheidentitiesofthe witnesses coveredby the Impugned Decision should notbe disclosed to thedefence. The Appeals Chamber considers that this error materially affects theImpugnedDecisionbecauseitcannotbeestablished,onthebasisofthereasoningthat was provided, how the PreTrial Chamber reached its decision. For thatreason, it isappropriate toreverse the ImpugnedDecision.As thereversalof theImpugned Decision on thebasis of the first ground of appeal does not entail a

conclusive determinationby the Appeals Chamber that the PreTrial Chambercould not have authorised the nondisclosure of the identities of the relevantwitnesses to thedefence in thepresentcase, thePreTrialChamber isdirected todecide anew upon the applications that gave rise to the Impugned Decisions,havingregardtothefindingsofthepresentjudgement.47

46ICC01040106T32EN[10Nov2006Edited],p.30,lines124.47 ICC01/0401/06773, para.53. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber also pointed out that theImpugned Decision failed to properly address three of the most important considerations for an

authorisation

of

non

disclosure

of

the

identity

of

a

witness

pursuant

to

rule

81(4)

of

theRules

of

ProcedureandEvidence: theendangermentof thewitnessorofmembersofhisorher family that thedisclosureoftheidentityofthewitnessmaycause;theneedtotakeprotectivemeasures;andwhythePreTrialChamberconsidered that thesemeasureswouldnotbeprejudicialto,or inconsistentwith,therightsoftheDefenceandtherequirementsofafairandimpartialtrial(lastsentenceofarticle68(1)of theStatute).TheAppealsChamberadded thatwithrespect to theendangermentofwitnessesormembersoftheirfamilies,thereasoningofthePreTrialChamberdidnotprovideanyindicationastowhy the PreTrial Chamber expected that the security of witnesses or their families may beendangeredifthewitnessesidentitiesweredisclosedtotheappellant.Furthermore,accordingtotheAppealsChamber,thePreTrialChamberdidnotindicatewhichofthefactsbeforeitledthePreTrialChamber to reach such a conclusion. In relation to the need not to disclose the identities of the

witnesses,

the

Appeals

Chamber

noted

that

the

Pre

Trial

Chamber

only

stated

that

the

security

situationinsomepartsoftheDemocraticRepublicoftheCongohadanimpactontheavailabilityandfeasibilityofprotectivemeasures,withoutclarifying the factorswhich itconsideredrelevant for the

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 15/157 SL PT


16/157


43. As a result, the FirstJudgement onAppeal reverses the ImpugnedDecision

whichauthorisedtheProsecutionnottodisclosetotheDefencetheidentitiesofthe

followingwitnesses:DRCOTPWWWW0003;DRCOTPWWWW0004;DRCOTP

WWWW0016; DRCOTPWWWW021; DRCOTPWWWW0024; DRCOTP




WWWW0041;andDRCOTPWWWW0044.

44. Consequently, the Chamber considers that the FirstJudgement on Appeal

affectsthefollowing items included intheListofEvidencefiledbytheProsecution

on20October2006:(i)thesummariesofthestatements,transcriptsofinterviewsand

Prosecutioninvestigatorsnotesandreportsoftheinterviewsoftheabovereferenced

witnesses;and(ii)anyrelateddocumentandvideoincludedinAnnexes1to9,12to

15, 18 to 21 of the Amended Provision of summary evidence to the PreTrial

Chamber(the Third Prosecution Application), filed by the Prosecution on 4

October2006,48 (with the exception of those previously disclosed to the Defence in

unredactedform).

protection of the witnesses. Finally, the Appeals Chamber considered that the appellant had noknowledgeof the factsrelieduponby thePreTrialChamber for itsdecisionandhow theChamberhadappliedrule81(4)oftheRulestothefactsofthecase.(Ibid.,para.21).48AccordingtoAnnex22oftheThirdProsecutionApplication,thisincludesthefollowingitems:

i) Summaryofthestatementandtranscriptofthe interviewofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0003and the following related documents: DRCOTP00290255 to 0256; DRCOTP00290253 to

DRC

OTP

0029

0251

to

0252;

DRC

OTP

0029

0246

to

0250;

DRC

OTP

0029

0258;

DRC

OTP

00290257;DRCOTP00240137;DRCOTP00240138;andDRCOTP00240122;ii) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0004 and the following redacted

documents: DRCOTP00370284; DRCOTP00410044; DRCOTP00410045; DRCOTP00410049; DRCOTP00410050; DRCOTP00410052; DRCOTP00410054; DRCOTP00410056;DRCOTP00410058; DRCOTP00410060; DRCOTP00410061; DRCOTP00410062; DRCOTP00410063; DRCOTP00410064; DRCOTP00410070; DRCOTP00410076; DRCOTP00410097; DRCOTP00410098; DRCOTP00410099; DRCOTP00410100; DRCOTP00410101; DRCOTP00410104; DRCOTP00410107; DRCOTP00410109; DRCOTP00410110;DRCOTP00410111; DRCOTP00410113; DRCOTP00410114; DRCOTP00410116; DRCOTP00410117; DRCOTP00410121; DRCOTP00410123; DRCOTP00410124; DRCOTP

0041

0125;

DRC

OTP

0041

0127;

DRC

OTP

0041

0128;

DRC

OTP

0041

0129;

DRC

OTP

0041

0131; DRCOTP00410132; DRCOTP00410133; DRCOTP00410134; DRCOTP00410135;DRCOTP00410136; DRCOTP00410137; DRCOTP00410138; DRCOTP00410139; DRC

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 16/157 SL PT


17/157


OTP00410140; DRCOTP00410141; DRCOTP00410145; DRCOTP00410147; DRCOTP00410148; DRCOTP00410152; DRCOTP00410153; DRCOTP00410154; DRCOTP00410155; DRCOTP00410156; DRCOTP00410158; DRCOTP00410160; DRCOTP00410162;DRCOTP00410164; DRCOTP00410168; DRCOTP00410174; DRCOTP00410176; DRCOTP00410186; DRCOTP00410187; DRCOTP00410191; DRCOTP00410196; DRCOTP00410204; DRCOTP00410206; DRCOTP00410207; andDRCOTP00410210 to DRCOTP

00410266;iii) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0016 and the following related

documents:DRCOTP01260471to0472;DRCOTP01260473to0474;andDRCOTP01260475to0476;

iv) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0021 and the following relateddocuments: DRCOTP01130054; DRCOTP01130060; DRCOTP01130055; DRCOTP01130057; DRCOTP01180043; DRCOTP01180020; DRCOTP01180003; DRCOTP00290274;DRCOTP01020071; DRCOTP00290275; DRCOTP00140254; DRCOTP00140471; DRCOTP01180063; DRCOTP01130052; DRCOTP01320398; DRCOTP01320399; DRCOTP01320400; DRCOTP01320401; DRCOTP01320402; DRCOTP01130070; DRCOTP01320403;DRCOTP01320404;DRCOTP01320405;andDRCOTP01320406;

v)

SummaryoftheStatementofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0024andtherelateddocument:DRCOTP00290274;

vi) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0026 and the following relateddocuments: DRCOTP01090104 to 0107; DRCOTP00140378 to 0379; DRCOTP00900407;DRCOTP01090100; DRCOTP01090101; DRCOTP01090102; DRCOTP01090002; DRCOTP01090003to0004;DRCOTP01090005to0006;DRCOTP01090007;DRCOTP01090008to 0009; DRCOTP01090010; DRCOTP01090011; DRCOTP01090012; DRCOTP01090013;DRCOTP01090015; DRCOTP01090016; DRCOTP01090017; DRCOTP01090018; DRCOTP01090019; DRCOTP01090020; DRCOTP01090021; DRCOTP01090022; DRCOTP01090023;DRCOTP01090024;DRCOTP01090025;DRCOTP01090026 to0027;DRCOTP01090028; DRCOTP01090029; DRCOTP01090030 to 0031; DRCOTP01090032 to 0033;

DRCOTP01090034; DRCOTP01090035; DRCOTP01090036; DRCOTP01090037 to 0038;DRCOTP01090039;DRCOTP01090040;DRCOTP01090041to0043;DRCOTP01090044to0045; DRCOTP01090046; DRCOTP01090047; DRCOTP01090048; DRCOTP01090049 to0050; DRCOTP01090051 to 0052; DRCOTP01090053 to 0054; DRCOTP01090055; DRCOTP01090056 to0057;DRCOTP01090058;DRCOTP01090059;DRCOTP01090060;DRCOTP01090061;andDRCOTP01090062to0063;

vii) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0027 and the following relateddocuments:DRCOTP00960070;DRCOTP00960068to0069;DRCOTP00960071;andDRCOTP00960072;

viii)Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0030 and the following relateddocumentsandvideos:DRCOTP01200293;DRCOTP01200295;DRCOTP01270058;DRC

OTP01270060; DRCOTP01270064; DRCOTP01510621; DRCOTP01510640; DRCOTP01510645 (including AnnexIV: DRCOTP01510651); DRCOTP01270053; DRCOTP01200294; DRCOTP01200296; DRCOTP01270057; DRCOTP01270059; DRCOTP01270054;DRCOTP01270061; DRCOTP01270055; DRCOTP01270063; DRCOTP01270056;andDRCOTP01270065;

ix) SummaryoftheOTPinvestigatorsreportoftheinterviewofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0032;x) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0034 and the following related

documents:DRCOTP00170182,0183and0184;andDRCOTP00170011;xi) Summary of the transcript of the interview of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0035 by the

Prosecution;xii) Summary of the transcript of the interview of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0037 by the

Prosecution;

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 17/157 SL PT


18/157


45. However, theChamberconsiders that, for thereasons listedbelow, theFirst

JudgementonAppealhasnoeffectonthefindingssetoutintheImpugnedDecision

inrespectofwitnesses[REDACTED]:

a. With respect to witness [REDACTED], his identity was subsequently

disclosed to the Defence upon his admission into the Witness Protection

Programme runby theVictimsandWitnessesUnitand,accordingly,his

twostatementsweredisclosedtotheDefenceinunredactedformpursuant

torule81(4)oftheRules.49

b. With respect to witnesses [REDACTED], the Single Judge decided to

declareinadmissibleforthepurposeoftheconfirmationhearing:

xiii)Summary of the transcript of the interview of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0038 by theProsecutionandthefollowingrelateddocuments:DRCOTP01470333to0334;DRCOTP00720473to0478;andDRCOTP00720471;

xiv)Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0040 and the following relateddocuments: DRCOTP00170033; DRCOTP00140254; DRCOTP00370253; DRCOTP00370294; DRCOTP00140140; DRCOTP00290275; DRCOTP00140186; DRCOTP01480350;

DRC

OTP

0148

0363;

DRC

OTP

0148

0365;

DRC

OTP

0148

0369;

DRC

OTP

0148

0370;

DRC

OTP01480373; DRCOTP01480376; DRCOTP01480377; DRCOTP01480379; DRCOTP00910778; DRCOTP00910039; DRCOTP00890483; DRCOTP01480380; DRCOTP01480346; DRCOTP01480361; DRCOTP00890069; DRCOTP00910016; andDRCOTP00140191;

xv) Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0041 and the following relateddocuments: DRCOTP01470320 to 0331; DRCOTP01470302 to 0319; DRCOTP01470301;DRCOTP01470218 to0223;DRCOTP01470205 to0207;DRCOTP01270148 to0149;DRCOTP01270131to0137;DRCOTP01270129;DRCOTP01270126to0127;DRCOTP01270110to0113;DRCOTP01270121to0124;DRCOTP01470212to0216;DRCOTP01270118to0119;DRCOTP01470201 to 0202; DRCOTP01470204; DRCOTP01470208 to 0210; DRCOTP

0147

0229;

DRC

OTP

0147

0298

to

0299;

DRC

OTP

0147

0297;

DRC

OTP

0147

0296;

DRC

OTP

01470295; DRCOTP01470294; DRCOTP01470293; DRCOTP01470292; DRCOTP01470290 to 0291; DRCOTP01470289; DRCOTP01470283 to 0288; DRCOTP01470240 to 0282;DRCOTP01470231; DRCOTP01470198; DRCOTP01470197; DRCOTP01470199; DRCOTP01470195; DRCOTP01270151; DRCOTP01270146; DRCOTP01270116; DRCOTP01270115; DRCOTP01470232 to 0239; DRCOTP01470217; DRCOTP01470056 to 0194;DRCOTP01470041 to0044;DRCOTP01270144;DRCOTP01340121(beginsat0094);DRCOTP01470225to0227;andDRCOTP01470300;

xvi)Summary of the Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0044 and the following relateddocuments:DRCOTP00660084;DRCOTP00660093;DRCOTP00660112toDRCOTP00660129;DRCOTP00370007.

49

See

Prosecution

Application

pursuant

to

Rules

81(2)

and

81(4),

filed

on

5

October

2006,

ICC

01/04

01/06518Conf, paras.1012 and Annexes1 and 2; and Decision on the ProsecutionApplication of 5October2006,renderedbytheSingleJudgeon5October2006,ICC01/0401/06524,pp.6and7.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 18/157 SL PT


19/157


their statements and the transcripts of the Prosecution interviews

regardlessoftheirformat;50and

the documents listed in Annexes 10 and 17 of document ICC01/04

01/06513, on which the Prosecution intended to rely at the

confirmationhearingsolelyinrelationtothestatementsandtranscripts

oftheinterviewsofthesaidwitnesses.

c.

With respect to witnesses [REDACTED], their identities, statements and

the transcript of their interviews were subsequently disclosed to the

Defence in unredacted form pursuant to rule 81(4) of the Rules at the

requestofCounsel for theDefence,51whosubsequently included them in

theListofEvidencehefiledon7November2006.52

b. Items included in the List of Evidence filed by theProsecution on 20 October 2006 which are affectedby theSecondJudgementonAppeal

46. IntheJudgmentontheappealofMrThomasLubangaDyiloagainstthedecisionof

PreTrialChamber I entitledSecondDecision on theProsecutionRequests andAmended

RequestsforRedactionsunderRule81(theSecondJudgementonAppeal),rendered

by the Appeals Chamber on 14 December 2006, under the heading Appropriate

Relief,theAppealsChamberstated:

In the present case, because the Appeals Chamber has determined that theImpugnedDecision lacked sufficient reasoning in relation to theauthorisationofdisclosureofwitnessstatementsandotherdocumentswithredactionspursuantto

rule 81 (2) of theRules ofProcedure andEvidence, it is appropriate to reverse theImpugned Decision to the extent that it authorised the disclosure of witnessstatements and other documents to the defence with redactions. The PreTrialChamber should consider the matter anew and provide sufficient reasons for its

50SeeDecisionconcerningtheProsecutionProposedSummaryEvidence,renderedon4October2006bytheSingleJudge,ICC01/0401/06515ConfExp,pp.9and1051 See Decision on the Defence Request for Order to Disclose Exculpatory Materials, rendered on2November2006by the SingleJudge, ICC01/0401/06647Conf., p.7; and the Corrigendum to theDecision on theProsecutionApplicationpursuant to rule81(2) of3November2006, ICC01/0401/06658

Conf,

issued

on

3

November

2006

by

the

Single

Judge,

pp.

