The Government of the Republic of Kenya's Submissions on the Prosecution's Request under Article 64...

8/13/2019 The Government of the Republic of Kenya's Submissions on the Prosecution's Request under Article 64 (6) (b) and

1/15

CourPnaleI 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 im ina lCour t

Original- No.:lCC-01/09-01/11Date: 10 Feb m ary 2014

TRIAL CHAMBER V(A)Before: Judge Chile Eboe-O suji P residing JudgeJudg e Olga Herrera C arbucciaJudge Robert Fretnr

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYAm THE CASE OFJHE PROSECUTOR v, WILUAM SAMOEI RUTO and JOSHUA ARAP SANG

PublicThe G ove mm ent of the Republic of Kenya's Subm issions on the Tros ecution's Requestun de r A rticle 64 (6) (b) and A rticle 93 to Sum mo n W itnesses'

Source:Government of the Republic of Kenya, represented by the Attorney General of Kenya

No, ICC-01/09-01/11 1 15 10 Fe bra ary 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 1/15 EO T


2/15

Do cum en t to be not i f ie d in accordanc e with regu lat ion 31 of the Regu lat ion s of theCou rt to :The Office of the ProsecutorMs .Fatou Bensouda, ProsecutorMr James Stewart , Deputy ProsecutorMr Anton S teynberg

Counse l fo r Wi l l i am Samoei RutoMr Karim A.A. Khan QCMr David Hooper QCMr Essa FaalMs Shyamala AlagendraCounse l fo r Joshua Arap SangMr Joseph Kipchumba Kigen-KatwaMs Carol ine Buisman

Legal Representat ives of the Vict imsMr Wilfred Nderitu Lega l Represe nta t ives o f the A ppl ica nt s

U nre p re s e n t e d V i c t i m s U nre p re s e n t e d A pp l i c a n t s(Par t i c ipa t ion/Repara t ion)

Th e Office of Pub l ic Co un sel for T he Office of Pu bl ic Co un sel for theVict ims DefenceMs Paol ina Massidda

Sta tes ' Representa t ivesMr Githu Muigai , SCAttorney General, Republic of KenyaAmicus curiae

REGISTRYRegistrarMr Herman von Hebel Defence Counsel Support Section

Deputy RegistrarVictims and Witnesses Unit Detention SectionVictims Participation and ReparationsSection Other

N o . ICC-01/09-01/11 2 15 10 Feb ruar y 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 2/15 EO T


3/15

I ' I N T R O D U C T I O N1. The Go ve rn m en t of the Repu blic of Kenya here by respectfully fi les w ith Trial

Chamber V(.A) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) ( ' the Court ') ,pursuant to Rule 103(l )of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence,observations on the relief sought in the Prosecutor 's Corrected and amendedversion of 'Troseciition's request under article 64(6)(b) and artide 93 to summonwitnesses ' '^ ( 'Summons Request^. The Government of the Republic of Kenyawas invi ted to submit these wri t ten observat ions by Trial Chamber V(A) ( tieTrial Chamber') in its 'Decision on status conference and additional submissionsrelated to Prosec ution's request un der article 64(6)(h) and article 93 to summ onwitnesses ( 'Status Conference Decision'). '

II BACKGROUND2. On 28 .Novem ber 2013, the Office of the Prose cuto r ( 'Pro secu tion') fi led the

Summons Reques t ,3. On 29 Janu ary 2014, Tria l Ch am ber V(A) in i ts Status Conference D eds ion

invi ted the Government of the Republ ic of Kenya to ' submit wri t tenobservations on the relief sought in the Summons Request'.-^Specifically,paragraph 8 of the Decis ion invi ted the Government of Kenya to f i le wri t tensubmiss ions which address the issue of whether the re l ief sought by theProsecution is prohibited by national law. In particular, the Court stated that:

\.. By relying upon Article 93(1)(1) of the Statute, the Prosecution has madeKenyan national law an important component of the present litigation. TheChamber considers that it would be of assistance prior to ruling to hear fromthe Government of Kenya on whether or not the relief sought by theProsecution is prohibited by national law. Pursuant to Rule 103(1) of theRules, the Chamber invites the Government of Kenya to submit writtenobservations on the relief sought in the Summons Request/

