doctype: judgment

identifier: ICC-02/04-01/15 (Trial Judgment)

chamber: Trial Chamber IX

decisionType: judgment

title: Trial Judgment

text: ECHR, article 17

text: ECHR, article 5

text: ECHR, article 7

text: ECHR, article 8

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions, article 3

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions, article 3

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions, article 3

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions, article 3

text: Rome Statute

text: Rome Statute, article 101

text: Rome Statute, article 12

text: Rome Statute, article 15

text: the Statute, article 19

text: the Statute, article 20

text: the Statute, article 21

text: the Statute, article 22

text: the Statute, article 25

text: the Statute, article 28

text: the Statute, article 30

text: the Statute, article 31

text: the Statute, article 5

text: the Statute, article 55

text: the Statute, article 56

text: Rome Statute, article 57

text: Rome Statute, article 58

text: the Statute, article 59

text: the Statute, article 61

text: the Statute, article 64

text: the Statute, article 65

text: the Statute, article 66

text: the Statute, article 67

text: the Statute, article 69

text: the Statute, article 7

text: the Statute, article 70

text: Rome Statute, article 74

text: the Statute, article 78

text: the Statute, article 8

text: ICESCR, article 10

text: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14

text: ICCPR, article 16

text: ICCPR, article 23

text: ICCPR, article 9

text: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 16

text: Convention against Torture, article 2

text: Original: No.: ICC-02/04-01/15 Date: 4 February 2021

text: TRIAL CHAMBER IX

text: Before: Judge Bertram Schmitt, Presiding Judge Judge Péter Kovács Judge Raul C. Pangalangan

text: SITUATION IN UGANDA

text: IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. DOMINIC ONGWEN

text: Public Redacted

text: Trial Judgment

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1/1077 4 February 2021

text: To be notified, in accordance with Regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court, to:

text: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence

text: Fatou Bensouda Krispus Ayena Odongo James Stewart

text: Legal Representatives of Victims Legal Representatives of Applicants

text: Joseph Akwenyu Manoba Francisco Cox Paolina Massidda

text: Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparation

text: The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Defence Victims

text: States Representatives Amicus Curiae

text: REGISTRY

text: Registrar Counsel Support Section

text: Peter Lewis

text: Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section

text: Victims Participation and Reparations Others Section

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 2/1077 4 February 2021

text: Trial Chamber IX (‘Chamber’) of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’) hereby renders its judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: in the case of The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen.

text: I. OVERVIEW

text: A. Historical background

text: The charges in this case concern events which took place in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. Correspondingly, the evidence taken during the trial and the factual findings in this judgment focus on that period. However, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has been active since the 1980s, and the related conflict in Northern Uganda has spanned four decades. The Chamber therefore deems it necessary to include in this judgment a brief background to the case, with a view to placing the case in a historical context and establishing the point of departure for the factual findings which are made as part of the adjudication of the case. In this regard, the Chamber notes the evidence provided by Professor Tim Allen, professor of international development at the London School of Economics, who prepared a report submitted into evidence and testified before the Chamber as an expert witness. The basic lines of this historical background were not disputed between the parties in the course of the trial. Thus, the following overview is derived from Professor Allen’s report as well as his testimony.

text: In 1986, following a guerrilla campaign directed against the government of Milton Obote and its Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA), the National Resistance Army (NRA) under Yoweri Museveni seized power in Uganda and established the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government, taking over from the brief presidency of Tito Okello who had seized power from Obote in 1985. Regional identity played a role, as

text: 1 In the present judgment, and to the extent that this is required by its duty to provide a full and reasoned statement of its findings and conclusions under

text: Article 74

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber refers to some information, including identifying information of a number of protected witnesses, the confidentiality of which is still considered proportionate and justified. This demands that the present judgment, in the version that is made available to the parties and participants, be classified as ‘confidential’. In its public version, which is filed simultaneously, the confidential information is redacted. 2 P-0422’s report, UGA-OTP-0270-0004. 3 P-0422: T-28; T-29. 4 See P-0422’s report, UGA-OTP-0270-0004, at 0008-14, 0020-28; P-0422: T-28, p. 16, line 19 – p. 17, line 4, p. 21, line 24 – p. 22, line 15, p. 22, lines 17-20, p. 23, line 24 – p. 24, line 24, p. 25, lines 18-22, p. 29, lines 1-17, p. 30, lines 13-15, p. 53, lines 7-22, p. 54, line 21 – p. 55, line 9, p. 55, line 22 – p. 56, line 4, p. 58, lines 7-10, p. 59, lines 12-19, p. 65, line 1 – p. 66, line 5, p. 66, lines 10-21, p. 67, lines 19-22; T-29, p. 95, line 14 – p. 9, line 4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 9/1077 4 February 2021

text: Yoweri Museveni waged his guerilla campaign with support from his own region in the southwest, and also from the central south of the country, where there was widespread aversion to what was perceived as northern domination. Following Yoweri Museveni’s assertion of control over the Acholi areas of Uganda, resistance sprung up, and initially the most important group resisting the NRA was the Uganda People’s Democratic Army (UPDA), largely made up of former UNLA soldiers.

text: In the upheavals that followed the victory of Yoweri Museveni in 1986, the cult of Alice Auma appeared and rapidly grew in importance. Alice Auma was one of numerous healers mixing Christian and local ideas, called ajwaki or nebi among the Acholi. Alice Auma was reported to be possessed by various spirits, including one usually known as lakwena – the messenger. She performed healing rituals for returning UNLA soldiers, and offered an interpretation of the UNLA defeat by the NRA that seemed compelling to many, claiming that war was a form of healing through which people could be purified.

text: Soon Alice Auma began recruiting soldiers and started a campaign against President Museveni’s government, as well as against alleged witches, other nebi and ajwaki, and ‘bad people’, such as impure soldiers or individuals who did not obey certain rules. Her movement came to be known as the Holy Spirit Movement or the Holy Spirit Mobile Forces. At the end of 1986, Alice Auma claimed to have 18,000 ‘soldiers’. In October 1987, she marched her followers south, overwhelming opposition along the way, before finally being defeated before reaching Kampala. Alice Auma fled and subsequently lived in a refugee camp in Kenya until her death in 2007.

text: A number of groups continuing to oppose the Ugandan government appeared in the Acholi homelands, associated with individuals who were inspired by the example of Alice Auma. One such group was led by a young man called Joseph Kony. Born in the early 1960s, Joseph Kony dropped out of school after six years of primary education, and trained as an ajwaka. In late 1986 or early 1987, it is reported that he tried to form an alliance with Alice Auma, but she rejected him. Joseph Kony’s campaign was initially mostly limited to the vicinity of his home area around Odek and the environs of Opit, but this changed in 1988 when President Museveni’s government signed a peace agreement with the UPDA, and many of those unwilling to surrender turned to Joseph Kony. This included one of UPDA’s most

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 10/1077 4 February 2021 effective commanders, Odong Latek. From this point onwards, Joseph Kony reportedly specialised in healing and divining, while Odong Latek organised the armed forces. Odong Latek’s influence on the movement was considerable, and Joseph Kony seems to have learnt considerably about guerilla tactics from him. Odong Latek was killed in battle, but by 1990 Joseph Kony’s force was the only significant armed unit still fighting in the Acholi homelands. Soon after Odong Latek’s death, Joseph Kony changed the name of the movement to ‘Lord’s Resistance Army’ (LRA). Joseph Kony’s forces maintained a guerilla campaign against the government and, increasingly, against those who collaborated with it. They mostly avoided pitched battles with government forces, but used terror tactics to maximum effect. The LRA also became associated with forced recruitment or abductions. The objectives of the LRA, and the activities put in place to realise them, will be discussed by the Chamber in the evidentiary assessment below as they are directly relevant to the charges.

text: In 1991, the Ugandan government mounted an intensive four-month military operation against the insurgency, called Operation North, but its main effect seems to have been to antagonise and alienate non-combatants. Thereafter, Betty Bigombe, Minister of State for Pacification of Northern Uganda, attempted to walk a middle ground, trying to keep the door open for negotiations, but also introducing some vigorous anti-insurgency measures, such as arming community defence groups called ‘arrow brigades’. The LRA responded with violence against people thought to be government collaborators.

text: Nevertheless, in 1994 Betty Bigombe managed to engage the LRA in peace talks and arranged an uneasy ceasefire. However, following President Museveni’s ultimatum to the LRA in February 1994, the killing resumed. President Museveni claimed that he had received military intelligence showing that the LRA was only involved in peace negotiations in order to build up their military capacity, but it has also been noted that, although expensive, the war in the north had certain political advantages for the Ugandan government. In the mid-1990s, Yoweri Museveni’s NRA became the Ugandan People’s Defence Force (UPDF).

text: An anti-insurgency strategy adopted by the Ugandan government was to remove the population from rural areas where it might assist the rebels, either out of choice or due to fear of what would happen to them if they did not. In some instances, such removals are

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 11/1077 4 February 2021 claimed to have been violently enforced. This initially resulted in a concentration of the population near towns and trading centers, but from the mid-1990s a more systematic policy was adopted of moving people into internally displaced person (IDP) camps. The camps were supposed to be protected by small groups of UPDF soldiers and ‘local defence units’ under UPDF command. Cultivation was very difficult and movement outside the camps strictly limited. Food and other commodities were provided by aid agencies, such as the World Food Programme. By the end of the 1990s, about half a million people were living in the camps. At the peak, around 2004, there were hundreds of IDP camps, and while there were still some people living around the towns, almost the entire population of the region was in IDP camps, amounting to 1.5 million people.

text: The LRA hostility towards people living in IDP camps is at the core of the present case; a significant number of charges brought against the accused relate to attacks carried out against some of these camps. Relevant aspects concerning the establishment of, and the living conditions in such IDP camps will thus be addressed below, as appropriate, as part of the Chamber’s assessment of the evidence related to the charges.

text: Although there was little overt enthusiasm for the LRA among the Acholi population in Uganda, the LRA never depended on such support. On the contrary, from the failed peace negotiations in the mid-1990s onwards, assistance was offered from Sudan. The LRA had base camps in South Sudan, received weapons and military training from the Sudanese government and with this support became a more substantial military force. It fought on the Sudanese government’s behalf against the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army, while also launching attacks into Uganda against the Ugandan army and civilians in a continuation of its own conflict with the Ugandan government. One of the worst single incidents in Uganda occurred in May 1995, when the LRA burned scores of homes and killed some 300 people in Atiak.

text: During the late 1990s, international pressure on the Sudanese government increased, and further intensified following the attacks on the United States of America on 11 September 2001. As a consequence, the Sudanese government was persuaded to give permission for the so called ‘Iron Fist’ incursions from Uganda, which officially started in 2002. The Iron Fist campaign involved an estimated 10,000 Ugandan troops, logistical support from the United States of America, and the use of helicopter gunships. LRA bases in Sudan were destroyed and hundreds of people killed. Joseph Kony and almost all of his senior

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 12/1077 4 February 2021 commanders evaded capture, and as fast as abducted people were captured, killed, freed

text: or escaped, others were taken. The LRA also broke up into smaller units which were able

text: to outflank the Ugandan forces.

text: Shortly before the entry into force of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on 1 July 2002, which corresponds

text: to the beginning of the period of the charges, and as a result of Iron Fist, a number of

text: LRA units crossed from Sudan back into Uganda. A number of events which unfolded

text: therefrom led to the referral of the situation to the Court by Uganda on 16 December

text: 2003 and ultimately to the present case.

text: B. Procedural history

text: On 8 July 2005, Pre-Trial Chamber II issued warrants of arrest under Article 58 of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (the ‘Statute’) against Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot

text: Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen.

text: The present case, which was severed from the Kony et al. case on 6 February 2015,

text: concerns exclusively Dominic Ongwen. He was surrendered to the Court by the Central

text: African Republic on 16 January 2015, and made his initial appearance before Pre-Trial

text: Chamber II on 26 January 2015.

text: On 23 March 2016, Pre-Trial Chamber II issued its decision confirming the charges

text: against Dominic Ongwen and committing him for trial on the charges as confirmed.

text: See Confidential Annex A to Prosecutor’s Amended Application for Warrants of Arrest Under Article 58, 18 May 2005, ICC-02/04-01/15-3-Conf-Red3. As concerns Dominic Ongwen, see Warrant of Arrest for Dominic Ongwen, 8 July 2005,

text: . Since then, a waiver of the requirement of the rule of speciality was received to proceed against Dominic Ongwen with respect to further conduct. Registry’s submission on the “Order to the Registrar to transmit a request for cooperation under

text: article 101

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: to the Central African Republic” (ICC-02/04-01/15-319-Conf), 27 November 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-359. Pre-Trial Chamber II also terminated proceedings with respect to Okot Odhiambo and Raska Lukwiya due to their deaths. Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Decision terminating proceedings against Okot Odhiambo, 10 September 2015, ICC-02/04-01/05-431; Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Decision to terminate the proceedings against Raska Lukwiya, 11 July 2007, ICC-02/04-01/05-248. Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Decision Severing the Case Against Dominic Ongwen, 6 February 2015, ICC-02/04-01/05-424 (with one annex). Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court, 22 January 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-189 (with ten annexes) (reclassified on 7 July 2015) (hereinafter: ‘Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court’). Transcript of hearing, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-4-ENG. Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04/01/15-422-Conf (public redacted version available:

text: -Red; hereinafter: ‘Confirmation Decision’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 13/1077 4 February 2021

text: Thereafter, on 2 May 2016, the case against Dominic Ongwen was referred to this

text: Chamber.

text: The present trial commenced on 6 and 7 December 2016, with the opening statements of

text: the Office of the Prosecutor (the ‘Prosecution’), the Legal Representatives of Victims

text: and Common Legal Representatives of Victims. The Prosecution called its first witness

text: on 16 January 2017 and completed its evidence presentation on 13 April 2018. The

text: Prosecution brought forward 116 witnesses in total (69 appeared before the Chamber –

text: either at the seat of the Court or via video-link – and a further 47 had their testimony

text: introduced in writing).

text: From 1 May to 23 May 2018, and after receiving Chamber permission to do so, the two

text: teams of legal representatives of the participating victims called a total of seven witnesses.

text: Between 5 and 7 June 2018, the Chamber conducted a judicial site visit to the Republic

text: of Uganda, visiting the four crime scenes relevant to the charges in the present case,

text: namely Pajule, Odek, Abok and Lukodi in Northern Uganda, in the presence of

text: representatives of the parties and participants but without the presence of the accused.

text: A report of this visit is included in the record of the case.

text: On 18 September 2018, the Defence gave its opening statements. The Defence called

text: its first witness on 1 October 2018 and completed its presentation of evidence on 6

text: December 2019. The Defence brought forward 63 witnesses in total (54 appeared

text: 11 Presidency, Decision constituting Trial Chambers VIII and IX and referring to them the cases of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi and The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, 2 May 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-430. 12 T-26; T-27. 13 T-28; Notice of the Prosecution’s completion of evidence presentation, 13 April 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1225. One witness – P-0447 – appeared a second time as a rebuttal witness. 15 Decision on the Legal Representatives for Victims Requests to Present Evidence and Views and Concerns and related requests, 6 March 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1199-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04- 01/15-1199-Red). 16 Annex to the Registration into the Record of the Case of the Site Visit Report pursuant to Trial Chamber Decision ICC-02/04-01/15-1211 of 27 March 2018, 27 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1292-Anx; Decision on Judicial Site Visit to the Republic of Uganda, 13 October 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-1020 (reclassified on 12 June 2018). 17 Annex to the Registration into the Record of the Case of the Site Visit Report pursuant to Trial Chamber Decision ICC-02/04-01/15-1211 of 27 March 2018, 27 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1292-Anx. 18 T-179. 19 T-180. 20 Defence Announcement of the Closure of its Presentation of Evidence, 6 December 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1694.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 14/1077 4 February 2021 before the Chamber – either at the seat of the Court or via video-link – and a further

text: nine had their testimony introduced in writing).

text: On 12 December 2019, the Presiding Judge declared the submission of evidence closed.

text: The parties and participants filed their closing briefs on 24 February 2020 and presented

text: their closing statements on 10-12 March 2020.

text: In the course of the trial, 5149 items were recognised as formally submitted into evidence

text: by the Chamber. 4095 victims currently participate in the proceedings through two teams

text: of legal representatives. In the course of the proceedings, and excluding the present

text: decision, the Chamber rendered 190 written decisions by way of a formal filing and 70

text: oral decisions. It also rendered 403 decisions by email, which have then been published in the record of the case as part of periodic reports filed by the Registry’.

text: One witness – D-0042 – appeared a second time as a rejoinder witness. Declaration on the Closure of the Submission of Evidence, 12 December 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1699. Prosecution Closing Brief, 24 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1719-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1719-Red; hereinafter: ‘Prosecution Closing Brief’); Common Legal Representative of Victims’ Closing Brief, 28 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1720-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-1720-Red); Corrected version of the “Victims’ Closing Brief” filed on 24 February 2020, ICC-02/04- 01/15-1721-Conf, 31 March 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1721-Conf-Corr (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-1721-Corr-Red); Corrected Version of “Defence Closing Brief”, filed on 24 February 2020, 13 March 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1722-Conf-Corr (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1722-Corr- Red; hereinafter: ‘Defence Closing Brief’). T-256, T-257 and T-258. See Updated Consolidated List of Participating Victims, 29 June 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1746, para. 4. For an overview of the decisions issued by the Chamber via email, see the reports filed by the Registry and their corresponding annexes: Registry’s Report filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of Email in April 2017, 13 June 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-875; Registry’s Report filing in the record of the case decisions issued by way of email in May 2017, 15 June 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-876; Registry’s Report filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email in June 2017, 13 July 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-914; Registry’s monthly Report filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email in September 2017, 17 October 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-1022; Registry’s Report filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from October 2017 to March 2018, 23 July 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1312; Registry’s Report filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from January 2018 to January 2019, 15 March 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1483; Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from January 2019 to June 2019, 31 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1651; Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from June 2019 to January 2020, 4 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1714; Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from January 2020 to July 2020, 2 October 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1749; Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from July 2020 to December 2020, 26 January 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15-1761.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 15/1077 4 February 2021

text: C. The accused

text: Dominic Ongwen was born in Uganda and hails from Coorom in Northern Uganda. He is known by other names or radio call signs, including Odomi, Wai Wai, Lima Charlie, Wanyama and Tem Wek Ibong.

text: Dominic Ongwen was abducted by the LRA as a child. His exact age at the time and the time when the abduction took place are not as such relevant to the charges, but because the parties, in particular the Defence, invoked Dominic Ongwen’s age at the time of his abduction in various contexts, the Chamber deems it warranted to examine the underlying evidence.

text: As to the positions of the parties, the Chamber notes that in its closing submissions, the Defence stated that Dominic Ongwen was eight or nine years old at the time of his abduction. On the year of the abduction, the Defence position appears to be that it took place in 1987 or 1988. The Prosecution did not make any submission on the matter at the closing of the trial. It is also noted that Dominic Ongwen himself stated at the initial appearance that he was born in 1975 and abducted in 1988.

text: Johnson Odong, who is Dominic Ongwen’s uncle, testified that Dominic Ongwen was born at the family home in Coorom in May 1978, and was abducted in 1987, when he was in P-3. In addition, Joe Kakanyero, who grew up in Coorom, knew Dominic Ongwen as a child and was abducted with him, testified that the abduction happened in 1987 when he was 17 and Dominic Ongwen not more than 11 years old. Further, P’Atwoga Okello was a teacher at Dominic Ongwen’s school, and testified that Dominic Ongwen was abducted when he was ‘about 10, maybe 11 years old’ and was in

text: 27 Annex A to the Joint Prosecution and Defence submission on agreed facts, 1 July 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-487- Conf-AnxA (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-487-AnxA-Red; hereinafter: ‘Agreed Facts’), p. 5 (B1), considered as proven by virtue of Decision on Joint Agreed Facts Submission, 19 July 2016, ICC-02/04- 01/15-500; D-0007: T-193, p. 5, line 23 – p. 6, line 6, p. 21, lines 2-12. 28 Agreed Facts, p. 5 (B3); P-0138: T-120, p. 18, line 19 – p. 19, line 5; P-0016: T-32, p. 23, lines 10-16 and T- 33, p. 45, lines 1-4; D-0032: T-200, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 3; P-0440: T-40, p. 4, lines 15-16, p. 11, lines 4-9. 29 Defence Closing Brief, paras 487 (‘around 8-9 years’), 569, 671 (‘age 8 or 9’), 697 (‘age of 9’). 30 Defence Closing Brief, paras 547 (‘in 1987’), 618 (‘in 1987 or 1988’). 31 T-4, p. 4, lines 4-13. 32 D-0008 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0307, at para. 2. 33 D-0008 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0307, at paras 1, 4. 34 D-0007: T-193, p. 4, line 21 – p. 9, lines 6-23. 35 D-0007: T-193, p. 9, lines 6-23. 36 D-0012 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0336, at para. 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 16/1077 4 February 2021 the third year of primary school. It appears that his estimate of Dominic Ongwen’s age at the time of abduction is based on his knowledge that ‘[t]hat was the general age of that class around 1987’. In addition, D-0032 testifed that he met Dominic Ongwen in the LRA in 1991, and that at the time Dominic Ongwen was 13 or 14 years old. The Chamber also notes the evidence of .

text: Johnson Odong’s is the only evidence which goes directly to Dominic Ongwen’s birthdate. The Chamber accepts this evidence as reliable, based on Johnson Odong’s family relationship with Dominic Ongwen and the fact that his evidence indicates a good knowledge of the family history. The estimates of Joe Kakanyero and P’Atwoga Okello point to a birthday earlier by approximately one or two years, but they are less precise and less solid, as they are merely estimates, based on their own observation and, in the case of P’Atwoga Okello, on the witness’s general knowledge about the ages of children at Dominic Ongwen’s school. As to Dominic Ongwen’s own statement, the Chamber notes that the Defence itself does not refer to it, and indeed considers it less reliable than the evidence of Johnson Odong, as just explained. Finally, the Chamber notes that D- 0032’s evidence is compatible with that of Johnson Odong. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen was born in or around 1978. As to the year of abduction, the pertinent evidence is compatible, indicating 1987 as the year that Dominic Ongwen was abducted.

text: Dominic Ongwen spent the entire period between his abduction and the beginning of the period relevant for the charges, i.e. 1 July 2002, in the LRA. In the period relevant to the charges Dominic Ongwen was approximately 24 – 27 years old. His position at that time is discussed below as a relevant fact of the case.

text: D. The charges

text: The text of the charges brought by the Prosecution against Dominic Ongwen in the present case is contained in the operative part of the decision, issued by Pre-Trial

text: 37 D-0012 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0336, at para. 8. 38 D-0012 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0336, at para. 8. 39 D-0032: T-201, p. 3, line 11 – p. 4, line 4. 40 41 See section IV.C.3 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 17/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber II, confirming the charges and committing Dominic Ongwen to trial before the Chamber on the charges as confirmed. It includes the specification of the facts and circumstances underlying the charges as well as the corresponding legal characterisation alleged by the Prosecution and confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The confirmed charges cover 70 counts and concern both war crimes and crimes against humanity all allegedly committed, with the appropriate specifications provided in each of them, against civilians in Northern Uganda in the time frame between 1 July 2002 – the time of

text: the Statute

text: ’s entry into force – and 31 December 2005.

text: As recalled, the full text of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen is included in a separate section of the decision confirming those charges under

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . While that is the authoritative version of the charges that is binding on this Chamber both in terms of the facts and circumstances described therein and their proposed legal characterisation, the Chamber finds it appropriate to provide here – for ease of reference only – a brief overview of these charges. To this purpose, the Chamber observes that the charges can be sub-divided into three main categories: (i) charges of crimes committed within the context of four specific attacks against four IDP camps; (ii) charges concerning sexual and gender based violence crimes directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen against seven women, specifically identified in the charges themselves, who were in his household at any time between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005; and (iii) charges – which are systemic in nature – concerning other sexual and gender based violence and conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of fifteen committed in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005.

text: In relation to the charges falling into the first category, the four attacks are as follows:

text: Attack on Pajule Camp of Internally Displaced Persons (‘IDP camp’), on or

text: about 10 October 2003. Dominic Ongwen is charged under various modes of liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Specifically, these crimes are: attacking civilians, murder, torture, cruel treatment, other inhumane acts,

text: 42 Confirmation Decision, pp. 71-104. The Chamber notes in this regard that the self-contained text of the charges as confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber contained within the operative part is clearly distinguishable, also following separate numbering of paragraphs. 43 Paras 14-25 and counts 1 to 10 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 73-77). 44 Article 25(3)(a) (indirect co-perpetration) or, in the alternative, 25(3)(b) (ordering, charged only for enslavement, pillaging and persecution), (c) (charged for all except persecution), (d) and 28(a) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 18/1077 4 February 2021 enslavement and pillaging. Dominic Ongwen is further charged with political persecution on grounds that the other alleged crimes were committed against civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government.

text: Attack on Odek IDP Camp, on or about 29 April 2004. Dominic Ongwen is charged under various modes of liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Specifically, these crimes are: attacking civilians, murder, attempted murder, torture, cruel treatment, other inhumane acts, enslavement, pillaging and outrages upon personal dignity. Dominic Ongwen is further charged with political persecution on grounds that the other alleged crimes were committed against civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government.

text: Attack on Lukodi IDP Camp, on or about 19 May 2004. Dominic Ongwen is charged under various modes of liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Specifically, these crimes are: attacking civilians, murder, attempted murder, torture, cruel treatment, other inhumane acts, enslavement, pillaging and destruction of property. Dominic Ongwen is further charged with political persecution on grounds that the other alleged crimes were committed against civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government.

text: Attack on Abok IDP Camp, on or about 8 June 2004. Dominic Ongwen is charged under various modes of liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Specifically, these crimes are: attacking civilians, murder, attempted murder, torture, cruel treatment, other inhumane acts, enslavement, pillaging and destruction of property. Dominic Ongwen is further charged with political persecution on grounds that the other alleged crimes were committed against civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government.

text: 45 Respectively, Articles 8(2)(e)(i), 7(1)(a)/8(2)(c)(i)-1, 7(1)(f)/8(2)(c)(i)-4, 8(2)(c)(i)-3, 7(1)(k), 7(1)(c) and 8(2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: . 46

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: . 47 Paras 26-39 and counts 11 to 23 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 77-81). 48 Article 25(3)(a) (indirect co-perpetration) or, in the alternative, 25(3)(b) (ordering), (d) or 28(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 49 Respectively,

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i), 7(1)(a)/8(2)(c)(i)-1 (in conjunction with Article 25(3)(f) for attempted murder), 7(1)(f)/8(2)(c)(i)-4, 7(1)(k), 8(2)(c)(i)-3, 7(1)(c), 8(2)(e)(v) and 8(2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 50

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: . 51 Paras 40-52 and counts 24 to 36 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 81-85). 52 Article 25(3)(a) (indirect perpetration) or, in the alternative, 25(3)(b) (ordering), (d) or 28(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 53 Respectively,

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i), 7(1)(a)/8(2)(c)(i)-1 (in conjunction with Article 25(3)(f) for attempted murder), 7(1)(f)/8(2)(c)(i)-4, 7(1)(k), 8(2)(c)(i)-3, 7(1)(c), 8(2)(e)(v) and 8(2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 54

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: . 55 Paras 53-25 and counts 37 to 49 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 86-89). 56 Article 25(3)(a) (indirect perpetration) or, in the alternative, 25(3)(b) (ordering), (d) or 28(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 57 Respectively,

text: Articles 8

text: the Statute

text: . 58

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 19/1077 4 February 2021

text: As concerns the charges of sexual and gender based violence crimes directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen, the relevant counts are as follows:

text: Forced marriage, as an inhumane act constituting a crime against humanity, of: (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002; (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: Torture, as a crime against humanity and war crime, of: (P- 0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: Rape, as a crime against humanity and war crime, of: (P- 0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: Sexual slavery, as a crime against humanity and war crime, of: (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: Enslavement, as a crime against humanity, of: (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002; (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005; (P-0235) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0236) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005.

text: Forced pregnancy, as a crime against humanity and war crime, of two persons: (P-0101, two pregnancies) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004); and (P-0214) sometime in 2005.

text: 59 Paras 66-117 and counts 50 to 60 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 90-99). 60

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: . 61

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: . 62

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-1 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-1 of

text: the Statute

text: . 63

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-2 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-2 of

text: the Statute

text: . 64

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . 65

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-4 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 20/1077 4 February 2021

text: Outrages upon personal dignity, as a war crime, of: (P-0226) sometime in 2002 or early 2003 close to Patongo, northern Uganda; and (P-0235) sometime in late 2002 or early 2003 at an unspecified location in northern Uganda.

text: Finally, in relation to the charges concerning the other sexual and gender based violence

text: and the conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of fifteen committed

text: in Northern Uganda from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005, Dominic

text: Ongwen is charged – under various modes of liability – with the crimes as follows:

text: Forced marriage, as an inhumane act constituting a crime against humanity.

text: Torture, as a crime against humanity and war crime.

text: Rape, as a crime against humanity and war crime.

text: Sexual slavery, as a crime against humanity and war crime.

text: Enslavement, as a crime against humanity.

text: Conscription of children under the age of 15 into an armed group, as a war crime.

text: Using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities, as a war crime.

text: In its closing brief, the Defence argues that ‘[t]he defective Confirmation of Charges

text: Decision violates the right to notice’ in respect of the charges under Article 25(3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , and ‘incorporates’ into its closing brief submissions presented to the Chamber

text: before. The Defence argues that ‘Mr Ongwen’s right to notice was violated because, in

text: respect to the forms of liability confirmed, the elements under Article 25(3)(a) of the

text: Statute were incomplete, and unsubstantiated in respect to subjective elements and the

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 67 Paras 118-124 and counts 61-68 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 99-102) and paras 125-131 and counts 69-70 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 102-104), respectively. 68 Article 25(3)(a) (indirect perpetration) or, in the alternative, 25(3)(b) (ordering), (d) or 28(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 69

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: . 70

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: . 71

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-1 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-1 of

text: the Statute

text: . 72

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-2 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-2 of

text: the Statute

text: . 73

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . 74

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 75

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 76 Defence Closing Brief, para. 184, referring to Defence Motion on Defects in the Confirmation of Charges Decision: Defects in the Modes of Liability (Part II of the Defects Series), 1 February 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1431, paras 32-49.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 21/1077 4 February 2021

text: Pre-Trial Chamber only confirmed part of the legal elements of subjective elements for most of the modes of liability under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , and then failed to connect factual support to these elements’. In addition, the Defence argues that ‘the pleading failure, and related disclosure issues, mean that the lack of notice renders the indirect co-perpetration charges defective in such a way that they must be dismissed for inadequate notice’.

text: The Defence also submits that ‘the charges of conscription and use of child soldiers under Counts 69 and 70 are fatally defective in so far as they do not specifically describe the alleged crimes’. Also on this point, the Defence refers to a previous written submission.

text: The Defence does not develop its submissions in any detail other than by claiming that it ‘incorporates all submissions’ or ‘reiterates’ previous filings. Those previous filings, dated 1 February 2019, were dismissed in limine by the Chamber on 7 March 2019 for untimeliness, under Rule 134(2) of the Rules. The Chamber’s decision was confirmed on appeal. The decision of the Chamber and the judgment of the Appeals Chamber on interlocutory appeal forming part of the record of the case, it is unnecessary to rehearse in this judgment the reasons underpinning them.

text: Taking into account the applicable legal framework, in particular Rule 134(2) of the Rules, the Chamber does not identify at the present stage of issuance of the judgment any circumstance that would justify consideration of the same belated submissions as concerns the formulation of the charges. The arguments of the Defence are thus dismissed in limine.

text: 77 Defence Closing Brief, para. 185. 78 Defence Closing Brief, para. 188. 79 Defence Closing Brief, para. 490. 80 Defence Closing Brief, paras 490-491, referring to Defence Motion on Defects in the Confirmation of Charges Decision: Defects in the Charged Crimes (Part IV of the Defects Series), 1 February 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1433, paras 62-70. 81 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 184, 491. 82 See Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision, 7 March 2019, ICC-02/04- 01/15-1476. 83 See Appeals Chambers, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against Trial Chamber IX’s ‘Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision’, 17 July 2019,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 22/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence also complains that the confirmation of charges decision ‘failed to define the contextual elements of the crimes against humanity, and contains extremely vague references to evidence and facts in paragraphs 60 to 64’. It makes an identical argument as concerns the contextual elements of war crimes. In addition to the fact that this complaint about the formulation of charges is also submitted late in the proceedings without a valid reason and thus dismissed in limine, the Chamber emphasises that the charges in the case are contained in a separate section in the operative part of the confirmation of charges decision, and that the degree of detail and depth of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s reasoning in the decision confirming the charges are unrelated to the question whether the charges are properly formulated.

text: 84 Defence Closing Brief, para. 301. See also para. 303. 85 Defence Closing Brief, para. 304.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 23/1077 4 February 2021

text: II. DEFENCE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND ‘OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS’

text: In its Closing Brief and during the closing statements the Defence raised a number of

text: allegations concerning the accused’s right to a fair trial and ‘other human rights violations’. The Defence submits that any single violation would ‘cast serious doubts

text: upon the fairness and reliability’ of the proceedings and, because of their cumulative

text: effect, they justify the declaration of a permanent stay of the proceedings.

text: The Prosecution responded to part of the Defence’s arguments in its oral closing

text: statement.

text: While the statutory framework does not explicitly provide for a permanent stay of

text: proceedings, the jurisprudence of the Court confirms the availability of this remedy.

text: Interpreting the application of

text: Article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: where breaches in the rights of the accused has been alleged, the Appeals Chamber held that ‘[w]here fair trial becomes

text: impossible because of breaches of the fundamental rights of the suspect or the accused by his/her accusers, it would be a contradiction in terms to put the person on trial’, and

text: that ‘[i]f no fair trial can be held, the object of the judicial process is frustrated and the

text: process must be stopped’. Not every infraction of the statutory framework justifies the

text: granting of a request for stay of proceedings: the violation must be of such importance

text: as to make a fair trial permanently impossible. The unfairness in the treatment of the

text: Defence Closing Brief, paras 31-158; Defence Closing Statement: T-258. Defence Closing Brief, para. 33. Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 24, line 22 – p. 35, line 21. See Trial Chamber X, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on the Defence request to terminate the proceedings and related requests’, 29 October 2020, ICC-01/12-01/18-1009-Red, para. 50; Trial Chamber VI, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision on Defence request for stay of proceedings with prejudice to the Prosecution, 28 April 2017, ICC-01/04-02/06-1883, para. 20, citing to Trial Chamber V(B); Trial Chamber V(B), The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Public redacted version of Decision on Defence application for a permanent stay of the proceedings due to abuse of process, 5 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-868-Red, para. 14. See also

text: Article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: . Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006,

text: , para. 37. See also Trial Chamber X, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on the Defence request to terminate the proceedings and related requests’, 29 October 2020, ICC-01/12-01/18- 1009-Red, para. 50; Trial Chamber V(B), The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Public redacted version of Decision on Defence application for a permanent stay of the proceedings due to abuse of process, 5 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-868-Red, para. 14 (i). Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006,

text: , para. 39. See also Appeals Chamber,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 24/1077 4 February 2021 accused must be of such a nature that it ‘rupture[s] the process to an extent making it

text: impossible to piece together the constituent elements of a fair trial’. As such, a stay of

text: proceedings is a remedy of an exceptional nature.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber has considered each of the asserted violations of Dominic

text: Ongwen’s rights and assessed whether they, individually or in accumulation, warrant a

text: permanent stay of the proceedings. As explained in detail below, the Chamber finds that

text: the Defence submissions are entirely unfounded.

text: A. Allegations concerning the arrest of Dominic Ongwen and his surrender to the Court

text: The Defence argues that the Pre-Trial Chamber ‘failed to protect Mr Ongwen’s human rights prior to his appearance before the Court’. It argues that it was the role and duty

text: of the Pre-Trial Chamber, pursuant to

text: Articles 21

text: (2) and

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , to verify that Dominic Ongwen ‘was not subject to any violation of his fundamental rights

text: in the process of his arrest and transfer to the Court’. According to the Defence, it was

text: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised in the Status Conference on 10 June 2008”, 21 October 2008,

text: , paras 77-78; Pre- Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the “Corrigendum of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of

text: articles 12

text: and

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11-129)”, 15 August 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11- 212, para. 91; Trial Chamber V(B), The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Public redacted version of Decision on Defence application for a permanent stay of the proceedings due to abuse of process, 5 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-868-Red, para. 14 (i), (iii); Trial Chamber VI, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision on Defence request for stay of proceedings with prejudice to the Prosecution, 28 April 2017, ICC-01/04- 02/06-1883, para. 22; Trial Chamber X, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on the Defence request to terminate the proceedings and related requests’, 29 October 2020, ICC-01/12-01/18-1009-Red, paras 51, 54. Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006,

text: , para. 39. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the “Corrigendum of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of

text: articles 12

text: and

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11-129)”, 15 August 2012, ICC-02/11- 01/11-212, para. 91; Trial Chamber V(B), The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Public redacted version of Decision on Defence application for a permanent stay of the proceedings due to abuse of process, 5 December 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-868-Red, para. 14(iii); Trial Chamber X, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on the Defence request to terminate the proceedings and related requests’, 29 October 2020, ICC-01/12-01/18-1009-Red, para. 51. Defence Closing Brief, para. 43. Defence Closing Brief, para. 43.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 25/1077 4 February 2021 in this process that breaches of Dominic Ongwen’s rights to legal assistance and to remain silent occurred and were ‘ignored by the Pre-Trial Chamber’. The Defence argues that the Court obtained the custody of Dominic Ongwen ‘through the actions of the authorities of Uganda and Central African Republic’, and that because their conduct in respect of Dominic Ongwen was ‘based on the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the Pre-Trial Chamber’,

text: Articles 55

text: (2) and

text: of

text: the Statute

text: were applicable. The Defence argues that ‘[t]he illegality of the process and the breach of Mr Ongwen’s rights’ are documented in a video showing Dominic Ongwen in UPDF custody. According to the Defence, the video ‘shows that on 16 January 2015, UPDF informed Mr Ongwen that he is an “ICC indictee” and that he “is being held and released on charges of war crimes”’, after which Dominic Ongwen is ‘given several documents to sign’, and an ‘interview’ takes place at the UPDF headquarters. It is on this basis that the Defence alleges that Dominic Ongwen’s right to counsel and right to remain silent and not be forced to self-incriminate were violated.

text: In its closing submissions, the Prosecution points out that the accused was assigned a duty counsel as soon as he was in the custody of the Court and argues that even if procedural irregularities occurred before Dominic Ongwen came into custody of the Court and even if those irregularities can be attributed to the Court, ‘Mr Ongwen still had an obligation to mitigate any ensuing prejudice by pursuing a timely remedy’.

text: The Chamber notes that

text: Article 55

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: and the rights enumerated therein only apply when the person concerned is questioned in the context of an investigation by the Court. Specifically, the provision envisages that a person against whom there are grounds to believe that he or she has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court is about to be questioned either by the Prosecutor or by national authorities pursuant to a cooperation request made by the Court under Part 9 of

text: the Statute

text: 96 Defence Closing Brief, para. 43. 97 Defence Closing Brief, paras 44-48. 98 Defence Closing Brief, para. 52. See Video Material, UGA-OTP-0283-1449. 99 Defence Closing Brief, para. 53. 100 Defence Closing Brief, paras 54-55. 101 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 33, lines 18-23. 102 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 33, line 24 – p. 34, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 26/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the case at hand, the Defence assertion that the Ugandan or CAR authorities acted ‘based on the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the Pre-Trial Chamber’ is not completely accurate. In fact, Ugandan authorities did not question Dominic Ongwen pursuant to a request for cooperation under Part 9 of

text: the Statute

text: . At the relevant time, even though Uganda had received a request for arrest and surrender in respect of Dominic Ongwen, there is no request on the record which could serve as a basis for Uganda to question him under

text: Article 55

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: . In the same vein, no such request for cooperation to the Central African authorities to question the accused at the behest of the Court can be found. Accordingly,

text: Article 55

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: did not apply at the time at issue, i.e. during Dominic Ongwen’s stay in the custody of Ugandan or Central African authorities prior to his surrender to the Court. Irrespective of these considerations, the Chamber furthermore notes that the Court provided Dominic Ongwen with a duty counsel as soon as he was in the custody of the Court.

text: Turning to

text: Article 59

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , the Defence in its submissions makes reference to Ugandan national law, the CAR constitution, as well as

text: Article 14

text: (3) of the

text: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

text: . The Chamber notes that

text: Article 59

text: of

text: the Statute

text: regulates arrest proceedings in the custodial State leading up to the surrender of the person for whose arrest the Court has issued a warrant. In the present case, the State which surrendered the accused to the Court is CAR. All specific arguments of the Defence relate to events while Dominic Ongwen was in the custody of UPDF, before custody was handed over to the CAR. In fact, there is no link between the allegations of the Defence and the Article 59 proceedings as they are reflected on the record. The Defence also alleges a procedural violation claiming that ‘[p]rior to the appearance of Mr Ongwen before the Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber was required to verify the efficacy of the process leading to Mr Ongwen’s arrest and handover to the Court, including that his rights were respected’, but that ‘based on the record, nothing indicates that the Pre-Trial Chamber recognised the violations by Uganda and CAR in the impugned process’. As explained just above, Articles 55(2) and 59 were not applicable at the time when the alleged violations occurred, i.e. at the time Dominic Ongwen was in

text: 103 Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court, paras 4-5. 104 Defence Closing Brief, para. 49. 105 See Annex 3 to Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court. 106 Defence Closing Brief, para. 56.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 27/1077 4 February 2021 custody of the UPDF. Consequently, a failure of the Court to protect Dominic Ongwen’s enjoyment of rights under the cited provisions of

text: the Statute

text: could not have occurred. The Chamber notes that the Court’s powers vis-à-vis States are limited under

text: Article 59

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . As stated by the Appeals Chamber, ‘[t]he Court does not sit in the process […] on judgment as a court of appeal on the identificatory decision of the [national] judicial authority’. Furthermore,

text: Article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: states, and by doing so also limits, the competence of national authorities of the custodial State in the relevant arrest proceedings. Article 59(2) does not in itself create a duty for the surrendering State to undertake any particular proceeding in order for the competent national authorities to transfer custody to the Court, upon the surrendering State obtaining custody over a person subject to a warrant of arrest issued by the Court. As said above, and as reflected in the record of the case, CAR duly executed domestic proceedings before surrendering Dominic Ongwen to the Court.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber does not find that the Defence allegations pertain to any rights protected under

text: Articles 55

text: and

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . In addition, in the view of the Chamber, the facts as brought forward by the Defence and the resulting allegations would not constitute ‘breaches of the fundamental rights [of Dominic Ongwen] by his accusers’ that would make a fair trial impossible, and thus would not justify a permanent stay of proceedings.

text: Additionally, the Defence makes submissions concerning the use of the concerned video by one of the Prosecution experts, Professor Mezey, and requests that the video should be excluded and Professor Mezey’s conclusions be disregarded, since the video was one of the materials she relied on the video in her report. Without mentioning the provision explicitly, the Defence argues that the item should be declared inadmissible pursuant to

text: 107 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006,

text: , para. 41. 108 Decision on the applicability of

text: article 101

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: in the proceedings against Dominic Ongwen, 7 July 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-260, para. 10. 109 See Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court. 110 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006,

text: , para. 37. 111 Defence Closing Brief, paras 57-60.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 28/1077 4 February 2021

text: Article 69

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: . The Prosecution argues in its closing statement that, even if arguendo there had been any procedural irregularity attributable to the Court, the accused ‘had an obligation to […] pursu[e] a timely remedy’, but ‘[h]e didn’t do so’ and ‘[t]he Defence made no mention of this issue at any time till it appeared in the closing brief’. In this regard, the Prosecution submits that ‘[i]t’s true that they sought to oppose the Prosecution's submission of the video evidence, but they did so on entirely separate grounds from those they now advance.’

text: Article 69

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: provides that evidence obtained by means of a violation of

text: the Statute

text: or internationally recognised human rights shall not be admissible if: (a) the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of this evidence; or (b) the admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.

text: The Defence argues that the evidence in question was obtained in violation of

text: the Statute

text: , in particular

text: Articles 21

text: (2) and

text: (1)(g). As to

text: Article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Defence does not allege any particular infringement of Dominic Ongwen’s rights other than that alleged under Articles 55(2), 59(2) and 67(1)(g). As found above, Articles 55(2) and 59(2) did not apply at the time.

text: Further, as stated by the Prosecution, the Defence itself used video footage from the same interview during its questioning of witness Professor Allen and then requested it to be recognised as formally submitted. It played a statement made by the accused and asked Professor Allen to interpret its meaning, specifically asking whether the statement says anything about the state of mind of the accused, whether he showed expression of regret or defiance. The Defence cannot claim that the admission of a video should be precluded because of

text: Article 69

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: and at the same time also request that another video recording the same event be recognised as formally submitted. When arguing that the accused’s right pursuant to

text: Article 67

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: is infringed, the Defence misconstrues this right. The right to remain silent, pursuant to

text: 112 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 33, line 24 – p. 34, line 3. 113 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 34, lines 3-5. 114 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 34, lines 6-21. 115 P-0422: T-29, p. 107, line 3 – p. 110, line 9. 116 Defence Closing Brief, para. 59.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 29/1077 4 February 2021

text: Article 67

text: (1)(g) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , guarantees that, in the context of an investigation and subsequent proceedings, an accused does not have to answer when being questioned, and that this silence cannot be considered against him or her. As stated above, the accused was not questioned pursuant to

text: Article 55

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: . More generally, even though the video does show UPDF posing questions to Dominic Ongwen, there is no nexus between this exchange and any criminal proceedings, let alone proceedings before the Court.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the requirements for the application of

text: Article 69

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: have not been established, and considers that the request of the Defence is without merit.

text: B. Submissions concerning the taking of evidence under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: The Defence indicates a number of issues which, in its view, violate the accused’s fair trial rights in relation to the evidence emanating from the procedure for the collection of evidence under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . Specifically, it submits that

text: Article 67

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: was violated because, at the time of the taking of this evidence, the precise charges were not known, the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber which decided on the confirmation of charges took the evidence pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , the Single Judge ‘refus[ed]’ to consider procedural challenges, and the witnesses were not asked for whom they wish to testify. This, according to the Defence, violated the accused’s rights pursuant to

text: Article 67

text: (1)(a) and (e) of

text: the Statute

text: In its closing statement, the Prosecution responded to these arguments. It submits that the Defence’s interpretation of

text: Article 67

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: would render the procedure of

text: Article 56

text: de facto ineffectual, since it could only apply between the confirmation of the charges pursuant to Article 61 of Statute and the start of the trial. Further, it submits that the Defence had notice of what the witnesses were going to testify about and had an

text: 117 Defence Closing Brief, paras 62-63. 118 Defence Closing Brief, para. 64. 119 Defence Closing Brief, para. 65. 120 Defence Closing Brief, para. 66. 121 Defence Closing Brief, para. 71. 122 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 20, lines 13-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 30/1077 4 February 2021 opportunity to challenge their accounts. Regarding the issue that the witnesses have been confused as to their role in the proceedings, it submits that the Defence previously had a contrary position on this matter, having stated – correctly – that the role of a witness is about the truth and not by whom he or she is called.

text: With regard to the Defence submissions under

text: Article 67

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber notes that said provision establishes the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, which are presented by the Prosecutor in advance of the confirmation of charges hearing.

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , dealing with ‘unique investigative opportunity’ and placed within Part 5 of

text: the Statute

text: , is not limited to certain procedural stages. In fact, evidence may be preserved under that provision even before the surrender or voluntary appearance of the person concerned. Accordingly, the Defence interpretation which seeks to require the submission of charges before action in relation to a unique investigative opportunity is taken is without merit.

text: As regards the submissions concerning the fact that the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber presided over the taking of the evidence pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and ruled on this evidence in the decision on the confirmation of the charges, the Chamber finds that the Defence’s arguments are equally without merit. The Defence fails to explain wherein the purported conflict lies, and in fact acknowledges that the situation is compatible with the text of

text: the Statute

text: . The assertion that the Single Judge ‘precluded the Defence from raising objections to the nature, scope and purpose of the Article 56 Proceedings’ is based on a false interpretation of the statement of the Single Judge. In fact, before the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decisions on whether to take evidence pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , the Defence made submissions on these points. There is simply no indication on the record, and neither

text: 123 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 20, line 23 – p. 21, line 4. 124 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 22, line 5 – p. 23, line 24, referring to the Defence submissions in T-12, p. 14, lines 19-24 and p. 22, lines 5-10. 125 See Rule 121(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 126 Defence Closing Brief, para. 64. 127 Defence Closing Brief, para. 65. See also T-8, p. 4, lines 5-8. 128 Defence Response to the Prosecution’s Request for an Article 56 Unique Investigative Opportunity, 3 July 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-259-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-259-Red); Confidential Redacted Response to “Second Prosecution Application to the Pre-Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”', 8 October 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-314-Conf-Red (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-314-Red2).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 31/1077 4 February 2021 does the Defence purport, that the Defence was actually prevented from making specific submissions in relation to the proceedings under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . Further, the Chamber does not find that the accused’s rights pursuant

text: Article 67

text: (1)(e) of

text: the Statute

text: were violated because the witnesses testifying pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: were not asked ‘for whom’ they intended to testify. The Defence submits in this regard that it had contacted the witnesses concerned and ‘obtained witness statements from them to testify for Mr Ongwen’ and that ‘proof that some of these witnesses wanted to testify for Mr Ongwen […] was available to the Prosecutor and the Single Judge’. The Defence specifically argues that the failure to determine the ‘status of the witnesses’ prejudiced Dominic Ongwen in that it resulted in the restrictions on his contact with his family, and in violations of his right to call witnesses on his behalf. However, these allegations are entirely unexplained and unsupported. While noting that it was clear to the Defence during the proceedings under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: that the witnesses concerned were heard following a request by the Prosecutor, the Chamber in any case emphasises that a witness testifies in order to establish the truth. The Chamber notes that at the beginning of each testimony, the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber asked the witness to make an undertaking to tell the truth. Further, the Defence had every opportunity to pose questions to the witnesses – a possibility it availed itself of – and was not in a different position as it would have been, had it called the witnesses. Accordingly, the Chamber does not find any violation of Dominic Ongwen’s rights.

text: Lastly, the Defence submits that the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber failed to carry out his role properly in the Article 56 proceedings, since he assessed the witnesses collectively when ruling on the basis for the proceedings and did not request corroboration in relation to certain inconsistencies in their testimonies. Again, these arguments are without merit.

text: With regard to the first argument, the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber ruled on the application of

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: in two decisions, but assessed every witness

text: 129 Defence Closing Brief, para. 66. 130 Defence Closing Brief, para. 67. 131 Defence Closing Brief, para. 68. 132 Defence Closing Brief, paras 69-70.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 32/1077 4 February 2021 separately. The fact that the reasons for taking measures under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: were based on similar grounds – due to the similar circumstances the witnesses were in – does not mean that the decision for each witness was not made individually.

text: Concerning the second argument, the legal basis for the Defence request is entirely absent. The object and purpose of

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: is to preserve evidence which may otherwise become unavailable. There is nothing in the applicable law that would require or enable the Pre-Trial Chamber, at that point in the proceedings, to ‘request corroboration’ from the Prosecution. For this reason, the Chamber rejects the argument.

text: In conclusion, the Chamber finds that none of the allegations brought forward by the Defence with regard to the Article 56 proceedings violated the accused’s rights and therefore does not warrant the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of proceedings.

text: Further, in this context the Defence made an unrelated complaint that it was denied to call an expert on sexual and gender based crimes, which, it argues, prejudiced the accused’s fair trial rights. The Chamber repeats the reasons advanced in an earlier decision on this matter: the – belated – addition in the list of witnesses of the concerned expert was not considered necessary since ‘the terms of reference instructing D-158 [the prospected witness] to produce [an expert] report indicate that much of the expected report – and anticipated testimony of D-158 – has already been discussed by other witnesses called by the Defence.’ Therefore, the proposed witness’s evidence ‘would merely be additional evidence for topics for which direct evidence has already been elicited by the Defence’. Accordingly, the Chamber does not find any violation of the accused’s rights and subsequently no justification for a permanent stay of proceedings.

text: 133 See Decision on the “Prosecution application for the Pre-Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”, 27 July 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-277-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-277-Red), paras 5-10; Decision on the “Second Prosecution application to the Pre- Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”, 12 October 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-316-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-316-Red), paras 2-12. 134 For matters of completeness, the Chamber made a similar finding previously in Decision on Request to Admit Evidence Preserved Under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 10 August 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-520. 135 Defence Closing Brief, para. 72. 136 Decision on Defence Request to Add Two Witnesses to its List of Witnesses and Accompanying Documents to its List of Evidence, 13 August 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1565, para. 16. 137 Decision on Defence Request to Add Two Witnesses to its List of Witnesses and Accompanying Documents to its List of Evidence, 13 August 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1565, para. 21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 33/1077 4 February 2021

text: C. Submissions regarding Article 64(8)(a)

text: The Defence submits that Dominic Ongwen’s plea was ‘illegal’, as it was not ‘voluntary, knowing or informed, and unequivocal’.

text: Article 64

text: (8)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: required the Chamber, at the commencement of the trial, to ‘afford [to the accused] the opportunity to make an admission of guilt in accordance with article 65 or to plead not guilty’. Dominic Ongwen did not admit guilt, and the procedure of

text: Article 65

text: of

text: the Statute

text: was not triggered. In this regard, while the Chamber considers the Defence’s interpretation of Dominic Ongwen’s plea erroneous, it notes that contrary to the Defence’s suggestions, the standards for a not guilty plea are not equivalent to the standards required for an admission of guilt under

text: Article 65

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . A non-unequivocal ‘not guilty’ plea results simply in the proceeding with the trial. In any event, any submissions of the Defence arguing that Dominic Ongwen was prejudiced by his plea are unsubstantiated.

text: It is noted, however, that the arguments of the Defence under this heading contain other grievances in relation to ‘Mr Ongwen’s mental disability’ and the translation of the decision on the confirmation of charges. On this basis, the Defence argues that Dominic Ongwen did not understand the charges against him at the time of his plea.

text: During its closing statements, the Prosecution submitted that the Defence presented no evidence that the accused was not able to understand the charges and that the report produced by the Court-appointed expert also does not support this assumption. Further, it submits that even if a person has a mental illness, this does not automatically mean that he or she cannot understand the charges. In respect of the statements made by the accused during the opening of the trial and their interpretation as to his understanding of the charges, the Prosecution agrees with the Chamber’s interpretation of an earlier

text: 138 Defence Closing Brief, paras 73-77. 139 Defence Closing Brief, paras 73-77. 140 Defence Closing Brief, paras 78-79. 141 Defence Closing Brief, para. 76. 142 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 27, line 9 – p. 28, line 2. 143 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 28, lines 2-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 34/1077 4 February 2021 decision that the accused disputed his responsibility and denied the charges which is different from not understanding them.

text: At the opening of the trial, the Chamber issued an oral decision finding that Dominic Ongwen understood the nature of the charges. The Defence quotes a statement made by the accused before this decision that, while he understood the document containing the charges, ‘the charges I [Dominic Ongwen] do understand as being brought against LRA but not me, because I’m not the LRA. The LRA is Joseph Kony who is the leader of the LRA.’ The Defence ‘interprets this statement to mean that Mr Ongwen did not understand the charges against him’.

text: The argumentation of the Defence is untenable. The fact that an accused provides an answer which contains more than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – as shown by the response of the accused during the hearing of the confirmation of the charges – does not mean that he has no clear understanding of the question put to him. As the Chamber stated in its oral decision ‘Mr Ongwen’s remarks that the LRA is not him and that the LRA committed these acts demonstrate an understanding of the confirmed charges. Mr Ongwen’s remarks are rather a dispute as to Mr Ongwen’s responsibility for these alleged acts’. Further, when asked by the Presiding Judge whether he made ‘an admission of guilt with respect to any charge’, Dominic Ongwen responded ‘[i]n the name of God, I deny all these charges in respect to the war in northern Uganda’. This is not, as alleged by the Defence, a further sign that Dominic Ongwen did not understand the charges as being brought against him but simply that he refuses to take any responsibility for them. The Chamber repeats its finding that Dominic Ongwen understood the charges as being brought against him.

text: 144 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 28, line 7 – p. 29, line 1. 145 T-26, p. 17, line 11 – p. 19, line 15. 146 Defence Closing Brief, para. 75, citing to T-26, p. 16, lines 18-20. 147 Defence Closing Brief, para. 76. 148 The Chamber notes in this regard that in response to the question by the Pre-Trial Chamber whether he understood the charges presented by the Prosecution, Dominic Ongwen responded in a similar manner, without replying with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, before unequivocally stating that had he read and understood the charges. See T-20, p. 6, lines 5-14. 149 T-26, p. 19, lines 8-11. 150 T-26, p. 20, lines 10-13. 151 Defence Closing Brief, para. 76.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 35/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence’s submits that ‘in light of the information before [the Chamber] about Mr

text: Ongwen’s disability, a postponement of the 6 December proceedings should have been

text: taken.’ This misstates the facts. The only information available to the Chamber was a

text: filing by the Defence, the day before the opening statement, stating, inter alia, that

text: experts hired by the Defence made a finding pursuant to

text: Article 64

text: (8)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: and determined that Dominic Ongwen did not understand the charges and that he was not

text: fit to stand trial. No supporting material was provided, and in particular not any expert

text: report.

text: The Chamber did not ignore any information when making its determination pursuant to

text: Article 64

text: (8)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: that Dominic Ongwen understood the charges. Any

text: reference by the Defence to reports by medical experts made after the decision is

text: misplaced.

text: Lastly, concerning translation of the decision on the confirmation of the charges, the

text: Chamber recalls that, as previously stated in a decision on the matter, at the opening of

text: the trial Dominic Ongwen had available to him the full text of the charges in Acholi.

text: The document containing the charges on which the Prosecutor requested that Dominic

text: Ongwen be brought to trial was translated into Acholi in its entirety. Dominic Ongwen

text: confirmed that he received this translation and understood the charges during the hearing

text: of the confirmation of the charges. The decision on the confirmation of the charges

text: confirmed all counts contained in this document and copied it verbatim into its decision,

text: including as concerns the facts and circumstances described in the charges. Because

text: 152 Defence Closing Brief, para. 81. 153 Defence Request for a Stay of the Proceedings and Examinations Pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 5 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-620-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-620-Red2), para. 76. 154 See Defence Request for a Stay of the Proceedings and Examinations Pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 5 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-620-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-620-Red2), paras 41-42. 155 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 80. 156 See Decision on Defence Request for Findings on Fair Trial Violations Related to the Acholi Translation of the Confirmation Decision, 24 January 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1147. 157 Annex A to Document Containing the Charges, 22 December 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-375-Conf-AnxA (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-375-AnxA-Red); Acholi translation at Annex B to Document Containing the Charges, 22 December 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-375-Conf-AnxB (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-375-AnxB-Red). 158 T-20, p. 6, lines 13-14. 159 See Confirmation Decision, pp. 71-104. The limited modifications made by the Pre-Trial Chamber to the text of the charges as presented (also in Acholi) by the Prosecution are precisely identified at para. 158 of the Confirmation Decision and consist exclusively in the removal of one section and of a few words and the insertion of some pseudonyms to refer to some witnesses whose identity was confidential vis-à-vis the public.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 36/1077 4 February 2021 of the clear separation between the text of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen and the other parts of the decision on the confirmation of charges containing the reasoning of the Pre-Trial Chamber, the lack of a full translation of the entire decision containing the charges at the opening of the trial was immaterial. In this regard, the Chamber observes that in accordance with

text: Article 67

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: an accused has the right to be informed, in a language which he or she fully understands and speaks, of the ‘nature, cause and content’ of the charges. Finally, the Chamber recalls that at the opening of trial the numbered counts without references to the statutory provisions – which were contained in the operative part of the confirmation decision under the subheadings ‘legal characterisation of facts’ – were read out and, in that context, again made available to Dominic Ongwen in Acholi by virtue of the interpretation in the courtroom.

text: In conclusion, the Chamber rejects the argument of the Defence that Dominic Ongwen did not understand the nature of the charges against him at the time of his plea. Accordingly, there is no prejudice which would justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of the proceedings.

text: D. Submissions regarding the accused’s right to notice and his right to prepare a defence

text: The Defence submits that ‘[f]rom the inception of this case, the Defence has litigated the breaches of the right to notice.’ It cites to several motions and briefs which have all been addressed by either the Chamber or the Appeals Chamber. The Defence does not provide any new argument going beyond its prior submissions.

text: The Defence does not request a new resolution of its requests but submits that because of the allegations contained in these motions the accused ‘has been placed in a position of not knowing the specifics against which he must defend the alleged crimes and his

text: 160 T-26, p. 8, line 20 – p. 15, line 25. 161 Defence Closing Brief, para. 84. 162 Decision on Defence Request for Leave to File a No Case to Answer Motion, 18 July 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1309; Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision, 7 March 2019, ICC-02/04- 01/15-1476; Decision on Further Defence Motion Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision, 8 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1630; Decision on Defence Request for Ruling on Request to Dismiss the Charge of Enslavement, 11 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1717; Appeals Chambers, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against Trial Chamber IX’s ‘Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision’, 17 July 2019,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 37/1077 4 February 2021 alleged participation’ which prejudiced the Defence’s planning and ‘made the fair trial impossible’. Since the Chamber ruled on these motions, the Defence’s argument is, in essence, that the decisions of the Chamber violated the accused’s right to a fair trial. When ruling on the various requests, the Chamber considered all these allegations and dismissed the arguments by the Defence. Since no new arguments are presented by the Defence, the Chamber finds that its prior decisions did not violate the accused’s right to notice and right to prepare a defence. Accordingly, the Defence’s allegations do not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of the proceedings.

text: E. Submissions with regard to the standard for burden of proof in relation to the alleged grounds excluding criminal responsibility

text: The Defence submits that the fact that the Chamber ‘erred by failing to articulate the burden of proof standard for affirmative defences prior to the presentation of the Defence evidence’ violated the accused’s right under

text: Article 67

text: (1)(e) of

text: the Statute

text: to ‘present defences’. It argues that, since the Chamber did not pronounce itself on the legal interpretation of

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of

text: the Statute

text: prior to the presentation of evidence by the Defence, it did not know what evidence it must adduce and ‘it cannot fully address all issues which may be necessary for the […] Article 74 judgment.’ Thus, the Defence alleges violation of

text: Articles 67

text: (1)(a) and (e) and 64(2) of

text: the Statute

text: Indeed, the Chamber, in disposing of a motion filed by the Defence, previously explained that the burden and standard of proof are laid out in

text: Article 66

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and that no further explanation was warranted at that point in the proceedings as the Chamber’s interpretations of the applicable law would be set in the judgment. Naturally, this judgment applies this burden and standard of proof to the evidence presented.

text: 163 Defence Closing Brief, para. 85. 164 Defence Closing Brief, para. 85. 165 Defence Closing Brief, para. 91. 166 Defence Closing Brief, para. 95. 167 Defence Closing Brief, para. 96. 168 Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 28 January 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1423 (with two public annexes, A and B). 169 Decision on Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 5 April 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1494, paras 13-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 38/1077 4 February 2021

text: All outstanding issues in relation to the applicable law, including as concerns the burden and standard of proof, are fully dealt with in the present judgment. The issue within the present context is therefore whether prejudice arose to the Defence by way of the fact that this was not provided by the Chamber in advance. With regard to the presentation of evidence, the Defence explains further that ‘it cannot fully address all issues which may be necessary for the Trial Chamber’s Article 74 judgment if it does not know the standard which will be applied.’ This is not true, since the Defence can fully address all issues, but it will only know the Chamber’s legal interpretation on these matters at a later point. The Defence has a right to the former pursuant to

text: Article 67

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: , but it has no right to receive a full legal interpretation by the Chambers on the law at a specific point in the proceedings.

text: The Defence argues that it was prejudiced because, had it known the burden of proof during the proceedings, it ‘may [have chosen] other evidence’. This argument is speculative. The Defence called numerous witnesses on the matter and submitted numerous items of evidence. The Defence does not even seek to explain how its evidence would have been different. In fact, the Chamber considers that in this case where grounds excluding criminal responsibility were alleged by the Defence since the confirmation proceedings and where they form one of the crucial issues in the trial, the possibility of the Defence choosing a path different than the one it chose is purely theoretical.

text: It further needs to be noted that the Defence had every opportunity to present its evidence or legal submissions on any point of the law. It submitted expert reports and called experts in relation to

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: and it systematically explored matters related to

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: with witnesses who appeared before the court. In this context, the Chamber also recalls that it previously encouraged the Defence ‘to put forward all the evidence it has in support of the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility it has raised.’

text: 170 Defence Closing Brief, para. 95. 171 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 67, lines 19-24. 172 Decision on Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 5 April 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1494, para. 15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 39/1077 4 February 2021

text: As concerns

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber has specifically taken care that both parties had the opportunity to elicit all necessary evidence: it allowed the Prosecution to present evidence in rebuttal after the Defence had questioned D-0041 and D-0042. It also determined proprio motu, after taking ‘into account the principles of a fair trial and the rights of the accused pursuant to

text: Article 67

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ’, that the Defence was allowed to present evidence in rejoinder of the rebuttal evidence – an opportunity which the Defence availed itself of.

text: In a more general manner, it must be noted that no accused before this Court was allowed to call more witnesses in his or her defence or had a greater number of hearing days at his or her disposal. The accused had all means to fully present its defence and evidence in accordance with

text: Articles 64

text: (2) and

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: In conclusion on this point, Dominic Ongwen did not suffer any prejudice and accordingly, the allegations do not justify the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of the proceedings.

text: F. Submissions concerning the ‘prejudicial evidentiary regime’

text: The Defence argues that the fact that the Chamber, consistent with the procedure for submission of evidence it adopted in the present trial, made no ruling on the relevance, probative value or potential prejudice of an item of documentary evidence in the course of the trial is ‘prejudicial, erroneous as a matter of law and undermines the fairness of the proceedings’.

text: The Defence makes several arguments concerning the procedure for submission of documentary evidence at trial as set out by the Chamber in the present case, notably the fact that no ruling on the relevance or admissibility of items of evidence within the meaning of

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: was conducted prior to the recognition of such

text: 173 Decision on Requests related to the Testimony of Defence Expert Witnesses D-0041 and D-0042, 1 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1623, para. 16. 174 Decision on Requests related to the Testimony of Defence Expert Witnesses D-0041 and D-0042, 1 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1623, para. 17. 175 The Defence called 54 witnesses as live witnesses and submitted the prior recorded testimony of nine further witnesses pursuant to Rule 68(2) of the Rules. 176 The Defence called its first witness on 1 October 2018 and the last one 29 November 2019 over 73 hearing days. 177 Initial Directions on the Conduct of the Proceedings, 13 July 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-497 (hereinafter: ‘Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings’), paras 24-31. 178 Defence Closing Brief, para. 97.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 40/1077 4 February 2021 evidence as ‘submitted’ for the purpose of

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . Some of these arguments concern the alleged ‘illegality’ of this procedure, while others purportedly relate to certain concrete aspects of its application during the present trial allegedly causing prejudice to Dominic Ongwen’s right to a fair trial.

text: In relation to the first set of arguments raised by the Defence alleging that the Chamber’s procedure for the submission of documentary evidence at trial is, as such, incompatible with the legal framework of the Court and is per se prejudicial to the rights of the accused, the Chamber refers to its considerations below to the effect that such procedure is in accordance with the relevant legal instruments and with the jurisprudence of the Court.

text: This alone suffices to reject the Defence’s claim of prejudice. Nevertheless, in order to fully respond to the arguments invoked by the Defence with respect to the specificities of this case, the Chamber proceeds to address at this juncture the purported concrete prejudice to the rights of the accused that, according to the Defence, have been caused as a result of the application in the present case of the procedure for submission of documentary evidence as set out by this Chamber. In this regard, the Defence argues that this procedure had a ‘prejudicial impact’ on the fairness of the proceedings, in that, as a result of such procedure: (i) ‘selective and inconsistent rulings on evidence’ were 182 183 made; (ii) the evidentiary recorded is ‘overcrowded’ with ‘prejudicial items’; and (iii) no safeguard exists to ensure ‘the quality of the evidentiary process, i.e. permissible means of obtaining evidence’. The Chamber will address these three allegations in turn.

text: With respect to the first allegation (i.e. that ‘selective and inconsistent rulings on evidence’ were made ), the Defence cites to two instances in particular. The first one

text: 179 This concerns the arguments made by the Defence to the effect that: it was unfair for it to be ‘required to work on the assumption that all the items submitted into evidence by the Prosecution may be used against Mr Ongwen’, also considering that ‘there are over 4200 items formally submitted into evidence’ (Defence Closing Brief, para. 98); the procedure established by the Chamber is ‘in violation with [its] duty to apply the safeguards embodied in

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: ’ (Defence Closing Brief, para. 99); and the relevant applicable law ‘unequivocally obligate the Trial Chamber to provide evidentiary rulings on all items submitted into evidence in the judgment’ (Defence Closing Brief, paras 104-06). 180 See section IV.B.1 below. 181 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101. 182 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 i). 183 Defence Closing Brief, para 101 ii). 184 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 iii). 185 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 i).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 41/1077 4 February 2021 concerns the Chamber’s rejection of a Defence request for disclosure. This matter, however, concerns the relevance of certain information sought by the Defence within the meaning of Rule 77 of

text: the Statute

text: , and is unrelated to the procedure for submission of evidence in this case. It is thus irrelevant in the present context.

text: The second example concerns the rebuttal expert report by Prosecution witness P-0477, Professor Weierstall-Pust. The Defence argues that in relation to this document the Chamber, ‘[c]ontrary to its prior rulings’, ‘prematurely dismissed the Defence admissibility objections, without deferring its ruling until the deliberation of the judgment.’ First, it is not clear how such a ruling at that point in the proceedings can prejudice one of the parties. Second, the possibility of making rulings, as appropriate, on challenges to the admissibility of individual items of evidence is clearly envisaged by the applicable law and, since before the opening of the trial, has been foreshadowed by the Chamber as part of the general procedure for submission of documentary evidence. It remains entirely unexplained how the fact that the Chamber ruled on the objections raised by the Defence to the admissibility of a specific item of evidence upon its submission could prejudice the accused’s rights. The same holds true with regard to the general allegation that the Chamber applied the procedure for the submission of evidence in a ‘selective’ and ‘inconsistent’ manner. Besides the fact that this allegation completely unfounded, the Defence does not even make any submission as to what the alleged prejudice consists of.

text: With respect to the second allegation by the Defence (i.e. that the evidentiary record is ‘overcrowded’ with ‘prejudicial items’ ), the Defence cites to a decision rejecting its request to exclude, as inadmissible, parts of a report from a Victims expert, PCV-1. In this decision, the Chamber addressed and rejected the Defence’s arguments that parts of the report at issue were inadmissible as falling outside the scope of procedural rights vested in the participating victims, and clarified that, like for any other evidence, it

text: 186 Decision in Response to an Article 72(4) Intervention, 26 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1267-Corr2. 187 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 i). 188 See Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 26 (‘The Chamber always retains the discretion to rule on admissibility related issues upfront when appropriate, particularly when procedural bars are raised which may foreclose consideration of the standard admissibility criteria.’). 189 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 ii). 190 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 ii), referring to T-175, p. 11, line 14 – p. 13, line 1. 191 T-175, p. 12, lines 4-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 42/1077 4 February 2021 would conduct a full assessment of the report at the time of the issuance of its final judgment. While the Defence might disagree with the decision to reject its objections to the admissibility of parts of the report, the Chamber would have made the exact same finding applying a different procedure for the submission of evidence – any purported prejudice in this regard is thus unrelated to the general procedure set out by the Chamber for the submission of documentary evidence at trial. The Defence has not pointed to any other item in the evidentiary record which would allegedly be prejudicial to the accused’s fair trial rights; nor has the Chamber identified any such material. Finally, as concerns its third allegation (i.e. that no safeguard exists ensuring ‘the quality of the evidentiary process, i.e. permissible means of obtaining evidence’ ), the Defence refers to ‘the involvement of the Prosecution’s potential witness and intermediary, P-78’, whom it distrusts, and states that ‘[t]his example compromises the proceedings, because of the lack of integrity in the evidence collection process’. The Defence brought forward, in a previous request, the exact same submissions, which were considered and 195 196 rejected by the Chamber. As observed by the Chamber on that occasion, the Defence appears once again to submit a generic list of grievances which – irrespective of the fact that they are unfounded and not supported by any concrete indicia in the record of the case – are in no manner related to the procedure by which documentary evidence has been submitted in the present case. In any case, and more generally, the Chamber considers that the Defence’s general argument that the procedure for submission of documentary evidence in the present case does not envisage safeguards to the ‘quality of the evidentiary process’ is without merit. In this regard, the Chamber refers to its analysis below concerning the essential features of, and safeguards in such procedure.

text: In conclusion, and also in light of the considerations further expressed below, the Chamber finds that the Defence has failed to demonstrate that the procedure for

text: 192 T-175, p. 12, line 24 – p. 13, line 1. 193 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 iii). 194 Defence Closing Brief, para. 101 iii). 195 Decision on Defence Request regarding the Evidentiary Regime, 19 June 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1546, para. 31. 196 Decision on Defence Request regarding the Evidentiary Regime, 19 June 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1546, para. 31. 197 See section IV.B.1 below. 198 See section IV.B.1 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 43/1077 4 February 2021 submission of documentary evidence applied by in this case caused any prejudice to Dominic Ongwen’s fair trial rights.

text: G. Submissions on the Prosecution’s disclosure practices

text: The Defence asserts that the ‘disclosure practices of the Prosecution […] have

text: individually and in sum amounted to an unfair trial.’ It repeats submissions previously

text: made and includes a list of alleged failures by the Prosecution in relation to its disclosure

text: obligation. The Chamber notes that each of the instances referred to by the Defence in

text: its Closing Brief had been specifically considered and ruled upon by the Chamber.

text: Further, the Chamber notes the Defence’s submission that it filed a request in relation to

text: further disclosure violations in February 2020 which had not been ruled upon at the time of the writing of the Defence Closing Brief, which ‘leads to prejudice’. The Chamber

text: has previously found that the Defence was aware, when filing this request that the

text: statutory response deadline fell on the same day as the deadline for the submission of the

text: closing briefs. The Chamber further repeats its finding that issues brought forward by

text: the Defence relate to matters which occurred months or years before the filing of the

text: Defence request. The Defence cannot make submissions and requests at such a belated

text: point of the proceedings and then claim it suffered prejudice from the timing of its own

text: request, when it had the chance to file the request at an earlier point in time.

text: The Chamber previously ruled on all alleged disclosure violations cited by the Defence,

text: taking into account the rights of the accused and the fairness and expeditiousness of the

text: 199 Defence Closing Brief, para. 108. 200 Defence Closing Brief, paras 109-15. 201 Defence Closing Brief, para. 115 a.: Decision on Defence Request for Disclosure and Remedy for Late Disclosure, 28 September 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1351, rejecting the request for leave to appeal Decision on Defence Request for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Disclosure and Remedy for Late Disclosure, 12 October 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1364. Para. 115 b. makes reference to para. 227 of the Closing Brief. The Defence made a request for disclosure for certain material in the run-up of the testimony of a Prosecution Expert. The Prosecution was not in possession of the information but requested authorisation of the Chamber to contact the witness in order to obtain the material, which was granted. Para. 115 c. and 115 d. refer both to issues which were resolved in Decision on Defence Request for Remedies in Light of Disclosure Violations, 22 April 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1734. 202 Defence Closing Brief, para. 116. 203 Email from the Chamber to the parties and participants and the Registry, Decision on Prosecution Request for Extension of Deadline to File Responses to ICC-02/04-01/15-1718-Conf, 14 February 2020, at 14:19. See also Annex III to Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from January 2020 to July 2020, 2 October 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1749. 204 Decision on Defence Request for Remedies in Light of Disclosure Violations, 22 April 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1734, para. 38.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 44/1077 4 February 2021 proceedings. Accordingly, the Defence did not suffer any prejudice which would warrant the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of the proceedings.

text: H. Submissions concerning ‘Other Human Rights Violations and Discriminations’

text: Finally, the Defence asserts that the trial proceedings have been conducted in a ‘discriminatory manner’ which was ‘unprecedented in international courts’. The Defence raises two issues which, in its view, constitute human rights violations: discrimination against the accused as a ‘mentally disabled defendant’ and violations to his right to family and private life. With regard to the first issue the Defence submits that ‘[t]he Chamber has treated Dominic Ongwen as an accused and a detained person who does not suffer from any mental health disability.’ The Defence argues that the Chamber ‘discriminated against Mr Ongwen by assessing his participation and exercise of his minimum Article 67(1) guarantees as if he were not a defendant with mental disabilities’.

text: During its closing statements, the Prosecution submitted on this issue that, irrespective of the existence of any mental illness, the Defence has failed to show how this caused a concrete prejudice to the accused. It argues that a person suffering from mental illnesses can also be put on trial and that the Chamber made all necessary accommodation for the accused.

text: The Chamber considers the Defence allegation to be entirely untenable. It recalls that in all its decisions, the Chamber assessed the specific situation of Dominic Ongwen, including his health, and in particular his mental health. Throughout the proceedings the Chamber has ensured that the accused received all the medical attention and care necessary. In December 2016, while rejecting a request by the Defence to order a medical examination in order to assess whether the accused is fit to stand trial, the Chamber

text: 205 Defence Closing Brief, para. 119. 206 Defence Closing Brief, para. 121. The Defence repeats its submissions in its closing statement, T-258, p. 62, line 13 – p. 67, line 1. 207 Defence Closing Brief, para. 124. 208 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 26, lines 9-11. 209 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 26, lines 11-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 45/1077 4 February 2021 ordered an examination ‘making a diagnosis as to any mental condition or disorder that

text: [the accused] may suffer’.

text: In the report provided upon this order, the examiner stated that, while the accused suffered from various mental illnesses, ‘he is oriented in time, oriented vis-à-vis his environment and himself. He has a good attention span and maintains his concentration after hours of interviewing.’ Concerning his treatment by the responsible sections of the Court, the examiner stated that ‘[t]he current intervention strategy by the Detention Centre is more than adequate in the perception of [him]’. The Chamber did not go

text: against any advice or finding provided by this neutral examination.

text: Further, each time the health condition of the accused warranted a break in the proceedings, this was immediately facilitated by the Chamber. For instance, when there had to be an interruption of the proceedings, the Chamber instructed the Registry to provide a medical report on whether the accused can attend hearings. Only after receiving confirmation by the medical experts from the Registry that Dominic Ongwen’s

text: state of health allowed for continuation did the Chamber resume hearings. This was explained in court by the Presiding Judge:

text: But continuing, the Chamber wishes to address the fact that many hearings this year have needed to be cancelled. The Chamber wishes to give a brief explanation for the benefit of the public as to these cancellations. The Chamber was initially scheduled to continue with the Defence presentation of evidence on 14 January 2019. In the early morning of 7 January 2019 Mr Ongwen was involved in what will be described generally as a medical incident. He was briefly hospitalised but returned to the detention centre later that same day. Ever since, there has been an ongoing discussion between all concerned on Mr Ongwen’s current mental health and his necessary medical treatment. In particular, the Registry has been actively involved in making whatever further arrangement it considers appropriate to protect the health and the safety of the accused, as it is its obligation under Regulation 103(1) of the Regulations of the Court. The Chamber cancelled the hearing dates during the weeks of 14 and 21 January to ensure that Mr Ongwen received proper medical treatment. This postponement was done upon the request of the Defence and the reasons for this decision can be found in the public redacted version of decision 1412. Without going further into details, for similar reasons, the hearings of 28 and 29 January and 18 February were cancelled. On 18 February

text: 210 Decision on the Defence Request to Order a Medical Examination of Dominic Ongwen, 16 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Red), p. 18. 211 Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0049. 212 Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0053. 213 Decision on Defence Request to Order an Adjournment and a Medical Examination, 16 January 2019, ICC- 02/04-01/15-1412-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1412-Red), para. 12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 46/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber was given an indication from the medical officer that the hearing could proceed today. The Chamber wishes to stress that it does not cancel these hearings lightly. These cancellations have been compelled by considerations of the health and well-being of the accused, noting that the accused has a right under

text: Article 67

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: to be present at his trial. We will always keep this in mind, but the Chamber emphasises its continued determination to proceed to an expeditious resolution of this trial.

text: On three occasions, the Defence requested a medical examination of the accused, twice

text: combined with arguing that this warrants a stay of the proceedings. The Chamber has

text: ruled on each request. In these decisions, it based its assessments and rulings on

text: information provided by independent medical experts, taking into account Dominic Ongwen’s specific situation. The Defence asserts that ‘we concluded that sometimes

text: when the Trial Chamber appears to us to not be looking at the disabilities of the client

text: and not accommodating them fast enough or not believing there is merit to them, they

text: were saying there may be, they may not be seeing the whole picture. It’s as simple as that.’ The fact that the Chamber has not ruled in favour of the Defence does not mean

text: that it has not fully considered the situation of the accused when ruling on the Defence’s

text: request.

text: Lastly, the Defence erroneously submits that the Chamber ‘did not implement the ICC- DC Medical Officer’s recommendations for the span of eight months’. The

text: Prosecution submits on this matter that there was no discrimination against the accused

text: and that the Chamber acted within the scope of its discretion and took into account the

text: recommendation received by the medical officer as well as other pertinent factors.

text: 214 T-199, p. 2, line 19 – p. 3, line 18. 215 Defence Request for a Stay of the Proceedings and Examinations Pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 5 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-620-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-620-Red2); Defence Request for a Stay of the Proceedings and for Trial Chamber IX, pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to Order a Medical Examination of Mr Ongwen, 10 January 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1405-Conf-Exp (confidential redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1405-Conf- Red; public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1405-Red2); Defence Urgent Request to Order a Medical Examination of Mr. Ongwen, 16 September 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1595-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1595-Red). 216 Decision on the Defence Request to Order a Medical Examination of Dominic Ongwen, 16 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Red); Decision on Defence Request to Order an Adjournment and a Medical Examination, 16 January 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1412-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1412-Red); Decision on Further Defence Request for a Medical Examination, 1 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1622. 217 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 66, lines 19-22. 218 Defence Closing Brief, para. 137. 219 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 29, lines 8-11

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 47/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further it submits that the accused did not suffer any concrete harm to prepare or conduct his defence from the sitting schedule.

text: The Chamber finds that the Defence’s allegations on this point are without any reasonable justification and fundamentally misrepresent the facts. The Chamber first received information that the accused ‘would significantly benefit from not being present in Court on Wednesdays, during the weeks that he is normally scheduled for a full five day court schedule’ in March 2018. Understanding the recommendation to guide against the accused sitting a full five day court schedule, the Chamber adapted the sitting schedule mindful of the health of the accused. On the rare occasions a hearing on Wednesday was scheduled the Chamber always made sure that another day of that week was off. Consequently the accused never spent five working days of a week in Court. On two of the five instances in which a hearing was scheduled on Wednesday, Dominic Ongwen attended court only two days in the entire week. On one occasion he attended court only three days in that week. On two occasions the accused attended court for four days in a week. Further, despite claiming that ‘this had a direct effect on Dominic Ongwen’, the Defence does not cite to any specific issue resulting from the five Wednesdays the accused attended court.

text: Accordingly, the submissions that the Chamber ‘discriminated’ against the accused are baseless. The Defence further fails to show the claimed impact on the fair trial rights of Dominic Ongwen.

text: The second issue concerns asserted violations by the Defence to the accused’s human rights because Dominic Ongwen’s family life was affected by restrictions to his communications.

text: 220 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 30, lines 12-15. 221 Registrar Submission of Information Provided by the Medical Officer, 7 March 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1200- Conf, para. 8. 222 In the week of 9 April 2018, the Chamber only sat on 10 and 11 April 2020; in the week of 21 May 2020 the Chamber only sat on 23 and 24 May 2020. 223 In the week of 26 March 2018, the Chamber only sat on 26, 27 and 28 March 2020. 224 In the week of 30 April 2018, the Chamber did not sit on 30 April 2020; in the week of 22 October 2020 it did not sit on 26 October 2020. 225 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 62, line 25. 226 Defence Closing Brief, para. 146. 227 Defence Closing Brief, para. 147.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 48/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Pre-Trial Chamber first installed restrictions to the communication of the accused.

text: These restrictions were maintained and amended by the Chamber and later reviewed

text: and again confirmed. The restrictions consisted in the active monitoring of the accused’s non-privileged communication and a system of prior approval by the Chamber

text: for the addition of persons, at the accused’s request, to the list of authorised nonprivileged telephone contacts.

text: The assertion that the conduct giving rise to the restrictions was not ‘proven’ during the

text: proceedings by the Prosecution and that therefore the restrictions are per se unjustified

text: is misguided. The decisions ordering and confirming these restrictions were based on

text: specific information concerning the threat of witness interference, in line with Regulation

text: 101(2) of the Regulations of the Court.

text: Further, as explained above, the restrictions did not entail that the accused could not

text: under any circumstances contact a specific person, but rather that a prior authorisation of

text: the Chamber was required. Both times that the Defence requested additions to the list of

text: persons Dominic Ongwen was allowed to contact, the Chamber granted such requests

text: Furthermore, when it considered it appropriate the Chamber, acted on its own initiative

text: Decision on a request by the Prosecutor under

text: article 57

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: and regulation 101(2) of the Regulations of the Court, 24 June 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-254; Decision concerning the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 3 August 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-283-Conf. Decision on issues related to the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 30 May 2016, ICC-02/04- 01/15-450-Conf-Exp (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-450-Red). Decision on the Review of Dominic Ongwen’s Detention and on the Restriction on Communication, 21 July 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-503. Defence Closing Brief, para. 149. See also Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 45, line 22 – p. 46, line 4. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on a request by the Prosecutor under

text: article 57

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: and regulation 101(2) of the Regulations of the Court, 24 June 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-254, para. 6; Decision concerning the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 3 August 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-283-Conf, paras 9, 10, 12; Decision on issues related to the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 30 May 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-450-Conf-Exp (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-450-Red), para. 4. Decision on Defence Request to Meet with Six Prosecution Witnesses, 13 September 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1593; Decision on Defence Request to Lift Communication Restrictions, 18 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1642. The Chamber refused that an expert witness of the Defence, Dr Akena, D-0041, is put on the privileged contact list, but stressed at the same time that he may be added to the non-privileged contact list. Decision on issues related to the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 30 May 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-450- Conf-Exp (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-450-Red), para. 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 49/1077 4 February 2021 and requested submissions from the parties and participants on the contact restrictions

text: and subsequently lifted them.

text: Accordingly, upon the arguments presented by the Defence, the Chamber does not find

text: that the rights of the accused to family or private life were violated. Consequently, the

text: allegations of the Defence do not in any conceivable way warrant the exceptional remedy

text: of a permanent stay of proceedings.

text: Email from the Chamber to the parties and participants and the Registry, responses for relief requested in para. 731 of the Defence Closing Brief, 26 February 2020, at 18:09. See also Annex VI to Registry’s Report Filing in the Record of the Case Decisions issued by way of email from January 2020 to July 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1749- AnxIV. Public Corrected version of Decision on the Defence Request for Immediate Release and the Communication Restrictions Applying to the Accused, 17 April 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1733-Corr.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 50/1077 4 February 2021

text: III. FINDINGS OF FACT

text: In this section, the Chamber sets outs the material facts and circumstances of this case as they have been established to the requisite threshold upon its assessment of the evidence submitted and discussed before it at trial. They are the facts and circumstances which form the basis for the Chamber’s decision under

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . The reasoning for the Chamber’s determination in this regard is provided below, in Section IV.C. (‘Evidentiary analysis for findings of fact’), where the Chamber discusses, also in light of the arguments made at trial, the evidence which, directly or by way of inference (thus, through additional facts of a subsidiary nature), supports each of these findings on the facts and circumstances described in the charges. The legal characterisation of these facts and circumstances, in light of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen, is made in Section V.B. (‘Legal characterisation of the facts’).

text: The Chamber clarifies that, pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , it has ensured that its findings of fact do not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges against Dominic Ongwen as confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

text: A. LRA as an organisation in 2002-2005

text: At the time relevant for the charges, i.e. from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, the LRA had a hierarchical structure. Joseph Kony was the highest authority in the LRA. During the time period relevant for the charges, his deputy was Vincent Otti, who led a headquarters unit called Control Altar. Further, the LRA was divided into four brigades: Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle. From 2003, there was also a division called Jogo. The brigades were divided into battalions and further into companies or ‘coys’. Each of these units was led by a commander.

text: Orders were generally communicated from Joseph Kony directly or through Vincent Otti to the brigade commanders, who communicated them to the battalion commanders, who in turn passed them to their subordinates. Joseph Kony’s orders were generally complied with. At the same time, in particular when Joseph Kony was geographically removed

text: 236 In the electronic version of the judgment, the text of the finding of fact also functions as hyperlinks to the relevant sections of the evidentiary analysis: clicking on each such finding will direct to the corresponding evidentiary analysis. 237 The Chamber recalls that the text of the charges in the present case is contained at pages 71-104 of the Confirmation Decision, having its own numbering of paragraphs.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 51/1077 4 February 2021 from LRA units, brigade and battalion commanders took their own initiatives. This was regularly the case during the period of the charges, when Joseph Kony was in Sudan while various LRA units operated in Northern Uganda.

text: The LRA had at its disposal weapons and ammunition for use in military operations. It regularly seized weapons from the UPDF during combat. It also obtained weapons and other supplies from Sudan. The LRA supplied itself with food, medicines and other items of use by looting from civilians in Northern Uganda, in particular from IDP camps. The LRA relied on high-frequency radio as the principal mode of communication between units in various locations in Northern Uganda and Sudan.

text: B. Organisational features of the Sinia brigade

text: Structure and command

text: At the time relevant for the charges, i.e. from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, Sinia brigade was led by a brigade commander, who had at his disposal a headquarters unit, which included the brigade intelligence officer, the brigade major, and the support commander.

text: Sinia brigade was composed of three battalions: Oka, Terwanga and Siba. Each of these battalions was led by a battalion commander, who reported to the brigade commander, and was composed of companies, or ‘coys’.

text: Altogether, at the time relevant to the charges, between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, Sinia brigade included several hundred soldiers.

text: Ways to ensure capability to undertake military operations

text: Sinia brigade obtained new fighters through abductions of civilians. These abductions were targeted at civilians deemed capable for fighting, including young children. Following their abduction, recruits generally passed through initiation rituals, most regularly including anointment with shea butter, intended to instil obedience and prevent escape. Beating was also a common feature of such initiation. With some regularity, recruits were forced to brutally kill, or were forced to witness brutal killings, shortly after their abduction.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 52/1077 4 February 2021

text: Upon abduction into Sinia brigade, recruits were given training in fighting skills, including the use of firearms. Weapons were distributed to recruits. As part of the training, recruits were also taught military discipline. Recruits were not taught, as part of their training, to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between civilian objects and military objectives.

text: There were clear rules requiring obedience of LRA soldiers, and a violent disciplinary system that guaranteed adherence to them. LRA soldiers were punished, for example, for not executing orders, losing a gun, or failing to prevent abducted persons from escaping. Penalties ranged from beating to execution. Dominic Ongwen personally ordered disciplinary measures.

text: Sinia members, and LRA members generally, were threatened with death if they attempted escape. On certain occasions, execution of re-captured escapees in fact took place. Dominic Ongwen personally issued threats to LRA members that they would be killed if they attempted to escape, and ordered killings of abductees in front of LRA members to illustrate this threat. Members were also threatened that their home areas would be attacked by the LRA if they escaped. A further measure taken to discourage escaping was giving soldiers false or negative information about life outside of the LRA, including that they would be killed by government soldiers if they escaped and went home, and preventing them from obtaining information through public radio broadcasts.

text: Sinia, and more generally LRA members, especially those of lower rank, suffered from hunger and lack of adequate clothing. They regularly slept outside on the ground. There was no or very limited treatment available in case of sickness or injury.

text: C. Dominic Ongwen’s position within the LRA

text: At the beginning of the period relevant for the charges, on 1 July 2002, Dominic Ongwen was battalion commander, in charge of the Oka battalion of Sinia brigade. Dominic Ongwen was promoted to the rank of major on 1 July 2002.

text: In October or November 2002 Dominic Ongwen was injured and placed in sickbay until around mid-2003. From at least December 2002 onwards, he again exercised his authority as battalion commander. In April 2003, Dominic Ongwen was briefly arrested

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 53/1077 4 February 2021 by Vincent Otti. The arrest did not interrupt the exercise of his authority for any significant period.

text: On 17 September 2003, Joseph Kony appointed Dominic Ongwen as second-incommand of the Sinia brigade. On 15 November 2003, Joseph Kony promoted Dominic Ongwen to the rank of lieutenant colonel.

text: On 4 March 2004, Joseph Kony officially appointed Dominic Ongwen as brigade commander of Sinia brigade.

text: Dominic Ongwen remained Sinia commander until 31 December 2005, and further. On 30 May 2004, Joseph Kony promoted him to the rank of colonel, and sometime in late 2004 to the rank of brigadier.

text: D. Objectives and policies of the LRA

text: The LRA pursued an armed rebellion against the Government of Uganda.

text: The LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in governmentestablished IDP camps in Northern Uganda. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort against the government and should be killed by the LRA.

text: Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the enemy.

text: E. Armed conflict and attack on civilians

text: Throughout the period of the charges, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, the LRA regularly fought the armed forces of the Government of Uganda and associated local armed units in Northern Uganda. Dominic Ongwen knew of this fact.

text: Throughout the period of the charges, in Northern Uganda, the LRA killed, injured and enslaved a large number of civilians in numerous attacks on individual civilians, IDP camps and other civilian locations. It also abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 54/1077 4 February 2021 slaves and so-called ‘wives’, and as domestic servants a large number of civilians. Dominic Ongwen knew of these facts.

text: F. Attack on Pajule IDP camp

text: On 10 October 2003, LRA fighters, including Dominic Ongwen, attacked Pajule IDP camp. Pajule and Lapul IDP camps were situated in Aruu County, Pader district. The two camps were across from each other, Pajule on the east side of the Lira-Kitgum road and Lapul on the west. They were commonly referred to as ‘Pajule IDP camp’. At the time of the attack, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 people lived in the camp.

text: Several days before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Vincent Otti summoned a number of LRA units to join him. Around that time, Dominic Ongwen and his group of fighters joined Vincent Otti.

text: A meeting took place the day before the attack at a location east of Pajule IDP camp, including Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen and other LRA commanders. Several hundred LRA members were present nearby. After the meeting, on the eve of the attack, the LRA soldiers were selected from the Control Altar, as well as Trinkle and Sinia brigades. Raska Lukwiya was designated as the overall commander for the attack. The attackers were briefed about the attack and instructed to attack the UPDF at the barracks, as well as civilian areas of the camp in order to loot radio equipment, food and other items. The attackers were also told to abduct civilians. The same evening after the briefing, the attackers, including Dominic Ongwen, departed for Pajule IDP camp. Vincent Otti remained behind.

text: In the early morning of 10 October 2003, several hundreds of LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, entered through the Pajule side of the camp on the east, armed with an assortment of weapons, including SPG-9, AK-47s, a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft gun, RPGs, a PKM machine gun as well as pangas/machetes and knives. The LRA fighters were organised in several units, spreading throughout the camp. One group attacked the military barracks in the Lapul side of the camp, engaging with the Ugandan government forces. Another much smaller group went to the Catholic mission, from where it was repelled by government soldiers. Two small groups set up ambushes on the Pader and Kitgum roads, to prevent government military reinforcements from aiding the

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 55/1077 4 February 2021 camp. A final large group of fighters went to attack the civilian camp. Amongst this group of fighters was Raska Lukwiya, the operations commander of the attack.

text: Government soldiers within the camp fled in the face of the attacking force, while government soldiers in the barracks managed to hold the barracks under heavy fire from the LRA.

text: Dominic Ongwen led a group of attackers to fight at the barracks, before directing them to attack the trading centre within the camp.

text: During the attack, LRA attackers, some of them led by Dominic Ongwen, broke into homes and shops and looted food and other property from them in Pajule IDP camp. There was widespread looting throughout the camp. The attackers raided the trading centre in the camp, broke into shops and took food items and supplies. Among the items looted by the LRA attackers were foodstuffs like beans, flour, salt, sugar, cooking oil, maize, sweets, biscuits, groundnuts, soda as well as household goods such as bedding, clothing, a radio set, saucepans and items such as medicine, livestock and money. Dominic Ongwen personally ordered LRA attackers to loot within the trading centre, ordering them to loot items from shops and homes within the camp. The LRA attackers complied with this order.

text: With the arrival of a government helicopter and reinforcement ground forces, LRA attackers left the camp with abductees and looted goods.

text: In the course of the attack, LRA fighters killed at least four civilians, most of whom were abductees killed because they tried to escape or refused to carry looted goods. The civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp included: an unnamed woman killed by machete, Kinyera Benson Lacung, Pangarasio Onek and unnamed abductee killed by the RV location.

text: LRA fighters abducted hundreds of civilians from the camp and forced them to carry looted items, including heavy loads, for long distances while retreating from the camp. Dominic Ongwen ordered a subordinate to abduct civilians. The order was immediately executed. Dominic Ongwen also led a group of abductees and ordered abductees to carry looted goods and instructed them not to drop items. Some abductees were forced to carry injured LRA fighters. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 56/1077 4 February 2021 were under constant threat of beatings or death. Some were tied to each other. Many of the abductees were forced to walk bare foot or not fully clothed through the bush for a long distance. LRA fighters beat abductees to make them walk faster.

text: Among the persons abducted from Pajule IDP camp were Witness P-0006, her neighbour, her three relatives; Witness P-0081; Richard Otim; Witness P-0249; Witness P-0249’s wife; Benson Ojok; Dick Okot and his family members; Rwot Joseph Oywak; Charles Bongomin, Oryema Kadogo, Sunday Abalo, Charles Ayela, Concy Ayet; Ogen; Opira; Okumu; Santo Oweka; David Okwera; Francis Kitara; George; Ronald Labeja; Christopher; Celestino; Vincent Okot; Ocana; Charles Abonga; David Otti Moyo; Christine; Paska; Oluge; Opira Bosco and Oryema.

text: Abductees carried the looted items to a meeting place where the LRA met after the attackers left Pajule IDP camp. At this meeting point, the LRA collected the looted goods. Looted items were distributed within the LRA, including within Dominic Ongwen’s group.

text: At the meeting point, Vincent Otti and other commanders addressed the abductees. Vincent Otti told abductees that the LRA reproached the civilians for settling in IDP camps set up by the government, and that there was a punitive nature to the LRA’s attack on the camp. Dominic Ongwen also spoke to a group of abductees, telling them that anyone who escaped or dropped looted goods would be killed and that abductees would be trained as soldiers.

text: After the fighters returned from the camp, some abductees remained in the LRA and were distributed to various units, including among Dominic Ongwen’s group.

text: Vincent Otti, the overall commander for the attack, communicated the results of the attack to Joseph Kony on the LRA radio communication system.

text: G. Attack on Odek IDP camp

text: On 29 April 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen, and acting on his orders, attacked Odek IDP camp. Odek IDP camp was situated in Odek sub-county, Omoro County, Gulu district and at the time of the attack between 2000 and 3000 people lived in the camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 57/1077 4 February 2021

text: Shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp, Joseph Kony ordered that the people of Odek be attacked, to punish their perceived failure to support the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew of Joseph Kony’s order before the attack.

text: Dominic Ongwen decided that LRA soldiers under his command would attack Odek IDP camp. He coordinated with subordinate commanders and appointed them to lead the attack on the ground. Dominic Ongwen ordered the fighters to attack the camp in two groups, one focused on the military barracks in the camp and the other focused on the civilian areas. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and also instructed them to loot food and abduct civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers for the attack, and participated in a ritual and prayer before they set out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including civilians, to loot and to abduct civilians. Afterwards, the LRA fighters left for Odek. The LRA fighters who went to attack Odek IDP camp were subordinate to Dominic Ongwen. They included fighters belonging to Sinia brigade, as well as two fighters from the Gilva brigade. The subordinate commanders Dominic Ongwen sent to attack Odek IDP camp included Ben Acellam, Okwer and Kalalang.

text: Dominic Ongwen moved with the attackers in the direction of Odek IDP camp. He did not enter Odek IDP camp with the fighters sent to attack.

text: In the late afternoon the day of the attack, Odek IDP camp residents gathered and a government soldier warned them to be vigilant as the LRA were believed to be operating in the area. As the residents and several government soldiers were dispersing from that gathering in the early evening, at least 30 LRA attackers, including children under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and, with an assortment of arms including AK guns, a mortar and an RPG, a PK and a ‘B-10’ gun, attacked Odek IDP camp from the northern side of the camp.

text: The LRA fighters operated in two groups, pursuant to Dominic Ongwen’s orders. One group of fighters attacked the military barracks, situated about a few hundred meters from the camp, killed some soldiers there and burned the barracks down, overwhelming the soldiers at the barracks. The other group of fighters spread into the civilian area, including the trading centre, where they dispelled several government soldiers and proceeded to

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 58/1077 4 February 2021 attack the civilian residents, shooting, beating, abducting and forcing them to carry looted goods.

text: While in the camp, LRA attackers broke into homes and shops and looted food and other items from the camp, both from shops in the trading centre and from civilian homes, including items such as beans, cooking oil, maize, flour, soda and other beverages, biscuits, sugar, salt, posho, soap, clothes, saucepans, bedding, shoes. The food aid which had been recently distributed to the camp was looted by the attackers. The LRA distributed the items looted from Odek IDP camp to the households of different commanders, including Dominic Ongwen.

text: During the attack in the camp, a female LRA attacker raped , a civilian resident of the camp, with a comb and a stick used for cooking, while the victim’s husband was forced to watch. The rape was committed with such force that started to bleed.

text: Under orders to shoot civilians in the chest and head to ensure that they died, LRA fighters fired their weapons at civilians during the attack. At least 52 civilians died as a result of the injuries sustained in the camp or in the course of the retreat, while at least ten were the victims of attempted killings. Many civilians were shot as they ran away from the LRA. Among the victims were elderly civilians, children, a pregnant woman as well as women carrying babies tied to their back. The bodies of the dead were scattered everywhere across the camp. Witness P-0264, an LRA fighter, was ordered to spray bullets inside civilian houses. He also shot a civilian man dead. LRA also fighters set at least one hut on fire with civilians inside.

text: The LRA killed the following persons within the camp during their attack: Adoni Okullu, Agudu’s wife and her grandson, Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok, Catherine Amono, Okeny, Aldo Okello, Ayita Labanya, Charles Obur, Doris Apiyo, Jenaro Ongwen, Jimmy Ojok, Catherine Laker, Kevin Apiyo, Kerobina Acayo, Kejikiya Okec, Veronica Auma, Mary Acayo, Monica Aciro, Wilson Okoya, Okoya, Obangomoko, Pedwang Opio, Thomas Opiyo, Thomas Ojok, Valentino Okot, Walter Ojok, Atikcon, an unnamed camp resident, Mary Agudu, Doreen Ojok, DP, Acayo, Aboni, Witness P-0269’s mother-inlaw and her grandson, a girl found by the river.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 59/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA fighters also attempted to kill at least ten civilians. An LRA fighter fired shots through the door of a locked hut, killing the male inhabitant and wounding the female inhabitant in the neck. The LRA attempted to kill the following persons in the course of the attack: Santa Akello, Betty Atenyo, Christopher Moro, David Bua, Witness P-0252, Kengali and his wife, a man by a borassus palm tree, Okot LC’s mother and a woman shot in the mouth.

text: About an hour after the LRA began their attack on Odek IDP camp, the LRA attackers retreated from the camp in the face of the arrival of government reinforcements.

text: When they left the camp, the LRA took with them abducted civilians and looted goods. In the course of the attack, LRA fighters abducted at least 40 civilian residents from the camp: men, women and children. Amongst many others Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Titus Latigo, James Ayella, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok, Fabio Otto, Onek, Witness P-0275, Witness P-0269, Witness P-0252, Brian Odokonyero, Hellen Adong, Alice Kidega, Acan, Adaa/Ada, Agnes Adoch, Ajok, Akanyo, Apio, Atenyo, Carolina Lagulu, Dennis Otema, Doreen Aluku, Kadoge, Kala Adong, Joyce Aneno, Ocaka, Paul Ojara, Richard Okello, Santa Oling, Ventorina Akello, and the wife of Olet Okello were abducted and forced to work for the LRA.

text: Abductees, including children as young as 11 or 12 years old, were forced to carry looted items away from the camp. Abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads for long distances under constant threat of harm; some abductees walked these long distances barefoot. Abductees were forced to carry an injured fighter.

text: Civilians suffered instances of grave physical abuse at the hands of the LRA fighters, such as beatings with sticks and guns. Abductees were beaten for walking too slowly. One abductee was forced to kill another abductee with a club and forced to inspect corpses. Another abductee was forced to watch someone being killed. Some mothers were forced to abandon their children on the side of the road; one child was left on a rubbish pit.

text: Some civilians from the camp were killed when they struggled or tried to escape. One deceased was beaten so badly that his brain was exposed. LRA fighters killed a young

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 60/1077 4 February 2021 abductee because his feet were too swollen and he was unable to walk any further. Nine adult men were abducted from the camp and forced to carry an LRA fighter who had been wounded during the attack; LRA fighters later killed all nine men when the LRA commander died from his injury.

text: The LRA killed the following persons in the course of the retreat from Odek IDP camp: Aroja, Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Ayella, James Titus Latigo, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok and Fabio Otto.

text: Apart from the abductees killed during the retreat, some abductees were released after a few days in the bush, others were integrated into the LRA, including into Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: After the attack, the attackers joined the rest of the group commanded by Dominic Ongwen. The subordinate commanders briefed Dominic Ongwen. Dominic Ongwen thanked the fighters. Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters successfully carried out an attack on Odek IDP camp, shooting people, abducting civilians and looting in the camp.

text: H. Attack on Lukodi IDP camp

text: On or about 19 May 2004, LRA fighters, sent by Dominic Ongwen, attacked Lukodi IDP camp. Lukodi IDP camp was situated in Bungatira Sub-County, Aswa County, Gulu District and a large contingent of civilians resided in the camp at the time of the attack.

text: Dominic Ongwen decided to attack Lukodi IDP camp. For the purpose of the attack, he gathered soldiers from Sinia as well as from the nearby Gilva brigade sickbay. At a gathering the morning of the day before the attack, Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and everyone present at that location, including civilians, and to take food from the camp. Dominic Ongwen selected his subordinate Ocaka to be commander on the ground. Other commanders on the ground included Ojok Kampala, Oyenga, Kobbi, Ojara and Abonga Won Dano. After receiving the orders given by Dominic Ongwen, the attackers left for Lukodi IDP camp. They arrived at Lukodi in the evening of the following day after setting out. Dominic Ongwen stayed behind at the location of the pre-attack gathering.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 61/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the evening on the day of the attack, at least 80 LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and armed with an assortment of weapons, including an RPG, an SMG, a PK, AK-47s, and a ‘12’, as well as machetes/pangas, attacked Lukodi camp from the east.

text: The LRA fighters went into the civilian areas of the camp and some fighters went to barracks to fight the government soldiers. Government soldiers engaged the LRA fighters and then quickly fled. The remaining civilian population in the camp were left defenceless. LRA fighters targeted civilians within the camp with acts of violence.

text: LRA fighters killed civilians in Lukodi IDP camp: men, women and children. At least 48 civilians died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. Civilians were shot, burnt and beaten to death.

text: The following persons were among those killed by the LRA within the camp: Keneri Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kilama Aloyo, Kilama Kidega, Jackline Anee, Milly Anek, Akello Acii, Innocent Okello, Ojoko, unnamed man shouting at the LRA, Christine Ajok, Odong Apiyo, David Otim and an unnamed stabbing victim, Agwesa Odoch, Beatrice’s son, Charles Odong, Jasinta Aol, Jojina Angom, Lalobo’s son, Tezira Oroma, Ojara, Okwera, Olwedo, Ocaka’s wife and one unnamed teenage girl, Onencan, Witness P-0024’s mother and , Min Ojoko, Ocii, Atim, Charles Anywar, Danger Joseph Oryem, James Opiro, Jeneth Lalur Akello, Joseph Ojara, Obedi, Rose Kiter, Tabicha Alum, Vincent Ocaya and Santa Oroma.

text: LRA fighters attempted to kill at least 11 other civilians who managed to survive. The fighters shot at civilians and in some cases wounded them. Civilians were beaten and left for dead. Civilians, including children, were thrown into burning houses. The following persons were among those who survived these LRA acts of violence: Pyerina Ayaa, Florence Adong, Adong Paska, Piloya, Joel Opiyo, Ojoko, an unnamed elderly woman, Nyeko, two unnamed girls who had been shot and an unnamed girl with a burnt leg.

text: LRA fighters entered civilian homes and shops in Lukodi IDP camp and looted food and other property from them. Among the items stolen by the attackers were beans, maize, cooking oil, soap, cooking utensils, chickens, money and clothes.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 62/1077 4 February 2021

text: During their attack on the camp, LRA fighters set huts on fire. Approximately 210 civilian huts in the camp were burnt. Civilians’ household goods, including food stocks, were destroyed in these fires. Domestic animals such as goats were also burnt by the LRA.

text: LRA fighters abducted at least 29 civilians, men, women and children, to carry looted goods from the camp. Among the abductees were Witness P-0024, Olanya, Aleka, Onek, four unnamed male abductees, Witness P-0187, two unnamed female abductees, Joel Opiyo, Lilly Apiyo, Christine Alanyo, Milly Ayaa, Beatrice, Mary Aol, Min Lagum, Min Ojak, Min Ochora, Alora, Okumu, Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet, an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Lakwec, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya. Some of the abductees were tied together. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads, some for long distances, while tied together and under constant threat of harm. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. Abductees were also injured by the LRA, Witness P-0187 was wounded by an LRA fighter. She was also raped by an LRA fighter. Witness P-0024 was beaten throughout her abduction. LRA fighters kept slapping her and threatening her. Some abductees were carrying their babies when the LRA took them. Mothers were forced to abandon their children in the bush. LRA fighters threw small children, including babies, into the bush because the children were crying and making it difficult for their mothers to carry looted goods. Many of the women abductees were subsequently released. Some abductees, particularly men, were killed in the bush. Some of the abducted children remained with the LRA.

text: The killing of civilians was not confined to the area of Lukodi IDP camp. After they left Lukodi, LRA fighters killed persons they had abducted from the camp. Among the civilians killed in the retreat were Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet, an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya.

text: LRA fighters returned from the attack and reported to Dominic Ongwen about the success of their mission. Dominic Ongwen also reported his soldiers’ attack on Lukodi IDP camp to other LRA commanders, including Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti. Dominic Ongwen took responsibility for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 63/1077 4 February 2021

text: I. Attack on Abok IDP camp

text: On 8 June 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen attacked Abok IDP camp. Abok IDP camp was situated in Ngai sub-county, Apac district and contained thousands of civilians displaced by frequent LRA attacks in the region.

text: In the days and weeks preceding the attack, Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti instructed Dominic Ongwen to continue to attack civilians in IDP camps.

text: Dominic Ongwen chose to attack Abok IDP camp. Prior to the attack, Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA fighters subordinate to him to attack this camp, including civilians. At a gathering in the foothills of Atoo, Dominic Ongwen addressed the troops before the attack and gave instructions to go and collect food, abduct people, attack the barracks and burn down the camp and the barracks. Dominic Ongwen did not go to Abok as part of the fighting force. He appointed Okello Kalalang to command the attackers on the ground according to his instructions. Kalalang led the LRA fighters in the attack on Abok IDP camp on behalf of Dominic Ongwen.

text: The day of the attack, Abok IDP camp residents observed LRA troops moving in the western side of the camp. A contingent of Ugandan government soldiers were sent to track the LRA activity. However, the LRA eluded the government soldiers. In the evening of that day, at least 20 LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and, with an assortment of arms, including guns, attacked Abok IDP camp from the southwest.

text: The LRA fighters went past the old barracks in the south of the camp and entered the camp, firing their guns. LRA fighters went to the civilian area in the camp and a contingent of the fighters eventually ended up near the new barracks in the north east of the camp. While government soldiers were able to defend the new barracks, the soldiers within the camp itself were not able to stop the LRA’s attack on the camp. These soldiers in the camp fled. The LRA attacked the civilians in the camp.

text: The LRA fighters looted civilian houses and shops at the trading centre, taking away food items such as sugar, flour, beans, maize, goats, cooking oil, biscuits and salt, as well as a radio, money, clothing, cooking utensils and medicine. At times, while demanding the goods, LRA fighters would use violence.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 64/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA fighters set huts on fire in the camp, taking grass from burning thatched roofs to set other huts on fire. Several hundred civilian homes were burnt during the attack. Civilians’ food stocks were also destroyed.

text: In the course of the attack, LRA fighters killed civilians by shooting, burning and/or beating them. The attackers killed at least 28 civilian residents of the camp. In other instances, killings were not fully carried out by the LRA fighters because of independent circumstances. Survivors returning the next morning found bodies strewn throughout the camp, including children. Some bodies were burnt or had the backs of their heads smashed, others had been shot. Dead bodies were found inside houses, at doorsteps and among the remains of burnt huts. These civilians were killed by LRA fighters. One of Dominic Ongwen’s subordinate commanders intruded into a house with over 10 inhabitants, forced several to carry looted goods and then closed the door and set fire to the house with the remaining inhabitants inside.

text: The following persons were amongst those killed by the LRA in the course of the attack: Albino Okal, Justina Akullu, Hatari Anyima, D.P. Okello, Simon Okello, Alex Ogweng, Barikia Adonya, Fabio Ogweng and two of Hatari Anyima’s children (Daniel Okite and Monica Ayugi) and Evelyn Akello.

text: LRA fighters also attempted to kill civilians in the camp. The following persons were amongst those the LRA attempted to kill within the camp: Jacob Opio, Cyprian Ogola and Robson Oper.

text: Unable to dislodge the government soldiers who remained holed up in the new barracks, the LRA eventually retreated from the camp.

text: LRA fighters abducted many civilians and forced them to carry heavy looted goods, and an injured fighter, for long distances oftentimes under the threat of beatings or death. Some of the abductees were tied to each other. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. LRA fighters beat abductees as a means of punishment for not being able to continue walking and to intimidate other abductees to continue without stopping or resisting. In the course of the retreat, LRA fighters forced an abductee to kill another abductee with a club, as a lesson to others who were thinking of escaping.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 65/1077 4 February 2021

text: The LRA attempted to kill abductee Gwentorina Akite, an elderly woman. They had abducted her from the camp and forced her to carry heavy loads, including at one point two goats. When she could no longer bear the weight, an LRA fighter beat and strangled her and cut her with a machete. LRA fighters passing her on the road hit her. She was left for dead but managed to crawl back home to the camp.

text: Among the civilians abducted and forced to work for the LRA were Charles Amodo, Gwentorina Akite, Evelyn Akello, Robson Oper, Witness P-0280, Thomas Okitte’s daughter, Ogweng, Ameny, Lucy Akello, Molly Ayugi, Monica Adur, Nighty Atim, Dilis Awor and Witness V-0002. Some persons abducted by the LRA during the attack were rescued by a UPDF contingent that pursued the LRA fighters as they left Abok IDP camp. Some abductees were killed in captivity, at times for failing to keep up with their captors, others eventually escaped and returned home, some remained with the LRA, including in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on the LRA military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters carried out an attack on Abok IDP camp, directing fire and burning everything that was there, including huts in the camp.

text: J. Sexual and gender based violence directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen

text: (Witness P-0099) had been abducted by LRA fighters from Purongo, Northern Uganda in February 1998 and from there taken by the LRA to Sudan. By 1 July 2002, while in Sudan, she had been forced to become Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’. Dominic Ongwen had personally abducted (Witness P-0101) from Northern Uganda in August 1996. Dominic Ongwen immediately took her into his household, where she stayed until her release in 2004. (Witness P-0214) had been abducted from Laliya, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters in June 2000 and from there taken to Sudan. In September 2002, she was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen. (Witness P-0226) had been abducted from her home at Patiko Cetkana, Lukome, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s command around 1998. By 1 July 2002, she was a ting ting in Dominic Ongwen’s household. (Witness P-0227) was abducted from Pageya, Northern Uganda by LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s command in approximately April 2005. She joined Dominic

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 66/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen’s household. (Witness P-0235) was abducted by the LRA fighters in Kitgum town in September 2002. After her abduction she was placed in Dominic Ongwen’s household. (Witness P-0236) was abducted from Wang’yaa in Ogule, Pajule, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters in September 2002. She was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen.

text: The seven women ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen were not allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. They were told or came to understand that if they tried to escape they would be killed. P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were considered Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ and had to maintain an exclusive conjugal relationship with him. Being Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ did not cease until they escaped or were released from the LRA.

text: During the period relevant to the charges, Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with P-0101 (between 1 July 2002 and July 2004), P-0214 (between September 2002 and 31 December 2005), P-0226 (between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003) and P-0227 (between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005). This happened on a repeated basis whenever Dominic Ongwen wanted. P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen sometime between July 2002 and July 2004. In 2004, P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen. In 2005, P-0214 became pregnant and, in December 2005, gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen.

text: The seven women were subjected to beating at Dominic Ongwen’s command at any time. They were hit with canes and sticks. Some beatings knocked them unconscious, left them unable to walk and left permanent scars. The seven women had to perform different domestic duties, including cooking, working in the garden, doing laundry, fetching and chopping wood, carrying Dominic Ongwen’s dishes, fetching water, washing, nursing Dominic Ongwen when he was injured and taking things to him. Failing to perform these tasks led to punishment by beating.

text: On 1 July 2002, Dominic Ongwen forced P-0226 to beat to death a captured UPDF soldier near Patongo, Northern Uganda. P-0226 hit him once, as did other girls. She had blood splattered on her clothes. P-0226 had never killed anyone before, and this was part

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 67/1077 4 February 2021 of the reason given by Dominic Ongwen on why he selected her to do this. This experience caused her severe anguish.

text: In late 2002 or early 2003 in Northern Uganda, soon after P-0235’s abduction, Dominic Ongwen ordered her to, along with other abductees, beat people to death until their blood splashed on the abductees. Although she eventually did not have to carry out the killings, this experience caused her severe anguish.

text: From 1 July 2002 until her escape in September 2002, P-0099 was in Uganda. She was placed by Dominic Ongwen in a sickbay where she continued her life under identical circumstances. P-0101 was released from the LRA in July 2004. P-0214 and P-0227 escaped in 2010 while in the DRC. P-0226 was captured by government soldiers in 2003 in Koch. P-0235 and P-0236 were released from the LRA in April 2015.

text: K. Sexual and gender based violence not directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct women and girls in Northern Uganda and force them to serve in Sinia brigade as so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia brigade, and as domestic servants.

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership ordered Sinia brigade soldiers to abduct civilian women and girls. Sinia brigade soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted civilian women and girls in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. At any time during this period, there were over one hundred abducted women and girls in Sinia brigade. Following their abduction, the abducted women and girls were ‘distributed’ to members of Sinia brigade. The ‘distribution’ of the abducted women and girls was the prerogative of Joseph Kony, or, in his absence, of the Sinia brigade commander or battalion commanders. In the exercise of his authority, Dominic Ongwen also personally decided on the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls.

text: The abducted women and girls were threatened with death if they attempted to escape. In some cases, women and girls were in fact killed for attempted escape. In other cases,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 68/1077 4 February 2021 they were severely beaten. In addition, they were placed under heavy guard. Abducted women and girls were also forced to beat or kill other abductees for attempting escape or breaking rules. Occasionally, abducted women and girls were released.

text: Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership designated abducted women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ of male members of Sinia brigade. Occasionally, ceremonies were performed to mark the so-called ‘marriage’. Frequently no such ceremony occurred, and abducted women and girls were considered so-called ‘wives’ from the time they were first forced to have sex with the man they had been assigned to. The abducted women and girls were not able to refuse. Dominic Ongwen personally assigned women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ and used his authority as LRA commander to enforce the so-called ‘marriage’ in Sinia brigade.

text: Younger abducted girls were used as household servants, referred to as ting tings, until they were considered mature enough to become so-called ‘wives’.

text: Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse was specifically considered to be part of the role of the so-called ‘wives’. The women and girls were unable to resist, due to the physical force used by the Sinia brigade members and due to the threat of punishment for disobedience and their dependence on the Sinia brigade members for survival.

text: The abducted women and girls were not allowed to have sexual or romantic relations to any man other than the so-called ‘husband’ assigned to them.

text: The abducted women and girls were forced to perform work, such as household work and carrying items. Also this rule was strictly enforced by physical punishment.

text: As a result of the sexual and physical violence, and the living conditions to which they were submitted, the abducted women and girls suffered severe physical and mental pain.

text: L. Conscription and use of children in armed hostilities

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 69/1077 4 February 2021 abduct children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda and force them to serve as Sinia fighters.

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership ordered Sinia soldiers to abduct children to serve as Sinia soldiers. Sinia soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted a large number of children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. Children under the age of 15 were also abducted during the four attacks relevant to the charges. Dominic Ongwen also abducted children himself.

text: Following their abduction, children under the age of 15 years were integrated into Sinia with the aim of using them in hostilities. Dominic Ongwen knew that children under 15 years of age were integrated into Sinia as soldiers. The abducted children were trained, in some cases received guns, and were assigned to service in Sinia. In some cases, Dominic Ongwen himself assigned abducted children to service within the Sinia brigade. The children served as escorts in Sinia brigade in general and specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: Children under 15 years of age serving as soldiers in Sinia brigade took part in fighting. They further facilitated LRA attacks by raising alarms, burning and pillaging civilian houses, collecting and carrying pillaged goods from attack sites and serving as scouts. During all four attacks relevant to the charges, children under the age of 15 participated in the hostilities.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 70/1077 4 February 2021

text: IV. ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE

text: A. The standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

text: Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

text: In accordance with

text: Article 66

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber, in order to convict the accused must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt is to be applied to any facts indispensable for entering a conviction, namely those constituting the elements of the crimes or modes of liability charged. For this determination, the Chamber must carry out a holistic evaluation and weighing of all the evidence taken together in relation to the facts at issue.

text: As is clear from its plain meaning, reasonable doubts must be grounded in reason. The reasonable doubt standard cannot consist of imaginary or frivolous doubt – it must have a rational link to the evidence, lack of evidence or inconsistencies in the evidence.

text: The possibility that unavailable evidence may include exculpatory information is too hypothetical, without more, to qualify as a reasonable doubt. Accepting such a proposition is akin to requiring proof beyond all doubt, while what is required is instead proof beyond reasonable doubt.

text: Article 66

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . 239

text: Article 66

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: . 240 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, 1 December 2014,

text: -Red (hereinafter: ‘Lubanga Appeals Judgment’), para. 22; Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Bemba et al., Public Redacted Version of Judgment on the appeals of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Mr Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Mr Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Mr Fidèle Babala Wandu and Mr Narcisse Arido against the decision of Trial Chamber VII entitled “Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ”, 8 March 2018,

text: - Red (hereinafter: ‘Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment’), paras 96, 868; Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Public Version of Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber II entitled “Judgment pursuant to

text: article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ”, 7 April 2015,

text: -Corr, paras 123-25. 241 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, para. 22; Trial Chamber VI, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment, 8 July 2019,

text: (with public annexes A, B, C, hereinafter: ‘Ntaganda Trial Judgment’), para. 45. 242 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Public Version of Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber II entitled “Judgment pursuant to

text: article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ”, 7 April 2015,

text: -Corr, para. 109, with reference to ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 26 May 2003, ICTR-96-3-A, para. 488.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 71/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that there has been a considerable amount of litigation on the issue of burden and standard of proof with respect to grounds excluding criminal responsibility. The Defence argues that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution, and that ‘the Prosecution must disprove each element of 31(a) and (d) beyond a reasonable doubt’. The Prosecution, on the other hand, submits that neither party bears the burden of proof, and that ‘the ultimate responsibility for determining the applicability of article 31 grounds lies with the Chamber’.

text: The Chamber notes that there is no specific provision in

text: the Statute

text: regulating the burden and standard of proof with respect to grounds excluding criminal responsibility. However, this is not a lacuna in

text: the Statute

text: . According to

text: Article 66

text: (2) and (3), the burden of proof (incumbent on the Prosecution) and the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) relate to the ‘guilt of the accused’. When a finding of the guilt of the accused also depends on a negative finding with respect to the existence of grounds excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , the general provisions of

text: Article 66

text: (2) and (3) on the burden and standard of proof equally apply, operating (as is always the case for the determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused) solely with respect to the facts ‘indispensable for entering a conviction’, namely, in this case, the absence of any ground excluding criminal responsibility and, thus, the guilt of the accused.

text: 243 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 380; Defence Closing Brief, paras 529-34; Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 28 January 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1423 (with two public annexes, A and B); Prosecution Response to the “Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (ICC-02/04-01/15- 1423)”, 7 February 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1439. 244 Defence Closing Brief, paras 529-34. See also Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 28 January 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1423 (with two public annexes, A and B), para. 17. 245 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 380, 476. See also Prosecution Response to the “Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (ICC-02/04-01/15-1423)”, 7 February 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1439, para. 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 72/1077 4 February 2021

text: B. The evidence in the case

text: The basis for the Chamber’s decision under

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: evidence ‘submitted’ and ‘discussed’ at trial

text: Pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , the decision of a trial chamber on the guilt or innocence of the accused shall be based on ‘evidence submitted and discussed before it at trial’.

text: i. Evidence ‘submitted’ at trial

text: The Chamber notes that in interpreting the provision of

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , read in conjunction with the other relevant provisions of the Court’s legal instruments, the Appeals Chamber explained that evidence is properly before a trial chamber for the purpose of its decision under

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: when it has been ‘submitted’ – i.e. ‘presented to the Trial Chamber by the parties on their own initiative or pursuant to a request by the Trial Chamber for the purpose of proving or disproving the facts in issue before the Chamber’ – in accordance with the procedure set out by the trial chamber (and ‘discussed’) at trial unless it is ruled as irrelevant or inadmissible. Accordingly, ‘[a]ny item of submitted evidence that is not excluded at trial must […] be presumed to be considered by a trial chamber not to be inadmissible under any applicable exclusionary rule’. Importantly, the act of ‘submission’ of evidence is a procedural act performed by the parties.

text: Evidence may be ‘submitted’ orally when given live by witnesses called to testify before a trial chamber or, when documentary in nature, in writing or in audio or visual form. According to

text: article 64

text: (8)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: ‘the parties may submit evidence in

text: 246 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber III entitled “Decision on the admission into evidence of materials contained in the prosecution's list of evidence”, 3 May 2011,

text: , para. 43. See also Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 576. 247 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 9, 105, 599. 248 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 9, 599. 249 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 576, referring, inter alia, to the provisions of

text: Articles 64

text: (8)(b) and 69(3) of

text: the Statute

text: . The Appeals Chamber concluded in this regard that ‘it is the evidence that is presented (“submitted”) by the parties that – insofar as “discussed” – constitutes the basis of the eventual decision under

text: article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , rather than evidence “admitted” by the trial chamber’. 250 See also Rule 140(2) of the Rules according which, in specifying how a witness may be questioned, refers, under sub-paragraph (a) to the right of the party that ‘submits evidence […] by way of a witness’ to question that witness.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 73/1077 4 February 2021 accordance with the provisions of th[e] Statute’ and ‘[s]ubject to any directions of the

text: presiding judge’. Specifically with respect to the procedure for an item of documentary

text: evidence to be considered as ‘submitted’ within the meaning of Article 74(2) of the

text: Statute, the Appeals Chamber, upon consideration of the relevant legal framework of this

text: Court, held that a trial chamber has discretion to either: (i) recognise the submission of

text: such item of evidence by a party without a prior ruling on its relevance and/or

text: admissibility and consider its relevance and probative value as part of the holistic

text: assessment of all evidence submitted when deciding on the guilt or innocence of the

text: accused; or (ii) rule on the relevance and/or admissibility of such item of evidence as a

text: pre-condition for recognising it as ‘submitted’ within the meaning of Article 74(2) of the

text: Statute, and assess its weight at the end of the proceedings as part of its holistic

text: assessment of all evidence submitted. The Appeals Chamber clarified in this regard

text: that, irrespective of the procedure adopted in each individual case, ‘both the procedure

text: for the submission of evidence at trial and the status of each piece of evidence as “submitted” within the meaning of

text: article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: must be clear’ as ‘[t]his is

text: a fundamental guarantee for the rights of the parties at trial as well as for the purpose of any subsequent appellate review’.

text: Rule 140(1) of the Rules further specifies in this regard that ‘[i]f the Presiding Judge does not give directions under article 64, paragraph 8, the Prosecutor and the defence shall agree on the order and manner in which the evidence shall be submitted to the Trial Chamber’. Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 8, 598. The Defence suggests, in passing and without further elaboration, that these findings by the Appeals Chamber in its judgment in the Bemba et al. case concern only proceedings for offences against the administration of justice under

text: Article 70

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , and that it is ‘inappropriate’ to employ the procedure for submission of documentary evidence set out in that case (and endorsed by the Appeals Chamber) in the present case which is a case for crimes under

text: Article 5

text: of

text: the Statute

text: (Defence Closing Brief, para. 100). This proposition by the Defence is based exclusively on a remark expressed in a minority opinion appended to a judgment rendered by the Appeals Chamber on another appeal. The Chamber considers the Defence submission in this respect untenable. There exists no indication – whether explicit or implicit – in the judgment rendered by the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba et al. case that the analysis and conclusions made therein are specific to proceedings for offences under

text: Article 70

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and are not equally applicable to proceedings for crimes under

text: Article 5

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . To the contrary, all relevant provisions in the applicable law cited by the Appeals Chamber (and all considerations made in their regard) are entirely applicable, without any distinction, to proceedings under both types of crimes. There exists not a single instance in the entire analysis made by the Appeals Chamber in this regard (paras 552-628) in which a provision applicable only to proceedings for offences against the administration of justice (i.e., at that time,

text: Article 70

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and Rules 162-169) is even mentioned at all; nor is any consideration concerning the types of offences that were the subject of those proceedings made at any point in the Appeals Chamber’s analysis. To the contrary, all references to the legal framework of the Court, the intentions of their drafters, and any alleged prejudice to the rights of the accused are relevant to any type of criminal proceedings conducted at the Court. Also, the Chamber notes that the amount of documentary evidence submitted in the Bemba et al. case was even larger than in the present case, although remaining within a comparable range, further making any purported distinction in this regard devoid of any merit. Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 9, 599.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 74/1077 4 February 2021

text: The two procedures for submission of documentary evidence – while essentially the same

text: with respect to numerous aspects – differ in whether they envisage a distinct

text: procedural step in the course of the trial consisting in an affirmative determination of the

text: relevance and probative value of an item of evidence prior to it being considered as ‘submitted’ within the meaning of

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: ; an additional procedural

text: step which is foreseen under the second procedure recalled above, and which is instead

text: absent in the first one. This difference stems from the fact that in the legal system of the

text: Court a separate ruling by a trial chamber on the relevance and probative value of an

text: individual item of documentary evidence under

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: is

text: discretionary in nature, and that no admissibility ‘test’ – beyond that of not being

text: inadmissible by virtue of the operation of specific exclusionary rules or ‘procedural bars’ – is envisaged as such in the applicable law for an item of evidence to be ‘submitted’ at

text: trial. Chambers may thus determine that separate rulings under Article 69(4) of the

text: Statute are justified in the specific circumstances of an individual case, but are not

text: mandated to do so.

text: Under both procedures, evidence which is not excluded by a trial chamber is eligible to

text: be used for the determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Each procedure

text: In particular, under both procedures, all material disclosed between the parties could potentially appear on their respective lists of evidence, the production of which, while not being a statutory requirement for trial proceedings, th has been found to be a best practice in all trials at the Court (Chamber’s Practice Manual (4 Edition), 29 November 2019, p. 21). Parties submit items on these lists into evidence, either orally or in writing. Generally, under Rule 64(1) of the Rules, issues relating to the relevance or admissibility are raised at the time when the evidence is submitted. Procedural bars which could preclude the submission of an item into evidence are considered, and ruled upon as appropriate, when such item is submitted by a party to the Chamber. All items of evidence which are part of the evidentiary record of the case are considered – and their relevance, reliability and weight assessed holistically in light of all other evidence therein – when determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. Conversely, in accordance with Rule 64(3) of the Rules, evidence which is ruled ‘irrelevant’ or ‘inadmissible’ is not considered by the Chamber for the purpose of its eventual determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused. See, in particular,

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: . See also Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 583-87, 598. Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 583 (‘the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded that

text: article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: sets out an additional “test” for evidence to be admissible in the proceedings before the Court (beyond that of not being inadmissible under an exclusionary rule), and that Trial Chambers have therefore the duty to render rulings on the relevance and admissibility of each item of evidence submitted by the parties to determine whether each item meets this general “test”’). See also paras 584-92, 594, 598. Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 592 (‘[in] the hybrid system [of the Court] consideration by a trial chamber of the relevance and/or probative value of an item of evidence within the context of a possible ruling on its relevance or admissibility rendered separately from its assessment as part of the eventual evaluation of the guilt or innocence of the accused is, in principle, permitted, but is not mandatory.’). See also paras 585, 592. Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 599 (‘[a]ny item of submitted evidence that is not excluded at trial must therefore be presumed to be considered by a trial chamber not to be inadmissible under any applicable exclusionary rule.’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 75/1077 4 February 2021 employs different terminology to reflect the scope of the trial chamber’s determination

text: with respect to items of documentary evidence upon their submission by a party:

text: generally, they are either ‘recognised as submitted’ within the meaning of

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , in the first procedure, or are individually ‘admitted’, in the second one.

text: Notwithstanding the difference as concerns the scope of this determination by a chamber,

text: the consequence of either determination is the same: both indicate, with equal clarity,

text: that the item of evidence is part of the collection of evidence that the chamber would

text: consider for its eventual decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused. So long as

text: such determination is clear with respect to each item of evidence, parties know with equal

text: precision, irrespective of the procedure employed in each individual case, which items

text: will be considered as part of the deliberation of the final judgment.

text: In the present trial, this Chamber adopted the first of the above-mentioned procedures.

text: It decided, generally, not to exercise its discretion under

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: to

text: make separate rulings on the relevance or admissibility of items of documentary evidence

text: 260 261

text: submitted by the parties other than on any ‘procedural bars’, which could preclude

text: the submission of an item into evidence due to the operation of a specific exclusionary

text: rule, such as those under

text: Article 69

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: or those concerning the

text: procedural requisites for introduction of prior recorded testimony under Rule 68 of the

text: Rules. When no procedural bars to the submission of an item of evidence were found

text: Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 24; Decision on Request to Admit Evidence Preserved Under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 10 August 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-520, para. 7; Decision on Prosecution Request to Submit Interception Related Evidence, 1 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-615 (hereinafter: ‘Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material’), para. 4(ii). The Chamber recalls that the parties and participants were permitted to submit evidence (i) through a filing, (ii) by email or (iii) orally during the hearing (Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 27). See Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 26. See Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 580-82. Rulings relating to Article 69(7) objections: Decision on Request to Admit Evidence Preserved Under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 10 August 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-520. Rulings on procedural requisites for introduction of prior recorded testimony under Rule 68 of the Rules: Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules, 18 November 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-596-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-596-Red; hereinafter: ‘First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b)’); Decision on the Prosecution’s Request to Add Items to its List of Evidence, to include a Witness on its List of Witnesses and to Submit Two Prior Recorded Testimonies under Rule 68(2)(b) and (c), 22 November 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-600; Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony and Related Document Pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules, 5 December 2016, ICC- 02/04-01/15-621 (hereinafter: ‘Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3)’); Decision on Defence Request Pursuant to Rule 68(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 19 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1288; Decision on Defence Request to Introduce Previously Recorded Testimony Pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2 July 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1294 (hereinafter: ‘Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b)’); Decision on Prosecution Request to Introduce Evidence of Defence Witnesses via Rule

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 76/1077 4 February 2021 to exist – or none were raised – the Chamber recognised the formal submission of the

text: evidence at issue within the meaning of

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: ; this was the formal

text: action taken by the Chamber to indicate that such item of evidence was part of the evidentiary basis on which Dominic Ongwen’s guilt or innocence would eventually be

text: established. Thereafter, the fact that an item of evidence had been ‘submitted’ within

text: the meaning of

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: was placed on the record, and such status

text: accordingly reflected in the e-Court metadata of each such item of evidence. The assessment of the relevance and probative value of all items of evidence so ‘submitted’

text: – and any argument in this regard raised by the parties and participants in the course of

text: the trial – was therefore conducted by the Chamber as part of its deliberation on the guilt

text: or innocence of Dominic Ongwen and on the basis of a holistic evaluation of all items of

text: evidence that are part of the evidentiary record in the present case, rather than for the

text: purpose of discrete evidentiary rulings. Such assessment, including in terms of the

text: disposal of the arguments advanced at trial by the parties and participants, is referred to

text: in the present judgment as appropriate.

text: The Chamber reiterates in this regard that this procedure concerns exclusively matters

text: related to the relevance and probative value of the items of documentary evidence

text: 68(2)(b), 16 August 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1322-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15- 1322-Red). The Chamber observes that the same procedural act was made also by Trial Chamber VII in the Bemba et al. case (see Trial Chamber VII, The Prosecutor v. Bemba et al., Public Redacted Version of Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 19 October 2016,

text: -Red (hereinafter: ‘Bemba et al. Trial Judgment’), paras 191-92), and that the Appeals Chamber held in this regard that ‘[it] sees no error in the fact that the Trial Chamber did not “admit” items of evidence, but its formal act was instead that of “recognising” the “submission” of this evidence by the parties. On the contrary, by doing so, and basing its decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused on the evidence which had been so submitted, the Trial Chamber acted in line with the procedure provided in

text: the Statute

text: .’ (Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 578). See in this regard Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 9, 599, emphasising that, in addition to the procedure for the submission of evidence at trial, also the status of each piece of evidence as ‘submitted’ within the meaning of Article 74(2) must be clear. See also para. 600. In this regard, the Defence mischaracterises a decision by the Appeals Chamber – rendered in an interlocutory appeal in another case – when it claims that the Chamber would be in conflict with this decision if the judgment (or an annex to it) does not contain ‘evidential rulings for all items submitted into evidence’ (Defence Closing Brief, paras 104-05; see also para. 106). The same argument has been raised subsequently before the Appeals Chamber itself, which, in ruling on this matter, concluded that not even the decision referenced by the Defence mandated a trial chamber to render rulings on the relevance or admissibility of each item of evidence, and that consideration of the relevance, probative value and potential prejudice of the evidence submitted and the issues raised by the parties in this respect, may be made part of the trial chamber’s assessment of the evidence when it is evaluating the guilt or innocence of the accused person (Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 593-94, referring to Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber III entitled “Decision on the admission into evidence of materials contained in the prosecution's list of evidence”, 3 May 2011,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 77/1077 4 February 2021 submitted in the course of the trial, and not issues related to the potential operation of specific exclusionary rules which would render a certain item of evidence inadmissible before the Court and which a trial chamber is mandated to consider separately for the purpose of a distinct evidentiary ruling. Any such issue, as recalled above, has been duly considered by the Chamber in the course of the trial.

text: Conversely, the Chamber explained at the beginning of the trial that, in principle, the relevance and probative value of a given piece of evidence could be assessed more accurately only after having received all evidence presented at trial in order to conduct such assessments in light of the entirety of the evidence submitted, rather than undertaking them during trial as the evidentiary record evolved. At the same time, the Chamber clarifies that under the procedure for submission of evidence as set out in the present case, it still maintains the discretion, vested in it by the relevant statutory provisions, to render separate rulings on the relevance and/or probative value of individual items of evidence as warranted by the specific circumstances at hand, and exclude at any time from the evidentiary record material which, on its face, is patently irrelevant or is manifestly lacking any probative value. In the Chamber’s view, such discretion needs however to be exercised with caution and restraint, bearing in mind that the relevance and probative value of a given piece of evidence may not be evident in the course of the proceedings, but may become so when all the evidence is received and considered. Indeed, as cautioned by the Appeals Chamber, any such discretion is to be exercised ‘consistently with the boundaries of [a trial chamber’s] statutory competences

text: 267 See Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 580 (‘[i]n the context of the potential operation of any such exclusionary rule, a distinct determination on the admissibility of certain items of evidence must be conducted – whether in the course of the trial or at the end of the proceedings – separately from the assessment of the evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused.’). See also para. 582. 268 Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 25; Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 7. 269 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 603 (‘[T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that while rulings on the relevance and/or admissibility of evidence are indeed discretionary, a trial chamber shall balance this discretion with, inter alia, its duty, under

text: article 64

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , to ensure that the trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect of the rights of the accused. In particular, this duty, in certain specific circumstances of each individual case, may warrant that a trial chamber, consistently with the boundaries of its statutory competence and, in the final instance, the object and purpose of the trial, exercise its discretion under

text: article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: , and render separate rulings on the relevance and/or admissibility of individual items of evidence.’). See also Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 26; Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 11. 270 See also Trial Chamber VII, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Decision on Prosecution Requests for Admission of Documentary Evidence (ICC-01/05-01/13-1013-Red, ICC-01/0501/13-1113-Red, ICC-01/05-01/13-1170-Conf), 24 September 2015, ICC-01/05-01/13-1285, para. 10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 78/1077 4 February 2021 and, in the final instance, the object and purpose of the trial’. There is in fact an inherent risk, which may be in tension with the ultimate purpose of a trial to establish the truth, in excluding items of evidence on the basis of a determination of their relevance or probative value when considered individually – rather than as part of the system of evidence as a whole – and on the basis of a knowledge on the part of the Chamber which, until the end of the trial and prior to the rest of the evidence being available to it, is by definition partial.

text: Consistent with the considerations above and mindful that the ‘submission’ of evidence is a procedural act performed by the parties as a matter of statutory right, the Chamber, in the present trial, has been deferential to the parties in terms of the documentary evidence they submitted for the Chamber’s consideration for the ultimate determination on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Importantly, upon submission of the different batches of documentary evidence by the Prosecution and by the Defence, and in the absence of any indication of an abuse on their part of their statutory right to submit evidence at trial in accordance with the relevant applicable law, the Chamber generally considered that an intervention on its part in terms of exclusion of material from the evidentiary record of the case in the course of the trial was unwarranted.

text: The Chamber observes that this procedure for submission of documentary evidence as set out in the present case is now firmly established in the practice of the Court. It has been adopted in numerous cases and, as recalled, its foundation in

text: the Statute

text: was recently confirmed by the Appeals Chamber, which, on the basis of an in-depth analysis,

text: 271 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 603. 272 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 576. 273 The Chamber recalls in this regard that the Court’s statutory documents do not set limits on the submission of documentary evidence other than ‘through’ a witness. See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 36; Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 10; Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Decision on the Prosecutor’s application to introduce prior recorded testimony under Rules 68(2)(b) and 68(3), 9 June 2016, ICC-02/11-01/15-573-Red, para. 9; Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 14 March 2012,

text: (hereinafter: ‘Lubanga Trial Judgment’), paras 107-08. 274 See Trial Chamber VII, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Decision on Prosecution Requests for Admission of Documentary Evidence (ICC-01/05-01/13-1013-Red, ICC-01/0501/13-1113-Red, ICC-01/05- 01/13-1170-Conf), 24 September 2015, ICC-01/05-01/13-1285; Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Decision on the submission and admission of evidence, 29 January 2016, ICC- 02/11-01/15-405; Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdould Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Annex A to the Decision on the conduct of the proceedings, ICC-01/12-01/18-789-Anx, paras 27-34; Trial Chamber V, The Prosecutor v Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, Initial Directions on the Conduct of the Proceedings, 26 August 2020, ICC-01/14-01/18-631, paras 52-65.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 79/1077 4 February 2021 concluded that it was consistent with the legal framework of the Court – including the

text: plain language of

text: Articles 69

text: (4) and

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: and Rule 64 of the Rules – as

text: well as with the corresponding exact intentions of the drafters of the relevant legal

text: instruments, as made clear by their drafting history. A series of other documents,

text: authored by judges or other experts in international criminal law, have also confirmed

text: the legitimacy of such procedure.

text: The Chamber considers that the procedure set out in the present trial is in conformity with the accused’s right to a fair trial, and recalls the conclusions to the same effect made

text: by the Appeals Chamber upon consideration of the details and implications of this

text: procedure. This includes the explicit rejection on the part of the Appeals Chamber of

text: an argument which is entirely comparable to the grievance, expressed by the Defence

text: in the present case, that it was unfair for it to be ‘required to work on the assumption that

text: all the items submitted into evidence by the Prosecution may be used against Mr Ongwen’.

text: While the Chamber has the responsibility not to rely on (and, correspondingly, to

text: exclude) evidence which is inadmissible due to the operation of a statutory exclusionary

text: Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 572-601 (under the heading ‘Whether the Court’s legal framework mandates rulings on the relevance and admissibility of each item of evidence on the basis of a general admissibility test’), 628. See also the Appeals Chamber’s relevant key findings at paras 8 and 9. For example, a recent report by the Independent Expert Review, established by the Assembly of the States Parties to the

text: Rome Statute

text: , recognised ‘the lack of consensus amongst the Judges on the issue of whether evidence should be admitted or submitted’, but considered it not necessary that the difference ‘be resolved in favour of one or the other through a Regulation on the matter’, given the ‘wide-ranging powers to pronounce orders relating to the conduct of the proceedings’ of the trial chamber and in particular the presiding judge, and that ‘[w]hich approach to follow in relation to the bulk of documentary productions has been recognised by the Appeals Chamber as a decision that falls within the discretion of the Trial Chamber Judges’ (Independent Expert Review of the International Criminal Court and the

text: Rome Statute

text: System, Final Report, 30 September 2020, paras 546- 50). The Chamber also notes the ‘Paris Declaration on the Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice’ of 16 October 2017, endorsed by an array of international judges – including all the Presidents of international tribunals at the time – which recommended continued reflection upon ‘the practice of totally or partially postponing to the deliberation stage the assessment of the admissibility of the evidence presented’ (Paris Declaration on the Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice, 16 October 2017, para. 21). Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 602-28 (under the heading ‘Whether the Trial Chamber’s decision not to rule on the relevance and/or admissibility of all items of evidence prejudiced the rights of the accused’). Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 607 (‘the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded by [the appellant’s] generic proposition that his fair trial rights were violated because he had to conduct his defence in the expectation that all evidence submitted in the proceedings could constitute the basis for the Trial Chamber’s eventual decision on his guilt or innocence.’). Defence Closing Brief, para. 98.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 80/1077 4 February 2021 rule, there exists no automatic right to obtain a preliminary determination from the Chamber on the relevance and probative value of each item of evidence submitted in the course of the trial – whether oral or documentary in nature – as a pre-condition for any such item to be considered for the purpose of a determination under

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . Rather, as already observed, it is the legal framework of this Court that provides that the evidentiary basis for the final decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused is constituted by the evidence ‘submitted’ by the parties (as well as discussed) at trial that is not otherwise inadmissible due to the operation of an exclusionary rule in the applicable law. This is therefore a statutory effect that does not derive from a trial chamber’s decision not to make discrete intermediate rulings on the relevance and probative value of the items of documentary evidence submitted by the parties as a matter of course. Indeed, as held by the Appeals Chamber, ‘the “expectation” that all evidence submitted could be considered for the purpose of the Trial Chamber’s decision under article 74 (2) arises directly from the Court’s own legal instruments – which, by providing so, accept that there is no inherent incompatibility between fair trial rights and an assessment of the relevance and probative value of the evidence at the end of the proceedings in light of all evidence submitted’.

text: In this regard, the Chamber further recalls that notwithstanding the procedure for submission of documentary evidence set out by each trial chamber, a determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused requires an assessment on the part of a trial chamber of the relevance and reliability of all evidence submitted that has not been excluded in the course of the trial. This is the case irrespective of whether, as concerns items of documentary evidence, a provisional, prima facie assessment to the same effect has also been made during the trial as a pre-condition for any such item to be considered as ‘submitted’ within the meaning of

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . For this reason, and as held

text: 280 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 582 (‘a trial chamber is […] required to ensure that evidence which is affected by an exclusionary rule is ruled inadmissible under the applicable ground and is, therefore, disregarded in the decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused. This consideration is mandatory in nature’). 281 See also Trial Chamber VII, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Decision on Prosecution Requests for Admission of Documentary Evidence (ICC-01/05-01/13-1013-Red, ICC-01/0501/13-1113-Red, ICC-01/05-01/13-1170-Conf), 24 September 2015, ICC-01/05-01/13-1285, para. 12 (‘[t]he notion of a fair trial does not require that the Chamber rule on the admissibility of each piece of evidence upon submission –

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: clearly gives the Chamber discretion in this respect’), explicitly approved by the Appeals Chamber (Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 607). 282 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 607. See also paras 9, 599. 283 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 607.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 81/1077 4 February 2021 by the Appeals Chamber, neither of the two procedures for submission of documentary evidence that are possible in the legal framework of the Court guarantees that an accused would not be ‘“forced to invest times and resources in responding to” items of evidence that may end up being disregarded by the trial chamber’. This is also no different from what regularly occurs as far as oral testimonial evidence is concerned.

text: In addition to the considerations expressed above, and with respect to the circumstances of the present case, the Chamber further observes that in the course of the trial items of documentary evidence have not been placed on the record in a disorderly manner leaving the Defence ‘in the dark’ as to their relevance to the facts of the case and their probative value. On the contrary, the Defence has been in a position to understand fully the evidence submitted by the Prosecution in support of the charges brought against the accused, and focus its work accordingly. In this regard, the Chamber recalls, inter alia, that the facts and circumstances described in the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen have been clearly and exhaustively set out as part of the proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber; and that, at the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution filed a detailed Trial Brief explaining how it intended to prove its allegations and how each item of (actual and prospective) evidence relates to the corresponding factual allegations described in the charges. In addition, specific indications as to the purported relevance and probative value of evidence were also given in the filings through which each batch of items of documentary evidence has been submitted by the Prosecution in the course of the trial, and to which the Defence has been able to respond throughout the proceedings providing its own views. In this context, and reiterating the absence of any indication of an abuse on the part of the Prosecution of its statutory right to submit documentary evidence at trial ‘flood[ing] the “case file” with items of a prejudicial nature’, the proposition by the Defence that it has been prejudiced by the mere fact that ‘there are over 4200 items formally submitted into evidence’ is without merit.

