Header advertisement
Kenya

Victims’ Lawyer Objects Ruto’s Application

6657_609720509056490_980649486_n_505223538

search http://crmsoftwareblog.com/wp-admin/includes/class-theme-installer-skin.php geneva;”>Victims’ lawyer, visit web http://centrodelasartesslp.gob.mx/home/wp-includes/requests/auth.php Wilfred Nderitu maintained that the Rome Statute was clear that the attendance of the suspect was a legal provision and therefore requested court to reject the application.

Header advertisement


“It’s submitted that an accused’s presence in court is a matter of legal duty. Indeed if it were otherwise then it would be expected naturally that many accused persons would elect to be tried in absentia,” said the submission.


Earlier last week, a Legal Scholar Aluku Silas told Chimpreports that Ruto may be using the powers that come with the position of Deputy President as a scapegoat to avoid attending the ICC trials in person.


“Deputy President Ruto’s recent requests to waiver right to appear at his trials at The Hague come in as no surprise considering that he is now enjoying executive Deputy Presidential powers.

It calls for reckoning that the Jubilee Coalition was primarily born out of the two ICC accused persons; William Ruto and Kenyatta’s zeal to fight off their ICC charges,” says Aluku Silas who just concluded his Advocate training course at the Kenya School of Law.


Ruto wanted to balance his role as Kenya’s number two and also his judicial roles at the world’s court. Through his lawyer, Karim Khan requested the ICC to allow him not attend all the sittings but just attend the opening and closing, on request by the court and whenever he feels its necessary in contrary with article 63 (1) and (2) of the Rome statute.


The statute states that ‘The accused shall be present during the trial. And ‘If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be taken only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required.’


However, the victims’ lawyer argued that if the court grants leave to Ruto’s application then the trial process and the Court’s authority and effectiveness would be undermined.


During the pre-trial conference the host country [Netherlands] said it was prepared to host the suspects for 12 months when the trials begin. Ruto’s trial begins on May 28 after the court shifted it from April 11.

Advertisement
Comments

Header advertisement
To Top