3

and

4.

52SeeSubmissionof listofadditional items tobeadded to theDefenceListofEvidence, filedon7November2006bytheDefence,ICC01/0401/06673ConfAnxA.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 19/157 SL PT


20/157


decision. The Appeals Chamber considers that it is appropriate to reverse allauthorisationsofdisclosurewithredactionseventhoughthefirstgroundofappealrelatedonlytothefactualreasoningforrulingspursuanttorule81(2)oftheRulesofProcedureandEvidencebecause the ImpugnedDecisiondidnotclearly indicateunder which provision the redactions were authorised, nor did the PreTrialChamber identify in the Decision Granting Leave to Appeal which parts of itsdisposition in the Impugned Decision it considered tobe affectedby the first

groundofappeal.53

47. The SecondJudgement on Appeal reverses the Impugned Decision which

authorisedtheProsecutiontodiscloseredactedversionstotheDefence.Accordingly,

itaffectsthefollowingitemsincludedintheAmendedListofEvidencefiledbythe

Prosecutionon20October2006:

a. theredactedversionsofthestatements,transcriptsandinvestigatorsnotes

andreportsoftheinterviewsofWitnessesDRCOTPWWWW0002;DRC

OTPWWWW0019; DRCOTPWWWW0020; DRCOTPWWWW0022;

DRCOTPWWWW0025; DRCOTPWWWW0033, DRCOTPWWWW

0039;andDRCOTPWWWW0043;

b. the documents and videos relating to the redacted versions of the

statements, transcripts and investigators notes and reports of theinterviews with the said witnesses which are included in any of the

following annexes:1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of document ICC01/0401/06341

ConfExp; Annexes 1 and 4 of document ICC01/0401/06347ConfExp;

Annex5ofdocumentICC01/0401/06358ConfExp;Annex6ofdocument

ICC01/0401/06381ConfExp; Annexes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 14 of

53ICC01/0401/06774.AccordingtotheAppealsChamber,thereasoningintheImpugnedDecisionisinsufficientbecause it is not clear from the reasoning what facts, in the evaluation of the PreTrialChamber,justified the authorisation of the requested redactions. The Appeals Chamber consideredthat toa largeextent, the PreTrialChamberhad limited itselfonly to reciting the substanceof theprovisionsconcerningauthorisationsofdisclosurewithredactionswithoutprovidinganyinformationastohowithadappliedtheseprovisionstothefactsofthecase.AccordingtotheAppealsChamber,theImpugnedDecisionfailedtosetoutexpresslywhichredactionswerebeingauthorisedunderrule81(2)oftheRules.TheAppealsChamberaddedthatitwaspossibletosurmisethatcertainredactionshadbeen authorised under that provision,but nowhere is the factual and legalbasis for thoseredactionsexplicitlyconsideredtogether.Moreover,accordingtotheAppealsChamber,thePreTrial

Chamber

did

not

address,

even

in

general

terms,

why

the

Chamber

considered

that

the

disclosure

of

thesourcesoftheProsecutorandanyothermattersinrelationtowhichitauthorisedredactionscouldprejudicefurtherinvestigations.Ibid.,para.32.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 20/157 SL PT


21/157


documentICC01/0401/06392ConfExp;Annex2ofdocumentICC01/04

01/06395ConfExp;Annexes1,2,3,and4ofdocument ICC01/0401/06

441ConfExp;Annexes1,2,3and4ofdocumentICC01/0401/06446;and

Annexes 1 and 2 of document ICC01/0401/06451ConfExp54(with the

exceptionofthosepreviouslydisclosedtotheDefenceinunredactedform);

c.

severaladditionaldocumentswhicharepartoftheannexesofProsecution

applications with reference numbers ICC01/0401/06357ConfExp, ICC

01/0401/06365ConfExp, ICC01/0401/06384ConfExp and ICC01/04

0106409ConfExp.55

54Thesedocumentsinclude:i) The redacted versions of the two Statements of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0002 and the

followingrelateddocuments:DRCOTP00870207to0210(videoDRCOTP00800015,copyofvideo0003);DRCOTP00870211to0212(videoDRCOTP00800016,copyofvideo0004);DRCOTP00870213 to 0214 (video DRCOTP00800017, copy of video 0006); DRCOTP00870215(video DRCOTP00800018, copy of video 0008); DRCOTP00870216 (video DRCOTP00800019, copy of video 0010); DRCOTP00870217 to 0218 (video DRCOTP00800020, copy ofvideo0011);DRCOTP00870219 (videoDRCOTP00800022,copyofvideo0014);DRCOTP00870221to0225(videoDRCOTP00810023,copyofvideo0002);DRCOTP00870227(video

DRC

OTP

0081

0021,

video

of

0006);

DRC

OTP

0087

0228

(video

DRC

OTP

0081

0020,

copy

of

video0008);DRCOTP00870229 (videoDRCOTP00810017,copyofvideo0009);DRCOTP00870230to0232(videoDRCOTP00810022,copyofvideo0011);DRCOTP00870233(videoDRCOTP00810018, copy of video 0012); DRCOTP00870235 (video DRCOTP00820022,copy of video 0003); DRCOTP00870236 (video DRCOTP00820023, copy of video 0004);DRCOTP00870245 (video DRCOTP00820032, copy of video 0020); DRCOTP00870255(video DRCOTP00870013, copy of video 0012); DRCOTP00870256; (DRCOTP00870015,copy of video 0014); photo DRCOTP00870274; DRCOTP00870220 (video DRCOTP00800021, copy of video DRCOTP00800013); DRCOTP00870241 (video DRCOTP00820029,copyofvideoDRCOTP00820016).

ii) The Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0019 and the following related documents:

photos

DRC

OTP

0108

0155

to

0170.

iii) The Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0020 and the following related documents:photosDRCOTP01040039to0052.

iv) The Statement of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0022 and the following related documents:photosDRCOTP01040039to0052;DRCOTP00770012.

v) TheStatementofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0025andthefollowingrelateddocument:DRCOTP01040121.

vi) The redacted version of the investigators report of the interview of Witness DRCOTPWWWW0033andthefollowingrelateddocument:DRCOTP00170182.

vii)TheStatementofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0039.viii)TheStatementofWitnessDRCOTPWWWW0043.

55

These

documents

include:

ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx2, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx4, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx5, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx6, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExp

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 21/157 SL PT


22/157


c. Items included in the List of Evidence filed by theProsecutionon20October2006whicharenotaffectedbytheFirstandSecondJudgementsonAppeal

48. TheChamberconsidersthattheFirstandSecondJudgementsonAppealhave

noeffectonthestatementsofwitnesses[REDACTED],whichweredisclosed infull

totheDefenceinunredactedform.

49. TheChamberalsoconsidersthattheFirstandSecondJudgementsonAppeal

do not affect the statements of witnesses [REDACTED], which were redacted

pursuant torule81(2)of theRules,oranydocuments related thereto. In fact, these

redactions were authorisedby the SingleJudge in herDecision on the Prosecution

AmendedApplicationpursuant toRule 81(2),56 from which neither party has sought

leavetoappeal.