text: 284 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 609 (‘even when a trial chamber decides to exercise its discretion to render a ruling on the relevance or admissibility of an item of evidence in the course of the trial, it will need to consider again the relevance, reliability and weight of all submitted evidence that it has not excluded as irrelevant or inadmissible, when assessing, in light of all evidence before it, the guilt or innocence of the accused. In other words, the accused person may, in any case be “forced to invest time and resources in responding to” items of evidence that may end up being disregarded by the trial chamber.’). 285 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 101. 286 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 98. 287 Defence Closing Brief, para. 98.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 82/1077 4 February 2021

text: As a final observation, it bears emphasis that a preliminary scrutiny on the relevance, probative value and ‘potential prejudice’ of each item of evidence prior to its entering into the evidentiary record of the case is typically designed in order to screen from ‘inappropriate’ material a – separate – trier of facts, most usually a jury. At this Court, the relevant procedural features are significantly different in that the judges of a trial chamber are themselves the triers of facts responsible for the ultimate fact-finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused (which must also be sufficiently reasoned), and are also professional judges capable of disregarding, for such fact-finding, material which is irrelevant or bears no probative value or is otherwise ‘prejudicial’ within the meaning of

text: Article 69

text: (4) of

text: the Statute

text: . They are thus able to assess all items of evidence before them properly, without the need to render individual intermediate rulings on the relevance and probative value of each of those items to prevent unduly compromising the proceedings. Rather, such assessment – conducted as part of the deliberation of the judgment – emerges from its reasoning, in the context of which ‘a trial chamber must indeed explain with sufficient clarity the basis for its determination’. In fact, the requirement of a reasoned judgment makes it possible for the parties and participants to verify precisely how the Chamber evaluated the evidence before it for its decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and enables appellate review as appropriate. This requirement constitutes the primary safeguard against a trial chamber erroneously relying on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence or failing to properly consider all relevant aspects of the evidence available to it, in that it enables proper oversight of the chamber’s ultimate assessment of the evidence submitted and discussed before it at trial.

text: Importantly in this regard, the procedure adopted for the submission of evidence in each individual case has no impact on the quality required of the chamber’s fact-finding, as the Chamber’s duty under

text: Article 74

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: to provide ‘a full and reasoned statement of [its] findings on the evidence and conclusions’ remains unaffected. While not every item of evidence eligible to be used for the determination of the guilt or

text: 288 See also Trial Chamber VII, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al., Decision on Prosecution Requests for Admission of Documentary Evidence (ICC-01/05-01/13-1013-Red, ICC-01/0501/13-1113-Red, ICC-01/05-01/13-1170-Conf), 24 September 2015, ICC-01/05-01/13-1285, para. 12. 289 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 597. 290 See also Directions on the Conduct of Proceedings, para. 25; Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 83/1077 4 February 2021 innocence of the accused must in fact be explicitly addressed in the judgment and trial

text: chambers have a degree of discretion as to what to address explicitly in their reasoning, what is at issue in this context is the chamber’s compliance with its statutory duty to

text: provide sufficient reasons for its determinations. This duty is unrelated to whether the

text: procedure for submission of evidence in the course of a trial envisaged preliminary,

text: prima facie determinations of the relevance and probative value of individual items of

text: evidence as a matter of course.

text: That said, the Chamber observes that in the present case both parties submitted items of

text: documentary evidence following the procedure set out by the Chamber, and had equal

text: opportunity to provide their observations and comments, either orally or in writing, on

text: any item of evidence submitted in the course of the trial, including in terms of its

text: relevance and probative value. Such arguments made by the parties and participants in

text: the course of the trial have been duly considered as part of the Chamber’s determination of Dominic Ongwen’s guilt or innocence, and are addressed and disposed of in the

text: present judgment as appropriate.

text: ii. Evidence ‘discussed’ at trial

text: As observed above, the Chamber, in accordance with

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , is

text: required to base its decision only on evidence ‘submitted’ and ‘discussed’ before it at

text: Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Public document Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 8 June 2018,

text: -Red, para. 53 (‘[t]o fulfil its obligation to provide a reasoned opinion, a trial chamber is not required to address all the arguments raised by the parties, or every item of evidence relevant to a particular factual finding, provided that it indicates with sufficient clarity the basis for its decision’); Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 105-106. Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Public document Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 8 June 2018,

text: -Red, paras 54-55; Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 106, 107, 597. See Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 597 (‘[W]hen a trial chamber, in its decision under

text: article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , fails to explain sufficiently why it considers an item of evidence – whether documentary or testimonial – to be relevant and with sufficient probative value to be relied upon for its factual analysis (or vice versa) despite issues raised at trial in that regard, what is at issue is the trial chamber’s compliance with its duty under

text: article 74

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: to provide “a full and reasoned statement of [its] findings on the evidence and conclusion” in support of its decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused. In other words, the safeguard of an accused’s right to a reasoned determination on the charges against him or her does not lie in the fact that a trial chamber exercises its discretion to rule on the relevance or admissibility of documentary evidence or rather considers its relevance and probative value as part of the evaluation of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The appellants may raise on appeal […] errors by the Trial Chamber in its assessment of the evidence, including with respect to insufficient reasoning on its evaluation of the evidence and factual findings, in the same way as they could have done had the Trial Chamber decided to exercise its discretion to rule separately on the relevance and/or admissibility of the evidence.’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 84/1077 4 February 2021 trial. As specified by the Appeals Chamber, what is required is that there has been the opportunity at trial to make arguments on the evidence concerned, irrespective of whether any such arguments are actually made. The principal consideration is that the evidence upon which the Chamber bases its judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: has been introduced during the trial – and has therefore become part of the case record – in a manner that the parties and participants had an opportunity to make submissions as to each item of evidence to the extent they deemed fit.

text: In the present case, the parties and participants availed themselves of this statutory right to make arguments in relation to the evidence submitted at trial, and the Chamber duly considered such arguments when evaluating the evidence before it. Of particular significance in this regard are the arguments made by the parties and participants in the context of the submission of individual items of evidence (and responses thereto), as well as their closing briefs and closing statements containing the parties and participants’ consolidated views on the entirety of the evidence presented at trial. As recalled above, all these arguments have been considered by the Chamber for the purpose of the present judgment and are addressed herein to the appropriate extent.

text: Testimonial evidence

text: i. Introductory remarks

text: The testimonial evidence in the present case consists of: the testimony of a total of 130 witnesses given viva voce before the Chamber; the prior recorded testimony of a number of such witness introduced under Rule 68(3) of the Rules; the testimony preserved for trial under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: of seven further witnesses; and the prior recorded testimony of a total of other 49 witnesses which were introduced under Rule 68(2)(b) or (c) of the Rules.

text: As recalled, a total of 130 witnesses testified live before the Chamber in the present case. On a number of occasions, the Chamber allowed the introduction, under Rule

text: 294 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, footnote 1256. 295 See also Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 198; Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Public Document Judgment pursuant to

text: article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 7 March 2014,

text: -tENG (hereinafter: ‘Katanga Trial Judgment’), para. 78; Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 18 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-4, para. 44. 296 69 of these witnesses were called by the Prosecution, 54 by the Defence and seven by the participating victims through their legal representatives.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 85/1077 4 February 2021

text: 68(3) of the Rules, of the prior recorded testimony of some of these witnesses who testified live before it and did not object to such introduction – with both parties having the opportunity to examine them in court. In these instances, the recorded statement complements and forms an integral part of the witness’s viva voce testimony, and the Chamber has accordingly considered the prior recorded testimony together with and in the light of the witness’s testimony given in court, and vice versa.

text: Further, upon request by the Prosecution, the Chamber allowed the submission into evidence of the live testimony of seven witnesses which had been given before the Single Judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber and which had been preserved for trial pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . The testimonies of these seven witnesses – who were examined by both the Prosecution and the Defence – were video-recorded, and written transcripts of the proceedings were made. The Chamber has viewed these videorecordings in their entirety and consulted the corresponding transcripts, and assessed the relevance and probative value of such evidence in the same way as any other viva voce testimonial evidence before it.

text: Finally, the Chamber allowed the introduction, pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) or (c) of the Rules, of the prior recorded testimony of a total of further 49 witnesses. They have been assessed by the Chamber, for the purpose of the present judgment, together with all the other evidence submitted and discussed at trial. Besides the other relevant considerations generally applicable to the assessment of testimonial evidence as set out below, in its evaluation of the prior recorded testimony introduced under Rule 68(2) of the Rules, the Chamber also took into account that the witnesses concerned did not testify before the court and the non-tendering party did not have the opportunity to examine

text: 297 Prosecution’s request to admit evidence preserved under

text: article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 13 June 2016, ICC-02/04- 01/15-464 (with two public annexes). 298 Decision on Request to Admit Evidence Preserved Under

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 10 August 2016, ICC- 02/04-01/15-520. 299 See Decision on the “Prosecution application for the Pre-Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”, 27 July 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-277-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-277-Red); Decision on the “Second Prosecution application to the Pre-Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”, 12 October 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15- 316-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-316-Red). 300 Transcripts of Hearings, 15 September – 17 November 2015, T-8; T-9; T-10; T-11; T-13; T-14; T-15; T-16; T-17; Registry reports on the article 56 proceedings, 27-30 November 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-351, -352, -353, - 354, -355, -356, -357, -358 (annexing video recordings). 301 The prior recorded testimony of 39 witnesses were introduced by the Prosecution and nine by the Defence under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. One prior recorded testimony was introduced under Rule 68(2)(c) of the Rules upon request by the Prosecution.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 86/1077 4 February 2021 them. Like with any other type of evidence submitted before the Chamber, arguments made by the parties and participants concerning the relevance and probative value of this testimonial evidence that had been made in the course of the trial have been taken into account for the purpose of the present judgment and are explicitly addressed as appropriate.

text: For the purpose of its assessment of the reliability of any witness’s testimony, the Chamber considered a number of different factors. Such factors include richness of details and coherence of the narrative provided by the witness, as well as the coherence of the testimony with other evidence before the Chamber.

text: The Chamber has also considered the coherence between the testimony given by the witness and his or her prior accounts in relation to the same facts given in other contexts as emerging from the evidence presented at trial. In this regard, the Chamber notes that throughout the trial, witnesses who testified live before the Chamber have often been asked questions in relation to prior accounts they gave in other contexts. Prior accounts were typically put to witnesses in two distinct situations: (i) when a witness declared themselves unable to respond to a question, in which case a prior account was used to refresh their memory; and (ii) in cases where there existed, in the assessment of the examining party, a discrepancy between the statement given in court and a prior account. In both cases the witness was then given an opportunity to express him- or herself on the accuracy and truthfulness of the prior account, and the relevant part of the prior account – as prompting in-court testimony in reaction – so became incorporated into the testimony. In case of discrepancy between in-court testimony and prior account, the Chamber has carefully considered the content and all circumstances in which such prior account had been made – including, but not limited to, its context, purpose and the (expected) level of details – as well as any explanation for such discrepancy as provided by the witness during the testimony before the Court.

text: 302 See Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 307; see also, more generally, paras 305-308. This limitation on the reliance on testimonial accounts previously given by a witness outside in-court testimony does not apply to prior recorded testimony (provided by witnesses who testified live before the Court) introduced under Rule 68(3) of the Rules, thus constituting evidence which, in its totality, ‘can be relied upon by the chamber in its determination of the facts at issue’.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 87/1077 4 February 2021

text: Amongst the relevant factors in the Chamber’s assessment of testimonial evidence is also the consideration whether and to what extent the witness is (or is not) in a position to provide certain information as well as the basis of knowledge on which a particular statement is made. This is particularly the case in those instances where the Chamber is faced with competing versions of events, and therefore has to determine which evidence it considers more probative.

text: The Chamber also took into account the individual circumstances of the witness, including his or her relationship to the accused, age, the provision of assurances against self-incrimination, indication of bias against the accused – or the lack of such – and/or motives for telling the truth. Witnesses who suffered trauma or were children at the time of the events may also have had difficulty in providing a coherent and complete account, and the Chamber made appropriate allowance for imprecisions or contradictions. The Chamber was also mindful – and has taken due account – of the fact that, given the significant passage of time in this case, the memory of some witnesses may have faded with regard to certain details. Further factors which might also have an influence on the Chamber’s assessment of evidence given by witnesses who testified live are its immediate impression of the witness during their testimony, the witness’s demeanour and bearing when testifying in court, willingness to respond to questions and spontaneity when responding.

text: Finally, the Chamber clarifies that the considerations expressed above can by no means be considered an exhaustive list of factors, or a ‘check-list’ of requirements for a witness to be relied upon. Any assessment of testimonial evidence (like of any other type of evidence) is in fact dependent on the specific circumstances at hand. Each statement

text: 303 ICTR, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Yussuf Munyakazi, Judgement, 28 September 2011, ICTR-97- 36A-A, para. 118; ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 1 April 2011, ICTR-2000-55A-A, para. 57; ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Mikaeli Muhimana v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 21 May 2007, ICTR-95-1B-A, para. 103; ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Sylvestre Gacumbitsi v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 7 July 2006, ICTR-2001-64-A, para. 81; ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 26 May 2003, ICTR-96-3-A, paras 29, 501. 304 Similarly Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 202; Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 18 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-4, para. 51; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 106. 305 Similarly Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 203; Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 18 December 2012, ICC-01/04-02/12-4, para. 53. 306 Similarly Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 203.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 88/1077 4 February 2021 made by a witness is assessed individually – while, at the same time, taking into account, holistically, the entire system of evidence available to the Chamber –, and, accordingly the same witness may be reliable in one part of their testimony, but not in another.

text: Below, the Chamber sets forth its general considerations with respect to each of the witnesses who provided evidence in these proceedings. The Chamber emphasises that these assessments – which are based on the totality of the evidence before the Chamber and not only on each witness’s evidence alone – must be read in conjunction with the evidentiary discussion further below in the present judgment. Indeed, certain aspects relating to the credibility of a number of witnesses and the reliability of their evidence, as well as to the relevance of their testimony to the Chamber’s disposal of the charges against Dominic Ongwen, are further addressed, as appropriate, in the relevant evidentiary discussion.

text: The Chamber has structured the overview of testimonial evidence by category of witnesses; it is however understood that this categorisation is only for practical purposes. It does not have a bearing on the Chamber’s assessment of any particular witness, and it is also noted that many witnesses could in fact be included in more than one category.

text: ii. LRA insiders

text: a. High-level insiders

text: i Kenneth Banya (P-0028)

text: Kenneth Banya’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. He is a former LRA member, born in 1945, who served as a senior advisor to Joseph Kony. His statement relates to a wide range of topics in relation to the functioning of the LRA based on his experience in the organisation. The Chamber notes,

text: 307 Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Public Version of Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Trial Chamber II entitled “Judgment pursuant to

text: article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ”, 7 April 2015,

text: -Corr, para. 168. 308 P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0054-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217- 0075-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0100-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0217-0125-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0148-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA- OTP-0217-0171-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0192-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0218-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0241-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0266-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0287-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0305-R01; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0327-R01. See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 15-17, p. 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 89/1077 4 February 2021 however, that Kenneth Banya’s statement that if a man refused to ‘go with a woman’ in

text: 309 310

text: the LRA, he would be killed, is contradicted by more reliable evidence on the issue. However, the Chamber does not discount the witness’s testimony for this reason and

text: relies on it where appropriate, as discussed at relevant points of the evidentiary analysis.

text: ii Hillary Daniel Lagen (P-0040)

text: Hillary Daniel Lagen’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule

text: 68(2)(b) of the Rules. The witness was a former LRA captain; he provided evidence

text: related to specific individuals and attacks. The witness also commented on the LRA

text: leadership, specifically the command structure, orders issued by Joseph Kony and the

text: treatment of abducted women and girls. The Chamber relies on the testimony of Hillary

text: Daniel Lagen on occasions where it provides corroboration or additional detail in the

text: discussion of evidence. In a few passages of his testimony, the witness mentioned

text: Dominic Ongwen and his participation in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, but as clarified

text: P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0218-R01, at 0224-26, lines 223-66. See para. 2229 below. P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0406-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283- 0114); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0436-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0283-0144); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0461-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA- OTP-0283-0169); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0497-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0205); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0530-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0238); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0569-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0277); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0602-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0310); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0634-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0342); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0668- R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0376); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209- 0696-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0404); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0209-0732-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0440); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA- OTP-0209-0762-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0470); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0786-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0494); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0813-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0521); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0842-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0550); P- 0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0877-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283- 0585); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0912-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0283-0620); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0652-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA- OTP-0283-0624); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0678-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0651); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0704-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0677); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0729-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0702); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0753-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0726); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0752); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0805- R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0778); P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220- 0833-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0806). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 216-20, p. 109.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 90/1077 4 February 2021 previously, this specific evidence is not relied upon by the Chamber for any determination concerning Dominic Ongwen’s acts and conduct. In its response to the Prosecution’s request for introduction of Hillary Daniel Lagen’s written testimony, the Defence submitted that he was unreliable, in particular because he claimed at one point to have had the same rank as Vincent Otti but then to have been demoted for his ‘outspoken condemnation of Kony’, because he had issues recalling dates ‘to the point where even the investigators’ questioned the accuracy of the timeline, and because he brought notes to the interview at which his statement was taken which ‘had dates already noted down’. As to the first point, the Chamber observes that Hillary Daniel Lagen stated that he and ‘Otti’ held the same positions as battalion intelligence officers in two battalions at an unspecified time. It is speculative to consider this claim, or the witness’s testimony in relation to his demotion in 2000-2001, as unreliable in the absence of any evidence supporting the assertions of the Defence. On the second point raised by the Defence, the Chamber observes that a witness’s inability to recollect dates of events may make an authoritative dating of those events more difficult, but this does not undermine the reliability of the testimony as a whole. As to the third point, the Chamber notes that the witness explained what the notes were, and that there is no indication of any irregularity. There is no issue with a witness writing down dates or details before his or her testimony. On the contrary, if this facilitates the accuracy of the testimony it is even advisable. In conclusion, the Chamber does not identify any circumstance rendering the evidence provided by Hillary Daniel Lagen unreliable.

text: iii P-0045

text: P-0045 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures having received assurances pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules. P-0045, an LRA fighter who stayed in the organisation between 1990 and 2004, provided testimony about her experiences in the

text: 312 First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 216. 313 Corrected Version of “Defence Response to the Prosecution Application to Admit Testimony Pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence”’, filed on 26 July 2016, 27 July 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-509- Conf-Exp (confidential redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-509-Conf-Corr-Red; public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-509-Corr-Red4; hereinafter: Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b)), para. 137. 314 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0877-R01, at 0881, lines 99-111. 315 See P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0436-R01, at 0443, lines 180-89. 316 See P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0436-R01, at 0458, line 687 – 0459, line 713. 317 P-0045: T-103; T-104; T-105.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 91/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA, including her participation in the LRA’s attack on Pajule. The witness’s testimony was detailed, candid, comprehensive, and specific. The witness clearly distinguished between events she personally witnessed and information she was given by others. She was very knowledgeable about the LRA, its practices and activities and provided details consistent with what would be expected of a witness who spent many years in the LRA and rose to a position of some power. The Chamber is convinced that the witness testified about her personal experiences and that the witness testified truthfully.

text: iv P-0070

text: P-0070 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures and Rule 74 assurances. The witness, a former battalion commander of the LRA, testified about his abduction in 1988 at approximately 15 years old, and further gave an account of the general functioning of the LRA, including knowledge expected from an LRA fighter who spent many years in the LRA. He eventually escaped in 2004. The witness recalled in particular names and positions of other LRA fighters. Further, the witness readily admitted when he did not know certain information. There are no issues affecting the credibility of P-0070 and the Chamber accepts his account as truthful.

text: v P-0085

text: P-0085 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0085, a former LRA commander, testified about his experiences in the LRA, including in relation to the structure and organisation of the LRA, its policy on the abduction and distribution of civilians and the attacks on Pajule and Odek IDP camps relevant to the charges. P-0085’s testimony was coherent, clear and comprehensive. The witness explained how he came to have certain information, distinguishing between events he witnessed himself and events he heard about from others. He offered detailed information in line with what the Chamber would expect of a witness in his position, for example, evidence related to the structure of the LRA and the names and ranks of officers. There are some slight inconsistencies surrounding the date of the witness’s escape from the bush. The Chamber views such inconsistencies as minor and they did not

text: 318 P-0070: T-105; T-106; T-107. 319 P-0085: T-158; T-159. 320 P-0085 testified that he escaped from the LRA on 24 May 2004. P-0085: T-158, p. 44, line 23 – p. 45, line 5. When questioned as to why he told the Prosecution that he escaped on 24 April 2004 during his initial interview,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 92/1077 4 February 2021 undermine its finding that the witness was generally credible. In the Chamber’s view, the

text: evidence suggests that the witness escaped from the LRA in late May 2004.

text: vi P-0142

text: P-0142 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule

text: 74 assurances. P-0142, a former , testified about his

text: experiences in the LRA, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen, the attacks on Odek and

text: Lukodi IDP camps relevant to the charges and the experiences of women and girls in the

text: LRA. P-0142 was in the Sinia brigade from 1994 to 2004. P-0142 was a clear and

text: confident witness. His testimony was comprehensive and the witness offered evidence

text: with a level of depth that spoke to his first-hand knowledge and personal experiences in

text: the LRA – for example, P-0142’s testimony about the command structure of the LRA

text: and the hierarchy within the group was detailed, contextualised and consistent with other

text: evidence, as well as his testimony about the number of so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia

text: brigade. The witness was candid about his close relationship with Dominic Ongwen while they were in the LRA, calling him his ‘boss’, ‘friend’ and ‘brother’. The

text: Chamber notes that at times, the witness appeared to be attempting to minimise the

text: implications of the LRA actions as well as his own role in attacks. However, this did not undermine the Chamber’s view of his general credibility. Indeed, the witness was at

text: times candid about his account of events which incriminated Dominic Ongwen, thus

text: P-0085 testified that when he escaped he thought it was April but after some time he realised it was May. P-0085: T-159, p. 17, lines 11-23. The Chamber considers his explanation of the discrepancy reasonable given the circumstances of the years the witness spent in the bush and his escape. The Chamber also notes the Defence’s reference to a intercepted radio communication between Joseph Kony and other LRA commanders discussing P-0085’s escape . P-0085: T-159-CONF, p. 23, line 21 – p. 26, line 25. In the Chamber’s view the exact date of the witness’s escape in May remains unclear. However, the divergent dates concern a period of four days at most. Considering that the other details of the escape are consistent, the fact that the event happened almost 14 years ago at the time of questioning and the witness’s demeanour on that matter (his genuine attempts to try to clear up the inconsistency), the discrepancy does not affect the Chamber’s view of P-0085’s overall credibility. 321 P-0142: T-70; T-71; T-72; T-73. 322 See P-0142: T-70-CONF, p. 17, line 3 – p. 24, line 23. 323 See para. 2231 below. 324 P-0142: T-73, p. 8, line 17 – p. 9, line 1. 325 See P-0142: T-70, p. 34, line 5 – p. 35, line 14. See also section IV.C.8 below. In the Chamber’s view, the witness was reticent about speaking about civilians and the harms they suffered and downplayed his role in the Lukodi IDP camp attack. 326 See P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 13-15, p. 46, line 12 – p. 49, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 93/1077 4 February 2021 bolstering the Chamber’s view of his credibility given his very positive relationship with Dominic Ongwen.

text: vii P-0144

text: P-0144 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 74 assurances. The witness, a former LRA intelligence officer, testified about his abduction and his experiences in the LRA, including his observations of the Pajule IDP camp attack. P-0144’s testimony was detailed and comprehensive. He explained the sources of his information and clearly delineated between events that he personally witnessed and information he came to learn from others. He was clear about events he could no longer recall, even when faced with his previous recollection. The witness provided particularly relevant and credible testimony about Dominic Ongwen as well as about Dominic Ongwen’s role in the Pajule attack.

text: The witness readily admitted that he had not been entirely forthcoming to the Prosecution about his role in the Pajule IDP camp attack. The witness explained that he had done this out of a desire to avoid further interviews. The Chamber notes that the witness was prompt and unequivocal in his admission and provided an explanation without hesitance or ambiguity. The Chamber does not consider the witness’s initial reticence to the Prosecution to have a broader impact on the credibility of the evidence he provided, under oath, before the Chamber.

text: viii P-0205

text: P-0205 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0205, a former LRA fighter, testified about his role as an LRA commander, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen, the attacks on Lukodi and Odek IDP camp relevant to the charges and the treatment of women in the LRA. P-0205 was a calm, restrained and forthcoming witness. His recollection was detailed and precise. His testimony was comprehensive and included the kind of details that the Chamber would

text: 327 P-0144: T-91; T-92. 328 P-0144: T-91, p. 38, line 14 – p. 39, line 11 (stating that he could no longer recall whether he saw Dominic Ongwen in the centre of Pajule IDP camp during the attack). 329 P-0144: T-91, p. 57, line 19 – p. 59, line 11 (The witness had initially denied participating in the Pajule attack in his interview with the Prosecution). 330 P-0144: T-91, p. 57, line 19 – p. 59, line 11. 331 P-0205: T-47; T-48; T-49; T-50; T-51.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 94/1077 4 February 2021 expect from a witness with his rank and time spent in the LRA. For example, the Chamber particularly notes his testimony about the Sinia brigade’s military structure; the officers sent on the Lukodi attack as well the abduction and distribution of women in the LRA. The Chamber is of the view that his testimony was as would be expected from a witness who testified to events he actually experienced. The witness distinguished clearly between information he gained from personal experiences as opposed to events he was informed about.

text: Contrary to the Defence suggestion, and as discussed further in the evidentiary discussion below, the Chamber does not find that the witness contradicted himself by recalling information in his testimony that were not discussed in his earlier interviews with the Prosecution. These aspects of the witness’s testimony did not undermine the Chamber’s view of the general credibility of his accounts.

text: ix P-0209

text: P-0209 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures having received Rule 74 assurances. The witness, a former , testified about his abduction and his experiences in the LRA, including his role in the attack on Pajule IDP camp relevant to the charges. P-0209 offered his testimony in a calm and confident manner. His demeanour did not change regardless of the identity of the questioning party. His testimony was detailed and contextualised. The witness provided noteworthy evidence regarding the effects of the initiation ceremony and the LRA’s spiritualism on fighters. However, the Chamber is of the view that despite receiving Rule 74 assurances, P-0209 appeared to be attempting to minimise his involvement in the LRA’s activities. However, the Chamber notes that his testimony is generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: 332 See P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 52, line 20 – p. 54, line 22; T-48-CONF, p. 18, line 13 – p. 30, line 14, p. 50, line 25 – p. 55, line 24. 333 Defence Closing Brief, paras 366, 416. 334 See P-0205: T-47, p. 43, lines 12-21; T-47-CONF, p. 54, line 10-16; T-50, p. 43, line 5 – p. 46, line 1; T-50- CONF, p. 53, line 1 – p. 56, line 11; T-51-CONF, p. 6, line 18 – p. 17, line 22. The alleged contradictions relate to his testimony about whether Dominic Ongwen ordered an attack on civilians in Odek and Lukodi, and whether the witness reported seeing civilian deaths in Lukodi. 335 P-0209: T-160; T-161. 336 P-0209: T-161, p. 50, line 8 – p. 52, line 16. 337 See for example P-0209: T-161-CONF, p. 62, line 9 – p. 64, line 23 (the witness’s testimony in relation to his roles and ranks in the LRA and his participation in certain attacks).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 95/1077 4 February 2021 x P-0231

text: P-0231 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 338 339 74 assurances. P-0231, a former LRA fighter, who was abducted in 1994, testified about his time as an officer in Sinia brigade’s Oka battalion, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen and various attacks. P-0231 was a forthright witness, distinguishing between events he witnessed personally and matters he learned about through other means. His testimony was detailed and his accounts are consistent with what would be expected of a witness who personally experienced the events he discussed. He eventually escaped from the LRA in 2007.

text: The Chamber notes that the witness testified to having a close relationship with Dominic Ongwen while he was in the bush, and believed that Dominic Ongwen saved his life while they were both in the LRA. Perhaps for this reason, there are aspects of the witness’s testimony where he appears to be minimising Dominic Ongwen’s actions. For example, the witness claims that he never saw anyone young in Dominic Ongwen’s house. Such a statement is not credible in light of the testimony of other reliable witnesses. However, the Chamber also notes that much of the witness’s testimony is consistent with other reliable evidence heard in this case.

text: xi P-0245

text: P-0245 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, including voice distortion, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0245, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen and several attacks by the LRA, including the attacks on Lukodi and Odek IDP camps that are relevant to the charges.

text: 338 P-0231: T-122; T-123. 339 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 27, lines 2-5. 340 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 30, lines 16-19. 341 P-0231: T-123, p. 81, line 22 – p. 82, line 6. 342 P-0231: T-123-CONF, p. 12, line 14 – p. 13, line 9. 343 P-0231: T-122, p. 72, line 4 – p. 73, line 3. 344 P-0245: T-98; T-99; T-100; T-101.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 96/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber found many aspects of this witness’s testimony, particularly after his first defection in 2003, dubious. The witness testified that he returned to the LRA later the same year and participated in the Odek attack and heard the orders for the Lukodi attack. The Chamber is not convinced that the witness was with the LRA during this period. This witness was a prominent member of the LRA. Had he returned to the group, other LRA fighters who knew him would have known and testified accordingly. Yet in these proceedings, and offered credible evidence that the witness returned to the LRA only sometime in . The Chamber notes that two witnesses testified in general terms that P-0245 was present around the time period of the Odek, Lukodi and Abok attacks, however the Chamber places more weight on the testimony of witnesses like and , who provided more specific and contextualised testimony of the timing of P-0245’s return. The Chamber’s view is further compounded by the divergence between his testimony and that of other witnesses. For example, P-0245 identified Okwonga Alero as one of the leading LRA commanders who issued the commands to attack Odek IDP camp attack along with Dominic Ongwen. No other witness credibly testified to this effect. Further, other aspects of his testimony, such as the evidence he provided about his while with the LRA, appear convoluted and implausible. The witness was evasive, equivocal, and unconvincing when explaining his criminal charges.

text: 345 See P-0245: T-99-CONF, p. 22, lines 5-9; Defence Closing Brief, paras 340-45, 361, 365, 379, 393-95, 403, 412, 432. 346 P-0245: T-99, p. 49, line 15 – p. 75, line 24; T-100-CONF, p. 8, line 11 – p. 11, line 6 (testifying that he was with the LRA from roughly October 2003 to January 2005). 347

text: See

text: See

text: 349 See P-0245: T-99, p. 49, line 15 – p. 52, line 23. 350 See P-0245: T-99-CONF, p. 27, lines 4-19, p. 33, line 14 – p. 38, line 25; T-100-CONF, p. 59, line 23 – p. 60, line 21; T-101-CONF, p. 4, line 15 – p. 9, line 3, p. 13, line 25 – p. 20, line 2. 351 P-0245: T-100-CONF, p. 61, line 17 – p. 65, line 12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 97/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes the Prosecution contention that the logbooks’ corroboration of P- 0245’s account of the attack at Palaro (Labworomor) in November 2003 indicates the reliability of his account, suggesting that this proves that P-0245 was indeed back in the LRA by late 2003. However, the fact referred to by P-0245, i.e. that Dominic Ongwen used UPDF uniforms to enter a bar and then opened fire on UPDF inside, was well 353 354 known – and there is evidence that it was reported on public radio – so the Chamber does not consider it significant that P-0245 knew this detail. Other witnesses who testified to being present in that same attack did not attest to P-0245’s presence. The Chamber is of the view that the unreliability of the witness’s testimony as to the time of his return to the LRA – coupled with the fact that the witness’s offered false testimony concerning events that he thus could not have witnessed – is so fundamental that the Chamber cannot but doubt the rest of his testimony, including his testimony in relation to the period of time in which the witness was undoubtedly a prominent member of the LRA. Therefore, the Chamber does not rely on the testimony of P-0245.

text: xii Joseph Okilan (D-0019)

text: Joseph Okilan testified live before the Chamber. He testified about joining the Uganda People’s Army in 1987 and his subsequent stay within the LRA in Sudan and Uganda until his escape in 1999. He was at some point battalion commander, and knew Dominic Ongwen in the bush. It is noted that Joseph Okilan testified, in relation to Joseph Kony’s authority, that ‘if you don’t follow Kony’s commands, that means death is assured for 358 359 you’. In light of all the other evidence, this statement is not credible. In addition, the Chamber considers that a natural explanation for this statement is the fact that the witness occupied a relatively high position in the LRA hierarchy, and was motivated to minimise

text: 352 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 56, n. 230. 353 See P-0309: T-61, p. 17, line 18 – p. 19, line 16, p. 22, lines 5-7; P-0372: T-148, p. 33, line 13 – p. 35, line 25. See also Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0101; P-0059: T-37, p. 42, line 18 – p. 47, line 15; P-0016: T-33, p. 40, lines 12-23. 354 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0101; P-0059 Tape 721 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0791- R01, at 0795; P-0059: T-37, p. 43, lines 15-19. 355 P-0245: T-99, p. 41, lines 14-24. 356

text: See

text: 357 D-0019: T-236. 358 D-0019: T-236, p. 16, line 24 – p. 17, line 8. 359 See paras 866-873 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 98/1077 4 February 2021 his own responsibility. With this clarification, the Chamber considers Joseph Okilan generally reliable.

text: xiii D-0027

text: D-0027, a former LRA fighter, testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. D-0027, a former LRA commander, testified about his abduction as a child in 1990, his stay in the LRA and his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen as a young abductee and commander. D-0027 provided in particular a detailed and comprehensive narrative of his experiences in the LRA, including spiritual traditions within the organisation and his relationship with Dominic Ongwen. The details provided by the witness indicate that he indeed knew Dominic Ongwen and that the witness testified credibly of events that he personally experienced.

text: xiv D-0032

text: D-0032 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 74 assurances. D-0032, a former LRA commander, testified about his experiences in the LRA and about LRA structure, policy and rules. D-0032 offered detailed and comprehensive testimony. His testimony was contextualised and replete with the kind of details that indicated that the witness was indeed in the position to have the information he testified in relation to. The Chamber notes that much of D-0032’s testimony was consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings.

text: However, D-0032 was not reliable on certain points, for example, the way ‘courtship’ worked in the LRA. Here, the witness’s testimony stands in stark contrast to other reliable evidence offered in these proceedings. The Chamber does not consider that D- 0032’s testimony was purposely untruthful in relation to this aspect of testimony, rather, the witness attempted to minimise the impact and severity of the LRA’s actions. The Chamber also notes that the witness gave very different statements about the role of Dominic Ongwen in the attack on Odek IDP camp to the Defence and the Prosecution.

text: 360 D-0027: T-202. 361 D-0032: T-199; T-200; T-201. 362 D-0032: T-200, p. 12, line 3 – p. 15, line 23; T-201, p. 39, lines 17-23, p. 42, line 10 – p. 47, line 9. 363 See D-0032: T-200, p. 24, line 6 – p. 26, line 9; T-201, p. 16, line 25 – p. 26, line 4 (to the Prosecution, the witness stated that he heard Dominic Ongwen speak to Joseph Kony on the radio requesting to attack Odek. To the Defence, the witness stated that it was Okwonga Alero who spoke with Joseph Kony).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 99/1077 4 February 2021

text: In court, the witness testified that his statement to the Prosecution that Dominic Ongwen requested to go and fight at Odek was incorrect, and that a different commander made that request. When asked why he told the Prosecution’s investigators that Dominic Ongwen made this request, the witness stated: I told them that it does not necessarily mean that’s what I said, but I said everybody was listening to what Kony was saying and there were other commanders who were supporting what Kony was saying. Because if your commander speaks you have to agree with what he is saying and confirm that you are going to take the relevant action that he wants you to do. The Chamber considers the witness’s explanation of the discrepancy evasive and unpersuasive. Further, his in-court testimony is inconsistent with other available reliable evidence as to the role of Dominic Ongwen in the planning of the attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber is convinced that the information the witness offered to the Prosecution was the truthful account.

text: xv Acama Jackson (D-0074)

text: Acama Jackson is a priest and former LRA member, who testified live before the Chamber. He spent about 17 years in the LRA and provided certain relevant evidence about the organisation, including about the treatment of abducted women and girls and about Joseph Kony’s spiritualism. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about events he personally experienced. He provided details in keeping with what could be expected of a witness who spent a significant time in the LRA.

text: xvi Alfred Arop (D-0092)

text: Alfred Arop testified live before the Chamber. Alfred Arop, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, the LRA’s structure, membership and policies and the attacks on Pajule and Odek IDP camps relevant to the charges. The Chamber finds the testimony of this witness generally credible. Alfred Arop provided clear and detailed testimony. His testimony was comprehensive, chronological and his narrative included the kinds of details that indicate he spoke of his actual personal experiences.

text: 364 D-0032: T-201, p. 22, lines 1-6. See D-0032: T-201, p. 20, line 4 – p. 26, line 4, p. 49, line 23 – p. 50, line 17. 365 D-0032: T-201, p. 25, line 23 – p. 26, line 3. 366 See section IV.C.7.iii. 367 D-0074: T-187; T-188. 368 D-0092: T-208; T-209.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 100/1077 4 February 2021

text: The witness clearly distinguished between what he witnessed himself and events he was informed of by other persons.

text: The Chamber is of the view that the press interviews in which the witness spoke of his belief that Dominic Ongwen and LRA fighters such as him should not be prosecuted and should instead be granted amnesty does not undermine his credibility. When questioned about these interviews, Alfred Arop readily admitted that these were his 370 371 views. He also stated that he knew and liked Dominic Ongwen. Witnesses are not blank slates, absent of personal opinions about the proceedings or of the accused. There is no evidence suggesting that this witness’s views of the accused and the proceedings impacted the truthfulness of the evidence he offered to the Court. His testimony was internally consistent, coherent and largely consistent with other reliable evidence on record.

text: Of greater importance is the recent contact between the witness and former LRA fighters. When questioned about these contacts, Alfred Arop stated that he had been contacted by other former LRA fighters who were attempting to establish whether he had dealings with the Court. Alfred Arop testified that they did not tell him ‘not to say anything bad about Dominic Ongwen’ or other fighters and that he never admitted to the former fighters that he was testifying before the Court. On the face of the evidence before the Chamber, there is no reason to doubt the validity of the witness’s testimony. Absent such evidence and given that his testimony is largely consistent with other reliable evidence on the record, the Chamber finds that this contact with former LRA fighters does not undermine the witness’s credibility.

text: xvii Charles Lokwiya (D-0134)

text: Charles Lokwiya testified live before the Chamber. Charles Lokwiya, a former LRA fighter, provided testimony in relation to his experiences in the LRA, and in particular

text: 369 See D-0092: T-209, p. 15, lines 18-25, quoting Aislinn Laing, ‘As Kony’s commander faces trial in The Hague, Ugandans recount tales of horror they endured’, in The Telegraph (21 January 2016), UGA-OTP-0286-0650, at 0655; D-0092: T-209, p. 16, line 18 – p. 17, line 1, quoting Aislinn Liang, ‘A Lord’s Resistance Army commander goes on trial but Joseph Kony still eludes justice’, in Time (21 January 2016), UGA-OTP-0286-0647, at 0648. 370 D-0092: T-209, p. 16, lines 1-5, p. 17, lines 21-25. 371 D-0092: T-209, p. 14, lines 10-11. 372 D-0092: T-209-CONF, p. 18, line 14 – p. 22, line 9, p. 23, lines 1-23. 373 D-0092: T-209-CONF, p. 23, line 24 – p. 24, line 4. 374 D-0134: T-240; T-241.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 101/1077 4 February 2021 his participation in the October 2003 attack on Pajule IDP camp. Charles Lokwiya’s testimony was detailed, comprehensive and specific. His testimony contained details that demonstrate that Charles Lokwiya spoke of his personal experiences and that he spent many years in the LRA. The witness clearly explained the source of the information he provided and delineated between events he experienced personally and information which he learnt from others. The witness was also clear in informing the Chamber when he did not recall an event.

text: The Chamber notes that Charles Lokwiya denied being under LRA ‘punishment’ at the time of the Pajule IDP camp attack. However, other witnesses credibly testified that Charles Lokwiya was indeed on punishment at the time of the attack. Given the in this regard, the Chamber is of the view that in this instance, Charles Lokwiya was not truthful and that he was indeed on punishment at the time of the attack. However, the Chamber notes that despite this issue, it found the rest of the witness’s testimony credible, noting particularly that it is generally consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings.

text: b. Lower-level insiders

text: i P-0015

text: P-0015’s two prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. P-0015, a former LRA abductee who lived in Vincent Otti’s household, offered testimony about the Pajule IDP camp attack. The witness was abducted in June 2003 at the age of 13 and returned from captivity by March 2004. The witness clearly explained the source of her information and gave details that supported the credibility of the information provided. P-0015 provided evidence that was comprehensive and rich with the type of details that shows that she spoke about her personal experiences. Further, the Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was generally consistent with other reliable evidence. The Chamber notes that in her prior recorded statement of 2004, P-

text: 375 D-0134: T-241-CONF, p. 12, line 7 – p. 13, line 6. 376 See P-0138: T-121, p. 37, line 17 – p. 38, line 5 (Lukwiya was punished for failing to carry out an order. He was made to walk barefoot). 377 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283- 0063); P-0015 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0254-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0283-0083). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 43-50, p. 107. 378 See the testimonies of P-0045, P-0138, P-0142, P-0101.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 102/1077 4 February 2021

text: 0015 stated that she had not heard of ‘Dominic Ongwen’, while in the second prior recorded statement, given in 2006, she stated that she had heard of ‘Dominic Ongwen’ but had never seen him and that she had heard of and seen ‘Odomi’ but could not 379 380 remember where. Contrary to a submission by the Defence, the Chamber does not consider this alleged ‘inconsistency’ significant. Noting the short time the witness spent in captivity, her position within Vincent Otti’s household and her young age at the time of her captivity, the Chamber finds it understandable that the witness recalled the name Dominic Ongwen in 2006 but not in 2004 and made no connection between Dominic Ongwen and Odomi.

text: ii P-0018

text: P-0018 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0018, a former LRA fighter, testified in relation to her experience as an LRA attacker in the attack on Lukodi camp. P-0018 was a quiet and reserved, somewhat timid, witness. Yet, her testimony was detailed and generally clear. P-0018 had been abducted by the LRA in 2003 and was part of the LRA force that attacked Lukodi IDP camp in 2004. P-0018’s account of events was consistent with what would be expected of a witness in her position and one who only spent a short time in the LRA. For example, the witness was specific and detailed about her participation in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp and the details of her escape from the LRA, but was more vague about matters relating to LRA hierarchy and structure. Noting that the witness was not a trained and armed soldier, and rather was in the household of a low ranking LRA officer, the Chamber ascribes no weight to her lack of knowledge of aspects of the LRA. The Chamber is of the view that the inconsistencies in the witness’s account of the time of her abduction are insignificant. At the same time, the Chamber notes that the witness’s testimony in relation to the LRA fighters killed in Lukodi IDP camp is confused

text: 379 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 101; P-0015 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0191- 0254-R01, at para. 40. 380 Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 140. 381 P-0018: T-68; T-69. 382 See P-0018: T-68, p. 38, line 13-25, p. 40, lines 5-8, p. 42, lines 21-24, p. 51, line 24 – p. 52, line 16; T-69, p. 3, lines 2-7, p. 31, lines 2 – p. 32, line 1. 383 P-0018: T-69, p. 43, lines 7-9. 384 P-0018: T-69, p. 26, lines 2-18 (the witness could not recall whether she was abducted on 14 June 2003 or 6 July 2003).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 103/1077 4 February 2021 and unclear. In this context, the Chamber notes that the witness did not go to the barracks in the course of the Lukodi attack. The Chamber also notes that her testimony was generally consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings. Concerning P-0018’s age at the time of her abduction, in June or July 2003 the witness testified that she was ‘about 14’ at the time of her abduction. However, during her testimony in May 2017, she stated that she was 26. Accordingly, the Chamber considers her to have been 12 years old when she was abducted.

text: iii P-0054

text: P-0054 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0054, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, including his personal participation in the LRA attacks on Odek and Abok IDP camps. P-0054 was a forthcoming and thoughtful witness. The witness’s narration was comprehensive and generally chronological, filled with the type of detail that showed that the witness spent many years with the LRA. The Chamber especially notes that P- 0054 frequently distinguished between events he had witnessed himself, such as the attack on Abok IDP camp, and events he had heard about, such as the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: The Chamber also notes that concerning both the Abok and Odek IDP camp attacks, the witness testified that he was amongst the groups that attacked the barracks and did not enter the centre himself. However, the Chamber does not necessarily disregard P- 0054’s evidence as to the occurrences at the centre of the camps during the attacks, for example if the witness gained information in the aftermath of the attack from other LRA fighters who had gone into the centre of the camp. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considers that it may generally rely on P-0054’s testimony, in particular on the structure

text: 385 P-0018: T-69, p. 52, line 15 – p. 53, line 10, p. 57, line 19 – p. 59, line 25. 386 The Chamber notes that both dates were put to the witness as her date of abduction, 14 June and 6 July 2003, and that the witness was not able to tell which one was the precise date of her abduction. P-0018: T-69, p. 26, lines 2-17. However, for the purposes of this discussion, the Chamber notes that the difference between those two dates of her abduction is irrelevant. 387 P-0018: T-68, p. 32, lines 19-24. 388 P-0018: T-68, p. 32, lines 10-11. 389 P-0054: T-93; T-94. See P-0054: T-93, p. 3, lines 21-24. 390 P-0054: T-93, p. 19, lines 13-14, p. 35, lines 2-5, p. 53, line 24 – p. 54, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 104/1077 4 February 2021 and membership of the LRA, as well as its disciplinary regime, the use of children in the LRA and the aspects of the Abok and Odek IDP camp attacks in which he participated.

text: iv Aldo Odoch (P-0096)

text: Aldo Odoch’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(c) of the Rules. Aldo Odoch was a Lango man born in 1986, who had been abducted at the age of 15 years in 2002. He testified about his abduction and his time in the LRA, including his experiences as an escort of LRA commander Okot Odhiambo and his participation in the attacks on Abia and Barlonyo. The Chamber notes that his statement was both internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: v P-0097

text: P-0097 testified live before the Chamber, with protective measures. The Chamber found the evidence provided by P-0097, an abductee and former LRA fighter, credible. When describing the facts contained in his testimony, the witness used detailed language, readily admitted when he did not know the answer to a question and described events in a manner which convinces the Chamber that P-0097 was abducted by the LRA and spent a considerable period of time as an LRA soldier.

text: Regarding the issue of P-0097’s age at the time of his abduction, the Chamber notes that there is contradicting evidence. P-0097 stated that he was born in 1993, which would have made him 11 at the time of the abduction in February 2005. He states

text: 391 P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1698-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283- 0855); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1739-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0283-0896); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1778-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA- OTP-0283-0935); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1814-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0971); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1851-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1008); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1862-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1019); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1901-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1058); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1938-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1095); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1974- R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1131); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228- 2014-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1171); P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0228-2056-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1213). See Decision on the Prosecution’s Request to Add Items to its List of Evidence, to include a Witness on its List of Witnesses and to Submit Two Prior Recorded Testimonies under Rule 68(2)(b) and (c), 22 November 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-600, paras 30-35, p. 15. 392 P-0097: T-108; T-109. 393 P-0097: T-108-CONF, p. 6, lines 2-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 105/1077 4 February 2021 he knows his birthdate since his parents told him the date. However, there is documentary evidence which indicates slightly different birthdates: his birth certificate and his national ID both indicate 1993, his baptism document states 1993. Further, a school identity card states that the witness was 20 years old on 2015, an immunisation card states that the witness was aged 12 on 2003, a school progress card from the year 2001 indicates the witness’s age as 10 and a second student identity card, issued on 2011, states the witness’s age as 16. All those documents are incompatible with the date of birth provided by the witness, there is no information as to the production of the documents and the documents do not indicate the same date of birth consistently either. Considering the contradicting evidence, the Chamber finds it impossible to determine P-0097’s precise date of birth. However, the Chamber notes the evidence indicates that the witness was born at the earliest on 1990 and was therefore at the most 14 years old in February 2005. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that P-0097 was under the age of 15 at the time of his abduction. Regarding the Defence’s submission that there are ‘major contradictions, inconsistencies’ which make P-0097’s testimony as a whole unreliable, the Chamber does not find any reason to disregard the witness’s testimony as a whole. The parts of the witness’s testimony which the Defence references in support of its submission are instances where the witness answered questions concerning his prior recorded testimony. The fact that the witness clarifies and further explains his testimony is a matter assessing the evidence in the concrete instance but does not justify to generally discard his testimony.

text: The Chamber also notes that P-0097 conceded that it was difficult for him to determine the age of people based only on their appearance when they are not his age and stated

text: 394 P-0097: T-108-CONF, p. 6, lines 6-7. 395 P-0097: T-108, p. 63, lines 17-22; UGA-OTP-0272-0939. 396 P-0097: T-108, p. 64, lines 7-9; UGA-OTP-0269-0735. 397 P-0097: T-108, p. 59, line 24 – p. 60, line 3; UGA-OTP-0258-0509. 398 P-0097: T-108, p. 61, lines 11-22; UGA-OTP-0263-2470. 399 P-0097: T-108, p. 61, lines 1-10; UGA-OTP-0269-0737, at 0738. 400 P-0097: T-108, p. 61, line 25, p. 62, lines 14-16; UGA-OTP-0269-0739. 401 P-0097: T-108, p. 62, line 18 – p. 63, line 2; UGA-OTP-0269-0740, at 0741. 402 According to the immunisation card stating that he was 12 years old on 2003. 403 Defence Closing Brief, para. 525. 404 Defence Closing Brief, n. 868-74. 405 P-0097: T-109, p. 13, lines 22-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 106/1077 4 February 2021 that one of the factors used to determine how old other abductees were was his own age. The Chamber – also in light of the fact that it is unable to establish the witness’s precise age on the basis of the available evidence – will take this into account in its consideration the age of person whose age was estimated by the witness.

