judge hans-peter kaul-minority ruling on ocampo 6 (part 1)

8/7/2019 Judge Hans-Peter Kaul-Minority Ruling On Ocampo 6 (part 1)

1/19

Cou rPna l eI n t e r n a t i o n a l eI n t e r n a t i o n a lC r i m i n a lC o u r t

/ ^ >

Original: English No.: ICC-01/09-02/11Date: 15 M arch 2011

PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER II

Before: Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, Presiding JudgeJudge Hans-Peter KaulJudge Cuno Tarfusser

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYAIN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR V. FRANCIS KIRIMIMUT HAUR A,UHURU MUIGAIKENYATTA A ND MOHAM MED HUSSE IN ALIPublic Document

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Hans-Peter Kaul to Pre-Trial Chamber II 's "Decisionon the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear for Francis KirimiMuthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyat ta and Mohammed Hussein Ali"

N o. ICC-01/09-02/11 1/19 15 March 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 1/19 FB PT


2/19

Decision to be notified, in accordance with regulation 31 of the Reg ulations of the Court, to:

The Office of the ProsecutorLuis Moreno-Ocampo, ProsecutorFatou Bensouda, De puty ProsecutorDefenceFrancis Kirimi MuthauraUh uru M uigai KenyattaMohammed Hussein Ali

Legal Repres entatives of the Victims Legal Represen tatives of the App licants

Unrepresented Vict ims Unrepresented A pplicants forParticipation/Reparation

The Office of Public Counsel forVictims The Office of Public Counsel for theDefence

States Representatives Amicus Curiae

REGISTRYRegistrar & Deputy RegistrarSilvana Arbia, RegistrarDidier Preira, Deputy-RegistrarDefence Support Section

Victims and W itnesses Unit De tention SectionVictims Participation and Repa rations OtherSection

N o. ICC-01/09-02/11 2/19 15 March 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 2/19 FB PT


3/19

I . I n t r od u c t i on a n d M a i n Con c l u s i on s1. The Major i ty of Pre-Tria l Chamber I I ( the "Chamber") , having examined the"Prosecu tor ' s Appl i ca t ion Pursuan t t o Ar t i c l e 58 as t o F ranc i s K i r imi Muthaura ,Uhuru Muiga i Kenya t t a and Mohammed Husse in Al i " ( the "Appl i ca t ion" )^ and theev idence and o the r in format ion submi t t ed , i ssued on 8 March 2011 th ree summonsesfor F ranc i s K i r imi Muthaura ( "F ranc i s Muthaura" ) , Uhuru Muiga i Kenya t t a ( "UhuruKenya t t a" ) and Mohammed Husse in Al i ( "Mohammed Al i " ) t o appear be fore theCo urt p ur su an t to ar t ic le 58(7) of the Ro me S ta tute ( the "Sta tute") .^ The M ajor ity i ssa t i sf ied that there are reasonable grounds to be l ieve that , f rom on or about 24January 2008 unt i l 31 January 2008, those three suspects are cr iminal ly responsiblefor cr imes against humani ty in the form of murder , forc ible t ransfer of popula t ion,rape , pe rsecu t ion , and o the r inhumane ac t s pursuan t t o an organ iza t iona l po l i cy inNakuru town (Nakuru Dis t r i c t , Ri f t Va l l ey P rov ince ) and Na ivasha town (Na ivashaDistrict , Rift Valley Province), Republic of Kenya, in violat ion of art icles 7(l)(a),7(l)(d), 7(l)(g), 7(l)(h) and 7(l)(k) of the Statute.

2. I am unable to accept the decision of the Major i ty and the analysis that underpinsi t . I cont inue to be l ieve that the Internat ional Criminal Court ( the "ICC" or the"Court") lacks jurisdict ion rat ione materiae in the si tuation in the Republic of Kenya,including in the present case . I am not sa t i sf ied that there are reasonable grounds tobel ieve that the cr imes a l leged, which occurred during the violence that took placef rom on or abo ut 24 January 2008 un t i l 31 January 2008 in Nak uru and Na ivashatowns , were commi t t ed pursuan t t o the pol i cy of an organ i sa t ion wi th in the meaningof art icle 7(2)(a) of the Statute. Thus, I am not sat isfied that the crimes allegedconst i tute cr imes against humani ty pursuant to ar t ic le 7 of the Sta tute .

3. I wish to confess that I have taken this posi t ion wi th a heavy hear t . I amprofoundly aware of the cr imes and a t roci t ies descr ibed in the Appl icat ion for1 ICC-01/09-31-Red; ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp and annexes.2 Pre-Trial Chamber II, ' 'Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear forFrancis Kirimi M uthaura, U huru Muigai Kenyatta and Mo hamm ed Hussein Ali", ICC-01/09-02/11-01.N o. ICC-01/09-02/11 3/19 15 M arch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 3/19 FB PT


4/19

summonses to appear for the three suspects Francis Muthaura, Uhuru Kenyatta andMohammed Ali pursuant to article 58(7) of the Statute. I understand and sympathisewith the hopes and expectations of the victims of the crimes committed in differentlocations, including Kisumu town (Kisumu District, Nyanza Province), Kibera(Kibera Division, Nairobi Province), Nakuru town (Nakuru District, Rift ValleyProvince) and Na ivasha tow n (Naivasha District, Rift Valley Province). I am awa re ofthe victims' expectation that those responsible for these crimes should be brought tojustice. I am also painfully aware that there are currently many citizens in theRepublic of Kenya who hope for and support the intervention of the Court in thiscoun try because they do no t have confidence in their criminal justice system.

