 |
|
DPPS| NATION Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary
Amina Mohamed with other delegates at the
Assembly of State Parties in the Netherlands.
|
Thursday, November 28, 2013
In Summary
President
Uhuru Kenyatta’s and Deputy President William Ruto’s anxious wait for a
resolution of the Assembly of State Parties ended last evening when
they were finally allowed to skip court sessions in their ongoing trials
at The Hague.
The assembly of state parties, whose
meeting closes today after nine days of discussions, Wednesday agreed to
change the rules potentially allowing the two leaders to be away during
the proceedings in their cases.
The two are facing crimes against humanity charges at the Hague.
Mr Ruto’s case has been adjourned until early January while Mr Kenyatta’s case will begin in February.
On
Saturday, Mr Kenyatta is likely to assume the chairmanship of the East
African Community, which means that besides his duties as president, he
will have more responsibilities as leader of the economic bloc.
Mr Kenyatta now awaits the formalisation of the decision taken by the Assembly of State Parties at The Hague Thursday.
MAJOR VICTORY
After Wednesday evening’s agreement, Kenya’s Foreign Secretary Amina Mohamed said: “We have achieved a fundamental change in how the ICC functions. This is a major victory for the Kenyan team. It is significant in how the ICC engages.”
After Wednesday evening’s agreement, Kenya’s Foreign Secretary Amina Mohamed said: “We have achieved a fundamental change in how the ICC functions. This is a major victory for the Kenyan team. It is significant in how the ICC engages.”
And Attorney-General Githu Muigai
said: “The decision, supported by the entire Working Group and expected
to be endorsed by the ASP at a plenary, was a major triumph for Kenya.”
President
Kenyatta and Mr Ruto recently lost a bid to have the cases against them
deferred by the UN Security Council after failing to secure the
requisite nine out of 15 votes. Kenya only secured seven votes. The
other security council members abstained from voting.
In
addition, the Appeals Chamber of the ICC on October 25 reversed the
“blanket excusal” that had been granted to Mr Ruto that allowed him to
skip parts of the trials. And on Tuesday this week, Trial Chamber V (b),
by majority, also reconsidered the excusal of President Kenyatta, with
Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji dissenting.
Before the ICC state
parties agreed on the amendments, legal representative for victims in
Mr Kenyatta’s case, Mr Fergal Gaynor, had said that any decision the
assembly takes must be consistent with the Rome Statute, the principal
legal instrument of the ICC. Otherwise, he said, the judges of the ICC
can declare it null and void if found to be inconsistent with the Rome
Statute.
“As you are aware, there have been suggestions
to amend the ICC’s rules of procedure and evidence to allow for an
accused person who is mandated to fulfil highest responsibilities of a
State to be absent from the courtroom. Any amendment to the rules must
be consistent with the Statute,” Mr Gaynor said.
Mr
Gaynor said Article 63 (1) of the statute imposes an obligation on the
accused to be present in the courtroom for the duration of the trial,
while Article 27(1) requires that all provisions of the Statute,
including the Article 63(1) obligation to be present at trial, be
applied to all accused without distinction based on official capacity.
“The
proposed change to the rules of procedure and evidence appears to be
inconsistent with these two bedrock principles of the statute.
“In
the event of conflict between the statute and any amendment to the
rules of procedure and evidence, the statute shall prevail.
“It
will be up to the judges to decide in due course whether any amendment
to the rules of procedure and evidence adopted by the assembly is
consistent with the statute,” he said.
Human Rights
Watch Wednesday criticised the state parties decision, saying it
amounted to special treatment for Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto.
No comments:
Post a Comment