' lCC-01/09-01/11-1120, 5 Decem ber 2013.- ICC-01/09-01/1M165, 29 January 2014.^ lCC-'01/09-01/lM165 , 29 January 2014, para. 8.N o .ICC-01/09-01/11 3/15 10 F eb m ar y 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 3/15 EO T


4/15

4. The re l ief sought in the Summons Request i s c lear ly s ta ted at paragraph100(B) and reads thus:

'...for the Government of Kenya's assistance in compelling and ensuring theappearance of the summoned witnesses for testimony before the Court on theterritory of K enya;...'

III . S U B M I S S I O N S5. The Government of the Republic of Kenya submits that while i t is feasible

under the laws of Kenya for witnesses to voluntarily appear before the Courtsitting at an appropriate location of its choice in Kenya (/// situ or by means ofvideo-link technology) for purposes of testifying before the Court , theGovernment of the Republic of Kenya submits that under i ts national law, inpart icular The Internat ional Crimes Act , No. 16 of 2008, a wi tness cannot becompelled to appear and testify before the Court regardless of where theCourt is si t t ing.

6, The Gov ernm ent of the Republ ic of Kenya 's subm iss ions in respo nse to thePro sec utio n's re qu est for the relief set ou t in. p ar ag ra p h 100(B), wi ll focus onthree main points as follows:

a) That the Rome Statute employs the pr inciple of voluntary appearanceof witnesses to testify before the Court whether at the seat of the Courtor wdthin the terri tory of Kenya. Thus, the Court has no power torequest the Government of the Republ ic of Kenya to compel unwil l ingwitnesses to appear and testify before t l ie Court;

b) That the Prosecutor cannot legally and legit imately impose obligationson Kenya as a State Party to the Rome Statute ( ' the Statute ') , beyondthose obligations that the Statute i tself imposes on States Parties.Requir ing the Government of the Republ ic of Kenya to exercise judidal

N o.ICC-01/09^01/11 4/15 10 Fe br ua ry 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 4/15 EO T


5/15

authori ty in compel l ing witnesses would be an at tempt a t imposingobligations on a State Party that exceed the treaty obligations; and

c) That the Prosecution's reading of Kenya's national law regarding theappearance of witnesses to testify before the ICC is flawed,

(a) Principle of Voluntant Appearance of a Witness to Testify before the ICC

7. The Go ver nm ent of the Republic of Kenya subm its that , contrary to wh at theProsecut ion asser ts a t paragraph 65 of the Summons Request , the giving oforal (viva voce) testimony before the Court is based on the principle ofvo luntar y appearance.^In part icular , pa rag rap h 65 of the Su mm on s R equestreads thus :

'If the Court's ability to hear oral evidence were to depend entirely on theinclination of witnesses to appear voluntarily, it would be hostage to thecontinuing good will of its witnesses and at the mercy of external forces. As aresult, its truth-finding function and public confidence in the accuracy of itsfinal judgment could be significantly compromised. The Court, therefore,should take all available steps within its authority to secure the attenda nce ofwitnesses.'I t follows that the Prosecution, at paragraph 65 of i ts application,misconst rued the judicial powers of the Court in regard to summoningwitnesses to testify in trials . The Court has no powers to compel witnesses totestify against their will.^^

' C. Sluiter , ' 'I Beg You, Please Com e Testify '' ~ The Problem atic Absence of Subpo ena Pow ers at theICC, New Criminal Law Review, (12) No. 4, Fall 2009, pp. 590 - 608htrp://dare.uva.nl/documen l: . /I99910 last accessed 6 Febru ary 2014.International Bar Association, Witnesses before the International Criminal Court, July 2013http:/7wvvvv.google.co.uk/url?sa^t&rct^j&q==&esrc~s&source= Vveb&cd^%3A%2F-X>2Fwww.ibanet.org%2FDocument%2FD efault.aspx%3FDocumentid^^-;>3D9c4f533d-1927-421b-8c12-d41768ffc11f&ei^-KdX0UqSXLqFiq4wSk3YCYLX\^usg-AlK.)jCNE6FY2qvdnibP3p4iW^^7 Februa ry 2014.N o .ICC-01/09-01/11 5/15 10 Fe br ua ry 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 5/15 EO T


