ICC Legal Tools

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

ICC Legal Tools Trial Chamber II Before: Judge Florence Rita Arrey, Presiding Emile Francis Short Robert Fremr Registrar: Adama Dieng Date: 20 April 2011 THE PROSECUTOR v. • Jean-Bosco UWINKINDI Case No. ICTR-200l-75-Rule 11 bis PROSECUTOR'S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO: (1) Defence Response to the Prosecutor's Request for the Referral ofthe case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda Pursuant to Rule 11 bis ofthe Rules of Procedure and Evidence; (2) Amicus Curiae Briefof Human Rights Watch in opposition to Rule 11 bis Transfer; (3) Amicus Curiae Brief ofthe International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) Pursuant to Rule 74 (Rules of Procedure and Evidence); and (4) International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA) Amicus Curiae Brief • The Prosecution The Defence Hassan Bubacar Jallow Claver Sindayigaya James J. Arguin lain Edwards George Mugwanya Bettina Spilker Inneke Onsea Abdoulaye Seye Francois Nsanzuwera • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SUBMISSIONS 3 A. Double jeopardy principles are inapplicable because the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated in deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction 3 B. Referral pursuant to Rule 11 bis requires a Trial Chamber to be satisfied that the Accused will receive a fair trial in the national jurisdiction; this standard is necessarily prospective and, as such, based on probabilities, not certainties 6 C. Rwanda's judiciary is independent and fully capable of securing the Accused's right to a fair trial, including his right to the • presumption of innocence 8 1. Defence allegations of judicial corruption are wildly exaggerated.....9 a. The Defence distorts the Ombudsman's 2008 Report 9 b. The Defence twists Chief Justice Cyanzayire's statement 11 n. Defence allegations of political interference are unsubstantiated 13 a. No evidence links Rwanda to the alleged assassinations 13 b. No evidence supports Defence allegations of political interference with judicial decisions 15 c. ChiefJustice Busingye's alleged statement about political interference is false, and the statement attributed • to the Bizimungu trial judge is unsubstantiated 20 ui. Rwanda extends the presumption of innocence to all accused 23 D. Rwanda has a proven track record of cooperation with defence teams from the ICTR and other jurisdictions, and its Transfer Law provides defence teams and witnesses with broad immunity from arrest and prosecution 26 -- 1 -- 1. Rwanda cooperates with defence teams and their investigations; Defence allegations of official interference with defence investigations are unsubstantiated 27 11. The immunities available under Rwanda's Transfer Law render the nameless Defence witnesses' alleged fears unrealistic; and, in any event, there are readily-available alternatives for live testimony to address even these unrealistic fears 33 E. Rule 11 bis's monitoring and revocation provisions are meaningful safeguards to the Accused's right to a fair trial. 38 CONCLUSION 42 • ADDENDUM • -- 11 -- ~ITl_ INTRODUCTION 1. The Defence and its amici have submitted nearly 2000 pages of materials in opposition to the Prosecutor's application to refer this case to Rwanda for trial. Many of these submissions have been heard before in connection with the prior round of Rule 11 bis proceedings and already have been addressed in the Prosecutor's initial application and Rwanda's amicus curiae brief. Additional submissions relating to an indigent accused's ability to secure free legal assistance and present a full defence in connection with any referred case will be addressed in the amici curiae brief to be filed by the Kigali Bar Association. 2. This consolidated response will not retread the same ground. Instead, the Prosecutor submits this consolidated response to address two threshold issues • raised by the Defence. First, contrary to the Defence submissions, double jeopardy principles do not bar referraL In deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction, the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated by the higher court and, thus, are no barrier to referral. Second, the standard for referral under Rule 11 bis provides, in relevant part, that the "Trial Chamber shall satisfy itself that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned ...." Contrary to the Defence submissions, the rule does not say or in any way suggest that referral can only be granted if it is shown - by proof beyond reasonable doubt - that the accused will receive a fair trial in the courts of the State concerned. Indeed, because the rule's focus is on a trial that has not yet occurred, it must be interpreted with reference to likelihoods or probabilities, not absolute certainties or • proof beyond reasonable doubt. 