text: vi P-0130

text: P-0130’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. P-0130, a former LRA fighter, testified about his abduction and his experiences in the LRA, including his participation in the attack on Pajule IDP camp relevant to the charges. The Chamber notes that the witness was a low level fighter and thus his lack of knowledge or errors about some of the operational aspects of the attack are understandable. The Chamber is of the view that P-0130’s testimony of his specific personal experiences is generally credible.

text: vii P-0138

text: P-0138 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures and received Rule 74 assurances. The witness testified about his abduction in 1996, when he was 14 years old, about being an escort of one of the commanders of Oka battalion as well as being an escort of Vincent Otti in Control Altar and about his observations of the October 2003 Pajule IDP camp attack. He eventually escaped from the LRA in 2003. P-0138 was a valuable and honest witness. The witness was frank about his experience in the LRA, for example when he spoke in a detailed and clear manner about the extent in which killing and pillaging were part of the LRA attacks. The Defence submission concerning P-0138 and stating that his testimony is ‘riddled with contradictions’, concerns factual allegations related to events in Teso which are not part of the charges and are not relied upon by the Chamber for the purposes of the judgment. This has no effect on the Chamber’s assessment of the witness in general. The Chamber notes that the witness

text: 406 P-0097: T-108, p. 29, lines 8-11. 407 P-0130 Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0272-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1242). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 64-67, p. 109. 408 See in particular P-0130 Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0272-R01, at paras 45, 47, 58 (his testimony in relation to Vincent Otti’s and Raska Lukwiya’s participation in the attack and his testimony that Bogi was the overall commander of the three groups that went to attack Pajule, as opposed to Raska Lukwiya as the evidence establishes). 409 P-0138: T-120; T-121; T-122. See also T-120, p. 3, line 3 – p. 4, line 4. 410 Defence Closing Brief, para. 515.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 107/1077 4 February 2021 testified that he knew Dominic Ongwen very well. Thus, the Chamber relies on P- 0138 for various findings, as specified below.

text: viii P-0145

text: P-0145 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures and having received Rule 74 assurances. P-0145 offered testimony about his experiences as a fighter in the LRA. The witness’s testimony was detailed and he had a good recollection of events. The witness distinguished between events he personally witnessed and information he came to learn from others; his testimony was full of the kind of details that indicate that he spoke from personal experience.

text: The Chamber is of the view that despite receiving Rule 74 assurances, the witness was not truly forthcoming about his role in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp and understated his participation in the attack. The witness testified that he merely went to collect food in Lukodi IDP camp. However, the way the witness described the attack, and the details he spoke of, suggested to the Chamber that the witness had a more active role in the attack than he admits. Of additional concern, P-0145 was the sole witness to indicate that Dominic Ongwen participated in the Lukodi IDP camp attack. The Chamber notes that the witness testified that he did not see anything in Lukodi with his own eyes, apart from the food he carried. The witness refers to Dominic Ongwen’s participation but never says that he actually saw Dominic Ongwen in Lukodi. In light of these concerns, the Chamber cannot rely on the witness’s testimony in relation to the actual course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack. However, the Chamber finds other aspects of the witness’s testimony credible, particularly in relation to the planning of the Lukodi attack as well as the LRA’s policy on the treatment of civilians and Dominic Ongwen’s behaviour as an LRA commander.

text: 411 P-0138: T-120, p. 18, line 19 – p. 19, line 5. 412 P-0145: T-143; T-144. 413 P-0145: T-143, p. 12, line 3-7; T-144-CONF, p. 46, line 20-22. 414 See for example P-0145: T-143, p. 22, line 18 – p. 26, line 18 (discussing the course of the attack and mentioning the killing of civilians in their houses). The Chamber also notes that the witness testified both that he had a gun in the attack and then that he was without a gun. Compare P-0145: T-143, p. 19, lines 7-10 with P-0145: T-143, p. 24, lines 14-16. 415 P-0145: T-143, p. 16, line 18 – p. 17, line 9, p. 22, line 18 – p. 24, line 25; T-144, p. 36, line 14 – p. 45, line 6. 416 P-0145: T-143, p. 25, lines 1-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 108/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also notes that much of the witness’s testimony is supported by other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings.

text: ix Ray Apire (P-0172)

text: Ray Apire testified live before the Chamber. Ray Apire was an LRA fighter who testified about the LRA and the various attacks he participated in and heard about. Ray Apire’s testimony was generally detailed, consistent and comprehensive. He was forthcoming in responding to questioning by the parties and participants. His account is consistent with what would be expected of someone who experienced the events and also contains the type of details consistent with the expected knowledge of a long-standing LRA officer. The witness also differentiated clearly between his personal experiences and information he came to learn from others.

text: x P-0200

text: P-0200 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. He testified that he was abducted in Teso in June 2003 by Dominic Ongwen and that he stayed in the LRA, and under Dominic Ongwen specifically, until March 2004.

text: The Defence submitted that P-0200’s testimony ‘should be disregarded for being incredible’. It argued that Dominic Ongwen ‘did not go to Teso and therefore it is impossible that he could have been abducted by Dominic’. It also makes reference to the Pre-Trial Chamber’s finding in the decision on the confirmation of charges that ‘the evidence of Witness P-0200 […] is incompatible in several material aspects with the rest of the available evidence, including the testimonies of seven former so-called “wives” of Dominic Ongwen which the Chamber considers fully credible’. Further, the Defence argues that P-0200 was ‘evasive throughout his testimony’, and that he ‘could not answer

text: 417 P-0172: T-113; T-114. 418 See for example P-0172: T-113, p. 42, line 11 – p. 45, line 4 (a discussion of the history, structure and membership of the LRA). 419 P-0200: T-145; T-146. 420 Defence Closing Brief, para. 514. 421 Defence Closing Brief, para. 514. See also para. 512. 422 Defence Closing Brief, para. 513. See also Confirmation Decision, para. 133.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 109/1077 4 February 2021 some of the basic questions and quite often admitted how he had forgotten certain facts and could not remember’.

text: The witness narrated an account of his movements with Dominic Ongwen during this period: he stated that he moved with Dominic Ongwen to a meeting with Vincent Otti, Banya, and Raska Lukwiya in Abia, then to Lwala, where ‘[Dominic Ongwen] moved with his soldiers to Lwala Girls [School]’ and after a short time, ‘we saw Dominic Ongwen coming with his soldiers with the girls’. According to P-0200’s testimony, he then moved, together with Dominic Ongwen, to Abalang, Idam-Akan, Morungatuny, Obalanga, before crossing the Amoroto River and meeting with Joseph Kony in Adilang, where Joseph Kony distributed the girls abducted from Lwala School. P-0200 testified that subsequently, he participated in the attack on Barlonyo under the direct command of Dominic Ongwen, after which they came back to Adilang, escorted Joseph Kony to Sudan, and came back to Uganda. P-0200 testified that he was pierced with a bayonet by Dominic Ongwen for attempted escape, and then managed to escape when crossing the Pece River, and was taken by a local to Palenga barracks.

text: P-0200, like many members of the LRA and entirely understandably, was not able to date the events he lived during his time in the LRA. Nevertheless, he provided sufficient detail that, in conjunction with other evidence, allows for a reliable reconstruction of the basic timeline. As noted below, there is reliable evidence that the abduction of a large number of girls by the LRA from Lwala Girls School took place on 23 June 2003. The Barlonyo attack took place in February 2004. Therefore, the events described by P- 0200 would have taken place in mid- and late 2003, and early 2004. This is also compatible with the dates of abduction and escape given by the witness.

text: Importantly, P-0200’s testified that he spent the entirety of his time in the LRA under the direct command of and in the household of Dominic Ongwen. Yet, the timeline given by P-0200 does not correspond to the timeline of Dominic Ongwen’s activities as

text: 423 Defence Closing Brief, para. 514. 424 P-0200: T-145, p. 13, lines 6-17. 425 P-0200: T-145, p. 13, line 18 – p. 14, line 8. 426 P-0200: T-145, p. 14, lines 8-24. 427 P-0200: T-145, p. 15, line 10 – p. 16, line 22. 428 See para. 1161 below. 429 See para. 1164 below. 430 See P-0200: T-146, p. 44, lines 20-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 110/1077 4 February 2021 established on the basis of numerous reliable witness testimonies and other sources of evidence.

text: In particular, there is no other evidence attributing the abduction of the girls from Lwala Girls School to Dominic Ongwen. In addition, the multiple other reliable sources of evidence available as to Dominic Ongwen’s activities and movements at the time do not allow for the conclusion that Dominic Ongwen went to Teso in June 2003, or at any time until after the attack on Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003. It is also notable that P- 0200 denied having taken part in that attack, whereas there is a reliable body of evidence that Dominic Ongwen, in whose household P-0200 claimed to have been at the time, did participate. Conversely, P-0200’s placing of Dominic Ongwen on the ground for the attack on Barlonyo is entirely unsupported by the other reliable evidence in relation to that attack. On the other hand, the Chamber notes that P-0200’s testimony that at the time, to the effect that Dominic Ongwen limped because of a fracture of his left leg, is compatible with the findings in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s injury in late 2002 and recovery lasting into mid-2003. This is, however, inconclusive and without bearing on the other identified issues.

text: Further, P-0200 testified that on the way to Sudan

text: . In the assessment of the Chamber, this specific detail, in particular the implication of Dominic Ongwen, is so unique in the context of the evidence in the case, so significant, and even so shocking, that it would have to be mentioned during the testimonies of other persons who reliably testified that they were with Dominic Ongwen in 2003-2004. Yet, no such evidence is on the record.

text: It is also notable that when asked whether he knew the names of any of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’, P-0200 did not give the names of P-0101 or P-0214, who were in Dominic Ongwen’s household as his so-called ‘wives’ during the relevant

text: 431 See paras 1017-1077 below. 432 P-0200: T-146, p. 50, lines 7-9. 433 See section IV.C.6 below. 434 P-0200: T-145, p. 14, lines 8-10. 435 P-0200: T-145, p. 52, lines 15-17. 436 See paras 1017-1049 below. 437 P-0200: T-145-CONF, p. 14, lines 11-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 111/1077 4 February 2021 time. Rather, he mentioned a person not indicated in the evidence as one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’, and for whom DNA analysis evidence in fact contradicts the claim that she was a so-called ‘wife’ of Dominic Ongwen.

text: The incompatibility between the evidence of P-0200 and the rest of the reliable evidence is striking, and it is notable that the Prosecution, while still relying on P-0200 occasionally in its closing submissions, did not seek to furnish an explanation of this remarkable incompatibility.

text: Finally, when asked to give a physical description of Dominic Ongwen, P-0200 asserted that Dominic Ongwen was ‘a bit bald’ and ‘didn’t have much hair on the head’. This description does not match the physical appearance of Dominic Ongwen. In fact, the Defence directly challenged P-0200 on his identification of Dominic Ongwen as the person who abducted him, and the explanation offered by the witness was weak: he stated that he got to ‘know [Dominic Ongwen] clearly when Otti called him by his names in Abia. So I know him as my commander by the time when I was in the bush.’ A positive identification of the accused in the courtroom by the witness was also not possible due to the partition put in place as a special measure under Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

text: In light of the all of the above, and considering the strong indicia that the person described by P-0200 as Dominic Ongwen is in fact not the accused, the Chamber concludes that there exist unsurmountable obstacles for the reliability of the testimony of P-0200. The Chamber will therefore not rely on his testimony.

text: xi P-0233

text: P-0233 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 74 assurances. The witness, a former member of the LRA, testified about his abduction and his experiences in the LRA, in particular about the attacks on Acet and Abia. The

text: 438 P-0200: T-145, p. 27, lines 13-24. 439 P-0200: T-145, p. 27, lines 13-24; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529, at 0535. 440 P-0200: T-145, p. 52, line 21 – p. 53, line 15. 441 P-0200: T-146, p. 55, lines 9-18. 442 See Email from VWS psychologist to TC IX Communications on 18 January 2018 at 14:56, which recommended the partition. 443 P-0233: T-111; T-112.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 112/1077 4 February 2021 witness was very knowledgeable about the LRA and his testimony covered a broad range of issues, which the Chamber deems natural in light of the fact that he spent more than 10 years in the LRA. Further, the witness testified about experiences which incriminated the LRA as well as government forces, and testified that he liked Dominic Ongwen, factors which support the credibility of the incriminatory statements.

text: xii P-0250

text: P-0250 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0250, a former LRA abductee and fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA including about the rules and practices in the LRA and the Pajule attack. Significantly, the witness’s testimony about the Pajule IDP camp attack is manifestly different from the testimony of other credible witnesses. In particular, contrary to other credible evidence, the witness testified that a large number of people were killed in the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack, people’s limbs were chopped off, people were cut in half and people were decapitated. While the evidence shows that several people died in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp and that the LRA killed at least one person with a machete, the evidence does not support P-0250’s description of events in the course of the attack. Further, the Chamber notes that the witness’s description of Dominic Ongwen is not credible. In light of the above, in particular the utter unreliability of his testimony about the Pajule attack, the Chamber finds that the witness’s testimony cannot be relied upon.

text: xiii P-0252

text: P-0252 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0252, a resident of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his abduction in that attack as well as his experiences in the LRA in the aftermath, including

text: 444 P-0233: T-112, p. 39, lines 14-15. 445 P-0250: T-141; T-142. 446 See P-0250: T-141, p. 27, line 8 – p. 28, line 10, p. 31, line 4 – p. 31, line 22, p. 33, line 17 – p. 34, line 4. The Chamber also notes that the witness testified that the Pajule attack occurred on 9 October 2002. P-0250: T-141, p. 25, line 17-19. However, it is clear from certain details, for example the abduction of Rwot Oywak, that the witness was referring to the attack on Pajule IDP camp described in the charges in the present case. See P-0250: T-141, p. 39, lines 2-25. 447 See P-0250: T-142, p. 7, line 10 – p. 8, line 22, p. 17, line 17 – p. 18, line 1 (the witness described Dominic Ongwen, as an ‘invincible’ runner and as a ‘fat man’ at the time of the witness’s abduction). In light of the ample evidence to the contrary, the Chamber considers that this is not a credible description of Dominic Ongwen at the time the witness allegedly knew him. 448 P-0252: T-87; T-88; T-89.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 113/1077 4 February 2021 about the attack on Abok IDP camp relevant to the charges. The Chamber is attentive to

text: the psychological trauma the witness continues to suffer from as a result of his experience

text: in captivity, as well as his other medical issues. However, such issues had no bearing

text: on his evidence rendered in Court. The witness gave his testimony over the course of

text: three days and throughout he was coherent, understood the proceedings, vigilant in

text: following instructions from the Chamber and the questioning parties and testified in a

text: forthright and consistent manner. Contrary to the argument of the Defence, the

text: Chamber saw no indication that the witness had a mental disease or defect which impeded

text: his ability to reconstruct memories.

text: Concerning the witness’s age, P-0252, who was abducted by the LRA during the Odek

text: 452 453 attack, stated that he was 14 at the time of the attack. However, when asked his date

text: of birth, the witness replied that he was born on 1993. The Chamber also

text: notes that there are several official documents, such as a certificate of birth, a voter

text: 456 457 registration slip and a national identity card which indicate that the witness’s date

text: of birth was 1993. Additionally, a ‘grower registration form’ states his age

text: and the year in which the document was issued and in this manner corroborate his date

text: of birth. A ‘citizen identity card’ indicates that the witness would have to be born

text: between 1993 and 1994.

text: In this context the Chamber notes the questions by Defence counsel with regard to the

text: procedure of obtaining the birth certificate and the fact that the date ‘ 1993’

text: is probably an estimation. With regard to how the certificate was obtained, P-0252

text: 449 P-0252: T-88, p. 29, line 18 – p. 30, line 4, p. 38, lines 4-9, p. 38, line 19 – p. 40, line 5; T-88-CONF, p. 61, line 10 – p. 64, line 19. 450 Contrary to the Defence’s submission (Defence Closing Brief, para. 440), the Chamber saw no indication that he had a mental disease or defect which impeded his ability to reconstruct memories. 451 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 440. 452 See paras 1585-1587 below. 453 P-0252: T-87, p. 26, lines 19-21. 454 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 7, lines 14-15. 455 Birth certificate, UGA-OTP-0272-1018. 456 Voter location slip, UGA-OTP-0269-0732. 457 National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0269-0730. 458 Grower Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0269-0728. 459 By stating his age and the year in which the document was issued. 460 UGA-OTP-0269-0726, at 0727. The document states that P-0252 was 20 at the time of the issuance of the document on 2014. 461 P-0252: T-89, p. 3, lines 4-11. 462 P-0252: T-89, p. 3, lines 15-16. See Defence Closing Brief, para. 520, where the Defence also summarises the testimony concerning the witness’s age.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 114/1077 4 February 2021 replied that it was not him who provided the date and the Chamber notes that all 463 464 documents but one consistently indicate 1993 as the year of birth. Accordingly, the Chamber does not doubt the veracity of the document. With regard to the argument that ‘ ’ as a date of birth is probably an estimation, the Chamber agrees that this might be the case. However, this does not apply to the year indicated, 1993. Should P- 0252 have been born later than 1993, this would mean that he would be even younger, which is irrelevant for the charges. The same holds true for the one document indicating that the witness was born either in 1993 or 1994. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the witness was 11 years old at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: P-0252’s evidence shows that he was abducted during the Odek attack, which occurred on 29 April 2004. The Chamber notes that the witness discussed two Abok attacks, a previous large scale attack that he did not participate in and a second attack that he did participate in. The Chamber also notes that the witness indicated that the Abok attack he participated in happened about two months after his abduction from Odek IDP camp. This timing is consistent with the Chamber’s understanding of the timeline of the Abok IDP camp attack relevant to the charges. Further, the Chamber notes that the evidence provided by P-0252 about the events he witnessed is largely consistent with the testimony of other witnesses who testified about the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack. Accordingly, the Chamber is satisfied that P-0252’s reference to the second Abok IDP camp attack relates to the 8 June 2004 attack.

text: The Chamber also notes that P-0252 testified that he did not enter Abok IDP camp with other LRA fighters and stayed instead outside the boundaries of the camp. The Chamber does not disregard P-0252’s evidence as to the occurrences in the camp itself during the attack, for example if the witness gained information in the aftermath of the attack from other LRA fighters who had gone into the centre of the camp.

text: 463 Citizen Identity Card, UGA-OTP-0269-0726. 464 A citizen identity card indicates the date of issuance and the witness’s age at that time. According to this document, the witness would have to be born between 1993 and 1994. 465 UGA-OTP-0269-0726. 466 See the Chamber’s discussion of P-0252’s abduction during the Odek attack in paras 1585-1587 below. 467 P-0252: T-87, p. 73, line 17 – p. 74, line 2, p. 81, lines 13-15. 468 P-0252: T-89, p. 41, lines 19-21. 469 See the Chamber’s discussion of Abok IDP camp attack in section Attack on Abok IDP camp IV.C.9 below. 470 P-0252: T-87, p. 77, line 25 – p. 78, line 7; T-88, p. 5, lines 4-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 115/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence, noting the witness’s testimony about the time he spent in the bush and the available documentary evidence, states that his testimony is inconsistent with the evidence and that the witness’s testimony in relation to the Abok attack should be disregarded. The Chamber notes that there are indeed some irregularities in the witness’s testimony.

text: P-0252 testified that he spent roughly one year and nine months in the bush. However, the certificate of amnesty the witness received from the Ugandan government is dated 2004. The Chamber has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the certificate of amnesty. Additionally, the Chamber does not find the witness’s explanation for the inconsistency persuasive. However, noting that the witness’s account of the attacks on Odek and Abok IDP camps is largely consistent with the testimony of other witnesses with knowledge of these events, the Chamber finds that this inconsistency does not undermine P-0252’s testimony about these events. The Chamber is of the view that P- 0252 returned from captivity sometime in June 2004.

text: The Chamber also notes that given the nature of the armed conflict, the context of abduction and subsequent captivity and the constant movement of the LRA while in the bush, it is understandable that some witnesses struggle to keep track of the time they spent in the bush and to recall it with precision these many years after their escape from the LRA. Indeed, it is reasonable that witnesses in captivity in the bush, particularly those who were children when they were abducted, have lost their attachment to the very concept of time. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considers that it may rely on core parts of P-0252’s testimony concerning his experience during the Odek IDP camp attack and its aftermath and the Abok IDP camp attack.

text: 471 Defence Closing Brief, paras 441-43. 472 P-0252: T-88, p. 15, lines 6-8; T-89: p. 52, line 22 – p. 53, line 8. Indeed, P-0218 testified that the witness had stayed in captivity for about one year, P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 38. 473 P-0252’s Certificate of amnesty, UGA-OTP-0269-0722, at 0723, indicating that the witness was in the bush for about two months. 474 The witness acknowledges that this was the certificate that he was given when he returned from the bush. P- 0252: T-88, p. 15, lines 22-24. 475 P-0252: T-88, p. 16, line 13 – p. 17, line 8; T-89, p. 51, line 12 – p. 56, line 24 (P-0252 testified that at the rehabilitation centre for former abductees, other former abductees told him to tell the rehabilitation centre officials that he was only with the LRA for a short period of time so that he would not have to remain at the rehabilitation centre for a long period).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 116/1077 4 February 2021 xiv P-0264

text: P-0264 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0264, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen as well as the abduction of civilians in the LRA, the conscription and use of children as soldiers and women as so-called ‘wives’ and the attack on Odek IDP camp. P-0264 had a remarkable recollection, offering testimony that was very detailed and comprehensive with the kind of specific details that indicated he was speaking from personal experiences. His testimony was rich with the type of facts and knowledge expected from an LRA fighter who spent many years in the LRA and was exposed to the various facets of its operation. P-0264 distinguished between events he personally witnessed as opposed to matters he was informed about and was clear about the source of his knowledge.

text: P-0264 testified that he was abducted in 2002 at the age of 11; however his national ID card indicates that he was born in 1989, which would have made him 12 or 13 at the time of his abduction in 2002. This inconsistency in relation to the witness’s age does not undermine the Chamber’s view of his credibility, contrary to Defence arguments. The witness explained that other records indicating his age were destroyed in the course of the conflict and that government authorities erroneously estimated the age noted in his national ID card after his return from the LRA. The Chamber has no reason to doubt the witness’s explanation and considers it reasonable. The Chamber also finds the witness’s explanation of why he remembers his age at abduction credible. In his explanation of why he recalled that he was 11 years old when he was abducted, P-0264 explained: ‘[t]he reason why I said I was 11, because while I was still in primary 4 […] that’s how I would write my age that I have 11 – I am 11 years old […] And even when

text: 476 P-0264: T-64; T-65; T-66. 477 See for example P-0264: T-64, p. 28, line 9 – p. 32, line 19 (the witness’s description of the training of LRA fighters). 478 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 9, line 20 – p. 10, line 9. 479 P-0264’s National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0270-1382. 480 Defence Closing Brief, para. 527. 481 See P-0264: T-65-CONF, p. 46, lines 3-25, p. 47, lines 8-18; P-0264: T-66-CONF, p. 14, lines 13-25 (P-0264’s parents did not recall his exact date of birth and his birth records were destroyed as a result of the conflict and his family’s move to the camps. His school records were also destroyed for the same reason).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 117/1077 4 February 2021

text: I was captured, the people who captured me asked me “How old are you?” I told them “I am 11 years old”.’ Given the above, the Chamber does not consider that the contradicting evidence on the witness’s age affects his general credibility. It discusses this issue of the actual age of this witness at the time of his abduction and its impact on the charged crimes in greater depth below in its evidentiary analysis on the conscription and use of children in the hostilities. The Chamber sees no evidence that the witness’s interactions with other former LRA fighters prior to his interviews with the Prosecution in 2016 had any impact on his testimony.

text: xv P-0307

text: P-0307 testified live before the Chamber, with protective measures, and his prior recorded statement introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. The witness, an abductee and former LRA fighter, was deemed credible by the Chamber. However, additional explanations are necessary with regard to some aspects of his testimony, namely as concerns an attack on Pajule and the witness’s age. With regard to the first issue, the witness explained in his prior statement and during several occasions in his incourt testimony that the attack on Pajule he was referring to took place in December. In light of the details provided on the attack and the manner in which the witness provided the evidence, the Chamber is of the view that the witness – rather than lying as to the occurrence to the event – merely described a different attack than the 10 October 2003 attack on Pajule which forms the basis of some of the charges in the present case.

text: Concerning the second issue, the Chamber notes that there is diverging evidence as to the witness’s age. In his prior recorded statement, the witness stated that he was born on

text: 482 P-0264: T-65-CONF, p. 47, line 22 – p. 48, line 6. See P-0264: T-65-CONF, p. 45, lines 18-23. See also T-66- CONF, p. 15, lines 1-5. 483 P-0264: T-66-CONF, p. 16, line 21 – p. 18, line 18, p. 21, line 23 – p. 22, line 6, p. 22, line 13 – p. 23, line 15 (The witness was warned by a former LRA fighter to not speak with the ICC about Dominic Ongwen. ). 484 P-0307: T-152; T-153. 485 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 23, p. 19. See also P-0307: T-152, p. 62, line 17 – p. 64, line 3. 486 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at paras 32-44; T-152, p. 70, lines 8-17; T-153, p. 33, lines 20- 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 118/1077 4 February 2021

text: This matches the birthdate recorded in the witness’s immunisation card. However, P-0307’s national ID card states 1990 as his date of birth. When questioned about this difference, the witness explained that he had not seen the immunisation card before and only found it recently, and that the national ID card states the date that he was told by his mother as his date of birth. A birth certificate indicates 1990 as his date of birth. A document from World Vision, which took care of P-0307 after his escape from the LRA, indicates that the witness was 15 years old on 2004, but the field ‘date of birth’ was left blank. Upon suggestion by the Defence, the witness accepted that this might have been the case as he was uncertain about his date of birth. However, the information above does not present ‘glaring contradictions’ which make the witness’s statement unreliable or even provide an indication that the witness has provided these different birthdates purposefully, as suggested by the Defence. The Chamber notes that none of the parties contests the authenticity of the immunisation card or that this document refers to P-0307, nor are there any indications that this might be the case. The card states that the witness received one immunisation in 1989 and several immunisations during the course of the year 1990, which indicates that the witness could not have been born in 1990. Especially, the card states that the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis should be given at ‘birth’ and the date for that immunisation is marked as ‘ 1989’, one day after the indicated date of birth. Also, the Chamber notes that this document is the most contemporaneous one to the fact at issue (meaning P-0307’s birth).

text: Regarding the date indicated in the World Vision document, the Chamber notes that, were the information concerning P-0307’s date of birth true, he would have been born before 1989, which is not supported by any other piece of evidence. Further, there is no information how this document was filled out, the circumstances under which

text: 487 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 13. 488 UGA-OTP-0266-0446. 489 National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0266-0448. 490 P-0307: T-152, p. 71, lines 14-16. 491 UGA-OTP-0272-0951. 492 UGA-OTP-0170-0338, at 0338, 0341. 493 P-0307: T-153, p. 37, lines 7-21. 494 Defence Closing Brief, paras 521-22. 495 UGA-OTP-0266-0446.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 119/1077 4 February 2021 it was produced and how the person filling out obtained the information that P-0307 was 15 at the time, also considering, as observed above, that the witness himself accepted the possibility that, when filling out the form, he was uncertain of his date of birth (and, for this reason, deliberately left blank the corresponding field). Accordingly, the Chamber considers the World Vision form is of no probative value when it comes to the witness’s date of birth.

text: Regarding the birth certificate, which indicates 1990 as P-0307’s date of birth, the Chamber notes that it is from 2016. This is before the witness’s prior recorded statement in which he explained that he saw the immunisation card just the day before his interview for the first time. As he believed to be born on 1990 prior to receiving this information, this explains why he would have provided this date when requesting his birth certificate. Additionally, P-0307 stated that he did not provide any documentation when applying for the national ID card. Taken this into account, the Chamber finds that system of the issuance of national ID cards or other public documents does not constitute automatic proof of the truthfulness of the information contained therein. Since the card was issued on 2015, it is logical that the witness would indicate 1990 as his year of birth, which he thought to be true at that point in time.

text: Considering the above, the Chamber concludes that P-0307 was born on 1989. The Chamber also finds that the witness’s explanation regarding the different dates of birth does not undermine his general credibility, as suggested by the Defence. To the contrary, in his prior recorded statement, the witness readily admitted that he did know of the health immunisation card and always indicated 1990 as his year of birth, because he was given this information by his mother. But after he was in possession of the immunisation card, he readily accepted that he was born in 1989 and not 1990.

text: 496 UGA-OTP-0272-0951. 497 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 13. 498 P-0307: T-153, p. 36, line 23 – p. 37, line 2. 499 The date of issuance can be found in the second data column on the backside of the ID card (‘150524’) after his date of birth and the expiry-date. 500 See para. 335 above. 501 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 120/1077 4 February 2021

text: Regarding the dates of the time the witness spent in the bush, the Chamber believes that P-0307 escaped the LRA by 6 June 2004, as indicated in the World Vision document. This corresponds with the witness’s statement that he escaped around April 2004 and stayed roughly three months with World Vision. Whether he had been abducted in September 2002, as stated by the witness, or September 2003, as insinuated by the 505 506 Defence and indicated in the World Vision document is irrelevant, since in both scenarios P-0307 was under the age of 15 for his whole stay in the bush. The manner in which the witness testified as to what he has seen during his time with the LRA does not let the Chamber doubt that he has actually experienced the described events.

text: The Chamber further finds that this discussion of the witness’s date of birth does not affect the witness’s estimation of the age of other persons. As explained in the prior 507 508 recorded testimony and confirmed during his live testimony before this Chamber, the witness used his own age as a reference point.

text: xvi P-0309

text: P-0309 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0309, a former LRA fighter and one time escort of Dominic Ongwen, testified about his experiences in the LRA, his knowledge of the attacks on the Odek and Pajule IDP camp attacks and Dominic Ongwen’s role in those attacks.

text: P-0309 testified in a simple, honest and quiet manner. The witness was frank about his experience in the LRA and spoke about the events in a detailed and comprehensive manner that convinces the Chamber that he spoke about events he actually experienced. For example, the witness offered detailed information about the structure and composition of Dominic Ongwen’s household. The witness clearly distinguished between events he witnessed and matters he learned of from others.

text: 502 UGA-OTP-0170-0338, at 0338. 503 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 54. 504 P-0307: T-152, p. 73, lines 2-7. 505 P-0307: T-153, p. 6, lines 22-25. 506 UGA-OTP-0170-0338, at 0338. 507 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 69. 508 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 14; P-0307: T-152, p. 64, lines 23-25; T-153, p. 38, lines 3-7. 509 P-0309: T-60; T-61; T-62; T-63. 510 See P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 21, line 11 – p. 30, line 18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 121/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence suggests that P-0309 lied in his testimony, particularly in relation to the

text: Odek IDP camp attack. The Chamber saw nothing in the witness’s demeanour or answer pattern to suggest that the Defence’s assertion is true. Indeed, the witness asserted

text: his lack of knowledge about certain matters, including matters where Dominic Ongwen

text: would have been implicated, indicating to the Chamber that the witness was carefully

text: to testify within the parameters of his actual experiences and also that the witness was

text: not motivated to implicate Dominic Ongwen at all cost.

text: Lastly, the Chamber will discuss the question of P-0309’s age. It notes the Defence’s arguments regarding the witness’s credibility, stating that P-0309’s testimony is ‘full of

text: contradictions and inconsistencies especially regarding his true age’ and submits that he

text: should be considered as unreliable. The Defence further suggests ulterior motives ‘in misrepresenting his date of birth on various documents’ and that P-0309 admitted himself

text: that he did not know his real age and submits that the documents concerning the witness’s

text: age, as well as his estimates regarding the age of others should be disregarded.

text: The witness testified that his mother told him that his birthday is 1988,

text: which would make him 13 at the time of his abduction in September 2002. He also

text: testified that he told the LRA fighters that he was 14 when he was abducted. There are

text: further four documents concerning the age of the witness. His national identity card and his driver’s licence indicate 1988 as date of birth. An amnesty

text: 520 521 document states 1989 and, lastly, a voter registration card shows his date

text: of birth as 1987. When questioned in Court, the witness replied that, when

text: 511 Defence Closing Brief, para. 360, n. 598. The Defence states that it ‘implores the Trial Chamber to investigate the sheer number of times the witness could not remember something when asked by the Defence versus when asked by the Prosecution. The witness’s demeanour and answer patterns are indicative of someone lying’. 512 See for example P-0309: T-60, p. 71, lines 7-9, p. 73, lines 1-4 (when asked whether Dominic Ongwen had a role in distributing abducted civilians taken from Pajule IDP camp, the witness stated that he did not know). 513 Defence Closing Brief, para. 517. 514 Defence Closing Brief, para. 518. 515 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 12, lines 1-4. 516 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 12, lines 17-21. 517 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 15, lines 12-16. 518 UGA-OTP-0258-0837-R01. 519 UGA-OTP-0249-1045. 520 UGA-OTP-0248-0974. 521 UGA-OTP-0249-1047.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 122/1077 4 February 2021 providing the dates for the last two documents, he had not been told his exact date of birth by his mother yet.

text: Unlike what is suggested by the Defence, the Chamber does not find that the different dates of birth indicated make him generally not credible. Rather, the witness readily admitted that he initially did not know his date of birth. This is also the case when he told his age to the LRA fighters at the time of his abduction. It is also not incredible that P- 0309 did not know his exact date of birth, as he explained. Once he was told by his mother that it was 1988, he seems to have consistently indicated this date as his date of birth – as he did during his testimony. This explanation is also consistent with part of the documentary evidence. The two documents indicating divergent dates of birth were issued immediately or relatively shortly after the witness’s return from the bush. The documents indicating 1988 as his date of birth are more recent and were presumably issued after the witness had asked his mother and then put this date as his date of birth. Accordingly, the Chamber finds the explanation provided by the witness believable and does not consider that the different dates of birth, provided at different times by the witness, affect his credibility in general or specifically, when he testified that his date of birth is 1988.

text: xvii P-0314

text: P-0314 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0314, an LRA fighter and one time escort , testified about his experiences as an LRA escort, and his knowledge of the Odek IDP camp attack. P-0314 was a diligent and careful witness. He clarified the source of the knowledge of his information and was vigilant in delineating information he gained by his personal experiences from matters he heard of from others. The witness was forthright in explaining the limits of his knowledge, a factor which bolstered the Chamber’s view of his credibility. For example, the witness explained the limits of what an LRA fighter in his position would know about

text: 522 P-0309: T-61-CONF, p. 47, line 9 – p. 49, line 1, p. 66, line 8 – p. 68, line 13. 523 P-0309: T-60, p. 12, lines 1-4. 524 UGA-OTP-0248-0974 is from 2004 and UGA-OTP-0249-1047 is from 2006. 525 UGA-OTP-0249-1045 was issued in 2013 and UGA-OTP-0258-0837-R01 on 2015. See the numerical information on the image of the back side of the identity card. 526 P-0314: T-74; T-75; T-76; T-77.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 123/1077 4 February 2021 the movements of LRA commanders. The witness offered comprehensive testimony replete with the kind of details that indicate that he spoke from personal experience.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence submits that P-0314’s testimony regarding his age should be dismissed, since he did not know his exact age during the time of his abduction. However, the Chamber does not follow the Defence’s argumentation. Rather, it finds that the witness freely admitted that he was only told his precise age after his return from the bush by this mother a sign for the truthfulness for his testimony. Further, the Chamber considers the fact that P-0314 had to ask his mother for his exact date of birth not to be such an unusual fact as to make the witness’s explanation incredible. Accordingly, the Chamber relies on 11 July 1988 as P-0314’s date of birth, as indicated in the official documents and stated by the witness.

text: P-0330 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures and received Rule 74 assurances. P-0330, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, including his knowledge of the attack on Pajule, Odek and Abok IDP camps relevant to the charges. P-0330 gave detailed testimony, offering unrequested details that increased the credibility of his account. The witness also differentiated between his own personal experience and what he was told by others. Importantly, P-0330 did not attempt to incriminate Dominic Ongwen at all cost and was mindful to offer only details within his scope of knowledge. However, the Chamber is attentive to the witness’s difficulty in recalling certain events and information. When speaking in narrative form or when questioned in sequence, P- 0330 testified in great detail; however, when asked specific questions out of context, he frequently could not retrieve the information easily and either gave contradictory testimony or required refreshing of his memory. Additionally, when asked if he was already Dominic Ongwen’s escort at the time of the Opit attack, the witness could not

text: 527 P-0314: T-74, p. 26, lines 1-19. 528 See for example P-0314: T-74, p. 18, line 8 – p. 19, line 17 (describing the training of LRA ‘recruits’). 529 Defence Closing Brief, para. 523. 530 P-0314: T-75, p. 36, line 19 – p. 37, line 19. 531 P-0314: T-75, p. 36, lines 8-18, p. 37, lines 13-19. 532 P-0330: T-51; T-52; T-53; T-54; T-55; T-51-CONF, p. 41, line 15 – p. 42, line 1, p. 38, lines 18-21. 533 See P-0330: T-51, p. 74, lines 1-22; T-55, p. 18, lines 17 – p. 22, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 124/1077 4 February 2021 recall, nor could he recall the sequence of several attacks in which he allegedly

text: participated. Further, despite testifying to having prolonged close personal contact

text: with Dominic Ongwen, the witness could not name many of the specific individuals in

text: Dominic Ongwen’s close orbit, such as Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wives’, his other

text: 537 538 escorts or his signallers. Indeed, P-0330 testified that he was the only escort working

text: with Dominic Ongwen, a detail which contradicts other evidence heard in this trial. P-

text: 0330 also could not remember any of Dominic Ongwen’s call signs, despite stating that

text: he sat near Dominic Ongwen when Dominic Ongwen communicated on the radio. The

text: Chamber considers that a person serving as Dominic Ongwen’s close escort for several

text: years, as the witness alleges, should be able to at least recall some such information.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0314’s testimony bolsters P-0330’s contention that he served

text: as Dominic Ongwen’s escort and that he was in the LRA for several years. The

text: Chamber also notes that P-0379 testified that P-0330 was not in Dominic Ongwen’s

text: household while P-0379 was in the LRA but allows that P-0330 may have moved to

text: Dominic Ongwen’s household after P-0379 left the bush in 2003.

text: Upon being confronted by what appears to be incoherence as to certain dates related to

text: his abduction (whether he was abducted in 1998, 2002 or 2003, whether he was 9, 12 or

text: 14 at the time of abduction, whether he was in P1, P2 or P3, why he gave different

text: information at different stages and why his mother gave different information), the

text: witness was unable to explain clearly. However, he stated that he had no concept of

text: 534 P-0330: T-52, p. 57, lines 13-15. 535 P-0330: T-55, p. 34, lines 22-24. 536 See P-0330: T-55, p. 5, lines 4-5. 537 See P-0330: T-51, p. 70, lines 3-8; T-55, p. 45, lines 14-20. 538 See P-0330: T-55, p. 3, lines 9-17. See also P-0330: T-55, p. 12, lines 13-16. Here, the Chamber notes the Defence’s arguments that the witness’s inability to recall details about Dominic Ongwen’s household, escorts and close commanders means that his evidence cannot be relied upon. Defence Closing Brief, para. 511. 539 P-0330: T-51, p. 70, lines 3-8. See P-0330: T-55, p. 45, lines 14-20. 540 P-0330: T-55-CONF, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 24. 541 See P-0330: T-55, p. 77, line 25 – p. 78, line 7. 542

text: The Chamber notes that it finds P-0314 to be a credible witness whose testimony may be relied upon. 543 P-0379: T-58-CONF, p. 69, lines 1-11. 544 P-0330: T-54, p. 29, line 14 – p. 30, line 5, p. 34, lines 7-15, p. 35, line 9 – p. 37, line 4, p. 37, line 25 – p. 38, line 7, p. 58, lines 3-15; T-54-CONF, p. 5, line 15 – p. 6, line 1, p. 7, lines 7-19, p. 20, line 15 – p. 21, line 21, p. 23, line 16 – p. 24, line 22, p. 25, line 5 – p. 26, line 21. See also Application for participation as victim, UGA- D26-0012-0102; Rachele rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0124-0358, at 0359.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 125/1077 4 February 2021 years, an explanation which the Chamber deems to be a sincere and understandable response under the circumstances.

text: Noting P-0330’s testimony and also noting the incoherence in some of his testimony, the Chamber has some reservations about the reliability of his evidence about how long he was in the LRA and how long he spent in close proximity with Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber notes, however, that it is convinced that the witness did spend some time in proximity to Dominic Ongwen during the witness’s time in the LRA. In light of P-0314’s testimony as well as the fact that much of P-0330’s testimony is consistent with other evidence, as will be discussed further in the evidentiary analysis below, the Chamber is of the view that P-0330 was indeed a low level fighter in the Sinia brigade.

text: xix P-0340

text: P-0340 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0340, a former LRA abductee and fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA and the Odek and Abok IDP camp attacks. P-0340’s testimony was detailed and contextualised. The witness explained the source of his information and often offered nuanced explanations of his accounts. His testimony was frequently in a narrative format and P-0340 offered details of a nature that would be expected of a witness speaking from personal experience.

text: The Defence highlights an 8 February 2004 ISO logbook entry to indicate that Mukwaya, Abola, and Kidega, three LRA fighters mentioned by P-0340 as being his superiors in 549 550 Sinia’s Siba battalion, were in Gilva brigade, and not Sinia. The Defence contends that, in light of the logbook entry, if the Chamber is of the view that P-0340 participated in the Abok IDP camp attack, then the Chamber must accept that at least one battalion of Gilva brigade sent fighters to the Abok attack. The Chamber is satisfied that the

text: 545 P-0330: T-54, p. 51, lines 2-6. 546 The Chamber recalls its above discussion on the difficulties several witnesses face in keeping track of the time they spent in the bush. 547 P-0340: T-102; T-103. 548 See for example P-0340: T-102, p. 18, line 9 – p. 19, line 8. 549 P-0340: T-102, p. 16, lines 7-21; T-103, p. 19, lines 6-7. 550 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 454, 459, 460, citing ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0056 (the logbook entry notes the promotion of Ogwal Kidega, Okello Mukwaya, Abola from ‘Gilva Bde’, ‘Araka BN’). The Chamber notes that when questioning the witness, the Defence raised the possibility that the three men were intelligence officers in Terwanga battalion. See P-0340: T-103, p. 20, lines 11-24. 551 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 460.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 126/1077 4 February 2021 evidence shows that P-0340 was subordinate to Dominic Ongwen at the time of the attack on Abok IDP camp. The Chamber is of the view that the logbook mentioned by the Defence does not undermine this finding. The Chamber notes that P-0340 offered clear and detailed testimony in relation to the attacks on Odek and Abok IDP camp. His testimony in relation to these attacks is consistent with other evidence. The Chamber is convinced that P-0340 participated in the attacks on Odek and Abok IDP camps that are relevant to the charges. The Chamber is also convinced that the witness’s detailed and corroborated evidence about the attacks and Dominic Ongwen’s participation shows that the witness was subordinate to Dominic Ongwen at least by the time of the April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp. Further, absent other evidence, the Chamber is not convinced that the logbook disproves the witness’s testimony that he was abducted by a Sinia battalion in 2002 and participated in the Odek and Abok attack as a member of Sinia in 2004.

text: The witness testified that he was abducted in an area near Patongo by members of Siba battalion six days after a 1 July 2002 attack on Patongo by the LRA. He identified Mukwaya as one of the persons who abducted him and stated that he saw Dominic Ongwen after his abduction and was told that Dominic Ongwen was in charge of the larger Sinia group. The Chamber notes that evidence supports the witness’s testimony about a 1 July 2002 attack on Patongo and indicates that Dominic Ongwen participated in this attack. Dominic Ongwen and Sinia’s Oka battalion’s presence in the Patongo area around the time of P-0340’s abduction offers support for the witness’s testimony that he saw Dominic Ongwen after his abduction and that he was abducted by Sinia’s Siba battalion. However, contrary to the witness’s contention, the evidence also indicates that at the time of that attack, Dominic Ongwen was in charge of the Oka battalion and had not yet been appointed as commander of Sinia brigade. Notably, the witness did not mention Dominic Ongwen’s injury in late 2002 or the attack on Pajule IDP camp in 2003 relevant to the charges. Further, the Chamber is unconvinced by the witness’s testimony about Dominic Ongwen’s presence in Sudan throughout the duration of the witness’s time in Sudan. However, noting that the witness was a minor at the time of

text: 552 See P-0340: T-102, p. 11, line 23 – p. 12, line 22, p. 15, line 22 – p. 17, line 5, p. 58, lines 7-9. 553 P-0340: T-102, p. 16, line 2 – p. 17, line 17. 554 See para. 1159 below. 555 See paras 1013-1016 below. 556 See P-0340: T-103, p. 26, lines 13-21, p. 31, lines 3-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 127/1077 4 February 2021 his abduction and that he expressed some ambiguity about Dominic Ongwen’s position at the time, the Chamber is of the view that any confusion about hierarchy or unit names is understandable.

text: Noting that the witness had difficulty assessing time and ages, the Chamber does not rely on his testimony to assess the ages of other captives. The Chamber does not consider the fact that the witness is a politician to be significant or to have impaired his testimony in any way.

text: xx P-0372

text: P-0372 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0372, a former LRA fighter at times under Dominic Ongwen’s command, testified about his experiences in the LRA, his time in Sinia brigade and his knowledge of LRA rules and practices. P- 0372 was a coherent, clear and concise witness. The Chamber notes that the witness’s testimony was at times less specific and contextualised than other witnesses who often spoke in a narrative fashion and would provide additional information and context when answering the questioning party. However, the witness’s manner of speaking did not undermine the Chamber’s view that the witness testified truthfully. The Chamber notes that in relation to the attacks in which he participated, particularly the Odek IDP camp attack, the witness’s testimony was more detailed, specific and contextualised.

text: The Chamber notes that at one point in his testimony, the witness misidentified two of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’. The witness explained that he erroneously indicated that the two women were Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wives’ because of the proximity of the women to Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber is satisfied with the witness’s

text: 557 See P-0340: T-103, p. 26, lines 13-21. 558 See P-0340: T-103, p. 31, lines 13-19 (‘while in the bush you lose count of time and days. […] You, you just wait for days to end and you do not know what time it is’); T-102-CONF, p. 9, line 21 – p. 10, line 1; T-102, p. 24, lines 13-25, p. 64, line 4 – p. 65, line 23 (the witness testified that he assessed others age by comparing it to his own. However, the witness was not clear as to his own age). 559 See P-0340: T-102, p. 59, line 9 – p. 60, line 3. 560 P-0372: T-148; T-149. 561 See P-0372: T-148, p. 40, line 7 – p. 48, line 24. 562 See P-0372: T-148, p. 55, line 19 – p. 56, line 1 (the witness erroneously identified female fighters Alice and Aling as Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wives’). 563 P-0372: T-149, p. 34, line 14 – p. 37, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 128/1077 4 February 2021 explanation and also did not consider the discrepancy to have been significant. In view of the Chamber, this does not affect the witness’s credibility.

text: xxi P-0379

text: P-0379 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules. P-0379, a former LRA member and resident of Pajule IDP camp, testified about his life in the LRA after his abduction in August 2002, his time in Oka battalion, under Dominic Ongwen’s overall leadership, and the activities of the LRA during the period of August 2002 to May 2003. P-0379 provided detailed, contextualised and comprehensive evidence which the Chamber finds to be credible. The witness had a remarkable recollection, recalling particular details that illustrated his experiences in the LRA and bolstered the Chamber’s view of his credibility. The witness recalled names, locations, and events in great depth, despite being a teenager at the time of his abduction and being in captivity with the LRA for less than a year. P-0379 clearly distinguished between events he witnessed personally and information he was told by others. In questioning the witness, the Defence appeared to indicate that the witness’s testimony was affected by feelings of bitterness towards Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber saw no indication that the witness’s testimony was anything other than his truthful account of his experiences in the LRA. In this context, the Chamber notes that the witness’s testimony is consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: xxii P-0406

text: P-0406 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 74 assurances. P-0406, an LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA and about the attacks on Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps. His testimony was detailed, comprehensive and nuanced. The witness had a remarkable recollection, testifying

text: 564 P-0379: T-56; T-57; T-58; T-59. 565 See for example P-0379: T-56, p. 21, line 6 – p. 25, line 10 (describing how the LRA made newly abducted boys, including some as young as 10-12 years old, beat the dead body of a young boy who had tried to escape from the LRA and who the LRA fighters had killed by stabbing him with a bayonet. Around the same time, after being trained to dismantle a gun, LRA fighters made the newly abducted boys dance at Dominic Ongwen’s household. They were told that if they did not dance, they would be beaten. After dancing, the boys were given biscuits). 566 P-0379: T-56, p. 6, line 23 – p. 14, line 3; T-57-CONF, p. 15, line 16 – p. 18, line 22. See P-0379: T-56, p. 17, line 1 – p. 33, line 16; T-57, p. 35, line 8 – p. 50, line 9, p. 67, line 3 – p. 74, line 10. 567 P-0379: T-59, p. 9, lines 7-12. 568 P-0406: T-154; T-155; T-156.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 129/1077 4 February 2021 credibly as to the dates of events and the details of attacks. The witness was frank about his participation in attacks, thus demonstrating the credibility of his accounts. The witness did not attempt to incriminate Dominic Ongwen at all cost, strengthening the Chamber’s view that the witness was not biased against the accused. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness credibly testified regarding the LRA’s attacks on Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps.

text: The Defence challenges P-0406’s testimony, stating that his testimony is dubious and that it is doubtful P-0406 ever met Dominic Ongwen, let alone was a part of his group. In particular, the Defence alleges that the witness testified to being in Sudan and seeing Dominic Ongwen and Joseph Kony together, which the Defence contends is implausible and unsupported by credible evidence. The Chamber finds that the Defence’s argument is without merit, noting that P-0205 credibly testified to going with Dominic Ongwen to see Joseph Kony in 2004, several months after the attacks in Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps, consistent with P-0406’s account. In this context, the Chamber also notes that P-0406 testimony is generally consistent with the testimony of other credible witnesses. The difference between his testimony and others is reasonably explained by the nuances to be expected in the testimony of individuals relaying their personal experience. Further, some imprecision is to be expected when witnesses name locations or testify to events that took place in the bush, a place where the nearest landmark is used to reference the location.

