Bensouda wants Ruto to attend all hearings

International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda addressing the press at a past press conference. Photo/FILE  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By BERNARD NAMUNANE bnamunane@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted  Monday, July 29   2013 at  22:30

The ICC prosecutor on Monday urged the Appeals Chamber to compel Deputy President William Ruto to attend all sessions of his trial over crimes against humanity when the case opens in September.

Ms Fatou Bensouda filed her appeal with the Second Chamber at The Hague, seeking a reversal of a decision by the judges to excuse Mr Ruto from most of the sessions of the trial proceedings.

She has faulted the decision by judges Chile Eboe-Osuji and Robert Fremr to limit the Deputy President’s attendance to opening and closing statements by all parties in the case on grounds that they acted beyond their discretion.

Ms Bensouda, in her appeal, argues that neither the rules of the International Criminal Court nor the Rome Statute that established the court contemplated handing powers to a bench of judges to decide on whether an accused person can be excused from attending proceedings.

She argues that Articles 63(1), 64(1) and 64(6)(f) of the Rome Statute do not give the judges a window to excuse an accused person from attending most of the hearings.

“Article 63(1) leaves no room for a Trial Chamber to excuse an accused from attending substantially all of his trial. Contrary to the majority’s reasoning, nothing in Article 64(6)(f) alters this position,” she says.

Dissenting opinion

She goes on: “Article 64(1) makes clear that the powers of the Trial Chamber set out in the entire article ‘shall be exercised in accordance with this Statute’. Article 64(6)(f) is a ‘catch all’ provision, which gives the Trial Chamber residual power to rule on matters not otherwise regulated in the Statute or Rules. It is not a ‘trump all’ provision that enables a Trial Chamber to deviate from clear statutory provisions.”

The ICC prosecutor based most of her arguments on the dissenting opinion of judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia, who disagreed with her colleagues.