Time is nearly up for the world’s first ever Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Human Rights Watch has published a report about his period in office, entitled “Unfinished Business”. International Justice Tribune talked with its author, Liz Evenson.
By Bram Posthumus, Brussels
A cursory glance at the internet reveals all manner of labels attached to the ICC and its most visible official, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. At one end it is an “arm of Western imperialism”, at the other nothing more than a “paper tiger”. Criticism has been particularly virulent against the perceived bias of the ICC: why have, so far at least, all the defendants come from Africa?
ICC basics
Liz Evenson from Human Rights Watch says there are three ways in which a case can come before the ICC. First: referral by a state that has ratified the document that created the ICC, the Statute of Rome.
Second: an order to investigate by the United Nations Security Council.
Third: the personal initiative of the ICC Chief Prosecutor. There are currently seven cases before the court; five of those are government referrals: three in the DR Congo, one in the Central African Republic and one in Uganda.
Another one (Darfur) is a Security Council decision and one (Kenya) is the result of the Chief Prosecutor’s own will.
These constitute the subject matter of Evenson’s report.
The Chief Prosecutor and his office have very specific roles, says Evenson: ‘To bring investigations and prosecutions and to decide which countries to investigate, who to investigate and for what - and see that through to completion. He must also protect victims and witnesses but he must seek the truth. That is: look for evidence that incriminates an individual – but also evidence that exonerates an individual, in the interest of a fair trial.’
There is one extra, intermediate step, known as the ‘confirmation of charges hearing’. Here, the ICC judges will hear the evidence and then decide to let a case go ahead or throw it out.
The Face of the ICC
It is easy to see how and why the current Chief Prosecutor became the face of the ICC. His role is central to the whole process. Add to this Moreno Ocampo’s drive, flamboyant personality and an interesting legal career in his native Argentina and you have the ingredients for a major road show. The report, however, deals less with the character and more with the judicial nuts and bolts.
Impartiality and independence are the two key principles that should guide the work of the Prosecutor’s Office, while at the same time an entirely new international legal institution is created. Moreno Ocampo’s job has been difficult. But how has he performed? For Liz Evenson the record is mixed.
‘We can take the case of the DR Congo. The justice needs there are tremendous. The Chief Prosecutor has conducted three investigations, two in the Ituri region and one in the Kivus. In Ituri, the leaders of two rival militias have been investigated. But our research indicates that those militias were supported by governments in the region. Rwanda, Uganda and officials in Kinshasa were involved. So we have urged the Chief Prosecutor to go up the chain of command to see if those who supported these militias also share criminal responsibility.’ The implication is clear: not doing so will mean that full justice is not delivered.
In the Ugandan case, the ICC’s impartiality was compromised when Moreno Ocampo and the Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni gave a joint press conference in 2004, announcing the opening of investigations into Joseph Kony, the leader of the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army. The government’s own forces also committed abuses in this conflict and so, Evenson concludes: ‘It did undermine the sense of independence and impartiality – at least at the outset of the investigation. There may be legal reasons why only one side of the conflict has been investigated but the Chief Prosecutor must then explain these clearly.’
Weakness
The Uganda case exposes a crucial weakness of the ICC: its dependence on states parties to deliver alleged criminals. If the government does not want to do it, it simply does not happen. Conversely, governments may think that hauling citizens before the ICC can be a convenient way of getting rid of people they do not like.
The problem becomes even more glaring when we consider non-states parties like Sudan. Since July 14th 2008, Sudan has been ruled by an indicted war crimes suspect. And on March 9th 2009 the ICC issued a warrant for his arrest. This may restrict some of his travel plans but he is still the relatively untouchable President of Sudan. ‘It is a continuing battle to reinforce the importance of the arrest warrants,’ says Evenson. ‘Even if they cannot be executed tomorrow, justice has a very long memory.’ Ask Mssrs Mladic and Karadzic, now before the Yugoslavia Tribunal, a precursor to the ICC.
The Kenya case has brought more balance to the ICC prosecution’s handling of cases. Six alleged instigators of widespread post electoral violence are being investigated – the men coming from both main parties in the conflict and their hearings taking place simultaneously in The Hague. These are positive steps according to Human Rights Watch.
Powerful interests – an Africa bias?