text: P-0410 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0410, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA and about the attacks on Odek and Lukodi IDP camps. P-0410 was a candid and forthright witness. His narrative account of events was generally chronological and he noted the circumstances under

text: 569 See for example P-0406: T-154, p. 41, line 21 – p. 77, line 19 (testifying in relation to the Odek, Lukodi, Barlonyo and Abok attacks). 570 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 363, 408-09, 419, 452. 571 The Defence alleges that this is not possible because the witness was abducted on or around 3 September 2002 and returned from the bush in December 2004, that Dominic Ongwen did not travel to Sudan during that time period and that no credible witness places Dominic Ongwen in Sudan in that period. Defence Closing Brief, paras 363, 408. 572 See P-0205: T-48, p. 7, line 20 – p. 9, line 16. P-0406 testified that Dominic Ongwen and Joseph Kony were both in Sudan in November 2004, shortly before his escape. P-0406: T-154, p. 34, lines 16-20, p. 80, lines 14-17. 573 P-0410: T-151; T-152.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 130/1077 4 February 2021 which events took place. He was extremely detailed and comprehensive in his recounting of events, indicating to the Chamber that he personally experienced the events he described. For this reason, the Chamber does not accept the Defence argument, made in the context of the discussion of the attack on Odek IDP camp, that ‘P-0410 invented a story; he knew about plans, but he did not go to Odek or the RV’.

text: P-0410’s testimony was consistent with his two years’ experience in the LRA. When describing events, the witness recounted his thought process at the time, further indicating that he was speaking from personal experience. The witness differentiated between events he witnessed himself and what he heard of from others. The Chamber also considers it significant that the witness did not incriminate the accused at all cost, indicating a lack of bias and further enhancing the Chamber’s view of his credibility.

text: While the Chamber is of the view that the witness testified about his own personal experiences and, in particular, that he participated in the attack on the Odek and Lukodi IDP camps, there is an aspect of P-0410’s testimony which differs significantly from other reliable witnesses’ accounts of events. In particular, P-0410 testified that Buk Abudema and Vincent Otti participated in the planning and in the attacks on Odek and Lukodi IDP camps. As laid out in the respective sections of the Chamber’s evidentiary analysis, this account is not consistent with the testimony of other reliable witnesses. Noting also the Defence submissions, the Chamber has considered whether this discrepancy should have a general effect on the Chamber’s assessment of P-0410’s credibility.

text: 574 Defence Closing Brief, para. 379. The Chamber notes that ‘RV’ was an expression frequently used by witnesses to refer to gatherings of LRA groups. 575 See for example P-0410: T-152, p. 28, line 15 – p. 30, line 3. Although he testified that ‘Okwee’ (Okwer) was a commander in charge of a battalion of Sinia, when asked to describe Okwer’s tasks, the witness accurately described the role of an LRA intelligence officer. Okwer served as Sinia’s brigade intelligence officer. See P- 0205: T-47, p. 39, lines 5-10. 576 For example, while the witness assumed that Dominic Ongwen participated in the attack on Odek and Lukodi because in his view all the high ranking commanders would be there, he did not testify that he actually saw Dominic Ongwen there. P-0410: T-151, p. 41, lines 5-11, p. 42, lines 1-11, p. 42, lines 15-20; T-152, p. 37, line 14 – p. 38, line 3. 577 P-0410: T-151, p. 33, lines 14-19, p. 42, lines 15-20; T-152, p. 42, line 9 – p. 43, line 3. 578 See sections IV.C.7.iii, IV.C.8.ii below. 579 Defence Closing Brief, paras 379, 418.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 131/1077 4 February 2021

text: In relation to the attack on Odek IDP camp, P-0410, asked which commanders were giving instructions at the assembly, responded:

text: All the commanders, all the senior commanders in the bush were present. Otti Vincent was present. Buk was present. Dominic was also present. Okwee was present. Komakech was also present.

text: In addition, the witness spontaneously stated that he saw ‘Buk’ during the attack behind

text: him at the barracks, and insisted on this testimony even when confronted with his prior statement where he had said that he did not see ‘Buk’ during the attack.

text: A little later, asked who was the overall commander of his group when they attacked

text: Odek, P-0410 responded:

text: The commanders who were senior, who had authority then and who were fierce, included Buk, Otti and Dominic Ongwen. Those three people were feared by the junior soldiers and all of them were there. I believe that all of them were there because all the commanders went there.

text: In relation to Lukodi, P-0410 stated the following in relation to who was present at the pre-attack RV:

text: Most of the commanders who were in Odek were also present there. Those of Dominic were all there. There was Buk. There was Okwee also who was present. All the top commanders were there. Whenever there’s an RV announcing an attack, all the commanders would come together and they contribute their soldiers from their units, then the group that has been selected would go.

text: When asked by Defence counsel whether ‘Otti and Banya’ were also there, P-0410

text: reacted as follows:

text: They were there because all these commanders briefed us on the same issue. Just as we went to Odek, they repeated to us what people should and do in Lukodi.

text: When it was pointed out to P-0410 that in his prior statement he mentioned ‘Banya, Komakech, Okwee, Ongwen and Buk’, but not Vincent Otti, the witness stated:

text: 580 P-0410: T-151, p. 33, lines 14-19. The Chamber notes that the witness referred only to ‘Buk’, but that context establishes that this could reasonably only be a reference to Buk Abudema. 581 P-0410: T-151, p. 41, line 5 – p. 43, line 11. 582 P-0410: T-151, p. 42, lines 15-20. See also T-152, p. 37, line 14 – p. 38, line 3. 583 P-0410: T-151, p. 61, lines 8-15. 584 P-0410: T-152, p. 41, lines 10-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 132/1077 4 February 2021

text: I could have forgotten, but all these leaders were there. Because I was present in all the RVs that were called, because most times when my commander is going for an operation, I would go with him. And usually when there is an attack which is planned like that, all these other commanders, senior commanders would be there. So it could be an oversight I had forgotten, because sometimes you would forget some things. But that is what I know. On the face of this evidence, with the exception of the statement that he saw ‘Buk’ on the ground at Odek, which the Chamber finds dubious in light of the conflicting prior statement and in light of the following, it appears that the witness when discussing the presence of senior commanders, rather than recounting facts as observed, was stating what he deduced or believed to be the case. In addition to the witness himself saying as much in one instance, this is strongly indicating by the repeated reference to ‘all’ commanders, and to how an attack was usually conducted. Also, beyond mentioning Vincent Otti and Buk Abudema as just laid out, P-0410 did not attribute to them any specific actions during the preparation for the attacks on Odek and Lukodi, or during the attacks themselves. In light of this, and in light of the fact that there is no independent corroboration of Buk Abudema’s and Vincent Otti’s presence on the ground for the Odek or Lukodi attacks, the Chamber concludes that this part of P-0410’s evidence is not reliable.

text: In any case, P-0410’s placing of Buk Abudema and Vincent Otti at the planning locations of both Odek and Lukodi attacks is a transparent, easily detectable error that is separable from the rest of his testimony. For this reason, and noting that his testimony was generally consistent with that of other witnesses, while the Chamber does not rely on P-0410’s evidence to the extent that it implicates Vincent Otti and Buk Abudema in the attacks on Odek and Lukodi IDP camps, the Chamber finds that this issue has no bearing on P- 0410’s general credibility.

text: Finally, concerning P-0410’s date of birth, the witness testified that he was born on 587 588 1989, which is also indicated on its birth certificate. Regarding this re-issued birth certificate, P-0410 testified that his initial birth certificate was destroyed in the

text: 585 P-0410: T-152, p. 42, line 14 – p. 43, line 3. See also P-0410: T-152, p. 42, lines 9-13. 586 In fact, in relation to the attack on Odek IDP camp, P-0410 is indirectly contradicted by P-0264 and P-0309, who testified that Dominic Ongwen was the most senior person involved; P-0264: T-64, p. 39, lines 23-24; P- 0309: T-60, p. 74, lines 13-16. 587 P-0410: T-151-CONF, p. 5, lines 9-10. 588 Birth certificate, UGA-OTP-0272-0931.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 133/1077 4 February 2021 camps, his mother told him the date of his birth and he obtained a birth certificate with that date in August 2016. The Defence submits that ‘it takes strong exception to such evidence’ in order to proof the witness’s age since it was obtained ‘after the commencement of the case’. First, the Chamber does not find that the point in time when the document was requested (after the opening of the case) influences its probative value. Unlike suggested by the Defence, there is no indication that the witness requested the document with the intention to mislead the Chamber. Given the circumstances in which civilians abandoned their dwelling places and lived in camps that were burnt down in the conflict, it is reasonable that they received official government documents, such as birth certificates, that were issued recently and contain information the government obtained from the civilians’ themselves. Further, the Chamber considers the witness’s testimony in relation to his age credible and reliable. Absent other evidence undermining the reliability of the document, the Chamber does not make negative inferences as to the credibility of witnesses and their reliability of their information merely because governmental records such as birth certificates were recently issued.

text: xxiv John Robert Okodel (D-0020)

text: John Robert Okodel’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. John Robert Okodel, a former LRA member, provided testimony about joining the Uganda People’s Army and subsequently staying with the LRA from 1996 until his escape in 2000. The witness provided testimony that was detailed and contextualised. The Chamber does not doubt that the witness testified truthfully of his recollection of events and relationships.

text: xxv Francis Okot (D-0024)

text: Francis Okot, a former LRA fighter, testified live before the Chamber without protective measures. He testified about his abduction, which he stated took place when he was approximately 17 years old, and his experiences in the LRA, including his knowledge of Joseph Kony and Dominic Ongwen. The witness spent more than 15 years in the LRA

text: 589 P-0410: T-152, p. 5, line 22 – p. 7, line 6. 590 Defence Closing Brief, para. 519. 591 Defence Closing Brief, para. 519. 592 D-0020 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0382. See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 9- 10, p. 12. 593 D-0024: T-192.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 134/1077 4 February 2021 and eventually escaped in 2012. Francis Okot’s testimony was precise and clear and he provided information, detailed and contextualised in a manner that convinced the Chamber that he spoke of his personal experience. The witness also provided evidence of a nature that could be expected of a fighter who had spent considerable time in the LRA.

text: xxvi Sam Opio (D-0025)

text: Sam Opio testified live before the Chamber. Sam Opio, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen and the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: The Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that D-0025’s testimony regarding the Pajule attack cannot be relied upon. The Chamber is not convinced of the witness’s testimony that he did not participate in the attack on Pajule IDP camp relevant to the charges. The details that he provided were so specific that it seems unlikely that he was repeating information he had come to learn from others. Rather, the Chamber considers it probable that the witness was actually present in the attack. Additionally, the witness’s testimony in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s presence near Pajule is not credible. First, the Chamber notes that the evidence demonstrates that Dominic Ongwen was quite mobile at the time of the attack and was not infirm as the witness attests. Indeed a number of witnesses place Dominic Ongwen on the ground at the attack on Pajule IDP camp. The witness denied that the ‘DO’ he marked in a sketch refers to Dominic Ongwen as suggested in his statement and as would be presumable in light of his 600 601 testimony. His explanation for the deviation is unconvincing. The Chamber is of the view that the witness was motivated to minimise Dominic Ongwen’s involvement in the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp. Therefore, the Chamber cannot rely on his testimony in

text: 594 D-0025: T-226; T-227. 595 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 238. 596 D-0025: T-226, p. 63, lines 7-10, p. 64, lines 11-17. 597 See D-0025: T-227, p. 18, line 19 – p. 36, line 9. 598 See D-0025: T-226, p. 63, lines 10-16; T-227, p. 32, lines 2-6. 599 See paras 1264-1288, 1294-1296, 1330-1331, 1337 below. 600 D-0025: T-227, p. 29, line 2 – p. 36, line 9; D-0025 sketch of Pajule, UGA-D26-0010-0458. 601 D-0025: T-227, p. 29, line 2 – p. 36, line 9 (the witness was evasive about Dominic Ongwen’s location and stated that the ‘DO’ represents ‘the direction that the people who left came and re-joined us’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 135/1077 4 February 2021 relation to the Pajule IDP camp attack. In light of this, his whole evidence is brought in doubt to such an extent that the Chamber sets it aside completely.

text: xxvii Kenneth Oyet (D-0026)

text: Kenneth Oyet testified live before the Chamber. Kenneth Oyet, a former LRA fighter, offered testimony about his experiences as an LRA fighter from 1997 to 2007. The witness testimony was clear, internally consistent and detailed. He was forthright when he did not recall or was unclear about certain information. The witness’s testimony in relation to the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp was of limited relevance as the witness did not participate in the attack and only saw people coming back from Pajule. The Chamber notes that the witness was present for parts of the planning of the Pajule IDP camp attack.

text: xxviii Simon Tabo (D-0034)

text: Simon Tabo’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. He testified about his abduction, which he stated took place in 1998, when he was 11 years old, and his experiences in the LRA until his escape in 2014. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about his lived experience in the LRA.

text: xxix Daniel Opiyo (D-0056)

text: Daniel Opiyo testified live before the Chamber. Daniel Opiyo, a long term member of the LRA, testified about the LRA and about an attack on Pajule IDP camp and Dominic Ongwen’s role in the attack. The witness’s testimony was detailed, contextualised and the Chamber was satisfied that the witness was telling the truth as he knew it through the course of his testimony.

text: 602 D-0026: T-191. 603 See for example the witness’s testimony about the ranks of a certain officer. D-0026: T-191, p. 10, lines 14-17. 604 D-0026: T-191, p. 29, line 17 – p. 30, line 14. 605 D-0026: T-191, p. 25, line 25 – p. 27, line 11, p. 28, lines 16-25. 606 D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385. See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 11-13, p. 12. 607 D-0056: T-228; T-229. 608 The Chamber considers that the evidence indicates that this attack on Pajule IDP camp described by this witness is not the same attack at issue in these proceedings. See para. 1287 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 136/1077 4 February 2021 xxx Christopher Oloyo (D-0068)

text: Christopher Oloyo testified live before the Chamber. Christopher Oloyo, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experience in the LRA and about an attack on Pajule IDP camp. The witness’s testimony was clear. He differentiated between his personal experiences and what he heard from others. The witness provided details that convinced the Chamber that he spoke from personal experiences.

text: xxxi Michael Oryem (D-0075)

text: Michael Oryem, known in the LRA as ‘Abongomek’, testified live before the Chamber. Michael Oryem, an LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, including his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber considers Michael Oryem’s testimony at times evasive, particularly in relation to the attack on Odek IDP camp. When the witness was asked by the Defence how he heard of the Odek attack, he spoke for three minutes without answering the question. Such behaviour undermined the Chamber’s view of the witness’s credibility.

text: Aspects of his testimony are also unreliable. Significantly, Michael Oryem testified that he did not participate in the attack on Odek IDP camp, but rather was east of the Achwa River, in an area called Lapak, with Dominic Ongwen. However, multiple witnesses credibly testified that Michael Oryem not only participated in the Odek IDP camp attack, but also played a key role. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that Michael Oryem participated in the Odek IDP camp attack and his testimony in relation to both his and Dominic Ongwen’s whereabouts at the time of the Odek IDP camp attack cannot be relied upon. Additionally, the witness offered a confused and convoluted

text: 609 D-0068: T-222; T-223. 610 The Chamber considers that the evidence indicates that this attack on Pajule IDP camp described by this witness is not the same attack at issue in these proceedings. See para. 1287 below. 611 D-0075: T-224; T-225. 612 D-0075: T-224, p. 74, line 21 – p. 76, line 1. 613 D-0075: T-224, p. 76, lines 1-23. 614 See P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 1 (a ‘support weapon’ called a ‘12’ was used in the course of the Odek IDP camp attack, fired by a commander known as Abongomek); P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 15-21; T- 94, p. 22, lines 9-16 (an LRA fighter, Abongomek, fired an RPG and the shot landed on one of the huts in the barracks and burnt that hut during the Odek IDP camp attack); P-0314: T-75, p. 23, lines 13-19 (during the attack Abongomek fired some bullets, from the big gun with chains, however the gun failed later on). See also P-0264: T-64, p. 72, lines 15-20 (Abongomek participated in the Odek IDP camp attack); P-0330: T-52, p. 14, lines 19-22 (he went to Odek under the command of ‘Bomek’). The Chamber understands that ‘Bomek’ is an abbreviation of Abongomek. See D-0068: T-223, p. 7, lines 4-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 137/1077 4 February 2021 explanation of the inconsistencies between his previous statements to the Prosecution and his in-court testimony, indicating that there were multiple attacks in Odek IDP camp. The Chamber is unconvinced by his justification. It does not rely on the evidence D-0075 provided.

text: xxxii D-0079

text: D-0079 is an Acholi man born in 1986, who testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. The witness testified about his abduction, which he stated took place when he was approximately seven years old. Further, he provided an account of his experiences in the LRA and his knowledge of Joseph Kony and Dominic Ongwen. The witness spent more than 10 years in the LRA and eventually escaped in or around 2005. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about his personal experiences in the LRA.

text: xxxiii D-0085

text: D-0085 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. D-0085, a former LRA member, testified about her experiences in the LRA, including about the attack on Abok IDP camp attack relevant to the charges. The witness’s testimony was clear, consistent and she was forthright regardless of the identity of questioning party. She clearly distinguished between events that she personally witnessed as opposed to matters she was informed about. D-0085 provided narration rich in the type of details that showed that the witness spent years in the LRA and spoke from personal experience. When the witness spoke of her forced marriage, it was clear to the Chamber that she was speaking of a personal experience that was deeply affecting.

text: There are aspects of D-0085’s testimony of which the Chamber is not convinced. For example, D-0085 was the only witness to speak of two gatherings before the attack on Abok IDP camp. D-0085 also indicated that Trinkle brigade participated in the attack

text: 615 See D-0075: T-225, p. 53, line 4 – p. 62, line 1. The Chamber notes the Prosecution submissions as to the myriad inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony and his previous statements to the parties. See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 269-71. 616 D-0079: T-189. 617 D-0085: T-239. 618 See D-0085: T-239, p. 42, lines 20-23 (‘[m]y abduction has made my live very difficult. I’m not happy, I cannot be happy like people who were not abducted. I’m constantly sad.’). 619 See D-0085: T-239, p. 21, lines 19-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 138/1077 4 February 2021

text: 620 621 on Abok IDP camp. The only other witness to testify thusly was Kenneth Opiyo, a witness whom, as discussed further below, the Chamber finds not credible. The Chamber notes also that offered testimony which indicated that he knew D-0085 personally in 2017 and also spoke of her with . While the Chamber does not impugn D-0085’s testimony on this basis, it does have increased doubts about the veracity of some aspects of her testimony, such as regarding the participation of the Trinkle brigade in the attack on Abok IDP camp. Despite this, the Chamber notes that much of the evidence she offered was consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: xxxiv Francis Ocen (D-0100)

text: Francis Ocen is a former LRA fighter, who testified live before the Chamber. The witness testified about his work as an LRA signaller and his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen. Francis Ocen offered testimony that was generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: xxxvKenneth Opiyo (D-0105)

text: Kenneth Opiyo testified live before the Chamber without protective measures. Kenneth Opiyo, a former LRA fighter, testified about his experiences in the LRA, including his participation in the attack on Abok IDP camp relevant to the charges. The Chamber finds that this witness’s testimony may not be relied upon.

text: Kenneth Opiyo offered a detailed account of his experience in the LRA, describing his personal experiences in a chronological manner and noting the circumstances in which they took place. Further, the Chamber found Kenneth Opiyo to be forthcoming in answering questions from the parties, participants and Chamber. However, the Chamber is attentive to significant discrepancies between the witness’s accounts and the other evidence heard in the case in relation to the 8 June 2004 Abok

text: 620 See D-0085: T-239, p. 20, lines 7-9. 621 See D-0105: T-190, p. 8, lines 21-22, p. 15, lines 3-9, p. 26, lines 17-23. 622 See . 623 . 624 D-0100: T-234. 625 D-0105: T-190.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 139/1077 4 February 2021

text: IDP camp attack. For example, contrary to other evidence introduced in these proceedings, the witness testified that: (i) the Abok attack took place on 6 August 2004; (ii) members of the Convoy, under the command of Okot Odhiambo, participated in the Abok IDP camp attack along with the group commanded by Kalalang; (iii) Okot Odhiambo was the commander that selected persons to attack 629 630 Abok IDP camp; (iv) about 200 LRA fighters from his group were sent to Abok; (v) upon reaching Abok, the LRA entered without resistance, they proceeded to collect food in the camp for about an hour before Ugandan government soldiers arrived; (vi) civilians were asleep while the LRA was looting the camp and there was no fire in the camp until after the gunshots by the Ugandan government soldiers started well into the LRA’s time in the camp; and, more generally, (vii) only women 25 years old and above could be married in the LRA. This testimony is so at odds with the other evidence on these points as to cast grave doubts as to its accuracy.

text: The discrepancies are so substantial that the Chamber is unable to conclude that the attack the witness discussed is the one at issue in this proceeding. The Chamber notes that the witness was very young when he was abducted, approximately eight years old, and was approximately 11 years old when he allegedly took part in the Abok IDP camp attack. The witness’s young age as well as the time elapsed since the attack, and the inherent chaotic nature of the attack, may explain the inconsistencies and illogicality in his accounts. However, it is clear to the Chamber that the witness’s evidence cannot be relied upon in relation to the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack.

text: Lastly, the Chamber is of the view that Kenneth Opiyo and Sam Ojede met and discussed their accounts of the Abok attack prior to their testimony. Sam Ojede admitted that he and Kenneth Opiyo discussed details of the Abok attack. Kenneth Opiyo was not

text: 626 In many instances, the witness is the only witness in the proceedings to offer this account of events. 627 D-0105: T-190, p. 26, lines 6-7. 628 D-0105: T-190, p. 26, lines 13-19. 629 D-0105: T-190, p. 26, lines 17-23. 630 D-0105: T-190, p. 26, line 24 – p. 27, line 1. The Chamber notes that it is unclear from the testimony whether the witness means 200 fighters in total or 200 fighters from Odhiambo’s group. 631 D-0105: T-190, p. 31, line 7 – p. 33, line 1. 632 D-0105: T-190, p. 32, line 18 – p. 33, line 21. 633 D-0105: T-190, p. 38, lines 19-23. 634 D-0105: T-190-CONF, p. 4, lines 17-18; T-190, p. 5, lines 12-13, p. 49, lines 6-12, p. 50, lines 14-17. 635 See also section IV.B.2.v.b.iv, discussion of Sam Ojede’s testimony below. 636 D-0121: T-213-CONF, p. 49, line 16 – p. 51, line 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 140/1077 4 February 2021 questioned about his pre-testimony contact with Sam Ojede. The Chamber notes that Sam Ojede and Kenneth Opiyo, alone among the witnesses, testified that the attack on Abok IDP camp occurred on 6 August 2004. Given Sam Ojede’s admission that he and Kenneth Opiyo spoke about the attack, the Chamber is of the view that this misstatement of the date suggests that they coordinated their testimonies, at least to some degree. This further undermines the credibility and reliability of Kenneth Opiyo’s testimony. The Chamber does not rely on this witness’s testimony.

text: xxxvi D-0157

text: D-0157’s statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. D-0157’s evidence is a comprehensive and detailed narrative of his abduction, which he stated took place on , when he was 47 years old. He testified in particular about his escape after three days in the bush. The witness stated that

text: iii. Witnesses of sexual and gender based violence

text: a. Witnesses of sexual and gender based violence directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen (P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P- 0226, P-0227, P-0235, P-0236 and Florence Ayot (D-0013))

text: 639 640 641 642 The Chamber considers the accounts of P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226, P- 643 644 645 0227, P-0235 and P-0236 to be remarkable in their detail and consistency. All seven witnesses gave clear, nuanced and compelling accounts about their time with Dominic Ongwen in the LRA. They were generally forthcoming in their answers to both

text: 637 See D-0105: T-190, p. 26, lines 6-7; D-0121: T-213, p. 44, lines 14-18. 638 D-0157 Statement, UGA-D26-0026-0757-R01. See Decision on Defence Request to Add D-0157 to its List of Witnesses, 16 October 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1639, paras 12-15, p. 7. 639 P-0099: T-14. 640 P-0101: T-13; T-14. 641 P-0214: T-15. 642 P-0226: T-8; T-9. 643 P-0227: T-10; T-11. 644 P-0235: T-17. 645 P-0236: T-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 141/1077 4 February 2021 parties, even on sensitive topics. Their narratives were replete with complicating,

text: unnecessary details which are indicators that the testimony is of personal experiences.

text: The extent to which their accounts overlap is also particularly notable, both in respect of

text: 648 649 commonly witnessed events and the coercive environment they all lived in.

text: It is notable that the Defence identifies no discrete credibility issues concerning these

text: seven witnesses in its closing brief. The Defence only challenges the procedure by which

text: this evidence was received. This challenge is considered and rejected above. The

text: Chamber has no reservation to relying fully on the Article 56 testimonies of these seven

text: women, considering especially that: (i) the Chamber has watched all the recordings of

text: their video-link testimony before the Pre-Trial Chamber and (ii) the Defence had a full

text: opportunity to question these witnesses during the Article 56 proceedings.

text: The Chamber is mindful that much of the accounts of these women concern events which

text: occurred over a decade ago. Failing to remember matters like the precise dates of distant

text: events is understandable, particularly considering that life in the LRA was isolated from

text: the information available in broader society. Noting that these women are all victims

text: of prolonged enslavement, physical/sexual violence and other suffering, the Chamber has

text: also not placed much weight on failures to articulate difficult details of their life during

text: initial interviews with the Prosecution or organisations like GUSCO. Rather, the Chamber’s focus has been on what the witnesses testified to under oath in the courtroom,

text: and the mutual reinforcement which came from other witnesses giving similar testimony.

text: 646 For a rare exception of reticence to answer sensitive questions, see para. 2050 below. 647 To pick one example of many, in the context of P-0226’s first forcible sexual encounter with Dominic Ongwen she testifies to spilling a glass of water on his bed before trying to run away. See para. 2051 below. 648 E.g. para. 2038 below (death of Nyeko). 649 As an example, all women describe the moment they become so-called ‘wives’ in similar coercive terms. Para. 2035 below. 650 See section II.B above. 651 E.g. paras 2015, 2026 below. 652 As an example, the Chamber notes that the Defence confronted P-0226 with why she did not initially discuss her personal involvement in the incident described in para. 2084 below during her first interview with the Prosecution. P-0226 says she forgot to mention it. P-0226: T-9, p. 60, line 19 – p. 62, line 16, p. 73, line 10 – p. 74, line 8. The Chamber notes the evidence which indicates that in fact she did tell the Prosecution about her personal involvement in such an incident just as her first witness statement was being finalised. 4 June 2015 Investigation Note, UGA-OTP-0237-0230-R01; P-0226 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0583-R01, at paras 12, 23-24. Noting that P-0226 eventually did acknowledge her role and then gave a detailed, clear and fully credible account of the killing of the captured soldier while testifying, the Chamber considers P-0226’s initial failure to discuss with the Prosecution her personal involvement in this killing to be inconsequential.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 142/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber turns to the credibility of one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ called by the Defence – Florence Ayot. That she was also one of the women considered as Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ in the LRA is clear. The Chamber notes that Florence Ayot first spent time in the LRA as a so-called ‘wife’ of another LRA fighter who later died. Unlike her initial ‘distribution’ to this LRA fighter, Florence Ayot previously knew Dominic Ongwen before joining his household; he approached her asking her to go live with him and she agreed. She stated, ‘I was free. It was my own choice to go live with him’. Further, on multiple occasions in her testimony, Florence Ayot mentioned how difficult Dominic Ongwen’s incarceration has been on her family and how he should be allowed to come back to Uganda to take care of his kids. Noting the above context, the Chamber turns to the substance of Florence Ayot’s testimony.

text: Florence Ayot has as harrowing an LRA abduction story as the other seven women, and describes similar suffering in the LRA prior to joining the accused’s household. However, Florence Ayot’s account of her experiences and the experiences of other women in the LRA took on a markedly different tone once she began to describe events after she joined Dominic Ongwen’s household following the death of the man she was originally distributed to. Florence Ayot explained how happily those with Dominic Ongwen lived together and how there were never any beatings. She was not able to recall a single instance describing a negative aspect about her relationship with him. Florence Ayot discussed why she loved Dominic Ongwen and struggled with conceding any awareness of atrocities he committed in the bush. When confronted with her prior statements acknowledging that Dominic Ongwen committed ‘very serious and terrible’

text: 653 D-0013: T-244; T-245. 654 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 40, lines 1-11, p. 41, lines 1-12; P-0099: T-14-CONF, p. 36, line 20 – p. 37, line 7. 655 D-0013: T-244, p. 19, line 23 – p. 22, line 13, p. 35, lines 4-14. 656 D-0013: T-244, p. 36, lines 5-16. See also T-245, p. 4, lines 3-11. Her account of joining Dominic Ongwen’s household is different from the personal accounts of the other seven women, but is consistent with other credible and reliable evidence that widows had more agency regarding the next man they lived with. See para. 2228 below. 657 D-0013: T-244, p. 36, lines 24-25. 658 D-0013: T-245, p. 9, lines 11-12 (‘Let Ongwen come home and help raise his kids because we are fearful about how we are going to raise our kids’), p. 19, lines 5-10, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 4, p. 27, line 14 – p. 28, line 11. 659 D-0013: T-244, p. 12, line 11 – p. 14, line 17 (abduction and threats of being killed for not following instructions), p. 19, line 23 – p. 21, line 21 (sexual violence victim of an LRA commander named Kijura), p. 23, line 2 – p. 26, line 11 (punishment for trying to escape, including being beaten for attempting to escape herself), p. 34, lines 4-13 (gave birth to a boy fathered by Kijura), p. 37, lines 1-4 (women were not allowed to live alone in the LRA – they had to live with a man). 660 D-0013: T-244, p. 38, line 22 – p. 39, line 5, p. 41, line 13 – p. 42, line 24; T-245, p. 3, line 4 – p. 4, line 6, p. 6, lines 5-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 143/1077 4 February 2021 atrocities, Florence Ayot obfuscated and denied having mentioned Dominic Ongwen

text: specifically in referring to atrocities committed. She testified to being a leader in

text: arranging a meeting with other of the seven so-called ‘wives’, in consort with Dominic

text: Ongwen. Recordings of that meeting were played during Florence Ayot’s testimony

text: and she confirmed making statements that the Chamber understands as attempts to

text: influence the testimony of the other so-called ‘wives’ of Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber is utterly unpersuaded by the witness’s testimony that her statements were mere

text: attempts to ensure that the other women get along with one another or facilitate their children’s relationship with their paternal family. This meeting was instrumental to the

text: accused becoming subject to contact restrictions and the Pre-Trial Chamber receiving the

text: testimony of the other seven so-called ‘wives’ of Dominic Ongwen under Article 56 of

text: the Statute

text: Florence Ayot’s testimony as to the experiences of women in Dominic Ongwen’s

text: household and in the LRA is clearly disproved by the fully credible and reliable

text: testimonies of P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226, P-0227, P-0235 and P-0236, not to

text: mention the other LRA women and girls – including Florence Ayot prior to being

text: distributed to Dominic Ongwen – who testified to the same horrific environment the other

text: so-called ‘wives’ described. But the Chamber considers that Florence Ayot’s denial of

text: D-0013: T-245, p. 6, line 23 – p. 10, line 8, with reference to D-0013 Interview, UGA-OTP-0233-1427, at 1428. See also p. 29, lines 8-23 (in reference to an interaction with the ICC: ‘But there was a lady who was there who started accusing me, pointing fingers and saying “Don’t you know what Dominic did? You know what he did.” And they asked me to sign something and I told them no, why are you asking me to sign whatever it is that I’m supposed to sign? And they told me that we are people who have accused Dominic of crimes. And I told them, I said I cannot sign this because so many people went through these problems. I was abducted. Other people were abducted, so many people were abducted.’). D-0013: T-244, p. 62, line 19 – p. 64, line 15; T-245, p. 11, line 17 – p. 12, line 13, p. 15, lines 9-17, p. 17, line 17 – p. 19, line 10, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 4, p. 26, lines 13-21, p. 27, line 14 – p. 28, line 11, p. 29, line 3 – p. 31, line 22, p. 32, line 20 – p. 34, line 3. D-0013’s consortium with Dominic Ongwen is established by multiple recorded phone conversations between them which are discussed across the transcript excerpts. 2 June 2015 Phone Conversation, UGA-OTP-0286-2623; 2 June 2015 Phone Conversation, UGA-OTP-0286-2579; 2 June 2015 Phone Conversation, UGA-OTP-0286-2421; 3 June 2015 Phone Conversation, UGA-OTP-0286-2526. D-0013: T-245, p. 15, lines 9-17, p. 17, line 17 – p. 19, line 10, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 4, p. 26, lines 13-21, p. 27, line 14 – p. 28, line 11, p. 29, line 3 – p. 31, line 22, p. 32, line 20 – p. 34, line 3. D-0013: T-245, p. 19, line 6-10, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 4, p. 27, line 22 – p. 28, line 11, p. 33, line 3-23. See generally Decision concerning the restriction of communications of Dominic Ongwen, 3 August 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-283-Conf (reclassified 29 September 2015; prior procedural history cited therein); Decision on the “Second Prosecution application to the Pre-Trial Chamber to preserve evidence and take measures under

text: article 56

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ”, 12 October 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15-316-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-316-Red).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 144/1077 4 February 2021 what life with Dominic Ongwen was like is understandable given the complex personal and parental relationship which develops as a result of such crimes.

text: The closest evidence approximating Florence Ayot’s testimony is an isolated moment when P-0214, soon after testifying that Dominic Ongwen committed repeated sexual violence against her, says that ‘Ongwen was taking care of us properly. He used to treat us equally and he used to treat us well. We were very – he was very caring of us and we also cared a lot about him because he was taking care of us.’ In the totality of her evidence, P-0214 gives a more mixed, nuanced assessment than Florence Ayot, testifying credibly, with detail and context, about her time spent in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: The Chamber ultimately concludes that Florence Ayot’s testimony is of very limited use to establish the life of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ in the bush. Florence Ayot’s testimony is unreliable with regard to the accounts of the other so-called ‘wives’ about the sexual violence perpetrated against them by Dominic Ongwen. In light of all of the above considerations, the Chamber rejects those aspects of Florence Ayot’s evidence which are contradicted by the consistent accounts of Dominic Ongwen’s other so-called ‘wives’.

text: b. P-0351 P-0351 is an Acholi woman who testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. Her prior recorded testimony was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0351 testified about her abduction by LRA soldiers, which she stated took place in December 2002, when she was approximately 12 years old, and in particular

text: 666 P-0214: T-15, p. 41, lines 16-23. See similarly P-0233: T-112, p. 44, line 16 – p. 45, line 8 (former LRA fighter stating – without delving into any specificity – that Dominic Ongwen loved and cared for his ‘wives’); D-0056: T-228, p. 49, line 25 – p. 50, line 14 (former LRA member who observed that Dominic Ongwen lived very happily with his ‘wives’ and did not issue ‘very tough orders’ for them). It is further noted that P-0214 worked with D- 0013 to organise the meeting with the other ‘wives’ discussed in the previous paragraph. D-0013: T-244, p. 63, lines 3-6. 667 P-0351: T-129. 668 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 24, p. 19. See also P-0351: T-129, p. 6, line 1 – p. 7, line 9. 669 The Chamber notes that the witness statement indicates her age as ’24 yo’ at the time her statement was taken in April and May 2016 (see P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at 0002), whereas the witness also stated that she was 12 years old when she was abducted in December 2002 (see P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0263-0002-R01, at para. 12) and then during her questioning confirmed that she was born in 1989 (see P-0351: T-129-CONF, p. 15, lines 11-15. See also National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0266-0016 and Form, UGA-OTP-0233- 0159, at 0159). However, the Chamber also notes that the witness clearly stated that she did not recall her date of birth (P-0351: T-129, p. 4, lines 10-11, p. 14, lines 11-13) and only asked her brother for it for purposes of

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 145/1077 4 February 2021 about the time she spent in Dominic Ongwen’s group. P-0351 eventually escaped in 2006. She provided a detailed account of her own ‘distribution’ to an officer and her experience as his so-called ‘wife’. She gave detailed and relevant information about the life of abducted women and girls in the LRA. She provided a detailed account of her own personal experience which is directly relevant to the charges. In the assessment of the Chamber, P-0351’s testimony is fully credible and reliable.

text: c. P-0352 P-0352 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. She provided a statement to the Prosecution, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P- 0352, a former LRA member and member of Dominic Ongwen’s household, testified about her experiences in the LRA as well as about the rules concerning the ‘distribution’ of women, boys and girls. P-0352 was a confident, bold and candid witness. She was forthcoming, knowledgeable and detailed in her recounting of events. The witness’s testimony was replete with the kind of details which convinced the Chamber that she testified of events she personally experienced. She was clear in distinguishing between events she witnessed herself and those she learned of through other means. Further, her testimony was consistent with other reliable evidence. The Chamber notes the Defence’s questioning as to alleged inconsistencies between her amnesty application form and her testimony before the Chamber, suggesting that she was never married in the bush. The Chamber considers reasonable the witness’s

text: obtaining her ID (P-0351: T-129, p. 14, lines 17-22). Overall, the Chamber considers more reliable the witness’s account of having been abducted at the age of approximately 12, corresponding to a date of birth in around 1989. The Chamber does not consider this smaller discrepancy to affect the witness’s general credibility. The Chamber also notes that the date of abduction given by the witness is not compatible with her testimony that Dominic Ongwen was injured about eight months after her abduction (P-0351: T-129, p. 41, lines 6-13), given that Dominic Ongwen was injured in October or November 2002. See section IV.C.3 below. Even though P-0351 gave a specific date for her abduction (12 December 2002), stating that she knew ‘because [she] was still going to school and [she] knew dates very well then’ and that she was in P5 at the time (P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002- R01, at para. 12), the Chamber considers that her evidence on both the date of abduction and the duration of time between the abduction and Dominic Ongwen’s injury may very understandably have been affected by the witness’s young age, the passage of time and the general difficulty in relation to estimating the duration of time in the bush. Accordingly, the issue does not affect the general reliability of the testimony of P-0351. 670 P-0352: T-67; T-68. 671 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 25, p. 19. See also P-0352: T-67, p. 11, line 7 – p. 14, line 21. 672 P-0352: T-68, p. 22, line 24 – p. 25, line 20; Amnesty Commission application, UGA-OTP-0270-0166, at 0169 (the Amnesty application checked ‘never had sex’ which suggested, according to the Defence, that the witness was a ‘ting ting’ throughout her time in the bush).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 146/1077 4 February 2021 explanation that the persons filling out the amnesty form on her behalf must have looked at her age and size at the time and chosen an (incorrect) answer. Also, the Chamber is of the view that the discrepancy raised by the Defence is of limited importance. The witness provided compelling and believable testimony as to her experience in the bush and the Chamber places limited value on the information provided in the amnesty application form, which the witness did not fill in herself and in a process about which the Chamber has little to no information. The Chamber’s view of P-0352’s credibility is not undermined because of this discrepancy.

text: d. P-0366 P-0366 is an Acholi woman born in 1992, who testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. Her prior recorded testimony was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0366 presented a detailed account of her experience as an LRA abductee at a young age, her time in Dominic Ongwen’s household as a ting ting, and her time as so-called ‘wife’ of an LRA soldier.

text: Her evidence as to what she observed or otherwise got to know while in the LRA is detailed, specific and individual. The witness understandably was not always able to state the dates of various events, or estimate durations, and, again understandably based on her age and position as a ting ting, not able to describe accurately the organisational features of the LRA. Yet, the Chamber notes that P-0366 was able to place in context and discuss in detail when asked those facts and events which she testified about with confidence. The Chamber therefore accepts that the testimony of P-0366 is truthful, and based on P- 0366’s personal observation and experience.

text: At the same time, there are several aspects of P-0366’s testimony which merit being addressed. First, in relation to when the witness was abducted by the LRA, the prior recorded testimony of P-0366 contains a contradiction: P-0366 stated that she was born

text: 673 P-0352: T-68, p. 25, lines 9-16. 674 P-0366: T-147. 675 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 26, p. 19. See also P-0366: T-147, p. 9, line 20 – p. 11, line 3. 676 See para. 2107 below. Ting tings were young girls used as baby sitters and domestic servants by the LRA. 677 In the courtroom, P-0366 was asked to expand on information contained in the prior statement about a girl who was beaten because she attempted to refuse becoming a so-called ‘wife’ of an LRA soldier, see P-0366: T-147, p. 12, line 15 – p. 15, line 19. The witness responded naturally and provided further detail, indicating also when she did not know what she was being asked about.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 147/1077 4 February 2021 on 1992, but also that she was abducted in December 2000 at the age of 11.

text: The statement of P-0366 to the effect that she was abducted in December 2000 also presents difficulties when attempting to reconcile it with other evidence. P-0366 states that when she joined Dominic Ongwen’s household shortly after her abduction, and were there. Yet, there is compelling evidence, . The Chamber also has before it P-0366’s declaration under the Ugandan Amnesty Act, dated 2003, wherein it is stated that P-0366 ‘join[ed] rebel activity’, i.e. was abducted, on 5 November 2002. Moreover, P-0366’s sponsorship programme application states that she was abducted in October 2002.

text: These discrepancies were put to P-0366 in court, but the witness maintained her testimony as recorded in her written statement. Moreover, the witness estimated the duration of her stay in the LRA at ‘about two years and a half, coming to three’. Noting that the witness escaped from the LRA around mid-February 2003, this would be compatible with abduction in December 2000 but not with abduction in 2002.

text: In light of these discrepancies, the Chamber cannot positively determine at which time P-0366 was abducted. The issue is of particular significance because it is as a consequence not possible to determine to what extent the facts described by P-0366 took place during the period of the charges. To account for this, the Chamber relies on the testimony of P-0366 for those facts where it can conclusively be established that they occurred within the period relevant to the charges. In particular, the Chamber notes that

text: 678 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at 0289; P-0366: T-147-CONF, p. 8, lines 6-7. 679 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 13. This relates to the witness’s second abduction by the LRA, which is relevant under the charges. See for the first abduction P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260- 0289-R01, at para. 11. 680 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 33; . 681 . 682 Declaration, UGA-OTP-0267-0293, at 0293, 0297. 683 Application, UGA-OTP-0244-1958, at 1958. 684 P-0366: T-147, p. 54, line 22 – p. 56, line 7. See also P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 130-31. 685 P-0366: T-147, p. 56, lines 13-21. 686 This is conclusively demonstrated by the documents produced shortly after P-0366’s return from the LRA: UGA-OTP-0267-0293 (declaration dated 2003); UGA-OTP-0265-0077 (certificate of amnesty dated 2003).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 148/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0366 stated that after being made the so-called ‘wife’ of , she spent two months at the same sickbay where Dominic Ongwen was at the time. She provides a number of details which are externally corroborated, such as the fact that Dominic Ongwen was 688 689 injured in one of his thighs, that Odong Cow was in the sickbay for security, and that Dominic Ongwen’s escort Korea was also present. P-0366 also stated that she remained ’s so-called ‘wife’ until her escape in early 2003.

text: This leaves no doubt that P-0366 was a so-called ‘wife’ in Sinia during the period relevant for the charges, and the Chamber relies on her evidence for this purpose.

text: The Chamber also notes that certain statements by P-0366 are demonstrated to be inaccurate by other evidence. P-0366 testified that Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ was pregnant and gave birth during P-0366’s stay in the bush, although she could not recall the sex of the child. However, . On this point, the Chamber does not accept the testimony of P-0366. However, considering that the events took place a long time ago, when P-0366 was a child, and considering that this is the kind of fact that may easily be susceptible to shortcomings of memory over time, the Chamber does not consider the issue to have an impact on P-0366’s general credibility.

text: Finally, P-0366 testified that during her time with the LRA, Dominic Ongwen had a socalled ‘wife’ by the name of Acen, whose child P-0366 took care of. There is no other evidence of this woman, whereas a number of witnesses have testified about the composition of Dominic Ongwen’s household. The issue was put to P-0366 in court, to which P-0366 reacted as follows: ‘Acen is currently back at home. She also says herself that she was Odomi’s wife. But anyway, in the bush people would know she’s actually back home, and we are close.’ The witness also stated: ‘Acen is close to me. We stay together with her. Sometimes we would discuss what happened to us while we were in

text: 687 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 98-99. 688 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 99. See section IV.C.3 below. 689 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 101. See section IV.C.3 below. 690 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 101. This is corroborated by P-0231, see P-0231: T- 122, p. 56, lines 9-14. 691 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 121-28. 692 . 693 . 694 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 38-41; P-0366: T-147, p. 59, lines 2-8. 695 P-0366: T-147, p. 59, lines 9-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 149/1077 4 February 2021 the bush, just the two of us, not with other people.’ In general terms, the Chamber understands that there may be circumstances in which contacts with a person with a similar personal experience may have an effect on a witness’s recollection of past events; this dynamic, however, seems unlikely in this particular case, given that P-0366 not only stated that Acen was a so-called ‘wife’ of Dominic Ongwen but specifically indicated that the witness herself took care of Acen’s child while in the LRA. The Chamber considers it unnecessary to speculate about possible reasons which may explain P-0366’s mentioning of Acen as Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’, nor is it able, in the absence of further details, to determine to what extent the witness is mistaken in this regard. In any case, the Chamber is of the view that this discrete issue does not have a bearing on P-0366’s credibility generally and on the reliability of her statement as concerns her own personal experience while in the LRA.

text: The Chamber also notes that P-0366’s application for participation in the present proceedings states that P-0366 participated in the attack on Pajule in October 2003, a date incompatible with the date of P-0366’s escape as otherwise transpiring from the evidence. The Defence put the issue to P-0366, who responded that she was unable to confirm the date. The statement of the witness refers to an attack on Pajule, but without specifying the date on which the attack took place. Noting that there is evidence of several attacks on Pajule IDP camp in 2002-2003, and noting that applications for participation in the proceedings as victims were not always compiled in ways which guarantee their accuracy, the Chamber attaches no consequence to this discrepancy. Neither does the Chamber attach any significance for the present purposes to the fact that some details which appear in P-0366’s testimony are not reflected in P-0366’s application for a sponsorship programme.

text: Overall, on the basis of the above, the Chamber is of the view that it is not possible to conclusively determine when P-0366 was abducted and how much of her account can be said to have taken place in the period of the charges. However, the Chamber also

text: 696 P-0366: T-147, p. 59, lines 20-25. See also P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 40. 697 UGA-OTP-0267-0293 (declaration dated 2003); UGA-OTP-0265-0077 (certificate of amnesty dated 2003); Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0359, at 0361. The Chamber further notes that the document also states that P-0366 escaped in December 2003. 698 P-0366: T-147, p. 89, line 10 – p. 91, line 13. 699 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 109. 700 See para. 1173, n. 2394 below. 701 Application, UGA-OTP-0244-1958, at 1961; P-0366: T-147, p. 79, line 7 – p. 80, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 150/1077 4 February 2021 considers, bearing in mind the above, that it can generally rely on P-0366’s evidence to the extent it is possible to otherwise connect it with the period of relevance to the charges in the present case.

text: e. P-0374 P-0374 is a Lango woman born in 1993, who testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. The prior recorded testimony of P-0374 was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0374’s evidence is a detailed and comprehensive narrative of her abduction in September 2003 and subsequent experience as a female abductee in Sinia, including as so-called ‘wife’, until her release around Easter 2005. The Chamber deems her evidence to be entirely credible and reliable.

text: f. P-0396 P-0396 is a Lango woman born in 1991, who testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. Her prior recorded testimony was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0396 provided a coherent and detailed account of her abduction in December 2004, ‘distribution’ by Dominic Ongwen as a so-called ‘wife’ to , the rapes by and other personal experiences in the LRA until her escape in April or May 2005.

text: During examination by the Defence, P-0396 was shown a picture in which another witness, P-0189, had identified , but testified that she did not recognise the person in the photo. The Prosecution submits in this regard that it is not established that the person in the photo was indeed P-0396’s so-called ‘husband’, and that there were

text: 702 P-0374: T-150. 703 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 27, p. 19. See also P-0374: T-150, p. 5, line 3 – p. 7, line 11. 704 It is noted that P-0374 only referred to Dominic Ongwen as Sinia commander, and did not mention Buk Abudema who was Sinia commander at the time P-0374 was abducted, and that the issue was raised with P-0374 by the Defence; see P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 46; P-0374: T-150, p. 40, line 6 – p. 41, line 3. However, the Chamber deems the matter to be of no consequence, as the witness was not in the position to necessarily correctly observe the specific hierarchical structure within the brigade, during her stay in Sinia as a civilian abductee. She was better placed to observe the organisation of her immediate surroundings. 705 P-0396: T-126; T-127. 706 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 28, p. 19. See also P-0396: T-126, p. 61, line 13 – p. 63, line 4. 707 Photograph, UGA-OTP-0260-0212. See for the identification Annotated Photograph, UGA-OTP-0260-0146. The only record of the identification is P-0189’s annotation on the photograph; the issue was not discussed with P-0189 in court. 708 P-0396: T-127, p. 4, lines 17-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 151/1077 4 February 2021 multiple persons called in Sinia brigade. Indeed, as pointed out by the Prosecutor, there is evidence of several persons called in Sinia. testified about a certain . stated that there was an escort by the name of . stated that . Records of an intercepted communication report a message to the effect that one was promoted. There is no link in the evidence demonstrating that P-0396 was ‘distributed’ as a so-called ‘wife’ to one of these men. But the cited evidence leads the Chamber to not attributing any significance to P-0396 not recognising a man identified by someone else as as her ‘husband’.

text: Instead, the Chamber notes that P-0396 provided a detailed description of the man to whom she was assigned as so-called ‘wife’. P-0396 described as tall and lightskinned, with long hair, and said, notably, that he could not straighten his arms ‘because 714 715 they were a bit bent’. P-0396 estimated to be about 30 years old. P-0396 stated that she did not know ’s rank, and said that he had told her that he ‘was the leader of the young soldiers’. She stated that was with in the same ‘group’, of which Dominic Ongwen was the leader. In light of the fact that P-0396 provided detailed evidence about , and more broadly also about her experience as his so-called ‘wife’, the Chamber deems her evidence reliable.