50. The Chamber further considers that the First and SecondJudgements on

Appealdonotaffect theredactedstatementsof [REDACTED],KristinePedutoand

[REDACTED], the transcriptof [REDACTED] interviewand the relateddocuments

forthefollowingreasons:

a.

The two redacted statements of witness [REDACTED] were disclosed to

theDefenceonly in redacted formpursuant to rule81(2)of theRules. In

fact, these redactions were authorisedby the SingleJudge on 2 August

2006inherDecisionontheProsecutionAmendedApplicationpursuanttoRule

Anx7, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx8, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx12, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx26, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx27, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx28 and ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx29, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx21,and ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx22, ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx1, ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx2, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx9, and ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx23, ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx4, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx16,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx18,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx19,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx20, and ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx25, ICC01/0401/06384Conf

Exp

Anx3,

ICC

01/04

01/06

384

Conf

Exp

Anx5,

ICC

01/04

01/06

384

Conf

Exp

Anx6,

ICC

01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx10,andICC01/040106409ConfExpAnx11.56ICC01/0401/06234ConfExp.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 22/157 SL PT


23/157


81(2)57andinher5October2006DecisionontheProsecutionApplicationof5

October2006.58Neitherpartyhassoughtleavetoappealthesedecisions.

b.

The redacted statement of witness Kristine Peduto and the related

documentsweredisclosed totheDefenceonly inredactedformpursuant

torule81(2)orrule82(3)oftheRules.Theseredactionswereauthorisedby

the SingleJudge in her decision of 10October 2006.59 Neither party has

soughtleavetoappealthedecision.

c. Theredactedstatementof[REDACTED]andtheredactedtranscriptofthe

interviewof[REDACTED]weredisclosedtotheDefenceonlyinredacted

formpursuanttorule81(2)oftheRules.Theseredactionswereauthorised

by the Single Judge in her 2 August 2006 Decision on the Prosecution

AmendedApplicationpursuant toRule81(2)60 and in her 3 November 2006

CorrigendumtoDecisionontheProsecutionApplicationpursuanttoRule81(2)

of 3 November 2006.61 Neither party has sought leave to appeal these

decisions.

51. In principle, the authorised redactions to the statements of [REDACTED],

Kristine Peduto and [REDACTED] and to the transcript of the interview of

[REDACTED] and related documents are not subject to the First and Second

JudgementsonAppeal.

52. The guiding principles setby the First and SecondJudgements on Appeal

should

however

be

applied

to

some

of

these

redactions

for

the

following

reasons:

a. the redactions were authorised by the Chamber after the Impugned

Decisionswererendered;

57Ibid.58ICC01/0401/06524.59

ICC

01/04

01/06

556

Conf

tEN.

60ICC01/0401/06234.61ICC01/0401/06658ConfCorr.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 23/157 SL PT


24/157


b. thereasoningunderlyingthesaidredactionswassometoextentlinkedto

thereasonsfortheImpugnedDecisions.

TheapplicationoftheseguidingprinciplesissetoutinAnnex1ofthisdecision.

53. Inaddition,theFirstandSecondJudgementsonAppealdirecttheChamber,

almost three weeks after the confirmation hearing, to decide anew upon the

numerous Prosecution Rule 81 applications. The Chamber holds the view that the

requirement that proceedingsbe conducted expeditiously, which, as the Appeals

Chamber has stated, constitutes an attribute of the right to a fair trial,62calls for a

priordeterminationwhetherthesufficientevidencetoestablishsubstantialgrounds

tobelieve standard hadbeen met having regard to evidence which hadbeen

admittedforthepurposeoftheconfirmationhearing,butwhichwasnotaffectedby

theAppealsChamberjudgements.

54. The Chamber will decide anew upon the numerous Prosecution Rule 81

applicationswhichareaffectedbytheFirstandSecondJudgementsonAppealonly

if it is satisfied that the sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to

believestandardcannotbemet,bearinginmindthatsuchareviewwilltakeseveral

months tocomplete. In thisregard, theChamberconsiders that if in the future, the

Prosecution filed dozens of Rule 81 applications concerning thousands of pages, it

would be difficult for the Court to reconcile the application of the Appeals

Chambersguidingprincipleswith the requirement thatproceedingsbe conducted

expeditiously.

55. TheapproachadoptedbytheChambernotonlyenablescompliancewiththe

requirement that proceedingsbe conducted expeditiouslybut also ensures that no

prejudice flows to the parties. With respect to the Prosecution, the fact that the

evidence affectedby the FirstandSecondJudgements onAppeal isnot taken into

accountatthisstagehasnobearingonitspotentialadmissibilityattrial.Nor,inthe

62JudgmentontheProsecutorsApplicationforExtraordinaryReviewofPreTrialChamberIs31March2006

DecisionDenyingLeavetoAppeal,renderedon13July2006,ICC01/0401/06168.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 24/157 SL PT


25/157


view of the Chamber, is this approach prejudicial to the Defence, because the

evidence affected is evidence on which the Prosecution intended to rely at the

confirmationhearing.63Hence,aslongastheChambertakesintoconsiderationonly

thosepartsoftheevidencethattheDefencehashighlightedasbeingofapotentially

exculpatorynature,noprejudicewillflowtotheDefence.

d.

ThespecialcaseofWitnessesDRCOTPWWWW0033,DRCOTPWWWW0035andDRCOTPWWWW0037

56. TheChamberrecallsthatintheSecondDecisionontheProsecutionRequestsand

Amended Requestsfor Redactions under Rule 8164 and in the Decision concerning the

Prosecution Proposed Summary Evidence,65 it had ordered the Prosecution to inform

certainwitnessesthatitintendedtorelyontheirstatements,oronthereportsoftheir

interviews,forthepurposeofthehearingconcerningtheconfirmationofthecharges

against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. In a document filed on 17 November 2006,66 the

Prosecution informed the Chamber that it had so informed all witnesses, save for

Witnesses DRCOTPWWWW0033, DRCOTPWWWW0035 and DRCOTP

WWWW0037, and that those three witnesses had notbeen informed in order to

protecttheirpersonalsecurity.

57. AstheChamberhasalreadystated:

63ExceptdocumentsICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx1,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx13,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx14,ICC01/0401/06409ConfExp17,ICC01/0401/06ConfExpAnx24,

ICC

01/04

01/06

384

Conf

Exp

Anx12,

ICC

01/04

01/06

384

Conf

Exp

Anx13

and

ICC

01/04

01/06

384

ConfExpAnx14. Regarding documents ICC01/0401/06409ConfExp1, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExp13, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExpAnx14, ICC01/0401/06409ConfExp17 and ICC01/0401/06ConfExpAnx24, the SecondDecision on theProsecutionRequests andAmendedRequestsforRedactionsunderRule81expresslystatesthatnoneofthedocumentsseemstohaveanypotentiallyexculpatoryinformation, and thus the proposed redactions to such documents do not affect any potentiallyexculpatory information (pp. 1415). Furthermore, regarding documents ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx12, ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx13 and ICC01/0401/06384ConfExpAnx14,permissiontoredactallowedonly theconcealmentofthehandwritten initialsofcertainProsecutionwitnesses,whichwerenotpartoftheoriginaldocument,inordertopreventthesaidwitnessesfrombeingidentified.64

ICC

01/04

01/06

453

Conf

Exp.