6/15

8 . T h e G ov e r n m e n t o f t h e R e p u b l i c o f K e n y a s u b m i t s t h a t t h e P r os e c u t i on ' sana lys i s of Ar t ic le 64(6) (b )of the Rome S ta tu te i s f l awed . Ar t ic le 64(6) (b )s ta te s :

'6 . In perfo rmin g its functions prio r to trial or du rin g the co urse of a trial,the Trial Chamber may, as necessary: . . .(b) Require the a t tendance and tes t imony of witnesses and product ionof documents and other evidence by obtaining, i f necessary, theassistance of States as provided in this Statute; '

T h e P r o s e c u t i o n , a t p a r a g r a p h s 6 6 a n d 6 7 o f t h e S u m m o n s R e q u e s t , a l l e g e st h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e a t t e n d a n c e a n d t e s t i m o n y o fw i t n e s s e s r e f l e c t s t h e p ow e r a n d c a p a c i t y o f t h e C ou r t t o i s s u e ' a n o r d e rc om p e l l i n g p e r s on a l a p p e a r a n c e ' o f w i t n e s s e s t o t e s t i f y b e f o r e t h e C ou r t .

I t a p p e a r s t h a t i n i t s a n a l y s i s , t h e P r o s e c u t i o n e q u a t e s ' r e q u i r e ' w i t h ' o r d e r ' .T h e t w o w ^ o r d s a r e n o t s y n o n y m o u s a n d t h e P r o s e c u t i o n p u r p o r t s t o a s c r i b e ameaning to the t e rm ' r ec ju i re ' a s used in the S ta tu te , tha t i s d i f fe ren t f rom i t so r d i n a r y m e a n i n g . T h i s is c o n t r a r y t o t h e r u l e s o f t r e a t y i n t e r p r e t a t i on a sp r o v i d e d i n A r t i c l e 3 1 ( 1 ) o f t h e V i e n n a C o n v e n t i o n o n t h e L a w o f T r e a t i e s ,1 9 6 9 ( V C L T ) w h i c h p r ov i d e s t h a t :

'A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinarymeaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the lightof its object and purpose. 'I n t h i s r e g a r d . S l u i t e r ob s e r v e s , t h a t ' t h e l a n g u a g e o f A r t i c l e 6 4 ( 6 ) ( b ) i s n o tc l e a r . I t d oe s n o t f o l l ow f r om i t t h a t a d i r e c t ob l i g a t i on t ow a r d w i t n e s s e s i se n v i s a g e d . R e q u i r i n g t h e a t t e n d a n c e i s n o t i d e n t i c a l t o o r d e r i n g o r s i m i l a rl a n g u a g e . ' ^ ^ A s s u c h , ' on e m u s t t h e r e f o r e c on s t r u e t h i s w or d i n g i n l i g h t o fo t h e r r e l e v a n t p r ov i s i on s ' i n t h i s c a s e p r ov i s i on s o f A r t i c l e 9 3 o f t h e R om eS t a t u t e a s t h e y r e l a t e t o s u m m on i n g o f w i t n e s s e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , A r t i c l e 9 3 { l ) ( e )

^Supra note4,p. 600.N o . I C C - O l / 0 9 - 0 1 / 1 1 6 /1 5 1 0 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 6/15 EO T


7/15

and (1) as well as Article 93(7) of the Rome Statute. None of these provisionscompel or order States to provide the set out form of cooperation, but instead,they are forms of ass istance on witness a t tendan ce and tes t imony wh ich Statesare requested to prov ide un de r proc edu res of nat ional law^

9. M oreove r , the Go vern me nt of the Republ ic Kenya 's submiss ion that givingwitness tes t imony before the ICC is regulated by the pr inciple of voluntaryappearance is further grounded by the fact that . Part 6 of the Statute w^hichsets out Article 64(6)(b) wiiich requires the attendance of witnesses, does notl ikewise provide any sanct ions for non-at tendance by witnesses .

