prosecutor vs lubanga
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
2/157
No.01/0401/06 2/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
3/157
No.01/0401/06 3/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
4/157
No.01/0401/06 4/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
5/157
No.01/0401/06 5/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
6/157
No.01/0401/06 6/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
7/157
No.01/0401/06 7/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
8/157
No.01/0401/06 8/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
9/157
No.01/0401/06 9/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
10/157
No.01/0401/06 10/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
11/157
No.01/0401/06 11/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
12/157
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
13/157
No.01/0401/06 13/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
14/157
No.01/0401/06 14/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
15/157
No.01/0401/06 15/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
16/157
No.01/0401/06 16/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
43. As a result, the FirstJudgement onAppeal reverses the ImpugnedDecision
whichauthorisedtheProsecutionnottodisclosetotheDefencetheidentitiesofthe
followingwitnesses:DRCOTPWWWW0003;DRCOTPWWWW0004;DRCOTP
WWWW0016; DRCOTPWWWW021; DRCOTPWWWW0024; DRCOTP
WWWW0026; DRCOTPWWWW0027; DRCOTPWWWW0030; DRCOTP
WWWW0032; DRCOTPWWWW0034; DRCOTPWWWW0035; DRCOTP
WWWW0037; DRCOTPWWWW0038; DRCOTPWWWW0040; 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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
17/157
No.01/0401/06 17/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
18/157
No.01/0401/06 18/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
19/157
No.01/0401/06 19/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
20/157
No.01/0401/06 20/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
21/157
No.01/0401/06 21/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
22/157
No.01/0401/06 22/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
23/157
No.01/0401/06 23/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
24/157
No.01/0401/06 24/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
25/157
No.01/0401/06 25/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
26/157
No.01/0401/06 26/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
27/157
No.01/0401/06 27/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
28/157
No.01/0401/06 28/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
29/157
No.01/0401/06 29/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
30/157
No.01/0401/06 30/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
31/157
No.01/0401/06 31/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
32/157
No.01/0401/06 32/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
33/157
No.01/0401/06 33/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
34/157
No.01/0401/06 34/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
35/157
No.01/0401/06 35/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
36/157
No.01/0401/06 36/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
37/157
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
38/157
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
39/157
No.01/0401/06 39/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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
-
8/11/2019 Prosecutor vs Lubanga
40/157
No.01/0401/06 40/157 29January2007OfficialCourtTranslation
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