4. In these circumstances, I would like to reiterate my request to all those in theRepublic of Kenya w ho y earn for justice and sup po rt the. intervention of the ICC withregard to the crimes alleged in this Application to understand and accept thefollowing:

[T]here are, in law and in the existing systems of criminal justice in this world,essentially two different categories of crimes which are crucial in the present case.There are , on the one s ide , in ternat ional cr imes of concern to the in ternat ionalcommunity as a whole , in par t icu lar genocide , cr imes agains t humani ty , and warcrimes pursuant to articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute. There are, on the other s ide,common cr imes , a lbei t of a ser ious nature , prosecuted by nat ional cr iminal jus t icesystems, such as that of the Republic of Kenya.(...)[A] demarcat ion l ine mus t be drawn between in ternat ional cr imes and human r ightsinf ract ions ; between in ternat ional cr imes and ord inary cr imes ; between those cr imessubject to in ternat ional jur isd ic t ion and those punishable under domes t ic penallegislation.^

5. Consequently, I have no doubt that the crimes alleged in the Applicationconcerning Francis Muthaura, Uhuru Kenyatta and Mohammed Ali fall within thecompetence of the criminal justice authorities of the Republic of Kenya as a matter tobe investigated and prosecuted under Kenyan criminal law.3 Dissent ing Opinion of Judge Hans-Peter Kaul to the "Decis ion Pursuant to Ar t ic le 15 of the RomeStatu te on the Author izat ion of an Inves t igat ion in to the S i tuat ion in the Republ ic of Kenya" , ICC-01/09-19-Corr, paras 8 and 65.N o. ICC-01 /09-02/11 4/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 4/19 FB PT


5/19

6. It is essentially on this point alone that I must separate myself from the Majority ofthe Chamber. As I am of the considered v iew that the Court lacks jurisd ict ion rat ionemateriae in the present case because the cr imes al leged do not amount to cr imesagainst humanity pursuant to art icle 7 of the Statute, I also feel barred, at least inp r inc ip le , f rom p ronouncing a v iew on whether the re a re reasonab le g rounds tobelieve, as required by article 58(7) of the Statute, that (1) the three suspects arecriminal ly responsib le for cr imes agains t humani ty in the form of murder , forcib let ransfer of populat ion , rape, persecut ion , and other inhumane acts ; and (2) thatsummonses are suff icient to ensure the suspects ' appearance.

7. I wish , however, to clar i fy and draw the at tent ion of al l concerned in the Republ icof Kenya to the fol lowing: I do not quest ion in th is d issent ing opinion that abhorrentcrimes , as described in the Appl icat ion , have been commit ted . Rather , my dissentconcerns the fundamental issue whether the cr imes al leged in the present caseconstitute crimes against humanity within the meaning of art icle 7 of the Statute, Ire i terate that these offences are ser ious common crimes to be invest igated andprosecuted by the competent authori t ies of the Republ ic of Kenya under Kenyancriminal law. Thus, i t is the responsibili ty of the Republic of Kenya to init iate,wi th ou t de lay , genu ine c r imina l p roceed ings to b r ing the ma in cu lp r it s , ma s te rm indsand per petr ato rs of the cr imes co mm it ted dur ing the 2007/2008 violence to jus t ice .

8 . In the fol lowing, I shal l se t out my unders tanding of the law and my analys is ofthe evidence as to the exis tence of the const i tu t ive contextual requirement of"org anizat io nal po l icy" pu rsu an t to ar t ic le 7(2)(a) of the Statu te .

N o . ICC-01/09-02/11 5/19 15 M ar ch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 5/19 FB PT


6/19

IL The Law and its In terpretation9. The chap eau of article 7(1) of the Statute rea ds:

For the purpose of th is S ta tu te , ' c r ime agains t humani ty ' means any of thefol lowing acts when commit ted as par t of a widespread or sys temat ic a t tackdirected against any civilian population, with the knowledge of the attack: ( . . . )

10. Article 7(2)(a) of the Statute stipulates:'A t tack d irected agains t any c iv i l ian populat ion ' means a course of conductinvolv ing the mult ip le commiss ion of acts refer red to in paragraph 1 agains t anyciv i lian populat io n , pu rsua nt to or in fur therance of a S ta te or organizat ion al pol icyto comm it such a t tack[ .]

11. In my dissenting o pinion to the Majority's decision of 31March 2010 authorizingthe co mm encement of the Pros ecutor's proprio motu investigation into the situation inthe Republic of Kenya,^ I set out in appropriate detail my understanding of the lawgoverning in particular the constitutive contextual requirement of crimes againsthumanity in accordance with article 7(2)(a) of the Statute.

