You are on page 1of 5

CASE TIME LINE (UP PROSECUTOR

TO

COURT RECESS AUG 2013)


AND JOSHUA

WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO

ARAP SANG

5 February 2008 The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issues a statement that he is carefully considering all information relating to crimes allegedly committed in Kenya in relation to the post-election violence of 2007-2008. 5 November 2009 The Prosecutor notifies the President of the Court of his intention to submit a request for the authorisation to start an investigation into the situation in Kenya. 6 November 2009 The Presidency assigns the situation in Kenya to Pre-Trial Chamber II (PTC II). 26 November 2009 The Prosecutor files an application to PTC II for authorisation to open an investigation into the situation in Kenya. 31 March 2010 PTC II, by majority, authorises the Prosecutor to open the investigation into the situation in Kenya in relation to crimes against humanity committed between 1 June 2005 and 26 November 2009. 15 December 2010 The Prosecutor files an application for the issuance of summons to appear for William Samoei Ruto (Ruto), Henry Kiprono Kosgey (Kosgey) and Joshua Arap Sang (Sang). They are suspected of crimes against humanity of murder, deportation or forcible transfer of population, torture and persecution, allegedly committed in Kenya from 30 December 2007 to 16 January 2008. 8 March 2011 PTC II summons Ruto, Kosgey and Sang to appear before the Court on 7 April 2011. 31 March 2011 The Government of Kenya files an application challenging the admissibility of the case against Ruto, Kosgey and Sang before the Court. The Government claims that it is undergoing a comprehensive legal and judicial reform and intends to investigate and prosecute the cases domestically. 5 April 2011 A Kenyan national and alleged victim of the 2007-2008 post-election violence, Ms Moraa Gesicho, files a request to submit observations to PTC II on the factual aspects of the allegations against Ruto, Kosgey and Sang. PTC II rejects the request on 12 April 2011. 7 April 2011 1

CASE TIME LINE (UP PROSECUTOR


V

TO

COURT RECESS AUG 2013)


AND JOSHUA

WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO

ARAP SANG

Ruto, Kosgey and Sang first appear before the Court. PTC II schedules the confirmation of charges hearing for 1 September 2011. 27 April 2011 The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya) files a request to submit observations to PTC II on the national prosecutions before Kenyan courts and the admissibility of the case before the Court. PTC II rejects the request on 11 May 2011. 30 May 2011 PTC II rejects the Kenyan Governments challenge to the admissibility of the case against Ruto, Kosgey and Sang. PTC II finds that there are no ongoing domestic proceedings with respect of the three suspects, and finds the case admissible before the Court. The Appeals Chamber confirms the PTC II decision on 30 August 2011. 3 June 2011 PTC II requests the parties and participants to file their observations on the desirability and feasibility of holding the confirmation of charges hearing in Kenya. The Prosecution, the defence and the victims all express objections to holding the hearing in Kenya. 10 June 2011 No Peace Without Justice files a request to submit observations to PTC II on the desirability and feasibility of conducting the confirmation hearing on the Kenyan Territory. PTC II rejects the request on 13 June 2011. 1 August 2011 The Prosecutor presents amended charges against Ruto, Kosgey and Sang. The three suspects are no longer charged with the crime against humanity of torture. 5 August 2011 PTC II defines the procedural rights of victims at the pre-trial stage. Victims are granted the right to attend and participate in all public sessions of the confirmation hearing, access the public record of the case, questions witnesses upon the authorisation by the judges, and make written submissions on questions of fact and law. A total of 327 victims are allowed to participate in the proceedings. 26 August 2011 Ruto requests PTC II to excuse him from participating in part of the confirmation hearing, in order to enable him to fulfil his official duties in the Kenyan Government. On 29 August 2011, PTC II rejects Rutos request and orders him to either attend the entire hearing, or to submit a new request to be absent from the whole proceedings. 30 August 2011

CASE TIME LINE (UP PROSECUTOR


V

TO

COURT RECESS AUG 2013)


AND JOSHUA

WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO

ARAP SANG

Defence for Ruto and Sang challenges the jurisdiction of the case before the Court. They argue that the level of organisation and structure in which the crimes were allegedly committed does not reach the required level for crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute.