65ICC01/0401/06515ConfExp.66ICC01/0401/06715ConfExp.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 25/157 SL PT


26/157


Accordingtoarticle69(4)oftheStatute,theChambermayruleontheadmissibilityof the evidence on which the parties intend to rely at the confirmation hearingtaking into account other factors in addition to relevance, probative value andprejudice toa fair trialor toa fair evaluation of the testimonyofa witness; andthat, in theviewof theChamber, inascenario like theonedescribedabove,andconsidering the limitedscopeof theconfirmationhearing,adequateprotectionofthewitnessesonwhomthepartiesintendtorelyattheconfirmationhearingisone

ofthoseadditionalfactors.67

58. TheChamberrecallsthatarticle68(1)oftheStatuterequiresallorgansofthe

Courttotake,withinthescopeoftheirrespectivefunctions,appropriatemeasuresto

protect the safety, physical and psychological wellbeing, dignity and privacy of

witnesses.Moreover,rule86oftheRulesstipulatesthattheChamber,inmakingany

directionororder,andotherorgansoftheCourt,inperformingtheirfunctionsunder

the Statute or the Rules, shall take into account the needs of all witnesses in

accordancewitharticle68oftheStatute.

59. In the view of the Chamber, the first and foremost measure required under

article 68(1) of the Statute and rule 86 of the Rules is to inform each prospective

witnessofthefactthatapartyintendstorelyonhisorherstatement,orthereportor

transcript of his or her interview for the purpose of the confirmation hearing in a

specificcase.Hence,if,asinthecasebeforetheChamber,withrespecttoWitnesses

DRCOTPWWWW0033, DRCOTPWWWW0035 and DRCOTPWWWW0037,

the information was not provided to the said witnesses in order to protect them

appropriately,theChamberconsidersthattheirstatementsandtranscriptsorreports

of their interviewsmustbe ruled inadmissible for the purposeof the confirmation

hearing.Accordingly,theChamberwillinnocasedecideanewuponthosepartsof

theProsecutionRule81applicationsrelatingtothesethreewitnesses.

3. Challengesbythepartiesrelatingtotheadmissibilityandprobativevalue

oftheevidenceadmittedforthepurposeoftheconfirmationhearing

60. Immediatelypriortoandattheconfirmationhearing,theDefencechallenged

theadmissibilityofanumberofitemsincludedintheProsecutionListofEvidenceor

proposedbytheProsecutionattheconfirmationhearing.Withrespecttomostofthe

67ICC01/0401/06437.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 26/157 SL PT


27/157


items,theDefenceasserts,inthealternative,that,eveniftheyweretobeadmitted,at

best, only limited probative value could be attached to them.68 Likewise, the

ProsecutionchallengedtheadmissibilityofsomeoftheitemsincludedintheListof

EvidencefiledbytheDefenceon2November2006oritemsproposedbytheDefence

attheconfirmationhearing.

61. Given the relationship that article 69(4) of the Statute establishesbetween

issues relating to the admissibility of evidence and issues relating to its probative

value, the Chamber will consider the parties concerns with regard toboth sets of

issuesinthesamesection.

a.

IssuesraisedbytheDefence

i) Itemsseizedfrom[REDACTED]shome

62. OneofthemainproceduralissuesinthiscaseconcernstheProsecutionsuse

ofevidenceallegedbytheDefencetohavebeenprocuredinviolationofCongolese

rulesofprocedureandinternationallyrecognisedhumanrights.Attheconfirmation

hearing,theProsecutorreliedonevidenceseized(theItemsSeized)fromthehome

of[REDACTED].On2November2006,theSingleJudgeorderedtheProsecutionto,

interalia,providetheChamberwithacomprehensivelistoftheItemsSeized.69On6

68TheitemsaffectedbytheDefencerequestsare:a. Anyitemswhicharepartofthesocalled[REDACTED]documents;b. Any items which are part of the materials seized by Uruguayan MONUC forces on 6

September2003;

c.

Any

items

proposed

by

the

Prosecution

as

alternative

evidence

to

items

included

among

the

[REDACTED]DocumentsoramongthematerialsseizedbyUruguayanMONUCforceson6September2003;

d. Any items for which no information relating to the chain of custody and transmission hasbeenprovidedby theProsecution, includinganumberofdocuments,videoexcerptsandemails;

e. Any items or parts thereof containing anonymous hearsay evidence, including (a) thetestimonyofKristinePeduto,(b)reportsofnongovernmentalorganisations,(c)pressarticlesandmediareports,and(d)redactedstatementsandsummaryevidence,iftheidentityofthewitnesshasnotbeendisclosedtotheDefence;

f. Certificates concerning the six child soldiers whose cases are detailed in the Document

Containing

the

Charges

under

the

heading

Individual

Cases.

69 ICC01/0401/06647. These instructions were reiterated at the confirmation hearing on10November2006(ICC01040106T32EN[10Nov2006Edited],p.30,lines1822).

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 27/157 SL PT


28/157


November2006,theProsecutionfiledthelistofItemsSeized70withtheChamberand,

on13November2006,itinformedtheChamberthat71ofthedocumentsinitsListof

EvidencewereamongtheItemsSeized.71Inarequestfiledon7November2006,72the

Defence had asked that the Items Seizedbe excluded from the Prosecution List of

Evidence (theDefenceRequest).According to theDefence,numerous itemswere

allegedly seized from [REDACTED]s home while he wasbeing detained on the

ordersofthenationalauthorities.

63. The search during which the items were seized was conducted by the

Congolese authorities in the presence of an investigator from the Office of the

Prosecutor (OTP). Inadecision rendered subsequently, the [REDACTED]Courtof

Appealstated,interalia,thatitwouldnottaketheItemsSeizedintoconsiderationon

the ground that the search and seizure had been conducted in breach of the

CongoleseCodeofProcedure.73

64. TheProsecutionobjectedtotheDefenceRequestonthegroundthatithadno

legalbasis.74Furthermore,on22November2006,theProsecutionindicatedthat,were

theChamber torule that the ItemsSeizedwere inadmissible for thepurposeof theconfirmationhearing,anumberofitemsonitsListofEvidencecouldbesubstituted

thereforandconsideredassupportiveofitscase.75

65. In their closing statements at the confirmation hearing, the Legal

Representatives of Victims a/0001/06, a/0002/06 and a/0003/06 also objected to the

Defence Request on the ground, inter alia, that the Defence cannot rely on the

judgementofthe[REDACTED]CourtofAppealbecauseithadnoeffect.76

70ICC01/0401/06659ConfAnx3.71ICC01/0401/06695Conf.72ICC01/0401/06674.73ICC01/0401/06674Anx2,p.6.74 ICC01040106T30EN[9Nov2006Edited], p.151, line 23 to p. 156, line 22; ICC01/0401/06726Conf.75

Prosecutions

Further

Response

to

the

Defence

Request

to

exclude

evidence

obtained

in

violation

ofarticle69(7)oftheStatute,ICC01/0401/06726Conf.76ICC01040106T47EN[28Nov2006Edited],p.60,line12top.64,line15.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 28/157 SL PT


29/157


66. On 24 November 2006, the Defence requested that the Prosecutions further

response to the Defence request pursuant to article 69(7) of the Statutebe ruled

inadmissibleor,inthealternative,thattheDefencebegrantedleavetoreplytoit.77

67. First, theChamberconsiders theDefenceobjection tobeunfoundedbecause

the alternative items suggestedby the Prosecution in its 22 November 2006 filing

werealreadyincludedintheAmendedListofEvidencefiledbytheProsecutionon

20 October 2006, even if they were not used at the hearing. In this respect, the

ChamberreferstoitsDecisiononthescheduleandconductoftheconfirmationhearing78in

whichitheldthatunlessithadexpresslyruledaniteminadmissibleuponachallenge

by any of theparticipants at thehearing,andprovided that itemwas included in the

ProsecutionAmendedListofEvidence,theChambermayrelyon itwhetherornot

theProsecutiondecidestopresentitattheconfirmationhearing.