12. For the purposes of the present dissenting opinion, I briefly recall that crimesalleged as part of an attack against any civilian population must be carried outpursuant to a policy of an 'organization' in accordance with article 7(2)(a) of theStatute. In my previous dissenting opinion, I set out my understanding of thisstatutory requirement as follows:

51 . I read [article 7(2)(a) of the Statute] such that the juxtaposition of the notions"State" and 'organization' in article 7(2)(a) of the Statute are an indication that eventhough the cons t i tu t ive e lements of s ta tehood need not be es tabl ished those'organizat ions ' should par take of some character is t ics of a S ta te . Thosecharacter is t ics eventual ly turn the pr ivate 'organizat ion ' in to an ent i ty which mayact l ike a State or has quasi-State abili t ies . These characteris tics could involve thefollowing: (a) a collectivity of persons; (b) which was established and acts for acommon purpose; (c) over a prolonged per iod of t ime; (d) which is underrespons ib le command or adopted a cer ta in degree of h ierarchical s t ructure ,including , as a mi nim um , som e kind of pol icy level; (e) wi th the capaci ty to im posethe pol icy on i t s members and to sanct ion them; and ( f ) which has the capaci ty andme ans avai lab le to a t tack any civ i lian popula t ion on a large scale .52 . In contrast , I believe that non-state actors which do not reach the leveldescribed above are not able to carry out a policy of this nature, such as groups of

4 Pre-Tr ia l Chamber I I , "Decis ion Pursuant to Ar t ic le 15 of the Rome Statu te on the Author izat ion ofan Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya", ICC-01/09-19-Corr.N o. ICC-01/09-02/11 6/19 15 M arch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 6/19 FB PT


7/19

organ ized cr im e, a mo b, group s of (armed) c iv i lians or cr iminal gangs . They wo uldgenerally fall outside the scope of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute. To give a concreteexample , v iolence-prone groups of persons formed on an ad hoc bas is , randomly,spontaneous ly , for a pass ing occas ion , wi th f luctuat ing membership and without astructure and level to set up a policy are not within the ambit of the Statute, even ifthey engage in numerous ser ious and organized cr imes . Fur ther e lements areneeded for a private entity to reach the level of an 'organization' within themeaning of article 7 of the Statute. For i t is not the cruelty or mass victimizationthat turns a crime into a delictum iuris gentium but the constitutive contextuale lements in which the act i s embedded.53. In th is respect , the general argument that any k ind of non-s ta te actors may bequalif ied as an 'organization' within the meaning of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute onthe grounds that i t "has the capability to perform acts which infringe on basichuman values" wi thout any fur ther specif icat ion seems unconvincing to me. In factth is approach may expand the concept of cr imes agains t humani ty to anyinf r ingement of human r ights . I am convinced that a d is t inct ion mus t be upheldbetween human r ights v iola t ions on the one s ide and in ternat ional cr imes on theother s ide , the la t ter forming the nucleus of the mos t heinous v iola t ions of humanr ights represent ing the mos t ser ious cr imes of concern to the in ternat ionalcommunity as a whole .^

13. I t i s against this s tandard that I have carr ied out a ful l , genuine and substant iveanalysis of the Prosecutor ' s Appl icat ion and evidence submit ted. In doing so, I wasinstructed by art icle 58(7) in conjunction with art icle 21(3) of the Statute to assess thefac t s p rov ided in the P rosecu tor ' s Appl i ca t ion and the ev idence and o the r ma te r i a laga ins t t he ra the r low thresho ld of "reasonable g r ou nd s to be li eve" .

14 . The Prosecutor supported his Appl icat ion, to a large extent , wi th the same publ icrepor t s of non-governmenta l organ iza t ions and commiss ions tha t he a l readysubmi t t ed on 26 November 2009 when seek ing the Chamber ' s au thor i za t ion for thecommencement of the invest igat ion into the s i tuat ion in the Republ ic of Kenyapu rsu an t to ar t ic le 15 of the Sta tute .^ Ad di t iona l ly , he su bm it ted a table , fo l lowing

5 Dissent ing Opinion of Judge Hans-Peter Kaul to the "Decis ion Pursuant to Ar t ic le 15 of the RomeStatu te on the Author izat ion of an Inves t igat ion in to the S i tuat ion in the Republ ic of Kenya" , ICC-01/09-19-Corr (footnotes omitted).6ICC-01/09-3 and annexes . The mater ia l submit ted in the present case includes the repor ts of theCommission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence, "Final Report" ("CIPEV Report") , 16 October 2008,ICC-01/09-30-Conf-Exp-Anx3; Kenya Nat ional Commiss ion on Human Rights , "On the Br ink of thePrecip ice: A H um an Rights Accou nt of Kenya ' s Pos t-2007 Election Violence . F inal Repo r t" ("KNCHRReport") , 15 August 2008, ICC-01/0-9-30-Conf-Exp-Anx5; Human Rights Watch, "Ballots to Bullets .Organized Pol i t ical Violence and Kenya ' s Cr is is of Governance" ("HRW Repor t" ) , March 2008, ICC-N o . ICC-01/09-02/11 7/19 15 M arch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 7/19 FB PT


8/19

the s t ructure and language of the Appl icat ion , which contained only excerpts or aseries of sentences , se lected by the Prosecutor , f rom witness s tatements , reports ,press ar t ic les and o ther m aterial . Purs ua nt to a decis ion of the Chamber,^ on 23February 2011 the Prosecu to r p rov ided the Chamber wi th aud io - recorded o r wr i t t ens tatements of those witnesses on whose s tatements he re l ies in the presentAppl icat ion . He also submit ted addi t ional re lated material .^

15. The Pro secuto r 's Appl ica t ion has been su bm it ted in confident ial ex parte an dpubl ic redacted forms; in the la t ter form, the Prosecutor has redacted al l submiss ionsunder Par t C "S tandard o f Proof" and Par t G "Summary o f the Ev idence and OtherInformat ion Establ ish ing Reasonable Grounds to Bel ieve that Francis Kir imiM u t h au ra , U h u ru Mu i g a i K e n y a t ta an d Mo h a m m e d H u s s e i n A l i C o m m i t t e d C r i m e sWithin the Jurisdiction of the Court Pursuant to Article 58(2)(D) of the RomeStatu te" . Mindful of the need for proper reasoning and the princip le of publ ici ty ofproceedings , I make reference to those parts . However, special care has been takennot to d isclose any informat ion ident i fy ing witnesses or any other person who mightbe put at risk on account of the activit ies of the Court .