In the end, arrests will come about because of government compliance or international action. But the question must be asked whether the ICC actually does its work free from political interference from the world’s heavyweights. Uganda is a friend of the USA; Sudan is a friend of China – and so on. Liz Evenson puts it subtly: ‘It’s still an unfortunate reality that those who are allied with powerful interests are more likely to escape justice.’
There is a perception that the court is picking on African countries. This is a moot point since African governments were important actors in creating the ICC, especially following the Rwanda genocide. Liz Evenson thinks that the concentration of attention on Africa is problematic – ‘but then the answer cannot be less justice for those who do fall within the ICC’s reach. Yes, all the cases currently being investigated are in Africa but that does not take away from the seriousness of those crimes.’
Ocampo suffers from a degree of criticism but Evenson praises his passion and energy in what has been a challenging job. He has succeeded in putting the ICC on the map.
Next chapter
What does Human Rights Watch look for in the next Chef Prosecutor? Less flamboyance? Fundraising skills perhaps? The Office of the Prosecutor has a huge caseload and limited means. Liz Evenson sums it up: ‘The next person must have demonstrated skills in investigation and prosecution. Good office management is also necessary, given the amount of work. And the next person must also understand and be committed to communicating the work of the court. Names? Sorry, no suggestions. But these wishes have been communicated to the ICC.’
None of this implies that the current office holder did not do these things but they must be done better and for this reason, ‘We’ve made a choice as an international community – for justice. We no longer want leaders who commit crimes against their own people or against people of other countries being entitled to retire in this golden life of exile. Eventually we want to build a system that can deter these crimes’, says Evenson.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
we are waiting for the rulling to be posted in the website and i urge all my country men and fellow Kalenjins to maintain peace as usual,may we not cause any threat or tension in the polarised region.
The appalling record of the flamboyant first ICC Prosecutor -including the allegations of sexual misconduct with a journalist in Cape Town- represent a really disater for the international justice and a half century of efforts to build up a credible alternative to impunity and naked power; in his hands the ICC has become the maid at the service of the EEUU available 24 hours to endorse his dubious politics in Africa and transforming justice in the disguised arm of the rapacious OTAN countries looking for ressources; by this way of leadership or servitude the ICC has repeated the mentality of the european salvery, the colonialist dominance in the XIX century and finally the bloody opposition against the right of self determination; with 0 convictions in nine years and nasty arrangments with heads of state any national prosecutor should have been removed of his post, sanctioned disciplinary and investigated for legal misdeed. The lack of profesionality and precarious skills (save before the cameras)-criticized by Judge Casesse regarding his poor perfomance in Congo- have underminded even the national justice proceedings because an local investigator could use the "precedent" of zero convictions in nine years as international model.
so am just downhearted by Ocampo since it is like he do not know what he is after.he should have done enough investigations on the evidences he has. Mr. Uhuru looks as if he is more smarter than the prosecuter
so am just downhearted by Ocampo since it is like he do not know what he is after.he should have done enough investigations on the evidences he has. Mr. Uhuru looks as if he is more smarter than the procecuter
A LAYMANS PERSPECTIVE OF ICC KENYA TRIALS, by Hon Peter Odoyo
Now that the Pretrials are over at The Hague it is a good time to give some views. Let me at the onset however remind Kenyans that the ICC Hague trial is yet to begin. The whole process so far is geared towards confirming that there is a case to be answered by the six individuals. But their committal to trial in no way confirms that they are guilty or not guilty. The final verdict may be five 5 years down.
Many of us followed the proceedings and have passed judgment as the cases proceeded. I offer my views as a voluntary jury and give a scorecard. My views are the layman’s or jurors view given generously from my living room chair. Generous as a trial by jury system is different from the ICC trial system we have been watching from the Hague which is a bench trial, in which Judge Katerina and the panel of judges will make all the decisions. As a jury I listened to the arguments, evaluated the evidence presented, decided on the veracity of the facts, and made decision whether a full trial is due for the Ocampo 6. My or the rest of Kenya viewers opinions pr views will alas have no effect on the rulings by the judges at The Hague.
First on Ocampo’s strategy and tactics.
The bulk of Mr. Ocampo’s witnesses are insider witnesses or what he called “crime-based witnesses”. They are individuals who were part of the groups that committed the crimes but later decided to assist the prosecution. This explains why the bulk of the defendant’s lawyers spent hours discrediting the witnesses. But using insider witnesses is a powerful tool that judges may not ignore easily. The defense spent a disproportionate time on this and less on challenging the facts and figures of the charges.
From my lay juror position I am not convinced that the defense managed to discredit all the prosecutors’ witnesses as some of the issues raised by them took place long after the post-election violence. In my view Ocampo won 60 to 40 percent on the witness credibility contest. This may put an ominous cloud in the horizons and from my chair should be a reason for the defense to worry.
Secondly, by reducing the ICC six suspects from six cases to two cases he has effectively said to the court acquit all three per case or charge all, a risky but powerful tool.
The first and the more serious case accuses Francis Muthaura, Uhuru Kenyatta and Mohamed Ali of being criminally responsible as “indirect co-perpetrators for the crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts” . More precisely, they are being accused of murder of civilian supporters of the ODM political party in Kisumu, Kibera, Nakuru and Naivasha. According to the evidence the crimes against the non-Kikuyu population in these areas were carried out by members of the Mungiki. No evidence was presented on Kibera and Kisumu a saving investment by Ocampo should they be cleared(He appears very determined)
Muthaura is placed by Ocampo at the center of this trio firstly for as head of the Public Service and Secretary to the Cabinet of Kenya he received regular intelligence briefs on the possible violence that would break out but he (a) directed the Commissioner of police General Ali to take no action. And (b) linked up with Uhuru and in cohoots with the Mungiki planned and unleashed terror. Under this cover the police force under the General or the Mungiki in police uniforms went on a rampage and killed over 400 people during the post-election violence. The prosecutor painted a grim picture of the planned violence and retaliatory attacks.
The second serious but lesser case is against William Ruto, Henry Kosgey as well as Joshua arap Sang who are also accused of crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer and persecution. Ocampo provided evidence that they committed or contributed to the commission of crimes in several locations including Turbo town and Nandi Hills town. The evidence specified that they unleashed Violence through organized gangs of Kalenjin youths targeting civilian population of the Kikuyu, Kamba and Kisii tribes as part of “widespread and systematic attack” aimed at ethnic cleansing contrary to many of the Rome statute articles including article 25. Sang by use of his radio programme rallied gang members and provided signals to insiders of the plan on when and where to attack.
The defense challenged several of the witnesses and placed their clients at different locations on the days of offences or of meetings. From my jurors perspective Ocampo tried hard to show the existence of the militia gang not very successfully. He may have fumbled as he tried to show a hierarchy of sorts and a command based system but not very successfully. Ocampos case rests strongly with Sang as the linkman to Ruto and Kosgey as financiers and organizers of the youth gangs. Without Sang the case crumbles. I give 50 to 50 for the defense and the prosecutors on these cases.
Ocampo’s strategy that the three members of each case are linked to each other means that the judges either acquit all three in each of the cases or condemns them to the long trials at the Hague. It is a good strategy from a prosecutor’s point of view as the Judges may, in my opinion, be reluctant to acquit for the simple reason that the violence and death in the two cases was too widespread and intense and may for that reason look organized. And so while one or more the individuals may be less culpable, the overall strength of the case passes the 50 percent mark. This may explain the mischievous smile on Ocampos face during the proceedings. He only has to prove that he has a 25 percent threshold in his presentations. And going by the materials provided by the defense and the prosecution there is enough to sustain a fair trial as it surpasses the low the critical mass of 25 percent. In short there is a higher probability to expect the six will be committed to a full trial at the Hague. At the full trial I am convinced that at least four or all of the accused may be acquitted for at that trial Ocampos threshold goes to beyond reasonable doubt or over 80 percent. And indeed some of Ocampos arguments against the six looked thin at its very best.
Mr. Ocampo also attacked the defense witnesses and the commission of unprepared experts and the use of television and newspaper cuttings to establish alibis as inconclusive
Defense strategy
The defense lawyers pointed out that Ocampo used innuendos, hearsay and rumours to build his case. A situation that is not valid to a court of law. However as I watched some of the witnesses brought by the defense teams I wondered whether in their submissions they were helping some or all of the accused. For one, virtually all confirmed either by default or directly that there were indeed crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts and that there were gangs, resemblance of plans, organization and finances. And many tried too hard to extricate their principals by blaming other parties.
And in their attempts to delink their principals gave a level of details that was overwhelmingly exact showing times to the minute on testimonies given after three years.
