Tinderet Member of Parliament Henry Kosgey arrives at the International Criminal Court at the Hague on Sept 1, 2011 for the start of confirmation hearing on post election violence. Photo/WILLIAM OERI
By OLIVER MATHENGE omathenge@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Thursday, September 1 2011 at 22:30
Posted Thursday, September 1 2011 at 22:30
Three suspects on Thursday told International Criminal Court judges that there was no organised financing and attacks during the post election violence as alleged by Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Submitting their arguments on why they should not be tried at The Hague, the three said that the ‘financial branch’ referred to by the prosecution appears to consist of the Emo Foundation and a handful of businessmen, including William Ruto, Henry Kosgey and unidentified ODM supporters, who financed the cause of Kalenjin interests during the elections.
They argued that Mr Moreno-Ocampo has failed to produce any tangible evidence, such as pictures, transaction or purchase receipts “notwithstanding that the collection of such evidence should be within the prosecution’s investigative ability, if it in fact exists.”
“In any event, evidence in support of such allegations does not demonstrate an ‘organisation’ within the context of Article 7(2)(a) of the ICC Statute.
At best, this was noted by the dissenting judge in Dissenting Opinion on Summons Decision. Evidence demonstrates that there was ad hoc financial support from a number of private individuals for the Kalenjin cause,” Mr Ruto’s lawyer Katwa Kigen argued.
Mr Kigen argued that the violence’s “spontaneity and limited duration” further undermines the prosecution’s theory that there was an organisational policy behind it.
Such violence, he added, may have involved planning to some degree but not planning by an organisation or structure that satisfies the criteria to qualify as a crime against humanity.
Retired military officers
They further argued that the alleged involvement of “unnamed retired military officials” in a said network that committed crimes at the height of the post-election violence did not mean there was an organised structure.
The three also anchored their arguments on why they should not be tried at The Hague on a dissenting opinion by one of the judges.
They used the dissenting opinion by Judge Hans-Peter Kaul in which he concluded that the network alleged by the prosecutor did not produce enough evidence to prove the existence of an ‘organisation’ behind the violence.
The defence added that the majority of Pre-Trial Chamber II drew an erroneous conclusion by adopting “a new, liberal and too wide a definition of ‘organisational policy’.”
No comments:
Post a Comment