68. In addition, the Chamber notes that the Defence alternative request seeking

leave to reply is moot in so far as the Defence had the opportunity to submit its

observationsbothorallyattheconfirmationhearingand inwriting in itsbrieffiled

on

6

December

2006.79

69. First, the Chamber observes that under article 21(1)(c) of the Statute, where

articles21(1)(a)and(b)donotapply,itshallapplygeneralprinciplesoflawderived

by theCourt fromnational laws.Havingsaid that, theChamberconsiders that the

Court is notboundby the decisions of national courts on evidentiary matters.

Therefore,themerefactthataCongolesecourthasruledontheunlawfulnessofthe

search and seizure conducted by the national authorities cannot be considered

binding on the Court. This is clear from article 69(8) which states that [w]hen

77RequestforLeavetoReplytoProsecutionsFurtherResponse,ICC01/0401/06729.78ICC01/0401/06678.79

The

Chamber

notes

that

the

Defence

discussed

this

issue

in

its

Defence

Brief

on

matters

the

Defence

raised during the confirmation hearingLegal Observations, filed on 7December2006, ICC01/0401/06764,para.51.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 29/157 SL PT


30/157


decidingontherelevanceoradmissibilityofevidencecollectedbyaState,theCourt

shallnotruleontheapplicationoftheStatesnationallaw.80

70. As the Defence Request isbased on article69(7) of the Rome Statute,81 the

Chamber must determine whether the evidence was obtained in violation of

internationallyrecognisedhumanrights.

71. According to the documents filedby the Defence, the search and seizure at

[REDACTED]shomewasconductedbytheCongoleseauthoritiesaspartofnational

criminalproceedingsbroughtagainst [REDACTED] for counterfeitingmoney.82No

evidence hasbeenbrought to support the Defence allegation that the search was

motivatedbydiscriminationonpoliticalorethnicgrounds83orthatit istherefore

notdifficulttosuspectthat the localproceedingsweremerelyadiversionarytactic,

which were used to justify the provision of the materials in question to the

Prosecution.84

72. However,indeterminingwhethertherehasbeenaviolationofinternationally

recognised human rights, it should be noted that, in its judgement on the

unlawfulnessofthesearchandseizure,the[REDACTED]Courtreliedforitsfinding

onasingleprecedentwhich, inaddition tobeingmore than20yearsold, isbased,

noton internationalhumanrightstreatiesasclaimedbyCounselfortheDefence in

theabovementionedappeal,85butonabreachofarticle33oftheCongoleseCriminal

80 According to one commentator on the Rome Statute, There is therefore a close linkbetween

paragraphs

7

and

8.

Whereas

a

violation

of

internationally

recognized

human

rights

in

principle

qualifiesasagroundforexclusionofevidence,aviolationofnationallawsonevidencedoesnot.ThereasonforthatisthattheCourtshouldnotbeburdenedwithdecisionsonmattersofpurelynationallaw.(BEHRENS,H.J.,TheTrialProceedings, inTheInternationalCriminalCourt:TheMakingoftheRomeStatute,TheHague,KluwerLawInternational,1999,p.246).81 Under this provision, evidence obtainedby means of a violation of the Statute or internationallyrecognisedhumanrightsisnotadmissibleifa)theviolationcastssubstantialdoubtonthereliabilityof the evidence; orb)the admission of the evidence wouldbe antithetical to and would seriouslydamagetheintegrityoftheproceedings.82 In Annex1 of document ICC01/0401/06726Conf, filedby the Prosecution, it is stated that thesearchandseizurewasconductedinthecontextofcriminalproceedingsformurderandtorture.83

ICC

01/04

01/06

674,

para.

22.

84ICC01/0401/06674,para.28.85ICC01/0401/06674Anx2.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 30/157 SL PT


31/157


Procedure Code which provides that [TRANSLATION] [H]ouse searches shallbe

conductedinthepresenceoftheallegedperpetratoroftheoffenceandthepersonin

whosehomeorresidencetheyareconducted,unlesstheyarenotpresentorrefuseto

attend. Accordingly, [TRANSLATION] where the seizure of the disputed item was

conductedintheabsenceofthepersonconcernedwho,beingunderarrest,wasatall

timesavailabletotheprosecutingauthoritiesandcouldthereforehavebeentakenat

anytimetothepremisessearched,suchinterferencehasbeenconsideredunlawful.

73. Thus,inordertodeterminewhethertherehasbeenanillegalityamountingto

aviolationofinternationallyrecognisedhumanrightsormerelyan infringementof

domestic rulesofprocedure,guidance shouldbe sought from internationalhuman

rightsjurisprudence.

74. TherighttoprivacyisenshrinedinArticle17oftheInternationalCovenanton

Civil andPoliticalRights, Article 8 of theEuropeanConvention onHumanRights and

Article 11 of the InterAmericanConvention onHumanRights. In addition to having

ratifiedthevariousinternationalhumanrights instruments,manyAfricancountries

havealsoenshrinedtherighttoprivacyintheirconstitutions.86

75. According to these international instruments, the right to privacy and to

protection against unlawful interference and infringement of privacy is a

fundamental internationally recognised right. However, it cannotbe viewed as an

absoluterightinsofarasthesesameinstrumentsprovideindicationsofwhatmaybe

consideredasalawfulinterferencewiththefundamentalrighttoprivacy.87

86Seearticle31oftheConstitutionoftheDemocraticRepublicoftheCongo,adoptedon18February2006.Nosearchwhatsoevermaybeauthorisedexceptasprovidedbylaw.ItshouldalsobenotedthatCongoratifiedtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsin1983.87InCamenzindv.Switzerland,forexample,theECHRdecidedthatStatesmayconsideritnecessarytoresort tomeasuressuchas searchesof residentialpremisesand seizures inorder toobtainphysicalevidence of certain offences. The Court will assess whether the reasons adduced tojustify suchmeasureswererelevantandsufficientandwhethertheaforementionedproportionalityprinciplehas

been

adhered

to.

[]

the

Court

must

consider

the

particular

circumstances

of

each

case

in

order

to

determine whether, in the concrete case, the interference in question was proportionate to the aimpursued.(Judgementof16December1997,ApplicationNo.21353/93,para.45).

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 31/157 SL PT


32/157


76. Accordingly,inconsideringthereasonsadvancedinsupportofthesearchand

seizure conducted at [REDACTED]s home, the Chamber recalls that at the time,

criminal proceedings were being taken against [REDACTED] for counterfeiting

money and, potentially, for murder and torture.88 It appears that the process was

initiated on the orders of a member of the Office of the State Prosecutor of the

TribunaldeGrandeInstanceofBuniainabidtogatherevidenceforthepurposeofthe

criminal proceedings. Since thejudgement of the [REDACTED] Court contains no

other indication, it appears that the order to conduct the search and seizure was

givenby the competent authority in order to gather evidence for the purpose of

lawfulcriminalproceedings.