The prosecutor’s office also pointed out that the defense teams did not bring independent witnesses opting to rely on trustworthy friends or subordinates. The weakness of the defense witnesses is confirmed by the fact that the prosecutor in his summary came to rely on their testimonies to enhance his case.
Some of the witnesses spoke or received instructions from more than one defense teams further fueling the fear that it was a continuation of the linkages between the parties. Furthermore it appeared as an attempt to subvert justice by colluding and orchestrating the witness testimonies. I think it was from then on an uphill battle as the judges visibly became hostile in their perception and started questioning the source of papers carried by witnesses, the location of where their eyes were looking and the general body language and demeanor such as speaking too fast.
All the witnesses were quarantined and kept away from the courtroom and were denied any access to court proceedings or any form of communications with the outside world before giving their testimonies. This resulted in some glaring contradictory testimonies by the defense team.
The Defense did deploy several brilliant tactics, for one they questioned whether the post-election violence in Kenya meets the ICC threshold on jurisdiction and gravity. They questioned the essential legal attributes of genocide and crimes against humanity and referenced several statutes of the Rome treaty. This is a significant strategy as it directly attacks the threshold level at the pretrial stages of 25 percent. The defense also went into details that confirmed the positive actions taken by the accused to mitigate and alleviate sufferings of the victims. An action that runs contrary to the case weaved by the prosecution.
The defense pointed out that although the violence in Kenya was brutal it was not of such gravity as to constitute the crime of genocide and called upon the ICC for additional investigations of the real instigators. I however give the defense a 65 percent mark of the required 75 + 1 percent required to reduce Ocampo’s evidence to below 25 percent. Meaning that am not satisfied that the defense completely exonerated all the six suspects
Outlook
Looking at some of the issues that will also be in play as a decision is being considered include the fact that the Kenyan government is yet to establish a local tribunal to prosecute the many who committed post-election violence. For this reason to acquit is to be seen as continuing a culture of impunity. And due to the lack of a local tribunal the ICC remains the only window to give the victims justice and closure. While the new constitution is now in place the lack of deliberate pretrial steps to bring the rest of the perpetrators to book presents an issue the courts may consider.
The fact that the violence occurred is not in dispute and the defense presented a case that they are also in empathy with the victims
The Advocate for the 233 victims of which 218 are Luos, 14 Luhyas and 1 Kalenjin clarified that the evidence has to be considered in the totality of the case. There were over 600,000 affected persons. He indicated that it was planned, coordinated and funded through the purchase of such arms as machetes. The invisibility of police on locations of violence or the under manning by police was a point he dwelt on. He indicated that the perpetrators are yet to be prosecuted despite being known by the police and the public in general. The upcoming 2012 elections was also raised by the victims advocate as necessitating the need to resolve the issues to end impunity. He also complained over the statement given by the President in support of Muthaura as he is deemed to be President of all of Kenya including the victims. He however absolved the Ocampo six from charges under article 28 of the Rome statute on superior culpability.
ocampo is retiring by May 2012 and judge katerina is a candidate for the ICC Presidency< These and other factors may be some of the salient issues that will surround the decision making process. In the end we have to but wait for their opinion to be delivered on or before the new year.
however, will the full trial, especially as it will take long, lead in the mind of Kenyans, to the third way similar to the judicial reform introduced by the late King of Russia Alexander II in the early 1900s where jurors like myself decided not only whether the defendants were guilty or not guilty, but they had the third choice: "Guilty, but not to be punished". As a step towards truth and reconciliation.
Hon Peter Odoyo is a former MP for Nyakach Constituency and an Economist
October 2012. samson.odoyo@yahoo.co.uk
Very partisan observations, more so when you consider the absurd claim that there were 218 Luo victims, 14 Luhyas and 1 Kalenjin. In fact the victims were actually 278 Luos, 268 Kikuyu, 163 Luhya, 158 Kalenjin, 57 Kisii and 11 Kamba amongst others, to make a total of 1,133 victims.
Again, why is the case against Uhuru and co more serious in Odoyo's view, than the case against the ODM MPs, yet it is Luos, Kalenjins and Luhyas who started the killings and evictions of people in the first place, while the Kikuyu were just retaliating? How does the avenger become the greater villain? Really warped logic.
Whether the charges are confirmed or not, Uhuru and Ruto will still be on the ballot, take that to the bank. It will have been such a wasted effort trying to stop them.