I I I . F i n d i n g sThe Prose cutor's A pplication16 . The Prosecutor contends that there are reasonable grounds to bel ieve that cr imesagains t humani ty were commit ted in Kisumu tow^n (Kisumu Dis t r ic t , NyanzaProvince) , Kibera (Kibera Divis ion , Nairobi Province) , Nakuru town (NakuruDistrict , Rift Valley Province) and Naivasha town (Naivasha District , Rift ValleyProvince) from 27 December 2007 or thereabouts to 29 February 2008 pursuant to or01/09-30-Conf-Exp-Anx7; and In ternat ional Cr is is Group, "Kenya in Cr is is" (" ICG Repor t" ) , February2008,ICC-01/09-30-Conf-Exp-Anx8.7 Pre-Tr ia l Cham ber I I , "Decis ion Reques t ing th e Prosecutor to Subm it the S ta tements of the W itnesseson which he Rel ies for the Purposes of h is Appl icat ions under Ar t ic le 58 of the Rome Statu te" , ICC-01/09-45-Conf-Exp. The informa tion revea led from the confidential ex parte decision of the C ham berdoes not affect its level of classification as "confidential".s ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp. T he inform ation revea led from the co nfidential ex parte f iling of theProsecutor does not affect i ts level of classif ication as "confidential" .N o . ICC -01/09-02/11 8/19 15 M ar ch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 8/19 FB PT


9/19

in furtherance of an "organizational policy". In his App lication the Prosecutor allegesthat Francis Muthaura, Uhuru Kenyatta and Mohammed Ali, the "PrincipalPerpetrators", agreed to pursue an organisational policy to attack civilians perceivedto support the Orange Democratic Movement ("ODM") in order to maintain theParty of National Un ity ("PNU") in power.^

17. With reference to the entity capable of carrying out the attack against the civilianpopulation, the Prosecutor contends that the three Principal Perpetrators activatedand utilised "pre-existing structures to perpetrate the widespread and systematicattacks".^ The entity which pur po rted ly implem ented the policy consisted of thePrincipal Perpetrators, members of the Mungiki (a criminal organisation) and pro-PNU youth, members of the Kenyan Police Forces, PNU politicians, and wealthyPNU supporters.^^

18. With regard to the position and role of the Principal Perpetrators, the Prosecutormaintains that at the time relevant to the Application, Francis Muthaura waschairman of the National Security Advisory Committee and "exercised both de jureand de facto autho rity over the various Kenyan security agencies, including the KenyaPolice, Administration Police and the National Security and Intelligence Service".^^At the time relevant to the Application, Mohammed Ali was purportedly a memberof the National Security Advisory Committee ^ and the Police Commissionerexercising "de jure and de facto control o ver th e Keny a Police".^^ He w as u nd er thedirect authority of Francis M utha ura and routinely rep orted to him. ^ The P rosecutoralso submits that at the time relevant to the Application, Uhuru Kenyatta was amember of parliament for Gatundu South Constituency in Thika District in Central

9 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p aras 5 ,16 and 57.10 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 59.11 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 57,12 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, paras 60 and 61.13 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 75.14 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, paras 47, 66, 75 and 76.15 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, paras 61 and 75.N o . ICC -01/09-02/11 9/19 15 M ar ch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 9/19 FB PT


10/19

Province^^ and joined the PNU in September 2007^^. The Prosecutor further contendsthat the Mungiki have constituted an important component of Uhuru Kenyatta'spolitical support base since 2002.^^ By virtue of his close ties^^ with and support^^ forthe Mungiki, he purportedly had the capacity to mobilize the Mungiki to support theP N U . 2 1

19. The Prosecutor submits that the Mungiki is a "complex, multi-faceted,hetero geneo us and decentralized" criminal organisation,^^ which is organized intolocal and regional branches.^^ Local leaders are purportedly bound by general rulesand instructions issued by the organization's patron.^^ The Prosecutor contends thatthe M ungiki op erates in an organised and coordinated manner, ^ and engages inillegal activities, which have turned the Mungiki into a financially healthyorganization 2^. Moreover, the Prosecutor avers that during the violence, "theMungiki mobilized additional human resources among jobless pro-PNU youth andthrough aggressive recruitment".^^

20. Finally, the Prosecutor maintains that local politicians and business people"organized meetings for the purpose of raising money"^^ or provided "hundreds ofpangas" which were distributed to pro-PNU youth^^. The Prosecutor also contendsthat Uhuru Kenyatta organized meetings "for the planning of the logistics for the16 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 62.17 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 64.18 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 62.19 I t has been a l leged that Uhuru Kenyat ta was h imself a Mungiki member , ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp,para. 62.-0 The Prosecutor contends that Uhuru Kenyat ta faci l i ta ted the pol i t ical agreement wi th the seniorof f ic ia ls of the Government of Kenya to end the crackdown agains t Mungiki members and providedfunding for their operations, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, paras 64 and 65.21 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, par as 25, 63 and 65.2 2 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 68.2 3 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p ara. 70.2 4 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 70.2 5 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p ara . 72.2 6 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p ara. 73.2 7 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p ara . 74.2 8 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 842 9 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p ara . 85N o . ICC -01/09-02/1 1 10/19 15 M ar ch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 10/19 FB PT


11/19

Mungik i and pro-PNU youth ope ra t ions ( . . . ) and the con t r ibu t ion of money tosu pp or t the o per at io ns " .