1-8 September 2011 The confirmation of charges hearing in the case against Ruto, Kosgey and Sang is held in the Courts headquarters in The Hague. 23 January 2012 PTC II rejects the defences challenge to the Courts jurisdiction. It confirms all charges against Ruto and Sang, and declines to confirm charges against Kosgey. 29 March 2012 Trial Chamber V (TC V) is constituted and assigned the case Prosecutor v William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang . It is composed of Judge Van den Wyngaert, Judge Ozaki and Judge Eboe-Osuji. 24 August 2012 The Civil Society Organisation Network (CSO Network) files a request to submit observations to TC V on victims participation in the proceedings. TC V rejects the request on 13 September 2012. 3 October 2012 TC V sets up a new procedure for victims participation in the case against Ruto and Sang. Only victims who wish to actually appear in court now need to submit a written application, while victims who wish to participate in absentia through a common legal representative will be subject to a much less rigorous registration procedure. 23 November 2012 Kituo Chia Sheria (Centre for Legal Aid Empowerment) files observations on victims participation and representation. 2 January 2013 TC V permits the parties to prepare witnesses before their testimony. Judges adopt a Witness Preparation Protocol, which sets out a complete list of permitted and prohibited conduct of the parties and their witnesses during the preparation. 8 January 2013 Kenya Human Rights Commission files a request to submit observations to TC V on the disclosure of the identities of prosecution witnesses. TC V rejects the request on 1 February 2013. 24 January 2013 3

CASE TIME LINE (UP PROSECUTOR


V

TO

COURT RECESS AUG 2013)


AND JOSHUA

WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO

ARAP SANG

Defence for Ruto and Sang jointly file a request to TC V to hold the trial in Kenya or, alternatively, at the premises of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania. They argue that holding the trial in Kenya or Tanzania would minimise the disruption to the public and private lives of the defendants, facilitate investigations and bring justice closer to the Kenyan population. 22 February 2013 Victims file their observations on the possibility of holding the trial in Kenya or Tanzania. Victims express their opposition to holding the trial in Kenya due to safety concerns and potential interference with the court process. The majority of victims prefer the trial to be held in The Hague. 28 February 2013 Defence for Ruto and Sang jointly file a request to TC V to authorise the accused to be present at trial via video link technology, on occasions to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Prosecutor objects the request on 22 March 2013, arguing that the Rome Statute does not provide a legal basis for the accuseds appearance via video link and that to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice. 8 March 2013 TC V postpones the commencement of the trial to 28 May 2013 to allow the defence adequate time to prepare. 26 April 2013 Judge Van den Wyngaert of TC V is replaced by Judge Fremr. 6 May 2013 TC V vacates the trial date of 28 May 2013 to allow the defence adequate time to prepare, and decides to set the new date at a later stage. 10 May 2013 The Prosecutor files observations on the Kenyan Governments cooperation with the OTP. The Prosecutor notes that some of the most critical documents and records which the OTP has requested from the Government have remained outstanding for one to three years, despite the Prosecutors repeated efforts. The Government of Kenya denies allegations of non-cooperation. 21 May 2013 The Presidency dissolves TC V and constitutes Trial Chamber V(a) (TC V(a)) and Trial Chamber V(b) (TC V(b)). The case against Ruto and Sang is assigned to TC V(a), composed of Judge Herrera Carbuccia, Judge Fremr and Judge Eboe-Osuji. 3 June 2013 4

CASE TIME LINE (UP PROSECUTOR


V

TO

COURT RECESS AUG 2013)


AND JOSHUA

WILLIAM SAMOEI RUTO

ARAP SANG

TC V(a) sets the date of the commencement of the trial in the case against Ruto and Sang on 10 September 2013. 18 June 2013 TC V(a) allows Ruto to be partially absent from his trial proceedings, in order to allow him fulfil his official duties as the Deputy President of Kenya. Judges order Ruto to be present in the courtroom during the opening and closing statements of all parties and participants, the presentation of the views and concerns of victims, the delivery of judgment in the case, the entirety of the sentencing and reparation hearings (if applicable), and any other attendance directed by TC V(a). Rutos request to be present via video link technology is dismissed. 15 July 2013 The plenary session of judges of the Court rejects the joint defence request to hold the trial in Kenya or Tanzania and decides that the trial will commence in the Courts headquarters in The Hague. The judges take into consideration security and cost of holding proceedings outside The Hague, the potential impact on victims and witnesses, as well as the potential impact on the perception of the Court. 29 July 2013 The Prosecutor appeals against the TC V(a) decision to allow Ruto to be partially absent from his trial. The Prosecutor argues that the decision incorrectly interprets the provisions of the Rome Statute and violates the principle of equal treatment under the law.