ICC is a Western Kangaroo court used for the purpose of intimidating African leaders to achieve political objectives and that is the very reason why it will become a failure. Only a very naive and big fool will believe that ICC and Ocampo can ever be impartial. Kenya is not a banana republic like DRC for Ocampo and his political masters to misuse and humiliate its citizens with shoddy, incompetent investigations. In fact, the man never intended to carry out any investigations all along, that was just the excuse for him to execute his assignment of shaping the next Kenya election as instructed by Annan, the Uncle Tom through whom faceless white men like the Bilderberg group in Washington and London send instructions, but it will not work. Ocampo is going to realise soon that Kenyans are far more sophisticated than he thinks and the humiliating encounter in court with Uhuru is only a taste of things to come; he will regret why he ever stepped in their country. Meanwhile, here is a REAL job for Ocampo; if he is man enough, can he go and investigate the drone attacks by the US that have killed thousands of innocent, helpless Pakistanis even before the Kenyan PEV and have not stopped to date: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-wa...
There is more than enough information for him to indict the barbaric individuals in the US Govt for the cruel atrocities and human carnage they have visited on innocent Pakistani men, women and children.
This should be an opportunity to discipline our greedy politicians, who cares for nothing but impunity year comes year goes.
I believe the judges heard how the defense team's witness contradicted themselves in order to hide and protect the truth from their so-cal friends. Its high time that the defense's pre-arrangement be exposed to "especially to their ambitious and greedy politics to surpass the soundless with money.They should pay for what they did since innocent persons died " I am not happy to see my brothers and sisters who lived peacefully are now deserted and they have become beggars.
We are all in agreement that PEV took place in Kenya. We regret all what happened and at the same time we appreciate the good work done by the ICC. As an advice, the ICC judges should consider a country like Kenya ways of operations especially when it comes to politics. They are so many politicians who wish to take revenge to others. This is noted in the the two strong tribes, Kikuyu and Luo'. Mr Ocampo be advised that tere has been a long history between late Kenyatta (1st Kenyan President a kikuyu) and late Jaramong Odinga (a political luo leader. The hatred between the 2 was so strong that it was passed over to their generation. Baring this in mind, we can term ICC process as a battle between Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga as one decides to take his father's revenge. Neverless, Ocampo should have used the opportunity to forward the actual penetrator by doing a thorough investigation and not taking any side. To me it appeared like we were just telling the rest of the world how Kenya is weak and full of selfish leaders. May God intercept this and bring justice into our case.
Kenyans, let us not judge or defend the Ocampo Six, for all of them were given enough time to present their cases, and it is up to the Judges to give their verdict depending on the evidence before them, however i feel that innocent Kenyans indeed felt the impact of the actions of the holigans that coursed the mayhem, and their leaders should bare the responsility(ies) of these actions,if the evidence identifies him or them to have played greater responsibilities, otherwise we are yet to see more in the name of defending our own come 2012.
The ICC might have had a good intention for Kenya but they ought to know this country has very ingenious people who plan anything before it's even in the offing. Some of the witness must have been vetted and screened coz they might have been sent by the perpetrators of the violence to contradict the evidence.ICC! WATCH OUT THIS WITNESSES AND IF POSSIBLE SOME MUST BE CONDEMNED FOR PROPAGATING IMPUNITY.
All I can say is may God be the judge because all the involved parties don't care what kind of life some of these IDPs undergo. One natural thing is ALL WHO PLANNED, EXECUTED AND IMPLEMENTED THESE CRIMINAL ACTS WILL NEVER ENJOY PEACE ALL THEIR LIFES. Ocampo should be very sorry for doing a lot of nothing and stooping too law to be used by leaders whose sole abition is to rule and not forgetting they will never. God is the only judge who will never be compromised. Let us also see ocampo investigate what went on earlier in UK where property was destroyed and people died.
One day Africa will be a first world continent and we will not take those racists to the Hague but show them how a society lives.
MR.ocampo does not qualify as an investigator,y do coach witness to implicate other people,he uses imagination,creatity,and movies to bring cases which will fell because there is no proper evidence to warrant the cases he is bringing forwad,he seems to be implementing impuinity. let the judges of the icc know that,justice must prevail and to be used by western powers to deliver unqualified decisions that will injure the image of that particular court which targets africans who defy the powers to be from westeners.
The prosecutor has to pull up his socks. This was evident when he questions Uhuru Kenyatta on the post election violence in Kenya. At the end his evidence was torn apart and left in taters...he has done nothing about justice in the world...was ICC made for Africans only?
