International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has lost an appeal seeking an extension of time required to disclose his evidence against the post election violence suspects May 10, 2011. FILE
By EMEKA- MAYAKA GEKARA
Posted Tuesday, May 10 2011 at 18:12
Posted Tuesday, May 10 2011 at 18:12
The International Criminal Court has rejected a request by prosecutor Louis Moreno-Ocampo for extension of deadlines to disclose his evidence.
The prosecutor wanted 21 more days in order to enable him edit some of the evidence before he reveals it to the defence lawyers representing the Ocampo Six.
From May 23, 2011 Mr Moreno-Ocampo is required to start revealing the evidence he collected between March 31, 2010 and December, 15, 2010 to enable the lawyers prepare their defence.
On Tuesday, Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova said that the prosecutor’s argument had not persuaded the court and gave him until May 23 to submit “properly justified proposals for redactions.”
Until then, the requests stands rejected.
“The single judge is therefore of the view that the 21 days of extension requested by the prosecutor are not necessary and that the prosecutor will be able by Monday 23 May 2011 to complete his work with respect to the redactions to be requested for evidence collected since 31 March 2010 until 15 December 2010,” she ruled.
The judge was responding to an application filed on May 6 by lawyers for suspects William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and Joshua Sang.
Mr Ruto is represented by Kioko Kilukumi, David Hooper and Prof Kithure Kindiki while Mr Kosgey has retained Mr George Odinga Oraro, Julius Kemboy and Allan Kosgey Mr Katwa Kigen and Joseph Kipchumba act for Mr Sang.
The lawyers had requested the court to postpone the date of confirmation hearing scheduled for September if the prosecutor was granted the 21 days. Their request was rejected.
The prosecutor has three set of deadlines to open up his evidence starting this Friday May 13 for the evidence collected before December 15 2010; June 3, 2011 for evidence gathered between December 15, 2010, and March 31, 2011; and July 8, 2011, for the evidence collected after March 31, 2011.
The judge said that the law requires the process to be completed 30 days before the date of the hearing at the latest but also pointed out that the lawyers required sufficient time to build their responses.
“The provision of rule 121(3) of the Rules is to be read against the backdrop of, and subject to statutory provisions that guarantee the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right of the suspects to have adequate time for a meaningful preparation of their defence,” she ruled.
Besides, she noted that the law requires that suspects be informed “within a reasonable time” before the confirmation hearing of the evidence the prosecutor intends to use.
“In the same vein, rule 76 of the Rules establishes that the prosecutor shall provide the defence with the names of witnesses whom he intends to call to testify as well as the copies of any prior statements made by them sufficiently in advance to enable the adequate preparation of the defence.”
The lawyers had argued that by making an application after four similar efforts had been rejected, the prosecutor’s was calculated to delay justice for the suspects.
“The prosecutor’s application is a fourth attempt to achieve orders to avoid or otherwise delay and or compromise disclosure, after motions to the same effect have already been rejected by the court.
“It is a creative design to circumvent orders already deprived and withheld by the court and borders on abuse of court process,” argued the lawyers.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment