ICC Gets Fresh “Compelling Evidence” Against Ruto, Sang


information pills geneva;”>On May 6, Trial Chamber V had decided to vacate the date of the trial’s start, scheduled on 28 May 2013, indicating that a new trial date would be set in due course.

Header advertisement

The Chamber held a hearing on May 14, in the presence of the two accused, to discuss procedural matters and other issues including the Prosecutor’s request to add six witnesses to the list of witnesses and the Defence’s request to vacate the trial date to adequately prepare its case.

After reviewing the parties and participants’ observations, the Chamber, composed of Judges Chile Eboe-Osuji (Presiding), Olga Herrera Carbuccia and Robert Fremr, authorised the Prosecutor to add two persons to her list of witnesses for this case and set the new date of the trial’s opening accordingly.

The ICC is a permanent international court set up to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, thus contributing to the prevention of such crimes.

However, the Hague-based court has lately come under fire for politicizing justice and targeting only African leaders.

The duo is accused alongside President Uhuru Kenyatta for fuelling crimes against humanity during the 2007 post-election violence.


The Prosecution submits that it has recently discovered three new witnesses, namely P-564, P-571 and P-572, whose evidence is said to be both “critical” for the Prosecution’s case and offering “new and compelling evidence” which “will ultimately aid the Chamber in its determination of the truth and serve the interests of justice”

The Prosecution contends that the Chamber should allow the addition of this evidence as it fulfills the test set out by Trial Chamber 11 in Katanga and Ngudplo,” according to which the new evidence must be “either more compelling than evidence already disclosed to the Defence, or bring to light previously unknown facts which have a significant bearing upon the case”.

ICC Prosecution alleges that the lateness in the discovery of these three persons as potential witnesses is not to be attributed to the Prosecution, but rather resulted from the “exceptional and precarious circumstances of the case”.

These circumstances are said to include “an atmosphere of intimidation in Kenya”, which has had “a chilling effect on current prosecution witnesses as well as anyone intending on cooperating with the Court”.

The Prosecution explains that as a result of security concerns two of its “most critical witnesses”, as well as another witness, have been unable to provide assurances that they will testify at trial.

For this reason, the Prosecution says it has continued investigating “in the hope of finding new witnesses to replace” the aforementioned witnesses, in the event that this becomes necessary.”

In addition, the Prosecution requests permission to add “two other important witnesses”, namely P-111 and P-471, to its witness list. The Prosecution submits that this addition “will serve to establish the truth”, and that it “will not unduly prejudice the Defence”, because these witnesses were initially already on the Prosecution’s witness list and the material related to these witnesses was previously disclosed to the Defence in January 2013 and November 2012, respectively, albeit in redacted form.

ICC prosecutors say given the personal circumstances of P-111 at the time that the deadline for disclosure of his identity was approaching; it had no alternative but to remove this witness from its list.

They further add that circumstances have since changed and that P-111 is now in a position to testify.


Header advertisement
To Top