If, indeed. Article 64(6)(b) of the Statute granted the Court the power tocompel wi tness a t tendance and tes t imony, i t would fol low that the Statutewould have se t out the sanct ions for non-compliance with the authorisat ion ofthe Cou rt . How ever , Art ic le 64 of the Statute does n othin g m ore than se t ou t arequirement for wi tness a t tendance wii i le remaining s i lent on the enforcementmechanism or attendant sanctions for non-compliance. '^ '

10, Moreover, none of the provisions of Part 6 of the Statute, which deals with thetrial process, sets out sanctions that may be meted out against States orwitnesses personal ly for non-compliance with a requirement of the Court forwitness a t tendance and tes t imony.Slui ter notes that , during the Rome Conference, negot ia t ions were conductedrelating to offences against the administration of justice and misconduct butStates did not discuss sanctions or enforcement measures in case of failure bya witness or a requested State to comply with a requirement for wi tnessattendance and testimony.^ As such, i t is doubtful whether the founders of theStatute really intended Article 64(6)(b) of the Statute to be a mandatory

-Supra note 5, p. 1.^Supra note4,p. 598.N o .ICC^Ol/09^01/11 7/15 10 F eb m ar y 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 7/15 EO T


8/15

provision sett ing out authoritat ive orders. In this regard, Sluiter observes:'The absence of any mechanism to directly enforce an 'order to appear as awitness raises the question as to what should then be und erstoo d by thepower to require the appearance of witnesses, as contained in Article 64 (6)(b)of the Statute. It seems to have essentialIy~or only-internal effect, namelyamong parties, when no sanction can be imposed on the witness for failure toappear. It should thus be understood as requiring parties to undertake theirbest efforts to ensure the appearance of w itnesses...... It is symptomatic that within Part 6 the provision on offenses against theadministration of justice (Article 70) does not include the failure of a witnessto respond to a request or summons from a Trial Chamber to appear; nor hasthere ever since been adopted any enforcement provision in the Rules ofProcedure and Evidence. It vicans nothing else than that the ICC itself has nodirect enforcement powers, and while this is not determinative regarding the existenceof a direct obligation toward the Court it is nevertheless very strong evidence thatsimphj no obligation was intended at the Rome conference [emphasis addedk Thisma kes perfect sense in light of the lang uage of Part 9.'

11.The Go vernment of the Republic of Kenya submits that Pre-Trial Cham ber IPs'Second Decision on Application by Nine Persons to be Questioned by the Office ofthe Prosecutor ' ' ' in the Situation in the Republic of Kenya confirms that theprocess of giving tes t imony or evidence before the Court i s volu ntary .

b) Ob l iga t ions o f a S ta te P ar ty under the Rome S ta tu te R egarding theAttendance and Test imony of a Witness

12 .At para gra ph s 67, 68 and 73 of the Sum mo ns R equest , the Prosecut ion asser tsthat the Government of the Republic of Kenya is obligated to provide theCourt with assistance in respect of Articles 64{6)(b) and 93(1) of the Statute byfacil i tat ing and ensuring the attendance of witnesses to testify before theCourt .

^Ibid (emphasis added).lCC-01/09,31January2011.N o .ICC-01/09-01/11 8/15 10 Fe bm ar y 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 8/15 EO T


9/15


10/15

nat ional courts , to compel or order the a t tendance and tes t imony of wi tnessesfrom States Parties and request the States Parties ' assistance in this regard/^The founders of the Rome Statute intended that the Court be complementary^to national criminal jurisdictions, and thus at the same level with nationalcourts of States Parties.