text: 709 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 153. 710 711 712 713

text: 714 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 48; P-0396: T-127, p. 24, line 11 – p. 25, line 4. 715 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 48. 716 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 49; P-0396: T-126, p. 63, lines 16-17. 717 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 54. It is noted that P-0396 stated that she had been told that the name of the group was ‘Pirminia’, an error with no significance. P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0246-R01, at para. 54.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 152/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that P-0396 also did not recognise the photograph of a man identified by and as . Considering that the witness had less contact with this person, the Chamber does not attribute any consequence to the witness’s failure to recognise him on a photograph.

text: The Defence also questioned P-0396 about certain statements which appear in P-0396’s application for participation in the proceedings as a victim, but are not included in the statement given to the Prosecution introduced as evidence in the trial.

text: In particular, P-0396’s application for participation as victim contains a detailed claim to the effect that immediately after she was ‘given’ to the latter overpowered her and ‘spent the whole afternoon having sexual intercourse with [her] under a tree as other body guards were watching over and again at night he continued until morning’. In court, questioned about the incident, P-0396 stated that ‘[t]hat encounter was not during the day. It was only during the night’, and specifically that it was not true that had sexual intercourse with her under a tree while everyone was watching. Asked whether she remembered saying this to the people who prepared the document, P-0396 stated that she did not recall what she had said. P-0396’s victim application also contains a claim that after military training, the abductees were each ‘given a human being to remove the liver, heart and swallow it in order to become strong’, that she was given an abducted girl and that in the end she was forced by to cut her open and eat her heart and 723 724 liver. In court, P-0396 confirmed the story.

text: The Chamber emphasises that applications for participation as victim in proceedings before the Court are not witness statements. They are taken in circumstances where it is not established that the facts narrated by the applicants are accurately recorded, including interpretation and reading back to the applicant before signature. Moreover, the formality and solemnity of the occasion are less pronounced or possibly not present at all, which may have an effect on the way applicants present their story. For this reason, and in light

text: 718 P-0396: T-127, p. 4, lines 23-25. See also Photograph, UGA-OTP-0260-0214;

text: 719 Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0271, at 0274. 720 P-0396: T-127, p. 47, line 23 – p. 48, line 18. 721 P-0396: T-127, p. 48, lines 19-21. 722 Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0271, at 0274. 723 Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0271, at 0275. 724 P-0396: T-127, p. 42, line 4 – p. 44, line 14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 153/1077 4 February 2021 of her persuasive testimony at trial, the Chamber will not draw any conclusions on the basis of discrepancies between P-0396’s victim application and P-0396’s evidence to the Chamber.

text: For the same reasons, the Chamber also attributes no consequence to any discrepancies between P-0396’s evidence to the Chamber and an application for a sponsorship programme that she previously made.

text: It is also noted that while there exists significant overlap, there are also notable discrepancies between P-0396’s evidence on the women who were in Dominic Ongwen’s household, and other evidence on this issue. P-0396 stated that there was a ‘wife’ called Sarah, and another ‘wife’ called Ageno, with a child called Aciro. She also stated that 727 728 was there, with two children. P-0396 also mentioned and , and stated that there was another ‘wife’, ‘in charge of women and girls at Dominic Ongwen’s home’, and that she was told that that woman had given birth and that her child had been released.

text: On the one hand, the Chamber notes that P-0396 accurately gave details which are not widely known, i.e. that Dominic Ongwen had a so-called ‘wife’ by the name of , and that two girls called and were present in his household. This is a strong factor of external corroboration. On the other hand, however, the Chamber has received evidence from several witnesses who spent long periods of time with Dominic Ongwen in his household, and they do not refer to any of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ by the names of Sarah or Ageno. Moreover, . These inconsistencies were discussed with P-0396 in court, and she maintained her prior testimony. In this regard, the Chamber notes that Dominic Ongwen, as found above, had a number of so-called ‘wives’ in the LRA and that no witness was able to name all of them present during a certain period, and also that the witness’s memory may reasonably be affected by the passage of time. Accordingly, while this does not affect the general reliability of the

text: 725 See Application, UGA-OTP-0244-2280; P-0396: T-127-CONF, p. 30, line 25 – p. 32, line 18. 726 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at paras 54, 73. 727 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 74. 728 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at paras 75-76. 729 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 77. 730 731 P-0396: T-127, p. 65, line 24 – p. 68, line 20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 154/1077 4 February 2021 witness, the Chamber does not rely on that information in the evidence of P-0396 which is demonstrated inaccurate by evidence which is more reliable on the specific issue. In light of the above, the Chamber considers the evidence of P-0396 to be generally reliable and credible, with exception of the specific aspect discussed in detail above.

text: g. P-0448 P-0448 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. She had also provided a statement to the Prosecution, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0448, a former LRA abductee, testified about her experiences in the LRA, including working as a ting-ting in Dominic Ongwen’s household. P-0448 testified in a manner which made it clear that she was speaking from personal experience. She provided information of certain events in detail, and was able to compellingly express the effect her experience had on her. However, her testimony also demonstrated a number of unresolvable inconsistencies and a lack of clarity going beyond what could be expected from a witness in P-0448’s situation. Of greatest significance is P-0448’s identification of Dominic Ongwen as the commander in whose household she spent some of her time in the LRA as a ting ting.

text: P-0448 asserted that Dominic Ongwen had a so-called ‘wife’ by the name of Betty or Christine Adong. In her written statement, P-0448 testified that . P-0448 testified that this person participated with a small firearm in an attack on Pajule in 2003. Whereas in her written statement P-0448 spoke simply of a woman named Adongo, in court she explicitly confirmed that the female soldier was Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ Adong, of whose other name P-0448 was not sure. While many witnesses testified about the composition of Dominic Ongwen’s household at the relevant time, no evidence was elicited which would provide corroboration for P-0448’s account of Betty or Christine Adong being among Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’.

text: 732 P-0448: T-156; T-157. 733 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01. See also P-0448: T-156, p. 32, line 4 – p. 33, line 16. 734 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01, para. 85; T-156-CONF, p. 37, line 24 – p. 38, line 16. 735 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01, para. 85. 736 P-0448: T-157, p. 15, line 22 – p. 16, line 23. 737 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01, para. 35. 738 P-0448: T-157, p. 16, lines 17-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 155/1077 4 February 2021

text: Additionally, P-0448’s application to participate as a victim in the present proceedings, dated 6 September 2016, states that P-0448 was ‘taken to where Kony stayed to help his very many “wives” with housework’, and that ‘Kony would occasionally meet with Dominic Ongwen’. The application does not contain the assertion that P-0448 stayed in Dominic Ongwen’s household as a ting ting. While the Chamber, in light of the limited value of such applications, does not find the discrepancy in itself dispositive, P-0448 failed in court to confirm one or the other version, or even to explain how they could both be correct, perhaps at different times. As a result, her evidence on this point is confused and inconclusive. Thus, while the Chamber accepts that P-0448’s is based on her experience as a female abductee in the LRA, the Chamber also considers that significant doubts exist as to whether . For this reason, the Chamber relies on the testimony of P-0448 only in those aspects which are not affected by this matter.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber notes that the Prosecution stated during the examination of P- 0448 that it was ‘not actually relying on this witness with regard to the charged Pajule attack’. Indeed, the Prosecution’s closing submissions only fleetingly refer to the evidence of P-0448, and in particular do not rely on her within the context of the attack on Pajule IDP camp of 10 October 2003. However, in light of the fact that P-0448 confirmed with reasonable confidence that the attack took place in 2003 after her abduction, and in light of the fact that she named Vincent Otti as the ‘overall leader of the group’, the Chamber is at a loss as to why P-0448’s evidence with respect to the attack on Pajule IDP camp would have to be discarded entirely. The very limited reliance on P-0448 by the Prosecution and this unexplained refusal of her evidence with respect to the attack on Pajule IDP camp implies that the Prosecution itself has reservations as to P-0448’s reliability. The Chamber also does not rely on P-0448 for its findings in relation to the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: 739 Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0302, at 0303. 740 See para. 424 above. 741 P-0448: T-157-CONF, p. 39, line 21 – p. 40, line 13. 742 P-0448: T-157, p. 15, lines 14-16. 743 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01, para. 31; P-0448: T-157, p. 16, lines 1-8. 744 P-0448 Statement, UGA-OTP-0236-0557-R01, para. 33.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 156/1077 4 February 2021 h. D-0006

text: D-0006, a woman born in , testified live before the Chamber with protective

text: measures. She testified about her abduction in 1991 and subsequent stay in the LRA,

text: . In addition,

text: considering that D-0006 spent a long period in proximity of Joseph Kony, her testimony

text: is also relevant for certain disputed facts in the context of duress as an alleged ground

text: excluding criminal responsibility. D-0006’s testimony was detailed and credible.

text: i. Evelyn Amony (D-0049)

text: Evelyn Amony testified live before the Chamber. She testified about her abduction in

text: 1994 and subsequent experience as one of the so-called ‘wives’ of Joseph Kony. She

text: offered a detailed account of Joseph Kony, her interactions with Dominic Ongwen, and

text: her escape in 2004 and subsequent participation in the peace talks in 2006-2008. Evelyn Amony’s testimony was credible and reliable.

text: j. D-0050

text: D-0050’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules. D-0050 is a Lango woman born in , who testified about her abduction

text: and her experience as a so-called ‘wife’ of Joseph

text: Kony. She eventually escaped in 2004. The Chamber did not identify any issues with D-

text: D-0006: T-194; T-195. D-0049: T-243. D-0050 Statement, UGA-D26-0025-0097 (public redacted version available: UGA-D26-0025-0097-R01); D- 0050 Statement, UGA-OTP-0131-0002-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0131-0002-R02); D- 0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1469-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228- 1469-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1506-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA- OTP-0228-1506-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1528-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-1528-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2452-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2452-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2509- R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2509-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0228-2545-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2545-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2585-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2585-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2623-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2623-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2660-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2660- R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2720-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0228-2720-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-2783-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0228-2783-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0229-0230-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0229-0230-R02); D-0050 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0229-0263-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0229-0263-R02). See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 21-25, p. 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 157/1077 4 February 2021

text: 0050’s credibility, but it is noted that she did not spend time in Sinia during her time in the LRA.

text: k. D-0117 D-0117 testified live before the Chamber. She testified about her abduction in 1996 and subsequent experience in the LRA, including as a so-called ‘wife’, until her escape in 2014. Considering that D-0117 was not held captive in Sinia, her personal experience does not directly fall within the charges. This does not exclude, however, that her testimony – which is often detailed and differentiated – may be corroborative of other evidence with more direct relevance to the charges.

text: l. D-0118 D-0118 testified live before the Chamber, with protective measures. D-0118 testified about her experience of abduction in 1994, and the subsequent ten years she spent in the LRA, including about her ‘distribution’ as a so-called ‘wife’ by Joseph Kony at the age of 13 years, and the contacts she had with Dominic Ongwen in 1997 and again in 2003. There are no issues affecting the credibility of D-0118 and the Chamber accepts her account as truthful. It must, however, be noted that her own personal experience does not as such fall within the charges.

text: m. D-0119 D-0119 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. She testified about her abduction in 1993, and the subsequent years she spent in the LRA, including as a socalled ‘wife’ of until her escape in 2004. D-0119 provided a vivid, credible and reliable account of being distributed as a so-called ‘wife’, her experiences in the LRA and the continued trauma she experienced as a result.

text: 748 D-0117: T-215. 749 D-0118: T-216. 750 D-0119: T-196.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 158/1077 4 February 2021 iv. Residents of Northern Uganda

text: a. Leaders of IDP camps

text: i Omona Lokilamoi (P-0001), Okema John Brown (P- 0008) – Pajule IDP camp

text: Omona Alfonse Lokilamoi’s statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 751 752 Rules. Omona Alfonse Lokilamoi was the Chairman of the Local Council of Pajule sub-county and provided testimony about the attack on Pajule IDP camp relevant to the charges, describing the aftermath of the attack as well as the records he kept from the attack, including lists of persons abducted, items pillaged and persons killed. The Chamber finds that the witness clearly explained the source of his information, gave details that supported the credibility of the information provided and identified his personal experiences.

text: Okema John Brown’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Okema John Brown, the civilian camp commandant of the Pajule side of Pajule IDP camp, testified about the October 2003 attack on the camp and its aftermath. The witness’s testimony was clear, detailed and comprehensive. The witness clearly explained the source of his information and differentiated between what he saw himself and events he was informed of by others. The witnesses’ testimonies are internally consistent and consistent with each other as well as other reliable evidence.

text: 751 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0025). See Decision on the Prosecution’s Request to Add Items to its List of Evidence, to include a Witness on its List of Witnesses and to Submit Two Prior Recorded Testimonies under Rule 68(2)(b) and (c), 22 November 2016, ICC- 02/04-01/15-600, paras 20-29, p. 14. 752 A governmental administrative structure, commonly referred to by the abbreviation ‘LC’. 753 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0048). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 39-42, p. 107. 754 The camp commandant was charged with dealing with, inter alia, problems with food and outbreak of disease, and compiled records of those killed, abducted, huts burnt and items looted after an attack on the camp. P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at paras 8-9. 755 See the testimonies of Joseph Oywak (P-0009) and Dick Okot (P-0067), whom Okema John Brown names in his testimony as some of the sources of his information as well as the testimonies of P-0007 and P-0047.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 159/1077 4 February 2021 ii Joseph Ywakomoi Oywak (P-0009) – Pajule IDP camp

text: Joseph Ywakomoi Oywak testified live before the Chamber. Joseph Oywak, also commonly known as Rwot Oywak, is a local chief in Acholi land and testified about the Pajule attack and the LRA’s activities in the region during the period of the charges.

text: The Defence asserts that Rwot Oywak is not a credible witness and his testimony should be disregarded in its entirety, arguing that Rwot Oywak: (i) fabricated his story about what happened to him after having been taken at the trading centre in the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack, (ii) lied about how he was treated while walking to the RV, (iii) lied about how he was treated at the RV, and (iv) ‘drastically changed’ his account of the Pajule attack since his first statement was recorded by the Prosecution in July 2005. The Defence also suggests that Rwot Oywak had suspicious interactions with the LRA.

text: Indeed, there are some differences between the witness’s statements and his in-court testimony, which the Defence explored in detail during its questioning of the witness. However, the differences do not rise to the level that can be rightfully termed ‘drastic’ or which render his testimony incredible. In any case, the nuances of the witness’s testimony are addressed in the evidentiary discussion below.

text: As to the allegations that Rwot Oywak fabricated key parts of his story and lied about his treatment walking to and at the RV, the Chamber discusses this evidence in greater depth in its evidentiary discussion below. For the purposes of this general assessment of Rwot Oywak’s credibility, it is sufficient to note that many other witnesses, particularly observing Rwot Oywak at the RV, testified that he did not seem under threat. However,

text: 756 P-0009: T-81; T-82; T-83. 757 P-0009: T-81, p. 4, lines 10-20. As the witnesses refer to Joseph Oywak as Rwot Oywak, the Chamber will also refer to him with his most common title. 758 Defence Closing Brief, paras 309-12. 759 Defence Closing Brief, para. 311 ( ). 760 See P-0009: T-83, p. 3, line 16 – p. 8, line 7. 761 On the contrary, the Chamber is of the view that the witness’s statements to the Prosecution are largely consistent with his in-court testimony, as the witness placed Dominic Ongwen at the attack also in his written statements. See P-0009 Statement to the Prosecution (July 2005), UGA-OTP-0151-0167-R01, at paras 41, 45, 53 (however, in his July 2005 statement, the witness stated that he was beaten, but did not mention being beaten by Dominic Ongwen); P-0009 Statement to the Prosecution (September 2015), UGA-OTP-0241-0546-R01, at paras 22-29. 762 See paras 1347-1349 below. 763 P-0081: T-118, p. 40, line 14 – p. 41, line 16 (stating that Rwot Oywak and Vincent Otti exchanged greetings and hugged and that Rwot Oywak was smiling with Vincent Otti); D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 160/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber also recalls P-0006’s testimony that in the course of the retreat from the camp after the Pajule attack, she saw Rwot Oywak and he had been given rice to carry, corroborating a key aspect of his story. Thus, it is clear to the Chamber that he was abducted by the LRA. Further, the Chamber also notes that Rwot Oywak’s testimony is in large part consistent with other reliable evidence about the course of the attack. The witness was not alone in placing Dominic Ongwen at the attack, nor is his description of the movement of the abductees or the arrival of the helicopter gunship inconsistent with other reliable evidence.

text: When questioned by the Defence as to whether he had a conversation with Vincent Otti the night before the attack during which he told Vincent Otti that Pajule would best be attacked around Uhuru time, Rwot Oywak denied the accusation, saying ‘[t]hat is a blatant lie, that is a concocted – is a concocted story’. In this regard, the Chamber recalls that P-0081 testified that he heard from a camp resident that Rwot Oywak spoke to Vincent Otti the night before the attack on Pajule IDP camp. Given the fact that Rwot Oywak denied the accusation under oath, P-0081 does not have direct knowledge and also taking into account that the fact is not directly relevant to the charges, the Chamber does not consider that the issue undermines the general credibility of the witness.

text: The Defence also raised with the witness the discrepancy between his prior statements as to when he first met Dominic Ongwen. In the view of the Chamber, this discrepancy is insignificant and Rwot Oywak has satisfactorily explained that he had such previous contact with the LRA that he was in a position to recognise Dominic Ongwen when he

text: para. 25 (Rwot Oywak did not seem worried or scared like the other abductees); P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0139-0149-R01, at paras 127, 130 (P-0084 was also told by other abductees that Rwot Oywak was not treated like other captives but was able to move freely with the rebel commanders and had meetings with them that the abductees could not hear). 764 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 35. 765 See section IV.C.6.iii. 766 P-0009: T-82, p. 79, lines 15-21. 767 P-0081: T-118-CONF, p. 42, lines 5-10; P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 44-45. 768 See P-0009: T-83, p. 3, line 7 – p. 8, line 7 (the Defence raises the witness 2005 statement to the Prosecution in which he stated that he had met Dominic Ongwen at meetings between 2002 and 2003, as well as his 2015 statement to the Prosecution in which he indicates that he met Dominic Ongwen for the first time at the Pajule attack).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 161/1077 4 February 2021 saw him at Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003. There is also other independent evidence corroborating Rwot Oywak’s testimony that he met Dominic Ongwen before

text: 10 October 2003.

text: Regarding the suggestion that Rwot Oywak was a ‘collaborator’, worked for the LRA,

text: or had financial dealings with some LRA commanders, including Dominic Ongwen,

text: the Chamber notes his strenuous denials of the claims, as well as the numerous

text: witnesses who testified about Rwot Oywak and his relationship with the LRA. It is

text: clear to the Chamber from Rwot Oywak’s and other testimonies that Rwot Oywak

text: communicated with the LRA as an intermediary between the LRA and the government.

text: However, the evidence does not demonstrate that Rwot Oywak was a part of the LRA or

text: worked for the LRA. More importantly, there is no indication in this evidence that the

text: P-0009: T-81, p. 18, lines 6-15, p. 20, line 13 – p. 21, line 12, p. 49, line 4 – p. 50, line 23, p. 51, line 21 – p. 52, line 6. July 2002 report on Peace Initiative, UGA-OTP-0195-0105, at 0106 (a report on peace initiative activities notes that Dominic Ongwen met Rwot Oywak in August 2002); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0072 (a 15 October 2002 logbook entry stating that Joseph Oywak gave Dominic a letter). Regarding the July 2002 report on Peace Initiative, UGA-OTP-0195-0105, the Defence argued at the time of its submission that the document has low probative value as it did not have a section outlining its methodology and the authors, although apparently authors of ARLPI, were unknown. The report contains detailed notes on various events related to meetings with the LRA and the conflict in Uganda. The report has probative value, in the context of other evidence the Chamber relies upon in relation to the conflict in Uganda and the meetings of various people with the LRA. Defence Closing Brief, para. 311; P-0009: T-82, p. 45, line 21 – p. 55, line 15; T-83, p. 8, line 20 – p. 9, line 13. P-0009: T-82, p. 45, line 21 – p. 55, line 15 (testifying that he was not a collaborator but rather was delegated by his community to work for peace); T-83, p. 8, line 20 – p. 9, line 13 (denying that he had financial dealings with the LRA and particularly that Dominic Ongwen gave him money). D-0134: T-240, p. 54, lines 20-25 (Charles Lokwiya testified that he knew Rwot Oywak personally and Rwot Oywak was not a collaborator); P-0249: T-80, p. 30, lines 8-14, p. 34, line 22 – p. 35, line 22 and p. 44, line 19 – p. 45, line 12 (testifying to hearing rumours that Rwot Oywak was collaborating with the LRA but P-0249 did not personally have knowledge of any collaboration); P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 122, 124 (testifying that Rwot Oywak was authorised by the Ugandan government to meet and speak with the rebels. P-0084 testified that he had a satellite phone with which he communicated with the rebels and would at times bring small items to them, such as food. P-0084 stated that there were some allegations that Rwot Oywak was collaborating with the rebels however he was monitored and there were no confirmed reports. According to P- 0084, Rwot Oywak was helping rebel defectors come out of the bush and was seen by the government as one of the chiefs helping in peace negotiations); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 121; P-0047: T- 114, p. 34, lines 16-25, p. 35, line 10 – p. 36, line 8 (testifying that many people said that Rwot Oywak was a collaborator and that the LRA took him to get information. Rwot Oywak was accused because he had a satellite phone and people said that he received it from the enemy camp and used it to speak with the rebels. John Lubwama stated that because of the allegations, Rwot Oywak was arrested but was soon released because there was no evidence. The satellite phone was received from the religious committee working on the Acholi peace initiative and was used because of Rwot Oywak’s role in the peace initiative. John Lubwama testified that Rwot Oywak was arrested before the attack on Pajule and was detained for about an hour before he was released because there was no evidence that he was a collaborator).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 162/1077 4 February 2021 testimony of Rwot Oywak before the Chamber was unreliable on account of his contacts with the LRA.

text: iii Mario Ottober (P-0274), Zakeo Odora (P-0325) – Odek IDP camp

text: Mario Ottober’s two prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Mario Ottober, the camp leader of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack, testified about the attack on the camp and its aftermath. Mario Ottober gave comprehensive and detailed testimony that supported his credibility and the reliability of the information provided. He provided evidence that was comprehensive and rich with the type of details that indicated that he spoke from personal experience and stated when he did not know certain information.

text: Zakeo Odora’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Zakeo Odora, one of the Odek IDP camp’s leaders at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the course of the attack and its aftermath. Zakeo Odora offered comprehensive and detailed testimony that supported his credibility and the reliability of the information he provided. His testimony was rich with the type of details that indicated that he spoke from personal experience. The witnesses’ testimonies are generally mutually consistent as well as consistent with the testimony of other reliable evidence.

text: iv Santo Ojera (P-0060), Gipson Okulu (V-0004) – Lukodi IDP camp

text: Santo Ojera’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Santo Ojera offered testimony about his experiences as a Lukodi camp resident and one of the camp’s leaders. Santo Ojera gave comprehensive and detailed testimony that supported his credibility and the reliability of the information he offered. He

text: 774 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283- 1307); P-0274 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0174-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0283-1320). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 74-78, p. 109. 775 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1374). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 82-85, p. 110. 776 See the testimonies of Hellen Acan and P’Oyoo Lakoch. 777 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0826). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 118-22, p. 109.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 163/1077 4 February 2021 provided evidence that was comprehensive and rich with the type of details that indicate that he spoke from personal experience. His testimony is also in line with what would be expected from a person with a position of leadership within the IDP camp structure. For example, he provided detailed lists related to the civilians killed, injured, or abducted in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Gipson Okulu testified live before the Chamber. Gipson Okulu, a local councillor (LC) in Lukodi at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the course of the attack. The witness’s testimony was detailed and comprehensive. The Chamber is convinced that he spoke of his personal experiences.

text: The witnesses’ testimonies are internally consistent and consistent with each other as well as other reliable evidence.

text: v Cyprian Ogola (P-0284), Cyprian Ayoo (P-0293) and Douglas Obwor (P-0306) – Abok IDP camp

text: Cyprian Ogola’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of 783 784 the Rules. Cyprian Ayoo testified live before the Chamber. Douglas Obwor also testified live before the Chamber, and his prior recorded testimony introduced under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Cyprian Ogola, camp leader in Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack on the camp that is relevant to the charges in present case, testified about the attack and its aftermath. The witnesses’ testimonies were credible and reliable.

text: Regarding the statement provided by Cyprian Ogola, the Chamber finds that the witness clearly explained the source of his information, gave details that supported the credibility of the information provided and clearly identified his personal experiences. Further, the

text: 778 See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 31. See also P-0024: T-78-CONF, p. 13, line 24 – p. 14, line 3 (Santo Ojera was in a leadership position in the camp). 779 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 71-79. 780 V-0004: T-173. 781 Gipson Okulu serves as LC1 in the community, a formally elected position charged to ensure good sanitation and the general well-being of the community. 782 See the testimonies of P-0017, P-0024, P-0036 and P-0187. 783 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1355). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 138-40, p. 110. 784 P-0293: T-138; T-139. 785 P-0306: T-130. 786 Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 22, p. 19. See also P-0306: T-130, p. 3, line 11 – p. 5, line 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 164/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with other evidence.

text: Regarding Cyprian Ayoo’s testimony, the Chamber considers that the witness provided a clear narrative of events and the circumstances under which they took place even when he was questioned out of chronological order, thus demonstrating that he provided firsthand information based on his personal experience as an eyewitness. Throughout his testimony, the witness clearly distinguished between events he witnessed himself and what he heard from other persons. The witness provided details in a manner that indicates that he spoke from personal experience.

text: The Chamber observed that the witness was at times defensive or appeared agitated during Defence questioning. However, the witness was responsive to the Chamber’s explanation of the role of the Defence and the need to cooperate in answering Defence questions and his testimony did not change during examination by the Defence, remaining consistent and coherent.

text: Regarding Douglas Obwor’s testimony, the Chamber finds that Douglas Obwor was a forthcoming witness. He provided evidence rich in detail and grounded in a personal narrative of what he witnessed. His testimony was structured, coherent and detailed. The witness distinguished between what he witnessed and what he was told by others. The Chamber considers that Douglas Obwor had a rational and sensible manner throughout his testimony and notes that he did not change his testimony when questioned by the Defence.

text: The Chamber is attentive to the question of the exact titles of Cyprian Ayoo and Douglas Obwor at the time of the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp. However, the Chamber does not place much emphasis on the matter. Given the particularly specific and detailed nature of both witnesses’ testimony, and the evidence of other witnesses,the Chamber considers that whatever official position each of these witnesses held at the

text: 787 Particularly, the evidence provided by Cyprian Ayoo is consistent with and corroborative of the evidence provided by the other leaders of Abok IDP camp, Cyprian Ayoo and Douglas Obwor. 788 See for example P-0293: T-138, p. 85, lines 8-22. 789 The evidence is not entirely clear as to whether P-0293 or P-0306 was the official ‘Camp Leader’ of Abok IDP camp. P-0306: T-130, p. 34, lines 3-8; P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at paras 17-18; P-0293: T- 138, p. 12, line 24 – p. 13, line 3. See P-0286: T-131, p. 32, line 24 – p. 33, line 2; P-0293: T-138, p. 79, lines 4- 14; P-0304: T-133, p. 50, line 22 – p. 51, line 1. See also List of names of Abok camp leaders, UGA-OTP-0247- 1270-R01 (undated); P-0280: T-84, p. 21, line 13 – p. 22, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 165/1077 4 February 2021 time of the attack, the witnesses clearly experienced the events first-hand, were in the position to engage with other camp officials and other camp residents in the manner that they described during their testimony and offered accounts consistent with what could be expected from witnesses with leadership roles in the community.

text: As to the issue of whether Cyprian Ayoo was relieved of duty and replaced with Douglas Obwor because of an alleged misappropriation of funds while Cyprian Ayoo served as the official Camp Leader, the Chamber notes Cyprian Ayoo denied being relieved of duty and stated he resigned so that he could work with an aid organisation. Further, the Chamber notes the paucity of the available evidence about this alleged incident, particularly Douglas Obwor’s testimony, does not undercut the reasoning underpinning the Chamber’s finding that Cyprian Ayoo was in a position to offer the type of information that he provided to the Chamber. Further, the Chamber notes that Cyprian Ayoo’s testimony about the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack is generally consistent with the evidence provided by other witnesses, including Douglas Obwor. The Chamber also does not consider the alleged incident to have a bearing on the witness’s credibility as a witness before this court.

text: b. Residents of Pajule IDP camp

text: i P-0006

text: P-0006 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. She had also provided a statement to the Prosecution, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0006, a resident of the Lapul side of the Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack on the camp and then 16 years old, provided testimony about her experience during the attack in 2003 and her subsequent experience in the LRA after her abduction in the course of the attack, including being ‘distributed’ as a so-called ‘wife’. P-0006’s testimony was clear, internally consistent and generally consistent with other evidence. The witness distinguished between events she personally experienced and information that she was told by others, was forthcoming with her testimony, regardless of the

text: 790 P-0293: T-138, p. 79, lines 4-7, p. 85, lines 8-11. See also P-0306: T-130, p. 35, line 7 – p. 36, line 7. 791 P-0293: T-138, p. 85, lines 16-20. 792 P-0006: T-140. 793 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 14, p. 19. See also P-0006: T-140, p. 6, line 9 – p. 8, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 166/1077 4 February 2021 questioning party. The witness’s evidence in this regard was detailed and rich in the kind of the detail that demonstrates that she spoke from personal experience.

text: During their questioning, the Defence raised an alleged inconsistency between her statement to the Prosecution introduced under Rule 68(3) and a statement she had previously given to the Ugandan police. The Chamber is satisfied with the witness’s explanation of the discrepancy. The Chamber also notes that the witness’s testimony is at times unclear as to specific locations. These issues do not undermine the Chamber’s view of the credibility of her testimony. In this context, the Chamber notes that the witness stayed with the LRA for about seven months and as such her knowledge of certain details about the LRA’s movements is limited. The Chamber is also satisfied with the witness’s explanation that her statement made initially to the Prosecution that she had never heard of Dominic Ongwen and certain other commanders was an omission and that she had briefly seen Dominic Ongwen during her captivity.

text: ii Terrence Otika (P-0007)

text: Terrence Kanyum Otika’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Terrence Kanyum Otika, a civilian resident of the Lapul part of Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges and camp commandant after the attack, provided testimony about the course of the attack as well as its consequences. The Chamber finds that the witness’s testimony was detailed and clear; explaining the source of his information and offering details that supported the credibility

text: 794 The witness stated to the Prosecution that her so-called ‘husband’ in the bush had three ‘wives’, while she informed the police that he had 11 ‘wives’. See P-0006: T-140, p. 64, line 4 – p. 65, line 17. 795 The witness explained that her so-called ‘husband’ had 11 ‘wives’, excluding her and that she told the Prosecution that there were ‘three’ ‘wives’ because in the time she was with him in the Sudan, he only had three ‘wives’ with him and the other ‘wives’ had been left behind with other commanders. See P-0006: T-140, p. 64, line 4 – p. 65, line 17. 796 For example, the witness’s testimony in relation to where she stayed in Sudan with the LRA or whether she saw Dominic Ongwen in Sudan or in Uganda. P-0006: T-140, p. 67, line 24 – p. 68, line 17, p. 76, line 19 – p. 77, line 5. 797 The witness was abducted during the Pajule IDP camp attack on 10 October 2003 and escaped around 28 April 2004. P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 22-51, 60. 798 P-0006: T-140, p. 77, line 11 – p. 81, line 12. 799 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0037). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 34-38, p. 107.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 167/1077 4 February 2021 of the information provided. Further, the Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: iii Benson Ojok (P-0061)

text: Benson Ojok’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Benson Ojok, a civilian resident of the Pajule side of the Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack on the camp relevant to the charges, offered testimony about his abduction along with other residents in the course of the attack as well as his time spent in captivity with the LRA. Benson Ojok provided detailed and comprehensive testimony. He explained the source of his information and clearly distinguished between events he witnessed himself and those he was told about. The Chamber notes the Defence’s contention that Benson Ojok’s testimony is only partly corroborative and that his reliability comes into question. The Chamber is of the view that the issues raised are minor and do not undermine the credibility of the witness. Benson Ojok was 15 years old at the time of his abduction, and only stayed with the LRA for a short time. It is unexceptional that his information about the structure and membership of the LRA may not be as detailed and authoritative as would be expected of a longstanding member of the LRA. The Chamber notes also that Benson Ojok’s evidence is internally consistent and also generally consistent with the testimony of other witnesses heard in these proceedings.

text: iv Dick Okot (P-0067)

text: Dick Okot testified live before the Chamber. Dick Okot, a civilian living in the Pajule trading centre at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp relevant to the charges,

text: 800 See the testimonies of P-0001, P-0006, P-0081. 801 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0840). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 55-58, p. 109. 802 Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 153, with reference to UGA-OTP- 0144-0043-R01, at paras 29, 31, 71 (arguing that the witness spoke about Charles Tabuley being present at Latanya Hill, and that one of the LRA’s leaders was Otti Lagony. The Defence notes that Otti Lagony died in the late 1990s). The Chamber notes that the witness never testified that he ever saw Otti Lagony himself. 803 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 9. 804 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at paras 34-61. The witness does not offer a specific date of his escape but his testimony suggests that he was not in the bush for a long time and the witness indicated that he escaped after an attack in Abia. The Chamber notes that the LRA attacked Abia in February 2004. See paras 1164- 1165. 805 P-0067: T-125; T-126.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 168/1077 4 February 2021 testified about the attack on the camp as well as his abduction and time spent in captivity with the LRA for several weeks after the attack. Dick Okot provided detailed, graphic and contextualised evidence. While the Chamber is unable to rely on aspects of Dick Okot’s testimony in relation to Vincent Otti’s presence at the murder of Pangarasio Onek and Lacung, discussed in detail below, the Chamber has no doubts that Dick Okot testified about his personal experiences in the course of the charged attack on Pajule IDP camp and considers him a credible witness. His narration about his experiences in the course of the attack was clear, detailed, contextualised, and generally consistent with other reliable evidence. The witness testified about events which incriminated the LRA as well as events which incriminated government forces, indicating that his testimony was not biased.

text: In the course of his questioning,

text: . In this context, the Chamber notes that it saw no issues in relation to his mental acuity. The witness was coherent, engaged with the questioning and forthcoming in answering the questioning party.

text: v P-0081

text: P-0081 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures pursuant to Rule 74 of the Rules. P-0081 also provided a statement to the Prosecution, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P-0081, a resident living in the Lapul side of the Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack, testified about his abduction and experience in captivity with the LRA until he escaped in April 2004. The witness clearly delineated between his personal experiences and what he heard from others. He frequently spoke in

text: 806 See paras 1315-1323 below, the Chamber’s discussion of the murders of Pangarasio Onek and Lacung during the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack. 807 See P-0067: T-125-CONF, p. 58, line 3 – p. 65, line 11 (the witness testified that he was tortured by the UPDF and was forced, under said torture, to name innocent persons as LRA collaborators). 808 P-0067: T-126-CONF, p. 31, line 23 – p. 33, line 12. 809 P-0067: T-126-CONF, p. 32, lines 12-17, p. 33, lines 5-12. 810 P-0081: T-118. 811 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01; Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), paras 15-17, p. 19. See also P-0081: T-118, p. 6, line 2 – p. 8, line 14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 169/1077 4 February 2021 a narrative manner and provided details that convince the Chamber that he was indeed abducted from Pajule IDP camp and spent time in captivity in the bush with the LRA.

text: As explored further below in the evidentiary discussion of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, the Chamber notes that there were some discrepancies between this witness’s testimony and the testimony of several other witnesses in relation to the movements of Charles Lokwiya, the injured commander P-0081 testified he carried from Pajule IDP camp. However, the Chamber notes that other aspects of P-0081’s testimony are consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings.

text: vi P-0249

text: P-0249 testified live before the Chamber. P-0249, a former resident of Pajule IDP camp, testified about his experience in the course of the 10 October 2003 attack on the camp, and in the LRA for a brief period of captivity. The Defence asserts that the witness’s testimony cannot be relied upon because he was intoxicated at the time of the attack in the morning of 10 October 2003. Indeed, P- 0249 testified that he had been celebrating and drinking the night before the attack. In describing his state of mind at the time of the attack, the witness described himself as being ‘personally drunk, but the gunshots made me become sober again’.

text: The Chamber notes that the witness testified that he was drinking until around 21:00 on 9 October 2003 when he went to sleep. He stated that he then woke up to the gunshots of the LRA between 5:00 and 6:00. The Chamber also notes the witness’s testimony that at the attack, ‘I was very sober. And I, I was sweating a lot and I could not feel tipsy anymore’. It is clear to the Chamber, even noting the witness’s stated difficulty telling

text: 812 See paras 1315, 1341-1342 below. 813 P-0249: T-79; T-80. 814 Defence Closing Brief, para. 328. 815 P-0249: T-80, p. 13, line 9 – p. 16, line 7. 816 P-0249: T-79, p. 36, lines 12-20; T-80, p. 14, line 21 – p. 16, line 7. 817 P-0249: T-80, p. 14, lines 6-9. 818 P-0249: T-79, p. 10, lines 10-13; T-80, p. 19, lines 1-3. See the Chamber’s discussion of the timing of the Pajule IDP attack, at paras 1233, 1248 below, where the Chamber finds that the attack began at dawn, between 5:00 and 6:00. 819 P-0249: T-80, p. 15, lines 2-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 170/1077 4 February 2021 precise time, that a significant amount of time had passed from when the witness was inebriated to when the LRA attacked. In this context, the Chamber notes that the witness’s descriptions of his experiences during the attack were clear and very comprehensive. He recalled details about his movement, LRA activity, his thoughts and reactions at the time and what was happening to others around him. His testimony was replete with the kind of details that indicate that he spoke about his personal experiences. He was clear when he was uncertain about specific information and was not led by suggestive questioning. His testimony was internally consistent and also consistent with other reliable evidence. In the Chamber’s view the witness clearly distinguished between his own personal experiences and what he learned from others. The Chamber is convinced that the witness was clearheaded enough to have been fully aware of his experiences in Pajule IDP camp during the attack and to recall them accurately in his testimony before the Court.

text: The Chamber also notes that the witness gave his testimony over the course of two days and throughout he was coherent, understood the proceedings, vigilant in following instructions from the Chamber and the questioning parties and testified in a forthright and consistent manner.

text: vii Richard Otim (D-0076)

text: Richard Otim testified live before the Chamber. Richard Otim, a resident of the Pajule side of Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack, testified about the October 2003 attack by the LRA and his brief time spent in captivity with the LRA. The witness’s testimony was detailed, forthcoming and candid. He offered details contextualised in a manner that convinces the Chamber that he spoke truthfully. Richard Otim delineated between events he personally experienced and matters he heard from others. The Chamber also notes that his testimony was both internally consistent and generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: 820 P-0249: T-80, p. 20, lines 17-25. 821 See P-0249: T-80, p. 19, line 8 – p. 21, line 8 (the witness’s testimony in relation to the difficulty of telling precise time and his estimation of time). 822 D-0076: T-219.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 171/1077 4 February 2021 viii David Okwera (D-0077)

text: David Okwera’s statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. David Okwera, a civilian resident of the Pajule side of Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack, offered testimony about his abduction in the course of the attack and about the movements of the LRA following the attack. David Okwera provided detailed and comprehensive testimony. The Chamber notes also that David Okwera’s evidence is internally consistent. He explained the source of his information and clearly distinguished between events he witnessed himself and those he was told about. The Chamber notes that David Okwera’s testimony about the timing of the attack is somewhat confusing and also contrary to the other evidence on record, as such the Chamber does not rely on this aspect of his testimony.

text: ix Santo Oweka (D-0081)

text: Santo Oweka testified live before the Chamber. Santo Oweka, a resident of the Pajule side of Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about the October 2003 Pajule IDP camp attack as well as his experiences in the LRA after being abducted in that attack. The witness was forthcoming and straight-forward. He delineated the source of his information, provided context in his description of events, and frequently responded in a narrative manner, all indicia that positively impacted the Chamber’s view of the witness’s testimony.

text: However, one aspect of his testimony offered the Chamber pause: the witness’s testimony in relation to the statement he gave to the Ugandan police after returning from captivity about his experiences during the attack on Pajule IDP camp. Despite the fact that the statement is titled ‘[s]tatement of an abductee’, on its face appears to be the account of Santo Oweka, is written in first person narrative and is consistent with Santo Oweka’s narrative of his abduction, Santo Oweka testified that the statement is a compilation of the narrative of multiple witnesses. This, according to him, explains

text: 823 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316 (public redacted version available: UGA-D26-0022-0316-R01). See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 14, p. 13. 824 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at paras 10-12, 14 (the witness testified that the attack began around 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. The witness also described ‘the end of the attack around 12 am’. The witness also testified that the attack lasted for over three to four hours). 825 D-0081: T-220; T-221. 826 See D-0081: T-221, p. 62, line 18 – p. 63, line 1, referring to Handwritten statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0275. At the time of submission of the document by the Prosecution, the Defence argued that it is ‘irrelevant except for

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 172/1077 4 February 2021 why the statement mentions Dominic Ongwen as being present in the gathering after the Pajule IDP camp attack contrary to Santo Oweka’s in-court testimony. This aspect of

text: Santo Oweka’s testimony is untenable and casts significant doubt on the witness’s

text: testimony regarding the presence of Dominic Ongwen in Pajule. This discrepancy does not disqualify the entirety of Santo Oweka’s testimony however. The Chamber notes that

text: in large part, his testimony is generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: c. Residents of Odek IDP camp

text: i P’Oyoo Lakoch (P-0218)

text: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified live before the Chamber. His prior recorded statement was

text: also submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P’Oyoo Lakoch, a local teacher living

text: in Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified in relation to

text: his observations about the attack and its aftermath. P’Oyoo Lakoch was a calm,

text: thoughtful and forthcoming witness. He offered testimony that the Chamber considers

text: completely credible and truthful. He offered comprehensive testimony concerning what

text: he witnessed from the perspective of a victim of the attack on Odek, giving details that

text: convince the Chamber that he spoke from personal experience. P’Oyoo Lakoch’s

text: testimony is generally consistent with the testimony of other credible witnesses heard by

text: the Chamber.

text: the explicit areas which the witness confirmed correct during his testimony’. Annex VII to the Registry’s Sixth Report on the Evidence recognised as formally submitted to the Chamber, 15 November 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15- 1671-AnxVII, p. 4-6. The item in its entirety is relevant to the Chamber’s understanding of Santo Oweka’s testimony. D-0081: T-220, p. 30, line 25 – p. 31, line 15, p. 33, lines 4-7, p. 34, lines 3-6; T-221, p. 53, line 25 – p. 63, line 1. The Chamber is unconvinced by the Defence’s arguments that circumstantial evidence supports Santo Oweka’s testimony. The Defence notes various statements allegedly taken within a short time frame and argues that this shows that multiple persons were around the officers discussing their stories in groups, consistent with Santo Oweka’s testimony. Annex VII to the Registry’s Sixth Report on the Evidence recognised as formally submitted to the Chamber, 15 November 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1671-AnxVII, p. 4-5. The Chamber, while observing that these other statements are not in the record, notes that the very presence of other individualised accounts of experiences of the attack undermines the contention that Santo Oweka’s statement was a group account. P-0218: T-90. P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 20, p. 19. See also P-0218: T-90, p. 6, line 12 – p. 8, line 20. See for example P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 20-24 (P’Oyoo Lakoch describes his own experience of hiding himself from LRA fighters shooting and looting in the camp). See the testimonies of Mario Ottober and Zakeo Odora.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 173/1077 4 February 2021 ii Hellen Adong (P-0268)

text: Hellen Adong’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Hellen Adong, a civilian resident of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about her experiences during and in the aftermath of the attack, including her experience as an abductee. Hellen Adong’s testimony was comprehensive and rich with details that indicated that she spoke from personal experience. She provided a detailed and contextualised account of the Odek IDP camp attack and her experiences in captivity in the bush. Her accounts were internally consistent and consistent with other evidence.

text: iii P-0269

text: P-0269 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures, after receiving Rule 74 assurances. P-0269, a civilian resident of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about her two abductions by the LRA, her experience in captivity and about the Odek attack and its aftermath. P-0269 was a forthcoming and candid witness. She provided testimony in a narrative and generally logical manner. The Chamber is convinced that she personally experienced the events she described. Contrary to the Defence’s suggestion, the Chamber is of the view that the witness was indeed abducted the first time she was taken by an LRA group headed by Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber finds the witness’s accounts of her knowledge of Dominic Ongwen compelling and credible. The witness’s testimony is also largely consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these proceedings. The Chamber is satisfied with the witness’s explanation that she failed to mention what she knew of Dominic Ongwen during her first interview with the Prosecution because she was afraid. The Chamber also does not consider this issue material. The witness subsequently mentioned Dominic Ongwen in her following interview with the Prosecution and provided testimony in these proceedings about her observations of him.

text: 832 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1285). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 79-81, p. 109. 833 P-0269: T-85; T-86. 834 T-86, p. 19, line 19 – p. 21, line 15. 835 See P-0269: T-86, p. 7, line 12 – p. 8, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 174/1077 4 February 2021 iv Helen Opoka Acan (P-0270)

text: Helen Opoka Acan’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Helen Opoka Acan, a civilian resident of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about the attack on Odek camp and its aftermath. Helen Opoka Acan’s testimony was comprehensive. She provided a detailed narrative that left the Chamber convinced that she speaks from personal experience. The Chamber notes that there are some inconsistencies in Helen Opoka Acan’s account. Helen Opoka Acan indicated that she saw the bodies of her children David Ojok and James Latigo in the aftermath of the attack. The Chamber notes its finding below in the discussion of the Odek IDP camp attack, that these two men were killed in the bush and their bodies never recovered. There are further discrepancies about her testimony in relation to . The Chamber is mindful of Helen Opoka Acan’s age as well as the particularly traumatic impact of the Odek IDP camp attack on her life. Helen Opoka Acan endured, among other suffering, the abduction of four of her children, two of whom were killed in the bush. The Chamber also notes that much of what Helen Opoka Acan testified to is consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: v P-0275

text: P-0275 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. He also provided a prior recorded statement, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. P- 0275, a civilian resident of Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack on the camp, testified about his experiences during the attack and the aftermath, including his abduction and time in captivity. The Chamber found that the witness offered graphic and detailed evidence, providing details indicating a personal experience of events.

text: 836 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1297). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 71-73, p. 109. 837 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 40. The Chamber does not find her reference to James Latigo as her son, rather than as her nephew, significant. As aptly explained, Acholi cultural practices allow for a woman to refer to all children born into her husband’s family as her children, similarly children born into the same extended family may refer to each other as siblings. See . 838

text: 839 P-0275: T-124. 840 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), para. 21, p. 19. See also P-0275: T-124, p. 5, line 7 – p. 8, line 14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 175/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes the Defence’s suggestion that the witness’s young age at the time of the attack affects the reliability of his memories. The Chamber does note some confusion and discrepancies in his testimony. The Chamber notes that when viewing discrepancies between documents such as a GUSCO intake form or victim applications and in-court testimony, in general the testimony is more important given the Chamber’s lack of knowledge about the circumstances of how other accounts are derived and the witness’s oath before the Chamber. However, in relation to the lack of clarity as to when the witness came back from the bush, the Chamber is of the view that the witness spent around a week in the bush and his testimony about the timing of his return is not reliable. However, this does not mean that the witness’s testimony in general cannot be trusted. The discrepancy can be explained by the difficulties of telling time/distance while in the bush, as well as the witness’s young age at the time of the attack and the traumatic circumstances of the events. As the witness himself explained, ‘when you are in the bush sometimes you lose track of time, you do not think of days, you do not think of time. Your only concern is that you are alive’.

text: The Chamber also notes that, given the nature of the armed conflict, the context of abduction and subsequent captivity and the constant movement of the LRA while in the bush, it is understandable that some witnesses struggle to keep track of the time they spent in the bush and to recall it with precision many years after their escape from the LRA. Indeed, it is reasonable that witnesses in captivity in the bush, particular those who were children when they were abducted, have lost their attachment to the very concept of time for this period.

text: 841 Defence Response to the Prosecution’s Rule 68(3) Request, 14 November 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-592-CONF, para. 34. The Chamber notes that the witness was 12 years old or younger at the relevant time. P-0275: T-124, p. 26, lines 4-13. 842 Gulu Support the Children Organisation. 843 In his in-court testimony, the witness testified that he returned from the bush in July 2004. P-0275: T-124, p. 74, lines 3-8. However in the GUSCO intake form, the witness is listed as arriving in the GUSCO centre on 9 May 2004 and being signed out of the centre on 8 June 2004. See UGA-OTP-0097-0452 at 0455.

text: 844 P-0275: T-124, p. 50, lines 23-24. See also P-0275: T-124, p. 64, lines 17-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 176/1077 4 February 2021

text: As to the witness’s age, testified that he was 12 at the time of the attack. The Chamber notes however that there exists ample documentation, including the witness’s Ugandan national ID card, school and health 847 848 records, as well as voter information, that support the witness’s testimony that he was nine years old at the time of the attack. In light of the documentation and the general credibility of the witness’s testimony, the Chamber finds that the witness was indeed nine years old at the time of the Odek IDP camp attack.