21. With regard to the nature of the a t tacks, the Prosecutor submits that the a t tackswere l aunched (1) " in re sponse" to the "p lanned a t t acks" orches t ra t ed by Wi l l i amSamoe i Ruto , He nry K iprono Kosgey and Joshua Ar ap Sang aga ins t sup po r t e r s of thePNU; and (2) t o " [ suppress] and [c rush] any pro te s t s by ODM suppor t e r s and[penal ize] ODM's support ive communi t ies" .^^

22. Franc i s Muthaura and Mohammed Al i purpor t ed ly u t i l i zed the Kenyan Pol i ceForce to perpet ra te a t tacks by (1) di rect ing the Kenyai i Pol ice Forces to targetperce ived ODM supporters in a t tacks in Kisumu and Kibera; and (2) di rect ing themnot t o in t e rvene in a t t acks by the Mungik i and pro-PNU youth aga ins t pe rce ivedODM suppor t e r s in Nakuru and Na ivasha .^^

23. The P rosecu tor fu r the r ma in ta ins tha t , w i th the suppor t of Mohammed Al i ,F ranc i s Muthaura and Uhuru Kenya t t a used the Mungik i and pro-PNU youth tope rpe t ra t e a t t acks aga ins t ODM suppor t e r s in Nakuru and Na ivasha dur ing l a t eJan uary 2008.^^ Francis Mu tha ur a a l legedly or gan ised a me et ing, toge ther w i thUhuru Kenya t t a , " to p lan the re t a l i a tory a t t acks aga ins t ODM suppor t e r s us ingM ungik i m em bers and o the r m obi l i zed pro-P NU youth" .^^ I t i s a l leged tha t t heMungik i had prev ious ly negot i a t ed an end to the pol i ce c rackdown aga ins t t he i rm em be rs in exchan ge for pro vid ing po l i tica l su pp or t to the PNU.^^ The Pros ecuto rsubm i t s tha t t he coopera t ion be tw een the Kenyan Pol i ce Forces and the M ungik i an d

3 0 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 83.31 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, p aras 5 ,16 and 57.3 2 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 24.3 3 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 17.3 4 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 67.3 5 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 26.N o . ICC-0 1/09-02/11 11/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 11/19 FB PT


12/19

the pro-PN U y outh is confirmed by the lack of police intervention before, du ring andafter the attacks.^^

Analysis of the Prosecutor's Application and the Evidence24. I recognize that there is evidence which tends to show that crimes werecommitted by the Mungiki gang together with pro-PNU youth in Nakuru ^ andNaivasha^^. I am satisfied tha t the K eny an Police Forces in Kisumu^^ an d Kibera^^com mitted crimes by using excessive force. At the same time, I am instructed by lawto assess th ese facts aga inst th e sta tutory legal requir em ent of article 7(2) (a) of th eStatute establishing th at those crimes occurred p urs uan t to the policy of a State or an'organisation'. Taking into consideration the Prosecutor's Application, I shall analysehereunder whether the entity as presented by the Prosecutor can be qualified as an'organisation' within the meaning of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute.

25. The Majority has found that "the attack was carried out pursuant to anorg aniza tional policy of the Mungiki".^^ It has cha racterised the M ungik i as an'organisation' within the meaning and for the purpose of article 7(2)(a) of the3 6 ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp, para. 27.3 7 KNCHR Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx5, paras 315 and 335 (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0093 and0098); KNCHR Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx5, p. 94 (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0094); CIPEVReport, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx3, pp.103-104 (KEN-OTP-0001-0364 at 0477-0478); "NSIS SituationRepor t" submit ted to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp . 568-569; UNOHCHR, Fact-Find ing M ission Rep ort, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, p. 545; ICG Repo rt, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx8, p. 14 (KEN-OTP-0001-1076 at 1093).3 8 KNCHR Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-An5, para. 317 (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0094); CIPEVReport, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx3, pp. 123-124, KEN-OTP-0001-0364 at 0497-0498); UNOHCHR,Fact-Find ing Mis sion Rep ort, ICC-01/09-Conf-Exp-Anx23, p . 545; ICG Repo rt, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx8, p. 14 (KEN-OTP-0001-1076 at 1093); Statement of Witness 11, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx217,p p . 7-8 (KEN-OTP-0042-0044 at 0051-0052); Statement of Witness 11, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx218,p p . 27-28 (KEN-OTP-0042-0078 at 0105-0106).3 9 UNOCHR, Fact-F inding Miss ion Repor t , ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp . 256-257; HRW Repor t ,ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx7 pp. 25 and 27-31 (KEN-OTP-001-0248 at 0275 and 0277-0281); KNCHRReport, ICC-01/09-Conf-Exp-Anx5, para. 402 (KEN-OTP-0001-002 at Olli) .4 0 UNOCHR Fact-F inding Miss ion Repor t , ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp . 256-257; HRW Repor t ,ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx7, pp . 32-33 (KEN-OTP-001-0248 at 0282-0283); Statem ent of [REDACTE D]to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Con-Exp-Anx23, p. 511.41 Pre-Tr ia l Chamber I I , "Decis ion on the Prosecutor ' s Appl icat ion for Summonses to Appear forFrancis Kir imi M utha ura , U hur u M uigai Kenyat ta and M oha m me d H ussein Ali" , ICC-01/09-02/11-01,para . 20 .N o. ICC-01 /09-02/11 12/19 15 M ar ch 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 12/19 FB PT


13/19

Statute ,^^ on the gr ou nd that " th e gro up h as the capabi l i ty to perform acts wh ichinf r inge on bas ic human va lues" . ^ The Major i ty , therefore , did not regard any of theother ac tors ment ioned in the Prosecutor ' s Appl icat ion, such as the Kenyan Pol iceForces, to be pa r t of the 'o rgan isa t io n ' .