14 .As discussed earlier, the Rom e Statute mechanism envisages a s i tuation wh erewitnesses voluntarily appear and testify before the Court . Thus, the obligationof Kenya as a State I^arty is to faciHtate the voluntary appearance of witnessesto testify before the Court . Attributing other power or effect on the Court otherthan the powder to request voluntary appearance of witnesses would be anat tempt to expand the powers of the Court and obl igat ions of States Part iesbeyond that which the treaty sets out, and thus consti tute a breach of treaty.

c) Pro secu t ion 's M isap pl ica t ion of Kenyan Laxv15 .The G ov ern me nt of the Republ ic of Kenya subm its that the Prosecut ion 's

request , that is ' the Government of Kenya's assistance in compelling andensuring the appearance of the summoned witnesses for tes t imony before theCourt on the terr i tory of Kenya ' i s procedural and thus i t s implementat ion isregulated by the procedural provis ions se t out under the Internat ionalCrimes Act, No. 16 of 2008.The International Crimes Act ( 'ICA') is theimplement ing legis la t ion of the Rome Statute in Kenya. Other than providingfor the appUcation of the Rome Statute in Kenya, subject to the national ordomest ic c i rcumstances , i t se ts out the procedure for cooperat ion with theICC.

16 .Co ntr ary to w^hat the Prosecu tion a lleges in par ag ra ph 80 of i ts Su m m on sRequest , the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 75 of the Laws of Kenya se tsout the procedure for proceedings in cr iminal mat ters and processes in

^^Su prano te4, pp. 600, 607.N o.ICC^Ol/09-01/11 10/15 10 Fe br ua ry 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 10/15 EO T


11/15

relat ion to criminal cases under the jurisdict ion of the Kenyan courts. TheCriminal Procedure Code cannot be appl ied in respect of a procedura l requestthat the ICC, an international court , has jurisdict ion over. Therefore, theProsecut ion cannot legal ly adopt the def ini t ion of the te rm 'summons' as usedin the Criminal Procedure Code and apply i t to the def ini t ion of ' summons'under the Internat ional Crimes Act ,

17 . The Prosecut ion a t paragraph 83 of the Summons Request a l leges thus:'Put another way, article 93(1)(1) does not rely on the positive inclusion of anenabling provision in national law for the measures sought, but is drafted inthe negative - the absence of a prohibition. If the national law of a requestedState is silent, and thus does not prohibit the requested measure, the ICC canrequest it. It is thus open for the Court to seek State assistance in not merelyservin g a summ ons , but more specifically in securing com pliance wx it. Tothe Prosecution's best information, nothing in Kenya's law prohibits a requestthat the GoK require the presence of the summoned witness throughcompulsory measures. On the contrary, as noted above, its national lawelsewhere provides for the enforcement of a 'summons' through coercivemeasures.'

18 . In seeking the Court ' s assis tance in reques t ing the G ov ern m ent of Kenya toeffec t service of summonses and to compel the a t tendance of the wi tnessesident i f ied in the Summons Request , the Prosecut ion a l leges tha t Kenya 'snat ional law provides for a mechanism of enforceabi l i ty of summonses onunwi l l ing wi tnesses .It is the Government of the Republic of Kenya's submission that theProsecut ion misinterpre ted and misapphed Kenya 's law in developing i t sf lawed arguments in paragraphs 79, 80 and 81 in support of i t s c la im thatKenyan law a l lows the appHcat ion of coerc ive measures to enforce a summonsorder ing a wi tness to appear and test i fy before the Court , The paragraphsstate as folknvs:

'79. With respect to Kenya, the International Crimes Act appe ars todistinguish between (i) a summ ons requiring a person to appear as aN o. ICC01 /09-01/l l 11/15 10 Fe br ua ry 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 11/15 EO T


12/15


13/15


14/15


15/15

Respectfully submitted.

Dated 10Febru ary 2014At N airobi Kenya

N o.ICC-Ol/09-01/11 15/15 10 Feb ruary 2014

ICC-01/09-01/11-1184 11-02-2014 15/15 EO T

The Government of the Republic of Kenya's Submissions on the Prosecution's Request under Article 64...

Documents

Transcript of The Government of the Republic of Kenya's Submissions on the Prosecution's Request under Article 64...