77. Thereisnothinginthiscasetoindicatethatthenationalauthoritiesallegedly

usedforce,threatsoranyotherformofabusetogainaccessto[REDACTED]shome.

In fact, theOTP investigatorwhoattended theseizurepointedout inhisstatement

that[REDACTED]swifewaspresentatthetimeofthesearchandseizureandwas

present throughout the operation.89 This statement is therefore consistent with the

factthattherehasbeennocomplaintforimproperinterferencebyforce.

78. Asaresult,theChamberfinds,asstatedinthe[REDACTED]Courtsdecision

based solely on article 33 of the Congolese Criminal Procedure Code, that the

unlawfulnessofthesearchandseizureconducted in[REDACTED]sabsencewasa

breachofaprocedural rule,butcannotbeconsideredsoseriousas toamount toa

violationofinternationallyrecognisedhumanrights.

79. TheChamberwillnowdeterminewhether thesearchandseizureconducted

at [REDACTED]s home adhered to the principle of proportionality. Recent ECHR

judgements confirm that proportionality is one of the requirements for lawful

interference with the right to privacy. InMiailhe, for example, the ECHR observed

that[t]heseizuresmadeontheapplicantspremiseswerewholesaleand,aboveall,

88

This

is

what

appears

to

emerge

from

the

Statement

of

[REDACTED]

see

Annex

1

of

document

ICC

01/0401/06726Conf,para.8.89ICC01/0401/06726ConfAnx1,para.11.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 32/157 SL PT


33/157


indiscriminate, to such an extent that the customs considered several thousand

documents to be of no relevance to their inquiries and returned them to the

applicants.90For this reason, it found that theprincipleofproportionalityhadnot

beenadheredtoandthat,asaresult,therighttoprivacyhadbeeninfringedandthat

thecoerciveactionwasunlawful.

80. The Chamber considers that in the instant case, it is clear from the list of

documents and items seizedby the Congolese authorities and handed over to the

Prosecutions investigator that hundreds of documents were confiscated, including

correspondence,photographs, invitations, legislation,reports,diariesandpersonal

information.91 There is no means of determining the relevance, if any, of the

documentsanditemsseizedfrom[REDACTED]shometotheCongoleseauthorities.

However,theinformationbeforetheChambersuggeststhattheProsecutionseemed

just as interested, perhaps even more interested, in the items in question92 and it

appears that the Prosecutions presence influenced the conduct of the search and

seizure.

81. Accordingly,theChamberfindsthatthesearchandtheseizureofhundredsofdocumentsand itemspertaining to theSituation in theDRC,conducted inorder to

gather evidence for the purpose of domestic criminal proceedings infringed the

principleofproportionalitysanctionedby theECHR, first,because the interference

didnotappeartobeproportionatetotheobjectivesoughtbythenationalauthorities

and secondly, because of the indiscriminate nature of the search and seizure

involving

hundreds

of

items.93

82. Accordingly, although all violations of procedural rules do not necessarily

result in a violation of internationally recognised human rights, in this case, the

Chamberfindsthat,inlightofECHRjurisprudence,theinfringementoftheprinciple

90Miailhev.France,Judgementof25February1993,ApplicationNo.12661/87,para.39.91ICC01/0401/06659ConfAnx3.92

Statement

of

[REDACTED],

ICC

01/04

01/06

726

Conf

Anx1,

para.

11.

93TheChambernotesthatonly70ofthehundredsofItemsSeizedwereincludedintheProsecutionAmendedListofEvidence.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 33/157 SL PT


34/157


of proportionality canbe characterised as a violation of internationally recognised

humanrights.

83. Having found that the Items Seized were obtained without regard to the

principle of proportionality and in violation of internationally recognised human

rights, the Chamber must now determine whether such a violation canjustify the

exclusionoftheItemsSeized.

84. TheChamberobserves thatarticle69(7)of theStatute rejects thenotion that

evidenceprocuredinviolationofinternationallyrecognisedhumanrightsshouldbe

automatically excluded. Consequently, thejudges have the discretion to seek an

appropriatebalancebetweentheStatutesfundamentalvaluesineachconcretecase.94

85. Thefirstlimbofthealternativeembodiedinarticle69(7)(a)oftheStatutedeals

withtheimpactoftheunlawfulmethodusedtogatherevidenceonthereliabilityof

suchevidence,becausesomeformsofillegalityorviolationsofhumanrightscreate

the danger that the evidence, such as a confession obtained from a person during

interrogation,maynotbetruthfulorreliableasitmayhavebeenprofferedasaresult

of the duress arising from the circumstances of the violation.95 However, in the

presentcase, theChamberholds theview that the infringementof theprincipleof

proportionality did not affect the reliability of the evidence seized from

[REDACTED]shomeonthegroundthathadthesearchandseizurebeenconducted

94 According to some commentators, some delegations wanted to exclude evidence obtainedby

means

of

a

violation

of

human

rights,

but

this

formulation

was

regarded

as

too

broad.

The

drafters

of

theStatuteopted foranarrower formula,underwhich theCourtwillhave todistinguishbetweenminor infringementsofprocedural safeguardsandheavierviolations.Consequently,violationsofspecificnationalrulesontheconductofaninterrogationorthelikewerenotmattersuponwhichtheCourt should base a decision on exclusion. (BEHRENS HJ., The Trial Proceedings, in TheinternationalCriminalCourt,TheMaking of theRome Statute, The Hague, Kluwer Law international,1999, p. 246). Paragraph 7, on the other hand, specifically stipulates specific predicate eventsregardingthemannerofcollectionoftheevidenceanddetrimentaleffectsonthetrialprocesswhich,ifthey are found to exist,justify exclusion. Nevertheless, the determination of the existence of thosepredicate events or effects necessitates the exercise of evaluation and, thereby, discretionby theCourt.Piragoff,DonaldK,inCommentaryontheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt.Otto

Triffterer

(ed.),

Nomos

Verlagsgesellschaft/Baden

Baden,

1999,

p.

914).

95Ibid.,p.914,para.76.SeealsoDELMASMARTY,M.,SPENCER,J.R.,EuropeanCriminalProcedures,CambridgeUniversityPress,2002,p.607.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 34/157 SL PT


35/157


in fulladherence totheprincipleofproportionality, thecontentoftheItemsSeized

wouldnothavebeendifferent.

86. Thesecond limbof thealternativeembodied inarticle69(7)(b)of theStatute

does not pertain to the reliability of the evidence seized; rather, it concerns the

adverseeffectthattheadmissionofsuchevidencecouldhaveontheintegrityofthe

proceedings.TheChamberrecallsthat inthe fightagainst impunity, itmustensure

anappropriatebalancebetweentherightsoftheaccusedandtheneedtorespondto

victimsandtheinternationalcommunitysexpectations.Accordingtoacomparative

study of various European legal systems, the issue of the admissibility of illegally

obtainedevidenceraisescontradictoryandcomplexmattersofprinciple.96Although

noconsensushasemergedonthisissueininternationalhumanrightsjurisprudence,

the majority view is that only a serious human rights violation can lead to the

exclusionofevidence.97

87. Regardingtherulesapplicablebeforetheinternationalcriminaltribunalsand

theirjurisprudence,thegenerallyacceptedsolutionistoprovidefortheexclusionof

evidencebyjudges only in cases in which very seriousbreaches have occurred,leadingtosubstantialunreliabilityoftheevidencepresented.98

88. InTheProsecutorv.RadoslavBranin,99the InternationalCriminalTribunalfor

the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) undertook the same analysis that the Chamber is

96Ibid.,pp.603610.97

The

ECHR

found

that

the

assessment

of

evidence

falls

essentially

under

national

legislation.