26. I d i sagree wi th th i s in t e rpre t a t ion of the P rosecu tor ' s Appl i ca t ion . Throughoutthe Appl icat ion, the Prosecutor submits that the Pr incipal Perpet ra tors used a var ie tyof ac tors , most prominent ly the Mungiki and the Kenyan Pol ice Forces, to a t tackc iv i l i ans pe rce ived as ODM suppor t e r s . Under the head ing "Exi s t ence of an en t i tycapable of carrying out a widespread or systemat ic a t tack against a c ivi l ianpopula t ion" , t he P rosecu tor c i t e s , bes ides the P r inc ipa l Pe rpe t ra tors themse lves , t heMungik i and pro-PNU youth , t he Kenyan Pol i ce Forces and o the r PNU pol i t i c i ansand wea l thy PNU suppor t e r s . The a t t acks themse lves were purpor t ed ly ca r r i ed ou tby the Mungik i in Nakuru and Na ivasha , and by the Kenyan Pol i ce Forces inKisumu and Kibe ra . The P rosecu tor ma in ta ins tha t bo th a t t acks were commi t t edpursuant to the pol icy of one 'organisa t ion ' . Hence , the act ivi t ies of the twos takeholde r g roups , which a l l eged ly commi t t ed the c r imes in Nakuru /Na ivasha andKisumu/Kibera , are presented as be ing a t t r ibutable to one 'organisa t ion ' . I shal ltherefore interpre t the not ion of 'organisa t ion ' as encompassing, in pr inciple , a l ls t akeho lde rs the P rosecu tor has men t ioned in the Appl i ca t ion .

27. In my previous dissent ing opinion to the Major i ty 's decision of 31 March 2010, Ihave se t out my understanding of the essent ia l character is t ics of an 'organisa t ion ' interms of membership, durat ion, s t ructure , the capaci ty to impose the pol icy on i t smembers and the capaci ty and means to a t tack any c ivi l ian popula t ion. Mindful ofthese character is t ics , I fa i l to see an 'organisa t ion ' , as por t rayed by the Prosecutor , inthe present case . My reading of the evidence submit ted by the Prosecutor leads me todr aw anoth e r conc lus ion , wh ich I sha ll set ou t b e low.

42 Ibid., para . 22.4 3 /h ' d . , p a r a .2 1 .N o . ICC-01 /09-02/11 13/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 13/19 FB PT


14/19

28. The Prosecutor presents different stakeholders purportedly as forming ahomogeneous entity under the authority of the three Principal Perpetrators, unifiedin their goal of attacking civilians perceived as suppo rting the ODM . I note, how ever,that the pro-PNU youth is portrayed as cooperating closely with the Mungiki. Thus,they appear not to represent an independent component within the alleged'organisation'. Equally, the PNU politicians and wealthy PNU supporters arepresented in the Application as financiers and resource providers to the Mungiki andpro-PNU youth. Neither, therefore, do they appear to represent an independentcomponent within the proposed 'organisation'. In light of the foregoing, I will focusmy assessment of the evidence on the two leading stakeholders, the Mungiki and theKenyan Police Forces, which together, according to the Prosecutor, form an'organisation' within the meaning of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute.

29. It appears from the evidence that the Mungiki, an illegal gang of organizedcrime, has established parallel structures in the poorer parts of the country, notablythe slum s of Nairobi, ^ wh ere there is no effective State auth ority , an d e ngag es incriminal activities.^^ The evidence further suggests that the Mungiki gang has in thepast shown a certain degree of flexibility in supporting various political parties as ameans to advance its own interests. ^ Prior to the attacks mentioned in theProsecutor's Application, the Mungiki was actually subject to a police crackdown

4 4 KNCHR Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx5, paras 159 et seq. (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0052-0053);CIPEV R eport, ICC-01/09-31-Anx3, p. 194 (KEN-OTP-0001-0364 at 0568).4 5 Statement of Witness 2, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx213, para. 41 (KEN-OTP-0033-0079 at 0087-0088); article by PeaceNet Kenya dated July 2009, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, p. 129; report byLandlnfo dated 29 January 2010, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp. 123-124.4 6 Article in the "African Affairs", ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, p. 127, which s tates that in 2003 theMungiki suppor ted the Kenyan Afr ican Nat ional Union, and thus opposed the ru l ing Nat ionalRainbow Coalit ion of President Kibaki; Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257,para. 137 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at 0029); Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257,para. 130 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at 0028), that before the 2007 elections, he had been told that theMungiki leadership had met wi th Rai la Odinga and agreed that they would suppor t the la t ter a t theupcoming pres ident ia l e lect ion .N o . ICC-01 /09-02/11 14/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 14/19 FB PT


15/19

operation.47 Coo peration within the 'organ isation', as depicted by the P rosecutor,appears to have commenced following a meeting between leading PNU politiciansand Mungiki members during which the PNU politicians solicited support in theupcoming elections in exchange for meeting specific demands made by theMungiki.^^ Thereafter, the Mu ngiki g ang a pp ear s to have benefited from financialand other support from PNU politicians.^^ I am also satisfied that at times the policedid not intervene to stop crimes committed by Mungiki members in certainlocalities.^^ Overall, the evidence provided by the Prosecutor thus tends to show thatthe Mungiki, as a criminal gang, actually has an antagonistic relationship with theKenyan Police Force ^ but appeared to have benefited from certain ad hocarrangements during the relevant period, despite a long record of violent clasheswith the Kenyan police.

