Bensouda backs Ruto’s plea for ICC trial breaks

By ALLY JAMAH

The ICC prosecutor is not opposed to Deputy President William Ruto’s quest for breaks during his trial scheduled to begin next month to give him time off to attend to Government responsibilities.

International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda indicated she was not opposed to court sitting schedules being varied as Ruto has requested.

Ruto has petitioned the court to have the trial continue for two weeks once it opens on September 10 followed by a two-week break so he can attend to Government business.

Bensouda has, however, proposed that the court considers three-week sessions and breaks so that every witness completes his or her testimony within a session.

The Trial Chamber had on June 18 granted Ruto’s application to be excused from being present throughout his trial at The Hague.

But the prosecutor appealed against the decision and secured a ruling requiring that Ruto must attend all trial sessions pending determination of the prosecution’s appeal.

The deputy president’s defence in turn sought breaks during his trial to meet “the legitimate and fair trial rights of Mr Ruto in a manner that is respectful towards the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya and the democratic mandate entrusted to him”.

On Monday, the prosecutor said: “The prosecution does not object in principle to Mr Ruto’s defence request, provided that the organisation of the court schedule is sufficiently flexible so as to allow for witnesses to finish their testimonies prior to any scheduled break.”

Bensouda added: “The prosecution considers that alternating three-week periods of sessions and breaks, as suggested by Mr Sang’s defence during the status conference held on 19 August 2013 is a more practical proposition.”

Joshua arap Sang is Ruto’s co-accused in the trial for crimes against humanity linked to the 2008 post-election violence.

President Kenyatta’s trial begins in November and there had been fears that both the president and his deputy could be at The Hague at the same time. “The prosecution believes that the three-week sessions are a more appropriate solution as they encourage efficiency and judicial economy,” Bensouda said in a filing yesterday.

She added: “If the Trial chamber were to adopt the two week sessions suggested by Ruto, this would mean that either the following witness would have his or her evidence interrupted or alternatively, the chamber would waste valuable court time.”

The three-week sessions, she argued, would also allow two witnesses to complete their testimonies, even if it means extending the session if necessary. The prosecution estimates that the total testimony of an average prosecution witness may last approximately one-and-a-half weeks.

Unfair testimony

“As a principle, the chamber should strive to avoid situations where witnesses are forced to remain in The Hague for lengthy periods of time away from their family and professional activities until their testimony can be completed,” she explained.

Bensouda cautioned that breaks should not start before witnesses who are on the stand have had the opportunity to complete their testimony.

She said this would effectively ensure that the physical and psychological well-being of these witnesses is safeguarded. “It would not be appropriate that witnesses’ examination be cut and be obliged to wait several weeks before having the opportunity to finish,” Bensouda argued.

The Chief Prosecutor warned that a two-week fragmentation of testimonies could also be unfair to the witnesses, who would be questioned on portions of their testimonies delivered weeks earlier. “The frequent interruption of the testimony of witnesses could potentially interfere with a clear and efficient presentation of evidence,” she said.

Ruto’s defence had submitted a request seeking to have two-week breaks between each session of a similar duration pending the decision by the Appeals Chamber on his request to be excused from being continuously present during the trial.