3. In addition, the Prosecutor submits this consolidated response to address three common themes running through all of the opposing briefs. First, contrary to the Defence submissions, Rwanda's judiciary is free and independent. The Defence and its amici's attempts to portray it as a bastion of political influence and corruption are grounded on outright falsehoods, gross misrepresentations, and half­ truths. Second, the broad immunity conferred on defence teams and witnesses under Rwanda's Transfer Law renders the Defence and its amici's professed fears of -- 1 _. arrest and prosecution under the Genocide Ideology Law unrealistic. The Chamber should not suspend reality by crediting subjective fears of arrest and prosecution where no realistic threat of arrest and prosecution exists. And, even if these subjective fears were credited, readily-available alternatives exist for the Defence in any referred case to obtain live witness testimony. Third, the safeguards for monitoring and revocation of referral provided by Rule 11 bis are not toothless defenders of an Accused's fair trial rights. Indeed, recent amendments to Rule 11 bis give these provisions even more bite by expanding the Referral Chamber's authority proprio motu to appoint monitors and initiate revocation. 4. Before turning to the merits of these issues, however, there is one irony in the Defence submissions that bears particular note. The Defence and its amici have • liberally criticized the so-called "political climate" in Rwanda as being hostile toward free and open debate. Yet, in these proceedings, it has been the Defence that has attempted to stifle free and open debate on the merits of the Prosecutor's application. The Defence, for instance, opposes Rwanda's invitation to the Chamber to conduct a site visit to see first-hand the conditions under which the Accused would be tried and, if convicted, serve his sentence. The Defence offers no reasoned explanation for its opposition; it merely says a site visit would be a "waste of time." 1 5. Additionally, in contrast to the Prosecutor's assent to amici submissions both supporting and opposing referral, the Defence has objected to amici it perceives as supporting referral, including the Kigali Bar Association. The Defence also opposed • Rwanda's attempt to file a limited response to correct false allegations that the Defence lodged against Rwanda's judiciary. Regrettably, the Chamber acquiesced to the Defence request to prevent Rwanda from filing a response. It should not acquiesce to the Defence attempt to prevent the Chamber from conducting a site visit, particularly where many of Defence and its amici's submissions are premised on unsubstantiated and amorphous allegations of an allegedly hostile "political I The Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis, Defence Response to the Prosecutor's Request for the Referral of the Case of Jean Uwinkindi to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11 bis ofthe Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 14 March 2011, para. 429 (Defence Response). .. 2 .. climate" in Rwanda. The Chamber should see for itself that no such environment exists in today's Rwanda. SUBMISSIONS A. Double jeopardy principles are inapplicable because the Accused's Gacaca Court convictions were vacated in deference to the Tribunal's superior jurisdiction. 6. Contrary to Defence submissions, double jeopardy principles do not bar referral of this case.s In deference to this Tribunal's superior jurisdiction, the Accused's Gacaca court convictions were vacated by the higher court, the Gacaca Courts of Appeal, and, thus, are no barrier to referraL 7. Under Rwandan law, Gacaca proceedings are not initiated by the Prosecutor • General, but by the Gacaca courts themselves.s The Gacaca courts, which are organized both on the administrative level of the cell and the sector.! are comprised of Gacaca lay judges or Inyangamugayo. These judges are authorized by law to carry out investigations, initiate prosecutions, conduct trials, and impose sentences." 8. Gacaca prosecutions are initiated through an information gathering process that takes place at each cell within a sector. Within each cell, lists of persons killed during the genocide are complied, together with lists of the suspected perpetrators of these crimes." Based on these lists, the Gacaca lay judges of the cell place the accused into one of the categories set out in the Gacaca Law, which varies according • to the type of crime committed and the extent of the accused's alleged 2 Defence Response, paras. 32-75. 3 Articles 34, 36, 37 and 39 of the Organic Law No. 16/2004 of 19 June 2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, Official Gazette, Special No. of 19 June 2004 (as modified and complemented by Organic Law No. 28/2006 of 27 June 2006, Organic Law No. 10/2007 of 1 March 2007 and Organic Law No. 13/2008 of 19 May 2008) (Gacaca Law) 4 Each sector is composed of several cells. Every sector has a Gacaca court, but also every cell has its Gacaca Court. 5 Articles 34, 36, 37 and 39 of the Gacaca Law. 6 Article 33 of the Gacaca Law.