30. For their part, the Kenyan Police Forces are an integral part of the State a ppa ratu swith a hierarchy and a chain of command. The evidence tends to show that FrancisMuthaura^^ and Mohammed Ali^^ are de jure an d de facto respo nsible for th e policies,opera tions an d actions of the Kenyan Police.

4 7 Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257 paras 112 and 130 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at0024 and 0028); "NSIS Situation Report" dated 29 June 2007 submitted to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, p. 142-143.4 8 Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257 paras 149-163 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at0031-0034).4 9 Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, paras 201 and 202 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at0040-0041); CIPEV Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx3, p. 123 (KEN-OPT-0001-0364 at 0497); "NSISSituation Report" from January 2008 submitted to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp. 93-94 ; KNCHR Report, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx5, paras 317-318 (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0094).5 0 Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, paras 198-200 and 280 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002, at 0040 and 0055).51 "NSIS Situation Reports" dated 18 December 2007 submitted to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23 , pp. 551-553, which s ta tes that whi le one par t of the Mungiki p lanned to d is rupt vot ing inpol l ing s ta t ions perceived to be Rai la Odinga ' s s t rongholds , another par t p lanned to cause v iolenceimmediate ly af ter the e lect ion to show their d isp leasure with the crackdown by the pol ice /pol ice-secur i ty forces /minis t ry of in ter ior ) ; "NSIS S i tuat ion Repor t" f rom January 2008 submit ted to theCIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp. 181-182, s tating that the Mungiki collects protection moneyto f inance their a t tacks : the repor t sugges ts a sus ta ined crackdown); S ta tement of Witness 14 , ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, para. 40 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at 0010), who alleges that four seniorM ungiki leaders we re k i l led extra- judicia l ly by the pol ice in March /Apr i l 2008.5 2 Statem ent of Witness 27, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx322, p ara. 97 (KEN-OTP-0040-0055 at 0077).N o . ICC-01 /09-02/11 15/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 15/19 FB PT


16/19

31. On the bas is of the Prosecutor 's presentat ion of the case and the evidencesubmit ted , I fa i l to see how an 'organisat ion ' could have exis ted in which the primaryactors were the Mungiki gang and the Kenyan Pol ice Forces . I am sat is f ied by theev idence p rov ided tha t Uhuru Kenyat ta was the p r inc ipa l con tac t be tween theM ung iki gan g and the Principal Perpetrators .^^ Ho we ver, a ser ies of me et ings w ithfaci l i ta tors and the Principal Perpetrators does not t ransform a l imited partnership ofconvenienc e in to an 'or gan isat io n ' w i th in the m ean ing of ar t ic le 7(2)(a) of the Statu te .Forging an opportunis t ic partnership of convenience for a specif ic purpose, namelythe upcoming 2007 pres ident ial e lect ions , tends to demonstrate that the coal i t ionbetween the Mungiki and the Kenyan Pol ice Forces was created ad hoc in nature . Thefact that the 'cooperat ion ' between the Mungiki gang and the Kenyan Pol ice Forceswas es tabl ished short ly before the 2007 pres ident ial e lect ions tends to demonstratethe tem po rar y character of th is par tner ship of convenience. This is further confi rmedby the fact that a ser ies of pol ice operat ions were d irected agains t the Mungiki gangbefore an d after th e 2007/2008 violence.^^ Ad dition ally, t he evid enc e lead s me toconclude that the Mungiki gang and the Kenyan Pol ice Forces do not share acommon hierarchy but rather maintain separate s t ructures . I therefore conclude thatthe 'organisat ion ' as presented by the Prosecutor , consis t ing mainly of the Mungikigang a nd the K enya n Pol ice Forces , d id no t exis t.

32. Even if, for the sake of argument, and taking into consideration the Majority 'sf inding to that effect , the Mungiki gang alone were to be considered as the ent i tywhich had es tabl ished a pol icy of a t tacking the civ i l ian populat ion , I hold that the

53 CIPEV, "Kenya Police", ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Exp-Anx23, pp. 183-185; Statement of Witness 67, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx381, p ara s . 63-65 (KEN-OTP-0041-0209 at 0220).54Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, paras 142 and 205 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at0030 and 0041); KN CH R Rep ort, ICC-01/09/31-Conf-Exp-Anx5, p. 187 (KEN-OTP-0001-0002 at 0187).55 Statement of Witness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, paras 112 and 130 (KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at0024 and 0028); "NSIS Situation Report" dated 29 June 2007 submitted to the CIPEV, ICC-01/09-31-Conf-Ex p-Anx23 , pp . 142-143; Statem ent of W itness 14, ICC-01/09-48-Conf-Exp-Anx257, par a. 40(KEN-OTP-0043-0002 at 0010), who alleges that four senior Mungiki leaders were killed extrajudicially by the police in March/April 2008.N o . ICC-01/09-02/11 16/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 16/19 FB PT


