ICC judges reject application on victims

By FELIX OLICK

Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have rejected an application to reconsider their decision regarding victims’ participation when trials kick off.

The three-judge Bench rejected the request that had been made by former legal representative of victims Sureta Chana in the case against Eldoret North MP William Ruto and Radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.

In their decision, the judges said Ms Chana had failed to persuade the Chamber that their earlier decision was manifestly unsound.

In an earlier decision, the judges noted that victims of the 2007/2008 post-election violence who wished to participate in the proceedings would do so either individually by appearing directly before the Chamber or via video-link.

They also said that victims’ legal representatives must be based in Kenya.

However, Chana was opposed to the idea of victims participating via video link as well as having a legal representative based in Kenya.

She argued that the idea of having some victims participate in the proceedings through video link while others in person would lead to two groups of victims.

“This may effectively lead to two groups of victims, “first-class victims” who individually appear before the Court and “second-class victims” who do not, and whose victim status is not even individually determined by the Chamber,” she argued.

Ms Chana who has since been replaced by Wilfred Nderitu also argued that victims’ representatives based in Kenya may not have the independence to represent the victims’ interest citing threats by those with influence.

She also raised concern over the division of responsibilities between the Office of Public Counsel for Victims and the common legal representative.

Chana maintained that there would be difficulty in determining whether the submission made on victims’ behalf during the proceedings would accurately reflect their views. But in yesterday’s ruling, the judges said that Chana’s request was an attempt to persuade the Chamber to reconsider matters, which it has already examined and determined.

“Ms Chana does not persuade the Chamber that the Victims Decision was manifestly unsound or created manifestly unsatisfactory consequences. As such, the request must be rejected,” they ruled