Recommended publications
  • Middlesex University Research Repository an Open Access Repository Of
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Pohlod, Katarina (2017) United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals: necessary or avoidable? An analysis of the different options for the residual functions of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/22756/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Africa and the International Criminal Court: Behind the Backlash and Toward Future Solutions
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bowdoin College Bowdoin College Bowdoin Digital Commons Honors Projects Student Scholarship and Creative Work 2017 Africa and the International Criminal Court: Behind the Backlash and Toward Future Solutions Marisa O'Toole Bowdoin College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/honorsprojects Part of the African Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation O'Toole, Marisa, "Africa and the International Criminal Court: Behind the Backlash and Toward Future Solutions" (2017). Honors Projects. 64. https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/honorsprojects/64 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship and Creative Work at Bowdoin Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of Bowdoin Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AFRICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT Behind the Backlash and Toward Future Solutions An Honors Paper for the Department of Government and Legal Studies By Marisa O’Toole Bowdoin College, 2017 ©2017 Marisa O’Toole Introduction Marisa O’Toole Introduction Following the end of World War II, members of international society acknowledged its obligation to address international crimes of mass barbarity. Determined to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities, members took action to create a system of international individual criminal legal accountability. Beginning with the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes trials in 19451 and continuing with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 19932 and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 19943, the international community commenced its ad hoc prosecution of individuals for the commission of international crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Clippings
    SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE Aerial view of Freetown business district PRESS CLIPPINGS Enclosed are clippings of local and international press on the Special Court and related issues obtained by the Outreach and Public Affairs Office as at: Thursday, 29 November 2012 Press clips are produced Monday through Friday. Any omission, comment or suggestion, please contact Martin Royston-Wright Ext 7217 2 Local News Charles Taylor May Be Freed / The Nation Page 3 International News Former Liberian President Taylor Should be a "Free Man" – Judge / Reuters Pages 4-5 UN Tribunal Acquits Kosovo Ex-PM of War Crimes / Agence France Presse Pages 6-8 ICTR Transfers Another Genocide Case to Rwanda / The New Times Pages 9-10 German Police 'Just Missed' Most Wanted Rwandan Genocide Suspect / Hirondelle News Agency Page 11 ICTY Upholds Serbian Nationalist Leader's Contempt of Court Sentence / RAPSI Page 12 3 The Nation Thursday, 29 November 2012 4 Reuters Tuesday, 27 November 2012 Former Liberian president Taylor should be a "free man" – judge By Sara Webb Former Liberian President Charles Taylor attends his trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone based in Leidschendam, outside The Hague, May 16, 2012. REUTERS/Evert-Jan Daniels/Pool Justice Malick Sow's criticism of how the trial was conducted and of the final decision-making process are likely to be seized on by Taylor's defence lawyers as part of his appeal. Taylor, 64, was the first head of state convicted by an international court since the trials of Nazis after World War Two.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Independence in Rwanda Sam Rugege Supreme Court of Rwanda
    Global Business & Development Law Journal Volume 19 Issue 2 Symposium Judicial Independence and Legal Article 6 Infrastructure: Essential Partners for Economic Development 1-1-2007 Judicial Independence in Rwanda Sam Rugege Supreme Court of Rwanda Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Sam Rugege, Judicial Independence in Rwanda, 19 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 411 (2006). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe/vol19/iss2/6 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Global Business & Development Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judicial Independence in Rwanda Sam Rugege* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRO DUCTION ............................................................................................. 4 11 A. Institutional Independence .................................................................... 412 B. PersonalIndependence ......................................................................... 413 II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 414 III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN RWANDA ........................................................................ 416 IV. MEASURES TO PROMOTE
    [Show full text]
  • Denying Genocide Or Denying Free Speech? a Case Study of the Application of Rwanda’S Genocide Denial Laws Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen
    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 12 | Issue 2 Article 3 Spring 2014 Denying Genocide or Denying Free Speech? A Case Study of the Application of Rwanda’s Genocide Denial Laws Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen, Denying Genocide or Denying Free Speech? A Case Study of the Application of Rwanda’s Genocide Denial Laws, 12 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 191 (2014). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol12/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Vol. 12:2] Yakaré-Oulé Jansen Denying Genocide or Denying Free Speech? A Case Study of the Application of Rwanda’s Genocide Denial Laws Yakaré-Oulé (Nani) Jansen * I. INTRODUCTION ¶1 Rwanda is widely considered a poster child for post conflict development. Since the 1994 genocide, in which an estimated 800,000 people lost their lives, 1 the country has gone through a rapid process of socio-economic development. In the last 10 years, Rwanda’s GDP growth has averaged 7.4 %, nearly double the regional average. 2 Rwanda is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that is on track to meet its health related millennium development goals 3 and the only country in the world where women hold a majority of seats in the national legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Harris Institute International Council