17/19

Mungiki gang as such does not qual i fy as an 'organisa t ion ' wi thin the meaning ofar t ic le 7(2)(a) of the Sta tute . Admit tedly, the Mungiki gang appears to cont rol corecommuni ty act ivi t ies and to provide services, such as e lect r ic i ty , water andsani ta t ion, and t ransport . However , the act ivi t ies of the Mungiki gang remain l imi tedin nature and are terri torial ly restricted, in part icular, to the slums of Nairobi.^^Moreover , as noted above, the evidence reveals that a ser ies of pol ice operat ions weredirected against the Mungiki gang before and af ter the 2007/2008 violence and that i tcou ld on ly have com mi t t ed the c r imes a l leged wi th the sup po r t of cer t a in ind iv idu a l swi thin the Kenyan pol i t ica l e l i te and the pol ice apparatus. That sa id, I doubt whetherthe Mungiki gang had the capaci ty and the means a t i t s disposal to a t tack anycivi l ian popula t ion on a large scale . In l ight of the foregoing, I therefore do not f indthat the Mungiki gang, a cr iminal organisa t ion, could have qual i f ied as a'org anis a t ion ' wi th in the m ean ing of ar t ic le 7(2)(a) of the Sta tu te .

33. With the evidence a t hand, i t i s a lso s t r iking that the Prosecutor has chosen in hisAppl i ca t ion to advance the a rgument of c r imes aga ins t humani ty pursuan t t o an"organizat ional pol icy" whi ls t neglect ing the role and funct ion of the Sta te . I note theProsecu tor ' s a l l ega t ion tha t F ranc i s Muthaura and Mohammed Al i (1 ) d i rec t ed theKenyan pol ice to a t tack ODM supporters in Kisumu and Kibera and (2) di rected theKenyan police not to intervene in at tacks ^ by the Mungik i gang aga ins t ODMsuppor t e r s in Nakuru and Na ivasha . Throughout h i s Appl i ca t ion , t he P rosecu tora rgues tha t F ranc i s Muthaura and Mohammed Al i occupied h igh- l eve l pos i t ionswithin the pol ice and securi ty apparatus of the Sta te . By vi r tue of these posi t ions theyappear to have exercised authori ty over the Kenyan Pol ice Forces, which ischaracter ised by a ver t ica l s t ructure and obedience to orders of super iors .Fur the rmore , t he P rosecu tor p resen t s the conduc t of F ranc i s Muthaura andMohammed Al i as having occurred wi thin the context of the i r respect ive off ic ia l5 6 See also Dissent ing Opin ion of Judge H ans-Peter K aul to the "Decis ion Pursua nt to Ar t ic le 15 of theRome Statu te on the Author izat ion of an Inves t igat ion in to the S i tuat ion in the Republ ic of Kenya" ,ICC-01/09-19-Corr, p . 28, footnote 56.5 7 See footnote 6 of the Elem ents of Crim es, article 7.N o . ICC-01/09-02/11 17/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 17/19 FB PT


18/19

roles as Chairman of the Nat ional Securi ty Advisory Commit tee and theCommissioner of the Kenyan Pol ice . In conclus ion , any assessment of cr iminalcond uct by the Keny an Pol ice Forces should h ave tak en in to considerat io n the off icialposi t ions of the two P rincipal Perpe trator s and , as the case m ay be, the responsib i l i tyof o ther s with resp ect to the Ken yan Pol ice Forces.

34. I therefore concur, in princip le , wi th the Majori ty 's f inding that the Prosecutor"fai led to provide an accurate factual and legal submiss ion" ^ for acts of violencecommit ted by the Kenyan Pol ice Forces in Kisumu town and Kibera, which wouldhave al lowed me to assess whether the acts were commit ted pursuant to a Statepol icy . By the same token, I concur with the Majori ty 's f inding that the Prosecutordid not allege the existence of a State policy by abstention with respect to the eventsin N ak ur u and N aiva sha towns.^^ I wi l l therefore no t enter tain th is issue.

35. In sum, whi ls t I am sat is f ied that cr imes were commit ted in Nakuru , Naivasha,Kisumu and Kibera, and that certain organisat ional measures were taken to th is end,I fai l to see that theses cr imes were embedded in an "organizat ional pol icy". Hence, Iconsider that the Prosecutor has fai led to prove that the cr imes were commit tedpursuant to a pol icy of a s tate- l ike 'organisat ion ' which is an indispensable e lementand inhe rent character is tic of cr imes agains t hum ani ty u nd er ar t ic le 7 of the Statu te . Itherefore continue to hold that the Court has no jurisdiction ratione materiae in thes i tuat ion in the Republ ic of Kenya, including in the prese nt case .

36. Accordingly , I decl ine to issue summonses to appear for Francis Muthaura,Uhuru Kenyat ta and Mohammed Ali pursuant to ar t ic le 58(7) of the Statu te .Proc eedings in th is case shal l not unfold before th is C ourt .

5 8 Pre-Trial Chamber II, "Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear forFrancis Kirimi M uthaura, Uhu ru Muigai K enyatta and Mo hamm ed Hussein Ali", ICC-01/09-02/11-01,para. 31.5 9 Ibid., para. 24.N o . ICC-01/09-02/11 18/19 15 M arc h 2011

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 18/19 FB PT


19/19

Do ne in both English and F rench, the English version being au thoritative.

^ d A^JMJudge Hans-Peter KaulJudge

Da ted this Tuesday, 15 M arch 2011At The Hag ue, The Netherlands

ICC-01/09-02/11-3 15-03-2011 19/19 FB PT

judge hans-peter kaul-minority ruling on ocampo 6 (part 1)

Documents