The prosecutor has to pull up his socks. This was evident when he questions Uhuru Kenyatta on the post election violence in Kenya. At the end his evidence was torn apart and left in taters...he has done nothing about justice in the world...was ICC made for Africans only?
While it is appreciated Kenya has faced election violence since the year 1992. the 2007/2008 skirmishes were the worst this county have ever had. Ocampo took the initiative to investigate and ensure those who contributed to this menace were brought to book. The ICC was seen as the correct root towards justice. There is no doubt Kenyans and the world over watched with dismay the level of Ocampos luck of professional investigation that would have ensured a water tight proof of gilt. Ocampos continues to orchestrate the idea that he has a lot more in his files. But one wonders even with the little he has given if indeed the proof still held will cross the thresholds required to convict the Ocampo six. Incoherent, uncoordinated and sometimes witch hunting evidence is what we have seen so far. Ocampo himself does not seem qualified even when asking questions at the witness box.
I think Ocampo is concentrating on African continent because of the vast impunity in the nations within. Take Kenya's case for example, the government went a long way to stop I.C.C. proceedings using millions of tax payers money. One is left to wonder, why go to all that trouble? Apart from that, they used almost all diplomatic means to try and stop Ocampo from gathering more evidence to support his cases against the suspects. If the prosecutor feels that there's more fish to fry in Africa, let him feel free to come and get them.
I think when a decision was taken for this matter to end in ICC,there must have been some good reason,so lets give it time and the court will decide the best way out for both parties.
Mr Innocent Cherop times for wishful thinking are gone what you can best do is pray hard those courts are not like our courts where files disappear and kitu kidogo is the order of the day. When shall the likes of you appreciate that time for impunity is gone and never shall it back again? PEOPLE DIED < WOMEN WERE RAPED< AND PEOPLE WERE BURNT IN CHURCH. DID THE VICTIMS DO IT THEMSELVES?? NOTE: These atrocities were committed by known neighbors.
I agree crime was done against humanity and I am very sorry for the victims, but are we really purnishing the people who did it?
Since 2008, the wound is almost healed, is ICC helping us to heal the wound or is it renewing the grudges which were there between the tribes?
if ICC could have acted immediatelly, and did proper investigations, It is my opinion they could have helped us. ICC have waited for the people to forgive one another and reconcile and then they raise this issue again. Next year its general election, is this the right time for them to conduct these hearings? Aren't they dividing people along the tribal lines? I am asking myself so many questions and can someone give me answers.
I am a christian and we have really prayed for this nation. Our church leaders have even gone ahead and have meeting for the different tribes trying to reconcile them. People have confessed their sins and we have promised one another to live in peace. Why should ICC bring this enemity between us again?
Its said a callabash or a cup you have not taken from, you cannot know its depth. It is my prayer that we will never go through what we experienced that time. may the will of God be done.
In as much as he may be a thorn in other people's flesh, Judges Ekate and Cuno could not have issued summonses over his own creativity as others allege. The time of PEV is when every Tom, Dick and Harry is more than willing to divulge inf' as so the most convincing thing is that the very player have given their accounts of how everything was done. Shut up and wait for the judges' verdict.
I.C.C. events are useful notes to read and observe as the Kenyan case is going on. Traumatic experience for those who lost their relatives and friends - properties and livestock, in the post election violence awaiting to here the verdict of the trial Judges, and the way forward in future to reward those peoples living in the Rift Valley.
good notes are good to take down in an email.
Mr.Okampo has done nothing in prevailing justice in the world not because he doesnot know what his doing but in all presented cases he lacks credible evidence for the suspects.I think it is better for the ICC to try another prosecuter.Let Okampo rest and try other fields and the worst in all his cases are seen on the African continent, i donot no why are other continents free from crimes against humanity.
Mr. Ocampo is an embarrassment to the ICC.The cases presented must be from thorough investigations and concrete evidence.What was presented at the confirmation of the Kenya case does not meet the threshold of a village court.A pure combination from hearsays,news paper cuttings,Internet,imaginations and creativity.
Justice is the air that we breath all day-every day.But,it's of grave concern for a prosecutor of such an honorable court to impute improver motives in the Kenyan case.To use coached witnesses and get politically swayed off is not only naive but dangerous.I wish he had done a thorough investigation before he retires!!!
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.