Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Victims’ response to “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as Amicus Curiae in Response to the Prosecutor’s ’Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’”, 19 February 2014, ICC-01/09- 02/11-904

Victims’ response to “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as Amicus Curiae in Response to the Prosecutor’s ’Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’”, 19 February 2014, ICC-01/09- 02/11-904

Ratings: (0)|Views: 91|Likes:
The Legal Representative of Victims (‘LRV’) in the Uhuru Kenyatta case hereby responds to the “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as Amicus Curiae in Response to the Prosecutor’s ‘Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’”
(‘Government Submissions’)
The Legal Representative of Victims (‘LRV’) in the Uhuru Kenyatta case hereby responds to the “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as Amicus Curiae in Response to the Prosecutor’s ‘Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’”
(‘Government Submissions’)

More info:

Published by: Journalists For Justice on Feb 24, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No.
ICC-01/09-02/11
 1/20
20 February 2014
 
Original:
English
No
.: ICC-01/09-02/11
Date:
20 February 2014 TRIAL CHAMBER V (B)
 
Before: Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Presiding Judge Robert Fremr Judge Geoffrey Henderson SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR V. UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA
Public With Annex Corrected version of Victims’ response to “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as
 Amicus Curiae
in Response to the Prosecutor’s ’Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’
”,
19 February 2014, ICC-01/09-02/11-904 Source: Common Legal Representative of Victims
 
 
No.
ICC-01/09-02/11
 2/20
20 February 2014
 
Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the
Regulations of the Court 
 to: The Office of the Prosecutor
Ms Fatou Bensouda Mr James Stewart Mr Benjamin Gumpert QC
Counsel for the Defence
Mr Steven Kay QC Ms Gillian Higgins
Legal Representatives of Victims
Mr Fergal Gaynor
Legal Representatives of Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparation The Office of Public Counsel for Victims
Ms Paolina Massidda Ms Caroline Walter
The Office of Public Counsel for the Defence States Representative
Mr Githu Muigai SC Attorney-General, Republic of Kenya
REGISTRY Amicus Curiae Registrar
Mr Herman von Hebel
Counsel Support Section Victims and Witnesses Unit
Mr Patrick Craig
Detention Section Victims Participation and Reparations Section
Ms Fiona McKay
Other
 
 
No.
ICC-01/09-02/11
 3/20
20 February 2014
 
I.
 
Introduction
1.
 
In accordance with the Trial Chamber’s Decision,
1
a.
 
The Attorney-General’s arguments about independent commissions are inapposite; the Legal Representative of Victims (‘LRV’) hereby responds to the “Submissions of the Government of the Republic of Kenya as
 Amicus Curiae
 in Response to the Prosecutor’s ‘Notification of the Removal of a witness from the Prosecutor’s Witness List and Application for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date’” (‘Government Submissions’) and submits in summary that:  b.
 
The President of Kenya is ultimately responsible for any failure by Kenya to comply with its obligations under the Rome Statute; c.
 
The Attorney-General’s inaction, not a dilatory judicial system, is the reason for non-cooperation; d.
 
The Attorney-General has provided reasons to justify non-cooperation which are contradictory, inconsistent and misconceived, and indicative of a policy of non-cooperation; and e.
 
There is reason to doubt the
de facto
 independence of the Attorney-General from the President in respect of ICC cooperation.
II. Procedural background
2.
 
On 29 November 2013, the Office of the Prosecutor (‘Prosecution’) filed the ‘Prosecution application for a finding of non-compliance pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Statute against the Government of Kenya’ (‘Application’).
2
3.
 
Having been invited to do so by the Chamber, 
3
 
1
 Decision requesting observations from the Government of Kenya, 9 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-870.
the Government of Kenya (‘Government’) submitted its observations on the Application
2
 Application, ICC-01/09-02/11-866-Conf-Exp. A public redacted version was filed on 2 December 2013 as ICC-01/09-02/11-866-Red.
3
 Decision requesting observations from the Government of Kenya, 9 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-870.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->