In

Schenkv.Switzerland,itdecidedthatitcannotexcludeasamatterofprincipleandintheabstractthatunlawfullyobtainedevidence[]maybeadmissible,andheldthatithadtoascertainonlywhetherthetrialasawholewasfair(Judgementof12July1988,ApplicationNo.10862/84,para.46).SeealsoSaundersv.UnitedKingdom,Judgementof17December1996,ApplicationNo.19187/91;Khanv.UnitedKingdom,Judgement of 12May 2000, Application No.35394/97; andVanMechelen and others v. TheNetherlands,Judgementof23April1997,ApplicationNo.21363/93.Thisreasoningwasalsofollowedby the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights in the IvcherBronstein case,Judgement, 6February2001.Inthesamevein,seetheCastilloPez,LoayzaTamayoandPaniaguacases.98 ZAPPALA, S.,HumanRights in InternationalCriminal Proceedings, Oxford University Press, 2003,p.149:Theapproachadoptedsofarhasbeentoadmitanyevidencethatmayhaveprobativevalue,

unless

the

admission

of

such

evidence

is

outweighed

by

the

need

to

ensure

a

fair

trial.

99TheProsecutorv.RadoslavBranin,CaseNo.IT9936T,DecisionontheDefenceObjectiontoInterceptEvidence,3October2003.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 35/157 SL PT


36/157


undertaking in the present case, taking into consideration the views of legal

commentators, comparative law and thejurisprudence of human rights courts.100

Relying on the precedent established in The Prosecutor v.Delali,101 the ICTY Trial

Chamber recalled that it would constitute a dangerous obstacle to the

administrationofjustice ifevidencewhich isrelevantandofprobativevaluecould

notbeadmittedmerelybecauseofaminorbreachofproceduralruleswhichtheTrial

Chamberisnotboundtoapply.102Havingdeterminedthattheevidenceatissuewas

relevanttothecase,theBraninTrialChamberadmittedtheevidence.

89. Accordingly,theChamberendorsesthehumanrightsandICTYjurisprudence

whichfocusesonthebalancetobeachievedbetweentheseriousnessoftheviolation

andthefairnessofthetrialasawhole.

90. Hence, for thepurposeof theconfirmationhearing, theChamberdecides to

admit the Items Seized into evidence. Moreover, the Chamber recalls the limited

scopeofthishearing,bearinginmindthattheadmissionofevidenceatthisstageis

without prejudice to the Trial Chambers exercise of its functions and powers to

makea finaldeterminationas to theadmissibilityandprobativevalueof the ItemsSeizedfrom[REDACTED]shome.

100Thepointwasmadethatadmittingillegallyobtainedinterceptsintoevidencedoesnot,inandofitself,necessarilyamounttoseriouslydamagingtheintegrityoftheproceedings.(Ibid.,para.61).101 The Prosecutor v.Delali et al., Case No.IT9621,Decision on theMotion of the Prosecutionfor theAdmissibilityofEvidence,19January1998.102TheProsecutorv.RadoslavBranin,CaseNo.IT9936T,DecisionontheDefenceObjectiontoInterceptEvidence, 3October 2003, paras.6367. See also the decision rendered orallybyJudge May on2February2000inTheProsecutorv.Kordi andCerkez,CaseNo.IT9514/2T,p.13694ofthetranscriptofthehearingsinwhichhefindsthateveniftheillegalitywasestablished[][w]ehavecometothe

conclusion

that

[]

evidence

obtained

by

eavesdropping

on

an

enemys

telephone

calls

during

the

courseofawariscertainlynotwithintheconductwhichisreferredtoinRule95.Itsnotantitheticaltoandcertainlywouldnotseriouslydamagetheintegrityoftheproceedings.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 36/157 SL PT


37/157


38/157


39/157


iv) Anonymoushearsayevidenceandaccessibilitytothesources

ofinformationcontainedincertainitemsofevidence

99. The Defence submits that it is unable to have access to the sources which

providedtheinformationcontainedinanumberofitemsincludedintheProsecution

ListofEvidencesuchas:i)theredactedversionsofwitnessstatements,transcriptsofinterviews,notesandreportsofwitnessinterviewspreparedbyOTPinvestigators;ii)

summariesofevidence;iii)certainpartsofKristinePedutostestimony;iv)reportsby

nongovernmentalorganisations;v)emails;andvi)pressarticles.Intheviewofthe

Defence,theseitemsareanonymoushearsay,anditisimpossiblefortheDefenceto

ascertain the truthfulness and authenticity of the information therein contained.

Accordingly,

it

requests

that

the

Chamber

rule

this

evidence

inadmissible

or,

in

the

alternative,thatonlylimitedprobativevaluebeattachedtoit.110

100. Underarticle69(4)oftheStatute,theChamberhasthediscretiontoruleonthe

admissibilityofanyevidence,taking intoaccount, interalia,theprobativevalueof

theevidenceandanyprejudicethatsuchevidencemaycausetoafairtrialortoafair

evaluationofthetestimonyofawitness.

101. TheChamberalsonotesthatthereisnothingintheStatuteortheRuleswhich

expresslyprovidesthatevidencewhichcanbeconsideredhearsayfromanonymous

sources is inadmissibleper se. Inaddition, theAppealsChamberhasaccepted that,

for the purpose of the confirmation hearing, it is possible to use certain items of

evidence which may contain anonymous hearsay, such as redacted versions of

witnessstatements.111

102. Furthermore,ECHRjurisprudenceevincesthattheEuropeanConventiondoes

not preclude reliance at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings on sources

such as anonymous informants. Nevertheless, the ECHR specifies that the

subsequentuseofanonymousstatementsassufficientevidencetofoundaconviction

110 Defence Brief on matters the Defence raised during the confirmation hearing Legal

Observations,

ICC

01/04

01/06

758

Conf.,

para.

49;

ICC

01

04

01

06

T

41

EN[22Nov2006Edited],

p.

31,lines1925.111ICC01/0401/06774.

ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007 39/157 SL PT


40/157


is a different matter in that it canbe irreconcilable with Article 6 of the European

Convention,particularlyiftheconvictionisbasedtoadecisiveextentonanonymous

statements.112

103. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that objections pertaining to the use of

anonymoushearsayevidencedonotgototheadmissibilityoftheevidence,butonly

toitsprobativevalue.

104. In its Second Decision on the Prosecution Requests and Amended Requests for

RedactionsunderRule81,theChamberheld,inthisrespect:

that,withoutprioradequatedisclosuretoThomasLubangaDyilo,theProsecution

cannotrelyonthosepartsofthedocuments,witnessstatementsandtranscriptsofwitnessinterviewsforwhichredactionsareauthorisedinthepresentdecision;andthat the probative value of the unredacted parts of the said documents, witnessstatementsandtranscriptsofwitnessinterviewsmaybediminishedasaresultoftheredactionsproposedbytheProsecutionandauthorisedbytheChamber.113

105. Moreover, in the Decision concerning the Prosecution Proposed Summary of

Evidence,theChamberheldthat:

in

relation

to

the

summa