    HARRIS INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL Elizabeth (Betsy) Andersen Betsy Andersen is Executive Director of the World Justice Project, leading its global efforts to advance the rule of law through research, strategic convenings, and support for innovative programs. Ms. Andersen has more than 20 years of experience in the international legal arena, having served previously as Director of the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative (ABA ROLI) and its Europe and Eurasia Division (previously known as the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative or ABA CEELI), as Executive Director of the American Society of International Law, and as Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central Asia Division. Ms. Andersen is an expert in international human rights law, international criminal law, and transitional justice, and she has taught these subjects as an adjunct professor at the American University Washington College of Law. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of Williams College as well as on the governing and advisory boards of several international non-profit organizations. Ms. Andersen began her legal career in clerkships with Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and with Judge Georges Abi-Saab of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Honorable Louise Arbour The Honorable Louise Arbour recently completed her mandate as the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for International Migration. She has also held other senior positions at the United Nations, including High Commissioner for Human Rights (2004- 2008) and Chief Prosecutor for The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (1996 to 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Assembly of States Parties 23 January 2014
    International Criminal Court ICC-ASP/12/INF.1 Distr.: General Assembly of States Parties 23 January 2014 English, French and Spanish only Twelfth session The Hague, 20-28 November 2013 [DRAFT] Delegations to the Twelfth session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The Hague, 20-28 November 2013 Délégations présentes à la douzième session de l’Assemblée des États Parties au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale La Haye, 20-28 novembre 2013 Delegaciones asistentes al duodécimo período de sesiones de la Asamblea de los Estados Partes en el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional La Haya, 20-28 de noviembre de 2013 I1-EFS-230114 ICC-ASP/12/INF.1 Content/ Table des matières/ Índice Page I. States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court/ États Parties au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale/ Estados Partes en el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional .....................3 II. Observer States/ États observateurs/ Estados observadores................................................................................................31 III. States invited to be present during the work of the Assembly/ Les États invités à se faire représenter aux travaux de l’Assemblée/ Los Estados invitados a que asistieran a los trabajos de la Asamblea.......................39 IV. Entities, intergovernmental organizations and other entities/ Entités, organisations intergouvernementales et autres entités/ Entidades, organizaciones intergubernamentales y otras entidades ..........................41 V. Non-governmental organizations/ Organisations non gouvernementales/ Organizaciones no gubernamentales.........................................................................43 I1-EFS-230114 2 ICC-ASP/12/INF.1 I. States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court/ États Parties au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale/ Estados Partes en el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional AFGHANISTAN Representative H.E.
    [Show full text]
  • ICTR NEWSLETTER November 2004
    ICTR NEWSLETTER November 2004 Published by the External Relations and Strategic Planning Section – Immediate Office of the Registrar United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda SPECIALSPECIAL EDITIONEDITION International Criminal Tribunal Prosecutors Conclude Conference in Arusha On 27 November, 2004, the Prosecutors also calls upon national and international In This Issue: from the International Criminal Tribunal authorities to assist the tribunals by Joint Statement of the Prosecutors ..................2 for Rwanda (ICTR), the International arresting and transferring indicted fugitives Prosecutor Jallow’s Welcome Address ........2 Criminal Tribunal for the former such as Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Challenges of International Criminal Justice .4 Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Ante Gotovina, Félicien Kabuga and Challenges of Conducting Investigations of International Crimes ................................................6 Sierra Leone (SCSL) and from the Charles Taylor for trial. General Considerations on the Transfer of International Criminal Court (ICC) Cases and Legal transplants ...............................9 concluded three days of discussions During the three days of meetings in Challenges of International Criminal Justice10 about how to better prepare themselves Arusha, the prosecutors discussed a wide Challenges of the Administration of for meeting the challenges of delivering range of issues they face in bringing to International Criminal Tribunals .......................15 international criminal
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal
    THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: DISCRETION, LEGITIMACY, AND THE POLITICS OF JUSTICE THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FARID MOHAMMED RASHID ROYAL DOCKS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND LAW EAST LONDON UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 2016 i ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………..v. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………...vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………..viii INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 1.1. The International Criminal Court’s Overview……………………………………....29 1.1.1. Drafting the Statute: ………………………………………………………….29 1.1.2. Meaningful Justice and the Need for Prosecutorial Discretion …………….34 1.1.3. Court Structure………………………………………………………………...43 1.2. The ICC Prosecutor…………………………………………………………………....45 1.2.1. Decision-Making Process of the Prosecutor…………………………………….45 1.2.1.1. Preliminary Examination’s Stage…………………………………………54 1.2.1.2. Investigation’s Stage……………………………………………………...57 1.2.1.3. Prosecution’s Stage……………………………………………………….58 1.2.2. The ICC Prosecutor Discretion………………………………………………….59 1.2.2.1. Investigation……………………………………………………………...60 1.2.2.1.1. Proprio Motu Decisions: Article 15 (1) and (3)………………60 1.2.2.1.2. Referrals……………………………………………………….63 1.2.2.2. Prosecution……………………………………………………………….66 1.2.2.2.1. Selecting Cases………………………………………………..66 CHAPTER TWO: THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS AND THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE PROSECUTOR 2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….69 2.2. Post-World War II Tribunals………………………………………………………….71 2.2.1. Prosecutor’s Power under the Nuremberg Charter…………………………….73 2.2.2. The Power of the Prosecutor of the Tokyo Tribunal…………………………..79 2.3. Post-Cold War Tribunals………………………………………………………………84 2.3.1. The Legal Framework of the Office of the Prosecution under ICTY and ICTR Statutes……………………………………………………………………………….85 2.3.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Communiqué of the 61St Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
    AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE UNIÃO AFRICANA African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights Commission Africaine des Droits de l’Homme & des Peuples 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region, P. O. Box 673, Banjul, The Gambia Tel: (220) 4410505 / 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504 E-mail: [email protected]; Web www.achpr.org Final Communiqué of the 61st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Banjul, The Gambia 1st – 15 November 2017 1 1. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) held its 61st Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia, from 1st to 15 November 2017. 2. The Commission celebrated on this occasion the 30th Anniversary of its operationalisation which coincided with the Session. 3. The opening ceremony was graced by the presence of a Delegation of the host country of the Commission led by His Excellency Mr Adama Barrow, President of the Republic of The Gambia, who declared the Session open. The Delegation included Her Excellency Mrs Fatoumata Tambajang, Vice-President and Minister of Women’s Affairs; Her Honourable Mrs. Mariam Denton, Speaker of the National Assembly; His Lordship Mr Hassan Bubacar Jallow , Chief Justice; Honourable Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and other Ministers and senior officials. 4. The ceremony was also attended by the representative of the Chairperson of the AUC, representatives of AU Organs, representatives of the EU and other members of the diplomatic corps; etc 5. The outgoing Commissioners Honourable Commissioner Pansy Tlakula, Honourable Commissioner Alapini Gansou, and Honourable Commissioner Med Kaggwa attended the opening ceremony.
    [Show full text]
  • Karemera and Ngirumpatse Appeal Judgement 29 Sept 2014
    Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Arlette Ramaroson Judge Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov Judge Koffi Kumelio A. Afan|e Registrar: Mr. Bongani Majola Judgement of: 29 September 2014 ÉDOUARD KAREMERA MATTHIEU NGIRUMPATSE v. THE PROSECUTOR Case No. ICTR-98-44-A ________________________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ________________________________________________________________________________ Counsel for Édouard Karemera Office of the Prosecutor Dior Diagne Hassan Bubacar Jallow Moussa Félix Sow James J. Arguin George W. Mugwanya Counsel for Matthieu Ngirumpatse Abubacarr Tambadou Frédéric Weyl Evelyn Kamau Takeh Sendze Aisha Kagabo William Mubiru Sunkarie Ballah-Conteh Ndéye Marie Ka Mihary Andrianaivo CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................1 B. THE APPEALS ...............................................................................................................................4 II. STANDARDS OF APPELLATE REVIEW...............................................................................5 III. APPEALS OF ÉDOUARD KAREMERA AND MATTHIEU NGIRUMPATSE ................8 A. FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Biographies
    Strengthening Gender Justice through International Prosecutions Speaker biographies 6-7 SEPTEMBER 2012 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM THE HAGUE · THE NETHERLANDS Dr Anne Marie Goetz Mr Bob Reid Dr Goetz is Chief Advisor for Peace and Security at UN Mr Reid is the Chief of Operations at Women. She supports programming across UN Women the International Criminal Tribunal on preventing the use of sexual violence as a method of for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). warfare, on supporting women’s engagement in peace He has been working at the ICTY processes, on gender-sensitive security sector reform, and since June 1994 and has held the on inclusive peace-building post-conflict. In the area of positions of Investigations Team good governance she works on building women’s influence Leader, Investigations Commander, over public decision-making. Deputy Chief of Investigations and Deputy Chief of Prosecutions. He was the lead investigator in Prior to taking on this post in the first ICTY trial of Dusko Tadic. 2005, she was a Professor of Political Science at the Institute of Prior to working at the ICTY, Mr Reid was a police officer in Development Studies, University the New South Wales Police Service in Australia. He worked of Sussex. She has published on mainly in Homicide, Organised Crime and Drug Enforcement. the topics of gender and conflict, For a period of three years he was seconded to the Federal pro-poor and gender-sensitive Attorney-General’s Office to work on investigations relating approaches to public sector reforms, to war crimes committed during the Second World War. anti-corruption initiatives, and decentralization, and has also analysed political liberalisation and state-building in fragile states and post-conflict situations.
    [Show full text]