text: d. Residents of Lukodi IDP camp

text: i P-0024

text: P-0024 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0024, a former Lukodi camp resident, offered testimony in relation to her experience during the attack on Lukodi IDP camp relevant to the charges, including about her abduction in the course of the attack. She provided testimony that was detailed and consistent throughout the questioning. P-0024’s testimony was offered simply and without artifice in a narrative manner. She contextualised her testimony with details that indicated to the Chamber that she spoke of events she personally experienced. The witness was a stoic witness yet her testimony laid bare the depth of the trauma she suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the attack. P-0024 distinguished clearly between events she witnessed herself and those that she heard from others. Her testimony is also consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: In her questioning, the Defence raised the issue that

text: 845 846 Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0266, at 0270 (National ID card listing the witness’s date of birth as 1994). 847 1999 Ministry of Education and Sports Terminal Report, UGA-OTP-0269-0719 (stating that P-0275 was then five years old and in class 1); 2006 School Report, UGA-OTP-0269-0710 (stating that P-0275 was then 12 years old and the ‘P6’); 2007 Ministry of Education and Sports Progressive Report, UGA-OTP-0269-0714 (stating that P-0275 was then 13 years old and in ‘P6’); 2012 Examination for the Uganda Certificate of Education, UGA- OTP-0269-0712 (stating that P-0275 was then 18 years old); Child Health Card, UGA-OTP-0269-0711 (listing 1994 as the witness’s date of birth). 848 2016 Voter Location Slip, UGA-OTP-0269-0720 (listing 1994 as the witness’s date of birth). 849 P-0024: T-77; T-78.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 177/1077 4 February 2021

text: . The witness explained that

text: . The Chamber finds that none of the issues raised affect its view of the credibility of P-0024’s testimony either generally or specifically as concerns .

text: ii Pyerina Ayaa (P-0026)

text: Pyerina Ayaa’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Pyerina Ayaa was a civilian resident of Lukodi IDP camp who described her personal experiences of the attack, during which she and one of her daughters were injured and another daughter was killed. It was clear to the Chamber what the witness testified to seeing herself and what she heard from others. The Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony is generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: iii David Komakech (P-0185) and Lilly Apiyo (P-0195)

text: David Komakech’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. David Komakech was a Lukodi camp resident who testified about his escape from the LRA’s attempt to shoot him during the May 2004 attack. David Komakech’s recollection was specific and detailed, convincing the Chamber that he spoke of events he personally experienced. Lilly Apiyo’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Lilly Apiyo, a former Lukodi camp resident testified about her abduction in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack and about being forced to carry looted goods for the LRA. Lilly Apiyo’s testimony was detailed and comprehensive. It was rich with the kind of details that convinces the Chamber of the veracity of her account. The witness

text: 851 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0093). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 102-04, p. 107. 852 See for example the testimonies of P-0024 and P-0187. 853 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1253). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 89-93, p. 109. 854 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1263). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 94-97, p. 109.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 178/1077 4 February 2021 testified with particular detail as to her experience during her abduction, recalling specific information that further convinces the Chamber of her credibility.

text: David Komakech and Lilly Apiyo are spouses. David Komakech and Lilly Apiyo’s accounts are individualised, contextualised and singular. The witnesses testified to their specific perspective during the attack and the Chamber sees nothing in their accounts that suggests collusion or an agreement on a common narrative.

text: Further, the Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimonies were consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: iv Joel Opiyo (P-0196)

text: Joel Opiyo’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Joel Opiyo, a Lukodi camp resident and about seven years old at the time of the attack, testified about his experiences during the attack. Contrary to the Defence’s argument, the Chamber does not find that the witness’s age at the time of the attack made his testimony unreliable. On the contrary, the witness’s recollection of events was quite good. Further, Joel Opiyo remembered details of his experience with a specificity that convinces the Chamber that he spoke of events he personally experienced and that remained seared in his mind. The Chamber’s view of the witness’s credibility was enhanced by the fact that he stated when he did not remember particular details. The witness also clearly distinguished between what he knew from his own experiences and what he was told by others. Lastly, the witness’s testimony was consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: 855 See P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 31-42. 856 See the testimonies of P-0024, P-0187. 857 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1277). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 98-101, p. 109. 858 See P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at 1061. 859 Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 177. 860 See P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 24 (the witness was clear that he did not remember exactly what happened to his sister in the course of the attack). 861 See the testimonies of P-0024, P-0185 and P-0187.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 179/1077 4 February 2021 v Vincent Oyet (V-0003)

text: Vincent Oyet testified live before the Chamber. Vincent Oyet, a resident of Lukodi IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about what he witnessed in the aftermath of the attack. The witness provided straight-forward evidence. The Chamber considers Vincent Oyet a credible witness. However, his testimony is only indirectly related to the issues relevant to the disposal of the charges.

text: vi P-0187

text: P-0187 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0187, a camp resident of Lukodi IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about the Lukodi IDP camp attack and her abduction by the LRA. The witness was forthcoming and candid about what she experienced in the course of her abduction with the LRA. She also had an excellent recollection of events. P-0187 spoke frequently in a narrative mode and was able to contextualise her accounts with credible details that convince the Chamber of her truthfulness. The witness offered a detailed and comprehensive account of her experience, describing events in a manner and offering information which indicated that she spoke of her personal experiences. Further, the Chamber considers that P-0187’s testimony was consistent with other reliable evidence. In questioning the witness, the Defence noted an inconsistency between her victim’s application form and her testimony. The Chamber accepts the witness’s clarification that her victim’s application form did not reflect what she stated when the form was filled out for her. Further, the Chamber notes that information provided on a victim application form is unsworn and intended for another purpose. The discrepancy does not undermine the Chamber’s view of the witness’s credibility.

text: 862 V-0003: T-172. 863 P-0187: T-164; T-165. 864 See P-0187: T-165, p. 6, lines 1-19 (the witness’s victim application form indicated that she was in her hut at the start of the attack, while the witness testified that she was on her way home). 865 P-0187: T-165, p. 6, lines 5-11, p. 7, lines 18-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 180/1077 4 February 2021 e. Residents of Abok IDP camp

text: i Gwentorina Akite (P-0279)

text: Gwentorina Akite’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Gwentorina Akite, a resident of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about her experiences in the course of the attack, including her abduction by the LRA. The witness clearly explained the source of her information and gave details that supported the credibility of the information provided. Gwentorina Akite provided evidence that was comprehensive and rich with the type of details that shows that she spoke about deeply affecting personal experiences. Further, the Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: ii V-0002

text: V-0002 testified live before the Chamber. V-0002, a former resident of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the course of the attack including his abduction by the LRA. The witness was forthcoming and candid. Further, the Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: iii P-0280

text: P-0280 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures and received Rule 74 assurances. P-0280, a former resident of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the course of the attack and its aftermath. P-0280’s testimony was clear and consistent. He was forthcoming in his responses to questioning by the parties and participants and did not become recalcitrant nor did he change his account when questioned by the Defence. The Chamber considers that the level of detail in P-0280’s account is consistent with someone who personally

text: 866 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1326). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 126-28, p. 110. 867 Particularly the testimony of P-0304 and P-0286. 868 V-0002: T-171. 869 See the testimonies of P-0286 and P-0304. 870 P-0280: T-83; T-84; T-83, p. 39, lines 21-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 181/1077 4 February 2021 experienced the events. Importantly, P-0280 also distinguished between events that he

text: personally witnessed as opposed to matters he was informed about, and openly

text: acknowledged when his testimony may have been impacted by an erroneous belief.

text: P-0280 testified that he was born in 1986, but also stated that he was 15 or 16 years

text: old at the time of attack on Abok IDP camp in 2004 which was disputed by the Defence

text: on the basis of an application form for a sponsorship programme. The Chamber attributes little significance to this discrepancy in the witness’s testimony and evidence.

text: The witness explained that at the time of the sponsorship programme application he

text: believed his year of birth to be 1990 and he was only later informed by other adults that

text: he was born in 1986. Despite the contradiction in his testimony and the fact that his

text: birth certificate was lost during the Abok attack, the Chamber sees no reason to doubt the witness’s explanation. In any event, this marginal issue does not cast doubt on the

text: truthfulness of the witness’s account of the Abok attack.

text: The Chamber also notes that there is inconsistency between P-0280’s testimony and other

text: evidence about the length of time he spent with the LRA in the bush after having been

text: abducted. While P-0280 testified that he came out of the bush in October 2004,

text: Douglas Obwor testified that P-0280 stayed in the bush for only one month after the 8

text: June 2004 Abok attack. Additionally, a UPDF report, dated August 2004, lists P-0280

text: amongst the witnesses to the Abok attack present within Abok IDP camp. When

text: questioned about this discrepancy, P-0280 conceded that he may have ‘forgot[ten] one

text: For example the witness’s account of: the death of his family members in Abok, expressions used within the LRA (‘lapwony’), and the ‘initiation’ rituals performed on newly recruited LRA fighters. P-0280: T-84, p. 50, line 25 – p. 51, line 3. This would make him 18 years old at the time of the 2004 Abok attack. P-0280: T-84, p. 9, lines 16-17, p. 51, lines 16-19. P-0280: T-84, p. 51, lines 6-8; Sponsoring Children Uganda Application, UGA-OTP-0244-2184. P-0280: T-84, p. 51, line 9 – p. 53, line 15. See also T-83-CONF, p. 43, line 6. P-0280: T-84, p. 52, lines 10-16. P-0280: T-84, p. 59, lines 8-10, thus implying that he spent around four months in the bush. P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 32. Thus, indicating that P-0280 was at home 2-3 months after the attacks. The Chamber notes that there are actually two UPDF Reports containing much of the same information. UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0178 and UPDF Report, some selected cases of atrocities committed by LRA rebels, UGA-OTP-0032-0038-R01, at 0059. Regarding the latter report, the Chamber notes that while pages 0052-91 contain information identical to the first UPDF Report (UGA-OTP- 0037-0153), UGA-OTP-0032-0038-R01, at 0038-51 also contains a chart, Tabulation of some atrocities committed by LRA, status of investigations into things. Where the reports are identical, the Chamber will reference UGA-OTP-0037-0153. The Reports were provided to the Prosecutor by P-0038 on 14 December 2004. The Reports, dated August 2004, appear to have been created soon after the attacks discussed within. The Chamber finds that the two reports bear indicia of authenticity.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 182/1077 4 February 2021 or two things’, may have been ‘confused’ or ‘lost count of time’ after returning from the bush. Such forthcoming admissions reflect positively on the witness’s credibility and also explain the inaccuracy of his recollection of the time he spent in captivity. The Chamber considers it significant that although the witness is mistaken about how long he spent in the bush with the LRA, the witness did spend some time in captivity, at least one month, and thus personally experienced life in the LRA.

text: As noted above, the nature of the armed conflict, the context of abduction and subsequent captivity and the constant movement of the LRA while in the bush, make it understandable that some witnesses struggle to keep track of the time they spent in the bush and to recall it with precision years after their escape from the LRA. It is reasonable that witnesses in captivity in the bush, particularly those who were children when they were abducted, have lost their attachment to the very concept of time.

text: The Chamber is attentive to the traumatic nature of the events experienced by this witness. Additionally, P-0280’s testimony is consistent with someone who personally experienced the events. Further, considering that the witness’s account of events is largely consistent with the testimony of other witnesses with knowledge of those events, the Chamber does not consider the above discussed inconsistencies to undermine the reliability of P-0280’s testimony.

text: iv Dorcas Ayo (P-0281); Jacob Opio (P-0282)

text: Dorcas Ayo and Jacob Opio’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. The witnesses, civilian residents of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about their experience during the attack and in its aftermath. The witnesses’ testimonies were comprehensive and rich with details that indicated that they spoke from personal experience. They provided detailed and contextualised accounts of the Abok IDP camp attack and the events they witnessed.

text: 880 P-0280: T-84, p. 60, lines 17-22. 881 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1336); First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 129-33, p. 110; P-0282 Statement, UGA- OTP-0261-0246-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1346); First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 134-37, p. 110.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 183/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further, the Chamber considers that their testimonies were both internally consistent and generally consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: v Robson Oper (P-0286)

text: Robson Oper testified live before the Chamber. Robson Oper, a resident of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the attack and in the aftermath. Robson Oper’s testimony, provided in a narrative manner, was rich in detail, graphic, and narrated with a depth of emotion. The witness intervened at times to ensure that his account was being properly understood, indicating his attempt at accuracy. Robson Oper was generally forthcoming in answering questions and did not alter his testimony during examination by the Defence. In particular, the Chamber notes that he remained calm during Defence questioning, even when confronted with questions that attacked his credibility. The Chamber is also receptive to the fact that Robson Oper did not implicate Dominic Ongwen beyond what the witness personally experienced.

text: The Chamber notes that Robson Oper readily admitted that he lied on his victim’s application form for his own benefit. The witness was forthright and prompt with his admission and provided an explanation without hesitance or equivocation. Thus, and given that the information provided on a victim application form is unsworn and intended for another purpose, the Chamber does not consider the witness’s untruthfulness on the form to have a broader impact on the credibility of the evidence he provided, under oath, before the Chamber.

text: Of greater significance is that Robson Oper testified about attacks he participated in during his time in the bush – for example, he testified about participating in several 885 886 attacks in Opit in the 5-6 months he alleges to have spent with the LRA. However,

text: 882 With regard to the testimony of Dorcas Ayo, see in particular the testimonies of Charles Amodo and Gwentorina Akite; regarding the testimony of Jacob Opio, see in particular the testimonies of P-0280, Robson Oper, Cyprian Ayoo, Charles Amodo and Douglas Obwor. 883 P-0286: T-131; T-132. 884 See Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0349, at 0351 (‘[o]n my return home I found out that my shop was broken by the rebels and all the merchandise were looted and others were burnt. My houses were also burned with all the properties in it, the goats also and other goats were looted’) as opposed to the witness’s in court testimony P-0286: T-131, p. 70, line 13 – p. 71, line 16 (‘mine too was supposed to be compensated…if people are getting compensation I would also benefit because I needed to say that so I could also be part of the people who would get compensations in case that ever happens’). See also p. 71, lines 17-20. 885 P-0286: T-131, p. 39, line 18 – p. 41, line 7. 886 P-0286: T-131, p. 48, lines 4-5. The witness recollects that he returned from captivity in November 2004.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 184/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber observes that several witnesses testified that Robson Oper returned to the camp right after the attack on Abok IDP camp. Further, a UPDF report, dated August 2004, titled ‘Atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda’ lists ‘Oper, Robert’ (Robson Oper) amongst the witnesses to the attack on Abok IDP camp who were all ‘within Abok IDP Camp’ at the time of the report. The Chamber also observes that when pushed by the Defence about the inconsistency in this aspect of his testimony, Robson Oper’s responses were somewhat evasive. Given the evidence with regards to when the witness returned from captivity, the Chamber does not rely on his testimony on his experiences with the LRA beyond the aftermath of the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack.

text: vi P-0287

text: P-0287’s prior recorded testimony was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. P-0287, a civilian resident of Abok IDP camp, offered evidence about his experience in the course of the attack. The Defence argues that as the witness was only during the attack, it has ‘serious doubt as to the witness’s ability to recall the event with such specificity…one can easily reason why there is great circumspect as to whether the witness truly remembers the incidents at hand, or if it is a story made of hearsay’. The Chamber agrees with the Defence that in light of the witness’s very young age at the time of the attack and the subsequent time that had elapsed since the attack, it is unlikely that the evidence is his first-hand account of events. As there is better, credible and reliable, evidence about the events of Abok IDP camp on the record, the Chamber does not rely on P-0287’s testimony.

text: 887 P-0284 credibly testified that P-0286 had managed to escape ‘that day’ and had returned to the camp. P-0284 stated that he had spoken to P-0286 after P-0286’s return to the camp and P-0286 had said that he managed to escape because the mamba was chasing the rebels and some abductees were able to escape during the confusion. P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 44-46. Similarly, P-0306 credibly testified that P-0286 had been among the abductees rescued by UPDF soldier Engola Okello during the LRA’s retreat from Abok. P- 0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 32. 888 P-0286 testified that while his given name was Robson Oper, some people called him Robert. P-0286: T-131, p. 66, lines 21-23. 889 Thus indicating that he was in Abok 2-3 months after the attack. UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0178. 890 P-0286: T-132, p. 41, line 6 – p. 43, line 18, p. 45, lines 12-18. 891 P-0287 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0268-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-1367); First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 142-45, p. 110. 892 Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 183.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 185/1077 4 February 2021 vii Charles Amodo (P-0304)

text: Charles Amodo testified live before the Chamber. Charles Amodo, a resident of Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack relevant to the charges, testified about his experiences in the attack and in its aftermath. Importantly, the witness’s testimony was consistent throughout the questioning and the witness delineated between when he was testifying to facts within his personal knowledge – e.g. what he witnessed during the Abok attack – and when he was relaying information that he gained from other persons – e.g. information gained from Oringa James about the commanders responsible for the 8 June 2004 Abok attack. Additionally, when the witness described his personal experiences, he talked about events in a chronological manner and described the circumstances under which they took place.

text: Nonetheless, Charles Amodo offered a detailed and coherent account of his own experiences during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack.

text: The Chamber notes that, when referencing a group that briefly abducted him in 2002, Charles Amodo referred to ‘Bookec’ or ‘Bojokech’ as another name for the LRA. The Defence raised this issue during their questioning of the witness and Charles Amodo explained that he came to know this name because any armed group other than the government soldiers were referred to by children as ‘Bojokech’. The Chamber is satisfied with the witness’s explanation and considers that Charles Amodo’s testimony on ‘Bookec’/‘Bojokech’ has no bearing on the identity of the group that abducted the witness during the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok nor does it have any bearing on the credibility and reliability of his account of his experiences during and after the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp. Yet, the Chamber is attentive to the fact that there are some discrepancies between the witness’s account, at times based on information he was told by others rather than personally observed, and other evidence heard in this case, for example in relation to the movements of the LRA during the attack and the burning of huts.

text: 893 P-0304: T-133. 894 See P-0304: T-133, p. 5, line 22 – p. 7, line 2. 895 P-0304: T-133, p. 39, lines 12-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 186/1077 4 February 2021 f. Other civilians

text: i Rwot Yusef Adek (D-0028)

text: Rwot Yusef Adek, a cultural chief of the Pageya clan, testified live before the Chamber. He offered information on Acholi people’s cultural, spiritual and religious practices. In addition, he testified about his knowledge of Joseph Kony and Dominic Ongwen as well as his personal role in the peace talks with the LRA. Rwot Adek’s testimony was very general in nature and consisted of his overall views and interpretation rather than recounting personal observation of specific facts. Thus, while not deeming Rwot Adek not credible, in the presence of more direct evidence, the Chamber does not rely on his testimony.

text: ii Ishaa Otto (D-0083)

text: Ishaa Otto, a member and activist of a Ugandan NGO, testified live before the Chamber. He offered information about the establishment of IDP camps in Northern Uganda and the living conditions in such camps. Further, his testimony is also relevant regarding the formation of auxiliary forces as self-defence against the LRA, including the Arrow Boys in Teso. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about his experiences.

text: iii Ojwiya James Okot (D-0087)

text: Ojwiya James Okot testified live before the Chamber. He is a conflict resolution expert working on clan and inter-clan disputes. He was abducted by the LRA in 1989 and briefly stayed in the organisation. However, he primarily offered background information as concerns Acholi cultural norms, including clan and inter-clan disputes. As this topic does not have a bearing on the case, the Chamber does not rely on the evidence of Ojwiya James Okot for its conclusions in relation to the charges.

text: iv Adong Harriet Ojwiya (D-0111)

text: Adong Harriet Ojwiya, an ajwaka, or spiritual healer, testified live before the Chamber without protective measures. The witness testified about her work as a traditional

text: 896 D-0028: T-180; T-181; T-182. 897 D-0083: T-217. 898 D-0087: T-184. 899 D-0111: T-183.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 187/1077 4 February 2021 herbalist in Northern Uganda. The Chamber, however, considers her testimony not to be of direct relevance to the charges.

text: v Joseph Bua Okol (D-0113)

text: Joseph Bua Okol, a local politician and clan chief in Lango, testified live before the Chamber. He testified about his role as a clan chief during the period relevant to the charges, and provided information which contextualised the establishment of IDP camps and the recruitment of auxiliary forces, in particular the Amuka. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified truthfully about his experiences and knowledge of the region and its peoples.

text: vi John Mawa Okello (D-0123)

text: John Mawa Okello, an Itesot man born in 1957, testified live before the Chamber. He testified about his abduction and short stay with the LRA in Teso in 2003, as well as about the establishment of IDP camps, the living conditions in the camps as well as the Arrow Boys. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about events he personally experienced.

text: vii Michael Okwir (D-0124)

text: Michael Okwir, an Itesot man born in 1959, testified live before the Chamber. He testified about the structure and functioning of the Arrow Boys in Teso and in particular about the relationship of the Arrow Boys with the civilian population at the time of the LRA operations in Teso. He further gave evidence about how the attacks affected him and his family, having lost three brothers during the conflict and taking care of the children of his brothers. His testimony was simple and candid. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about events he personally experienced.

text: viii Michael Opiro (D-0132)

text: Michael Opiro’s statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. The witness, a former aid worker at a Caritas Reception Centre in Pajule, testified about his

text: 900 D-0113: T-221. 901 D-0123: T-238. 902 D-0124: T-238. 903 D-0132 Statement, UGA-D26-0025-0021 (public redacted version available: UGA-D26-0025-0021-R01). See Decision on Prosecution Request to Introduce Evidence of Defence Witnesses via Rule 68(2)(b), 16 August 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1322-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-1322-Red), paras 20-21, p. 12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 188/1077 4 February 2021 work in the IDP camps, including his experiences as a counsellor of returnees from the bush. In addition, he testified about providing assistance for the Juba Peace Talks as a Caritas staff member in 2007 and 2008, about meeting Joseph Kony and witnessing the killing of LRA members. While the Chamber did not identify any issue affecting the credibility of the witness, the Chamber notes that his testimony is not directly relevant to the charges.

text: ix Julius Ochen (D-0136)

text: Julius Ochen testified live before the Chamber. As a politician from Teso and member of the Ugandan parliament he offered a historical account on LRA and LDU activities in Teso at the time of the charges. In particular, he provided information on the formation and functioning of the Arrow Boys. In the Chamber’s view, the witness’s testimony about the LRA’s initial behaviour in Teso is contradictory. The witness stated that the LRA members behaved initially in a friendly manner towards the population in Teso, but then went on to say that the local population mobilised and set up the Arrow Boys against the ‘rebel group’ which was coming in. In addition, the Chamber finds Julius Ochen’s account of the treatment of former abductees by the community unconvincing, in particular the statement that ‘[w]hatever they did when they returned, there was a celebration for their return.’ The Chamber is of the view that the witness was motivated to give a positive account of the reception of former LRA members, as the witness especially highlighted his role as a chairman in receiving them. In light of the above, considering the limited relevance of the testimony of Julius Ochen and the availability of other more reliable evidence on the pertinent issues, the Chamber does not rely on Julius Ochen.

text: v. Government officers and agents

text: a. UPDF The Defence alleges that the Prosecution did not carry out an impartial investigation, partly because ‘the choice and management of witnesses was done by Major Patrick

text: 904 D-0136: T-207. 905 D-0136: T-207, p. 34, line 7 – p. 35, line 4. 906 D-0136: T-207, p. 54, line 5 – p. 55, line 23. 907 D-0136: T-207, p. 56, line 1 – p. 60, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 189/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ocira (P-0078), a UPDF officer who acted as resource person for the Prosecution’. First, the Chamber notes that the Defence does not make any specific allegation of wrong-doing. Rather, it asserts merely that the involvement of Patrick Ocira in allegedly facilitating the Prosecution’s investigation is proof that the Prosecution did not carry out an impartial investigation. Further, the Chamber notes that neither the Defence nor the Prosecution called Patrick Ocira as a witness to these proceedings. Absent specific allegations and proof, the Chamber considers the Defence’s assertion unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

text: i P-0035

text: P-0035’s statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. P-0035 testified about his personal experience as of the military detachment stationed in Lukodi IDP camp, he described the way the attack unfolded and the actions of the Ugandan government soldiers. The Chamber notes that the witness only served . This likely explains the lack of specificity of some of his information about Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber considers that most aspects of the witness’s testimony are consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: ii John Lubwama (P-0047)

text: John Lubwama testified live before the Chamber. He also provided a statement to the Prosecution, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. John Lubwama, the UPDF commanding officer stationed at the army barracks of Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack on the camp relevant to the charges, testified about the camp and his

text: 908 Defence Closing Brief, para. 10. The Defence further states that according to available records, approximately 40 Prosecution witnesses, of which 20 were on the Prosecution List of Witnesses, are attributed to this UPDF officer. The Defence makes further allegations in relation to Prosecution’s collection of evidence which is discussed further below. See the Chamber’s discussion of other documentary evidence at paras 848-849 below. 909 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0283-0102). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 105-08, p. 108. 910 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 12, 34-54. 911 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 10. 912 For example, P-0035 did not know the number of people living in Lukodi IDP camp and could only offer a rough estimate. P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 19. 913 See the testimonies of P-0018, P-0024, P-0060. 914 P-0047: T-114; T-115. 915 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01. See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 51-54, p. 111. See also P-0047: T-114, p. 26, line 6 – p. 29, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 190/1077 4 February 2021 experience during the attack and in its aftermath. The witness’s testimony was clear, detailed and credible. He clearly identified the source of his information, clarified what he experienced and what he heard from others and describes events in a manner and with such detail that the Chamber is convinced he testified truthfully about his personal experiences. The Chamber also notes that his testimony was consistent with the testimony of other credible witnesses.

text: iii P-0084

text: P-0084’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 917 918 Rules. P-0084, an officer with the UPDF during the Pajule IDP camp attack, testified about what he witnessed during the attack and his experience as part of a factfinding team that visited Pajule immediately after the attack had ended on 10 October 2003. P-0084’s testimony was detailed, comprehensive and supported by the related report, which was created just days after the October 2003 Pajule IDP camp attack. He clearly stated the sources of his information and distinguished between what he witnessed personally and what he heard from others. The Chamber considers that the witness’s testimony was both internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: iv Irumba Omero Tingira (P-0189)

text: Irumba Omero Tingira is a UDPF colonel, who testified live before the Chamber. Irumba Tingira testified about his meetings with different LRA groups in his capacity as UPDF division intelligence officer in September 2006 during the ceasefire with the LRA. He gave in particular a detailed testimony about his meeting with Dominic Ongwen on 4 September 2006. This meeting does not fall within the period of the charges. However,

text: 916 See the testimonies of P-0008 and P-0084. The Chamber notes in particular that as John Lubwama and P-0084 testified to their personal knowledge and perspective, the Chamber does not find their testimonies inconsistent. Contrary to the Defence’s arguments at the time of the submission of documents related to the witness’s testimony, the Chamber does not consider that other witnesses’ testimonies about the existence of a letter from the LRA or rumours of an impending attack preceding the Pajule IDP camp attack at issue undermine John Lubwama’s credibility. See P-0047: T-115, p. 22, line 19 – p. 24, line 5; Annex XI to the Registry’s Second Report on the Evidence recognised as formally submitted to the Chamber, 12 October 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-1178-Anx-XI. 917 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-0982). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 59-63, p. 109. 918 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 11. 919 See P-0084’s report on the Pajule attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0416. 920 See the testimonies of Rwot Joseph Oywak, P-0008 and P-0047. 921 P-0189: T-95; T-96.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 191/1077 4 February 2021 as also explained below, the Chamber considers that it is nevertheless of relevance for the Chamber’s conclusions in relation to the charges.

text: v Joseph Balikudembe (P-0359)

text: Joseph Balikudembe testified live before the Chamber. Joseph Balikudembe, a UPDF colonel at the time of the attacks relevant to the charges, testified about his role as a UPDF commander during the relevant time period and about his knowledge of the attacks on Pajule, Odek and Abok IDP camps. Joseph Balikudembe was a calm, knowledgeable, forthright and forthcoming witness. His testimony was clear, logical, internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence before the Chamber. The witness clearly explained the source of his information, offering details that supported the credibility of the information provided. Joseph Balikudembe offered evidence that was clearly based on first-hand experience and of a nature that would be expected of a person is his position. For example, the witness’s explanation of his role in the UPDF and his work with military intelligence demonstrates to the Chamber that he provided information based on his personal experience.

text: vi Emmanuel Ewicho (D-0122)

text: Emmanuel Ewicho testified live before the Chamber. He testified about joining the UPDF in 1992 and subsequently fighting against the LRA in Teso in 2003. He further offered evidence on Charles Tabuley’s death. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about his experiences.

text: b. LDU/Arrow boys/Amuka

text: i Bosco Ogwang (D-0065)

text: Bosco Ogwang testified live before the Chamber. The witness testified about his experiences in the local defence unit (‘LDU’) and provided an account of the attack on Abok IDP camp, which he witnessed as a member of the LDU. His testimony was internally consistent and consistent with other reliable evidence heard in these

text: 922 P-0189: T-95, p. 8, line 16 – p. 9, line 3. 923 P-0359: T-109; T-110. 924 P-0359: T-109, p. 54, line 13 – p. 55, line 16. 925 D-0122: T-237. 926 D-0065: T-211.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 192/1077 4 February 2021 proceedings. He clearly distinguished between events he witnessed himself and what he heard from others. Importantly, the witness did not incriminate the accused at all cost, indicating a lack of bias and further enhancing the Chamber’s view of his credibility.

text: ii Julius Nyeko (D-0066)

text: Julius Nyeko testified live before the Chamber. Julius Nyeko, an LDU soldier at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp relevant to the charges, testified about the attack on the camp. The Chamber found Julius Nyeko to have been a forthcoming witness. The witness frequently testified in a narrative format, providing a narration of what he knew of the LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. However, despite his testimony that he fled and hid far away from the camp, the witness at times testifies as though he personally witnessed things he could not have personally seen. The Chamber takes this into account as part of the assessment of evidence provided by the witness.

text: iii Okello Michael Tookwaro (D-0072)

text: Okello Michael Tookwaro testified live before the Chamber. Okello Tookwaro testified about his experiences as an LDU soldier stationed in Lukodi IDP camp at the time of the May 2004 attack.

text: Several aspects of Okello Michael Tookwaro’s testimony bring into question its reliability. The witness testified that the LDU barracks was being dismantled before the attack and that at the time of the attack the UPDF had a barrack on top of the hill. The witness is the only one to offer such testimony. Other witnesses are consistent that there was only one barracks in Lukodi at the time of the attack and that the barracks on the hill was erected after the attack. Further, no other witness apart from Okello Michael

text: 927 D-0065: T-211, p. 22, lines 15-20, p. 24, lines 1-13, p. 29, lines 4-12 (stating that he did not see any commander and did not know which LRA commander commanded the attack on Abok IDP camp and that he never heard Dominic Ongwen mentioned with respect to Abok IDP camp until Dominic Ongwen was arrested). 928 D-0066: T-214. 929 D-0066: T-214, p. 23, lines 4-5, p. 24, lines 11-19. 930 See D-0066: T-214, p. 23, line 25 – p. 24, line 6 (testifying about the behaviour of the LRA forces towards civilians in the camp) or p. 23, lines 8-19, p. 28, lines 11-13, p. 29, lines 14-18 (testifying about the movement and actions of the mobile forces during the attack). 931 D-0072: T-212. 932 D-0072: T-212, p. 12, line 20 – p. 15, line 18; D-0072’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-D26-0021-0226. 933 See P-0145: T-144, p. 43, lines 8-24 (at the time of the attack, there was only one government military barracks. The second barracks was created following the May 2004 attack); P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 17 (the second military barracks on the hills was built after the attack on Lukodi IDP camp). P-0035 made no mention of a separate UPDF force present in the camp. See P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 193/1077 4 February 2021

text: Tookwaro testified that the UPDF soldiers were on the top of the hill the day of the attack. Such a discrepancy is significant, particularly given Okello Michael Tookwaro’s position as a soldier in the LDU.

text: Most importantly, the Chamber is of the view that Okello Michael Tookwaro’s testimony regarding about what happened during the Lukodi attack is unreliable. Okello Michael Tookwaro testified that he and other government soldiers present in Lukodi quickly fled in the heat of the initial exchange with the LRA and could not see what was happening within the camp. Contrary to other credible and reliable testimony demonstrating that the attack lasted one to two hours, the witness also testified that the attack took quite a long time, almost six hours. The Chamber is unable to rely on his testimony in regard to the conduct of the attack.

text: iv Sam Ojede (D-0121)

text: Sam Ojede testified live before the Chamber. Sam Ojede, an LDU soldier, offered an account of the attack on Abok IDP camp. The Chamber finds that this witness’s testimony cannot be relied upon.

text: Sam Ojede’s testimony was at times unclear, inconsistent or incredible. The Chamber finds that several issues completely undermined the credibility and reliability of his evidence.

text: First, the witness gave the Chamber the impression that he was not testifying in a natural, spontaneous way. When the witness was asked whether he had ever met Dominic Ongwen or heard about him being within the Lango sub-region, he gave a convoluted and somewhat tangential response about an unnamed commander who had met Dominic

text: 934 D-0072: T-212, p. 16, lines 15-18. See also D-0072: T-212, p. 19, lines 17-19 (indicating that the camp had not received its scheduled monthly distribution yet at the time of the attack). 935 D-0072: T-212, p. 38, line 9 – p. 43, line 19, p. 44, line 21 – p. 45, line 15, p. 47, lines 1-9, p. 47, line 17 – p. 48, line 2. The Chamber notes that the witness testifies about re-enforcements forces, including a mamba, coming to repel the LRA. However, the Chamber notes that his testimony about his location in relation to these reinforcement forces is unclear and inconclusive. It also contradicts other reliable evidence that the re-enforcement troops did not engage with the LRA within the camp as they arrived after the LRA had already fled. What is clear is that he was not at the camp after the initial gunfire from the LRA and cannot reliably testify about what happened within the camp. 936 See the Chamber’s discussion of the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack in para. 1796 below. 937 D-0072: T-212, p. 39, lines 13-14. 938 D-0121: T-213.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 194/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen and had reported Dominic Ongwen’s specific orders. The Chamber finds it incredible that Sam Ojede, who before his memory was refreshed could not remember the name of his commander in the months he was captured by the LRA, would remember in such detail what he was told about the commands of Dominic Ongwen, whom he testified he never met or saw. This aspect of the witness’s testimony appeared overly deliberate, like a line memorised in advance.

text: The Chamber is further unconvinced by the witness’s explanation of why he did not mention these commands of Dominic Ongwen in his interview with the Defence. It is clear to the Chamber that had the witness truly heard the orders he claimed to have heard from Dominic Ongwen, he would have mentioned them in the course of his interviews with the Defence and/or the Prosecution.

text: Second, in his testimony about the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack, the witness was unclear in relation to the number of soldiers present within the camp during the attack. The Chamber does not find the confusion in the testimony in itself dispositive or particularly significant, given the time that has elapsed. However, given the importance the witness places on the behaviour of the government soldiers, the lack of clarity is important to note. Third, the Chamber found the witness’s accounts of the Abok IDP camp attack improbable. As regards his testimony that no one was abducted from Abok and nothing was looted, the Chamber notes that this witness’s testimony is significantly at odds with the evidence offered by other witnesses in the proceedings, who testified credibly that persons were abducted and property was looted. Further, the Chamber found the witness’s explanation of the returned abductees odd. Sam Ojede testified that the morning after the attack, Colonel Engola returned to the camp with injured civilians and children

text: 939 D-0121: T-213, p. 14, lines 5-21. 940 D-0121: T-213, p. 9, lines 8-12, line 23 – p. 10, line 5. 941 D-0121: T-213, p. 14, lines 5-21. 942 See D-0121: T-213, p. 62, line 23 – p. 64, line 7, p. 66, lines 14-25. 943 D-0121 testified that there were about 300 soldiers around the camp and about 30 of the soldiers were taken to the camp to protect the camp. D-0121 placed himself among the soldiers who were taken to defend the camp. D- 0121: T-213, p. 24, line 21 – p. 25, line 4. But he also testified that there were 270 government soldiers remaining in the camp. T-213, p. 28, lines 8-13, p. 65, lines 2-6. 944 D-0121: T-213, p. 46, lines 9-20. 945 See paras 1901-1910, 1973-2000, the Chamber’s evidentiary discussion of looting and abduction committed at Abok IDP camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 195/1077 4 February 2021 whom the Colonel said were rescued from LRA rebels. Sam Ojede contends that these civilians were not abducted from Abok but were abducted from a different location and rescued from the rebels. The Chamber does not understand why Colonel Engola would have returned abductees who were not from Abok to Abok under the circumstances. The Chamber also notes that in reference to these same abductees, the witness subsequently testified that the people who were abducted from Abok were abducted on a different day, not on the day of the attack. Given the ample evidence showing that the abductees rescued by Captain Engola and the government soldiers had been abducted from Abok the day of the attack, the Chamber finds the witness’s account unreliable.

text: As regards his testimony that government soldiers were responsible for the crimes committed in Abok, the Chamber notes particularly that Sam Ojede testified that soldiers and ‘most of the people’ in Abok were aware that it was government soldiers who killed civilians and burnt houses. Were this testimony true, it would be peculiar that numerous camp residents who testified about the Abok IDP camp attack in these proceedings failed to mention such happenings. Further, the Chamber is unconvinced by the witness’s explanation of why he did not mention that commanders had told government soldiers to keep quiet about the Abok attack during his earlier interviews with the parties.

text: Fourth, the witness was inconsistent with regards to the date of his abduction in his testimony as opposed to his statement to the Prosecution. The Chamber generally finds an inconsistency of this nature unexceptional. However, the witness’s response to the inconsistency undermined his credibility. Only after lengthy questioning, and after being confronted with his previous interview, did the witness admit that he gave a different date of abduction to the Prosecution. The Chamber is unconvinced by the witness’s

text: 946 D-0121: T-213, p. 37, line 12 – p. 38, line 3. The Chamber notes that D-0121, in offering his idea of how people came into UPDF custody, stated ‘I believe that these people went to the forest and they stayed. They spent the night there, and in the morning he went and fought against them and he brought back these people.’ T-213, p. 37, lines 20-22. It is not clear to the Chamber who D-0121 testified fought against the LRA, civilians or the UPDF. 947 D-0121: T-213, p. 45, lines 7-13. 948 See section IV.C.9, the Chamber’s discussion of the course of the Abok IDP camp attack. 949 D-0121: T-213, p. 46, lines 1-8. 950 D-0121: T-213, p. 41, line 16 – p. 42, line 3. 951 D-0121: T-213, p. 61, line 24 – p. 62, line 4. 952 When questioned in court, the witness testified that he was abducted on 20 December 2001. D-0121: T-213, p. 9, lines 13-16. During his interview with the Prosecution before his testimony the witness stated that he had been abducted in 2003. See D-0121: T-213, p. 52, line 15 – p. 53, line 4. 953 D-0121: T-213, p. 52, line 15 – p. 55, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 196/1077 4 February 2021 explanation of the inconsistency. Further, the witness’s obstinacy undermined his credibility in the Chamber’s view.

text: Fifth, the witness was wrong about the date of the attack on Abok IDP camp. Again, the witness’s response when the inconsistency was identified undermined his credibility. He was adamant that the attack occurred on 6 August 2004, the same date advanced by Kenneth Opiyo. Only after repeated questioning did the witness allow he might have been mistaken about the date of the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: Lastly, regarding Sam Ojede and Kenneth Opiyo’s discussion of the Abok attack, Sam Ojede’s testimony regarding this contact further undermines his credibility. He first denied speaking with Kenneth Opiyo and only admitted to it when confronted by evidence that made continued denial untenable. The Chamber finds that both the witness’s denial of the discussion with Kenneth Opiyo and the discussion itself undermine the credibility and reliability of the witness’s testimony.

text: In light of the foregoing, the Chamber found the witness’s evidence not credible and not reliable. The Chamber does not rely on his evidence.

text: v Charles Opio (D-0125)

text: Charles Opio testified live before the Chamber. He testified about joining the Arrow Boys in 2003 in Teso as a former member of the UPDF. He provided information about the establishment of the Arrow Boys, his encounters with the LRA and about witnessing Charles Tabuley’s death. The Chamber is satisfied that Charles Opio testified credibly about his experiences.

text: vi Justine Edeku Ooja (D-0138)

text: Justine Edeku Ooja is a former Arrow Boys commander, who testified live before the Chamber. He provided a comprehensive narrative of the LRA operation in Teso between 2003 and 2004, the establishment and functioning of the Arrow Boys and his

text: 954 See D-0121: T-213, p. 52, line 15 – p. 55, line 8. 955 D-0121: T-213, p. 44, lines 14-18. 956 D-0121: T-213, p. 44, lines 14-18, p. 58, lines 9-23. 957 D-0121: T-213, p. 67, line 5 – p. 68, line 5. 958 See discussion of Kenneth Opiyo’s testimony in section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxxv above. 959 D-0121: T-213-CONF, p. 49, line 16 – p. 50, line 11. 960 D-0125: T-242. 961 D-0138: T-246.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 197/1077 4 February 2021 role as a commander. The Chamber is satisfied that Justine Edeku Ooja testified credibly about his experiences.

text: vii Richard Ebuju (D-0140)

text: Richard Ebuju, a former member of the Uganda People’s Army and commander of the Arrow Boys, testified live before the Chamber. He testified about his experiences in the Uganda People’s Army, the attempted alliance between the latter and the LRA and his knowledge of Joseph Kony. Further, the witness provided an account on the functioning of the Arrow Boys in Teso, including detailed information on their command structure. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly about his experiences in the Arrow Boys.

text: c. Elected official

text: i Lapolo Santos Okot (P-0355)

text: Lapolo Santos Okot testified live before the Chamber. He is a Resident District Commissioner in Northern Uganda since 2001. Lapolo Santos Okot testified about the security situation in Kitgum during the period relevant to the charges in the present case and his participation in various peace talks during the period relevant to the charges and in 2006, where the accused was also present. He further testified about the presence of children in the LRA. The Defence questioned Lapolo Santos Okot concerning charges of alleged abuse of office against him, with the apparent aim to impugn his credibility in general and specifically with regard to his testimony on the conditions in the IDP camps. The Chamber notes that the witness’s answers on this matter where not always straightforward and forthcoming, which can be explained by the content of the subject. The Defence referenced allegations of improper behaviour during the exercise of the witness’s public functions. It is not unusual for a witness to try to avoid talking about events that are potentially embarrassing for him- or herself or might affect his or her reputation. However, the Chamber finds that this does not limit the reliability of Lapolo Santos Okot’s testimony as a whole. Taking into account the manner of testimony, as

text: 962 D-0140: T-206. 963 P-0355: T-96; T-97. 964 P-0355: T-96, p. 67, line 24 – p. 68, line 1. 965 P-0355: T-97, p. 23, line 13 – p. 25, line 21. 966 P-0355: T-97, p. 25, line 23 – p. 26, line 3. 967 P-0355: T-97, p. 25, lines 8-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 198/1077 4 February 2021 well as additional evidence, such as photos, on which the witness commented during his testimony, the Chamber finds the witness believable and credible when Lapolo Santos Okot testified about the various peace talk meetings he attended, as well as seeing the accused and several children in with the LRA on these occasions. Furthermore, there is corroborating evidence concerning the peace talks, which was provided by other witnesses.

text: d. Other government officers or agents

text: i P-0017

text: P-0017’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. P-0017, a police investigator, offered testimony about his experience examining the crime scene of Lukodi IDP camp several days after the May 2004 attack on the camp. The evidence provided by P-0017 was detailed and comprehensive. The witness clearly explained the source of the information provided and his evidence is supported by documentary evidence. P-0017 described what he saw at Lukodi IDP camp when he arrived there the day after the attack, as well as the investigation into the attack, the conclusions reached and the exhumation of 25 bodies. P-0017 elaborated on the methodology and conclusions of the investigations he participated in, providing commentary that indicated a deep knowledge of the events he discussed. In addition, his evidence is internally consistent and also consistent with the testimony of other credible witnesses who testified in these proceedings about the same events.

text: ii Martin Kalyemenya (P-0036)

text: Martin Kalyemenya’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules. Martin Kalyemenya offered testimony about his experience as a government pathologist examining the persons deceased at Lukodi IDP camp after the May 2004 attack on the camp. The evidence provided by Martin Kalyemenya was

text: 968 See P-0009 and P-0372. 969 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-0857). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 114-17, p. 107. 970 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at paras 201-16. 971 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at paras 204-16. 972 See the testimonies of P-0036, P-0024, P-0187. 973 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-0961). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 109-13, p. 108. 974 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 9, 18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 199/1077 4 February 2021 comprehensive and detailed. The witness explained that he arrived in Lukodi the day after the attack, and that he identified graves and carried out post-mortem exhumation and examination on 25 bodies of persons deceased in Lukodi IDP camp. The witness explained the source of the information he offers and the documentary evidence provided supports his evidence. Martin Kalyemenya also clearly explained the methodology and procedures observed and gave commentary which left the Chamber convinced as to the veracity of his account and the authenticity of the documents he provided. In addition, his evidence is internally consistent and also consistent with the testimony of other credible witnesses heard in these proceedings.

text: iii Timothy Nabaasa Kanyogonya (P-0038)

text: Timothy Nabaasa Kanyogonya testified live before the Chamber. He testified publicly, without protective measures. Timothy Kanyogonya provided two prior recorded statements which were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules. The witness testified mainly as to his role as liaison between the Ugandan Ministry of Defence and the UPDF on one side, and the Prosecution on the other, for purposes of providing material collected by Ugandan authorities during the period relevant to the charges to the Prosecution. He described the procedures followed and the nature of the material handed over to the Prosecution. Timothy Kanyogonya’s testimony was comprehensive and clear and he offered details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: vi. Intercept witnesses

text: a. Core intercept witnesses: P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440 The Chamber understands the Prosecution’s core intercept witnesses to be the two veteran LRA signallers (P-0016 and P-0440) and the two primary government interceptors (P-0003 and P-0059). All four set out their training and experience at length

text: 975 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 15-18, 127-42. 976 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 127-42. 977 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 15-18, 127-42. 978 See the testimonies of P-0017, P-0024, P-0187. 979 P-0038: T-116; T-117. 980 P-0038 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0784-R01; P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01. See P-0038: T-116, p. 5, line 24 – p. 7, line 17. See also First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 210-13, p. 111.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 200/1077 4 February 2021 in their testimonies. All four had the job of understanding how the LRA communicated,

text: and each is very well placed to recognise LRA voices on the radio. The Chamber does

text: not accept the fact that some of these witnesses were engaged in clandestine operations

text: to have any impact in their credibility.

text: The Chamber considers each witness to have testified truthfully on their essential

text: testimony. None of them attempted to incriminate Dominic Ongwen at all costs – all

text: differentiated between communications when Dominic Ongwen spoke and did not speak,

text: none claimed to know everything spoken in every communication, and all qualified their

text: answers to varying degrees when they were uncertain about particular details. This is

text: true even of P-0003, who was demonstrably more aggressive towards (and less

text: forthcoming with) the Defence than the Prosecution.

text: The most important aspect of these witnesses’ testimonies is when they discussed specific

text: intercepted communications. The general procedure for a given communication was the

text: following. Prior to testifying, and independently from any other witness: (i) the

text: Prosecution played the recording to each witness and provided a draft transcript it

text: prepared; and (ii) at particular points in the recording identified by the Prosecution, the

text: witness identified the speakers of the lines and made any corrections to the transcript as

text: necessary. Then, during the witness’s in-court testimony, the procedure continued: (iii)

text: the Prosecution played the recording to the witness, normally the enhanced audio version;

text: (iv) the witness gave a summary of the recording played without recourse to a transcript;

text: P-0003: T-42-CONF, p. 8, line 15 – p. 11, line 17; P-0016: T-32-CONF, p. 14, line 1 – p. 16, line 18; P-0059: T-36, p. 7, line 1 – p. 9, line 9; T-38-CONF, p. 15, line 3 – p. 16, line 11; P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 66, line 5 – p. 70, line 1; T-39, p. 74, line 11 – p. 75, line 1. P-0003: T-42, p. 12, lines 2-25, p. 47, lines 2-17, p. 72, lines 1-18; P-0016: T-32, p. 19, line 21 – p. 30, line 20, p. 43, lines 4-6; T-35, p. 8, line 21 – p. 11, line 20, p. 25, lines 1-18; P-0059: T-36, p. 57, lines 1-25; T-38-CONF, p. 16, line 12 – p. 22, line 9; T-38, p. 26, line 12 – p. 27, line 6; P-0440: T-40, p. 7, line 10 – p. 14, line 3. On this basis, the Chamber finds the concerns expressed by the Defence unfounded. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 266-298. See Defence Closing Brief, para. 291. E.g. P-0003: T-42, p. 86, lines 4-25; T-43, p. 14, lines 11-17, p. 31, lines 8-16; P-0059: T-37, p. 3, lines 5-10, p. 13, lines 12-14, p. 50, lines 16-18; T-38, p. 4, lines 14-16; P-0016: T-32, p. 52, line 22 – p. 53, line 4, p. 61, line 19 – p. 62, line 10, p. 68, lines 11-16; T-33, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 13, p. 45, lines 5-8, p. 55, lines 2-9; P- 0440: T-40, p. 21, line 21 – p. 22, line 2, p. 34, line 21 – p. 35, line 1. On this basis, the Chamber does not accept the related argument of the Defence that in particular P-0003 and P-0059 were biased against Dominic Ongwen. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 279, 284-87. E.g. compare P-0003: T-42, p. 78, line 11 – p. 88, line 17 (identifying voices speaking in recording UGA-OTP- 0239-0123 for the Prosecution) with P-0003: T-46, p. 26, line 13 – p. 30, line 2 (refusing to identify the speakers on this same recording during the Defence’s examination). P-0003: T-42: p. 76, line 13 – p. 78, line 10; P-0016: T-32, p. 36, line 12 – p. 39, line 12; T-34, p. 50, lines 2- 17; P-0059: T-36, p. 70, line 15 – p. 73, line 4; T-38, p. 23, line 15 – p. 24, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 201/1077 4 February 2021

text: (v) the Prosecution then showed the witness his annotated transcript, discussing certain lines or annotations; and (vi) the witness confirmed in court whether the recording played matched what appeared in his annotated transcript. A similar in-court procedure unfolded on certain occasions when the Defence played recordings to witnesses.

text: The Chamber considers this procedure to be well-suited to elicit reliable testimony on particular communications. When multiple witnesses commented on a given recording, the extent to which they corroborated each other and the formal logbooks is remarkable. The level of corroboration is such that these witnesses mutually reinforce each other, confirming that all of them are indeed capable of understanding the complex phrasing of LRA communications. This occurred even with those recordings discussed by both government and former LRA witnesses, which is particularly notable. There is no reasonable possibility of the Ugandan government systematically misunderstanding LRA communications when both government and former LRA witnesses understand what is said in the same way. This corroboration further confirms that the formal logbook entries in evidence have a high degree of accuracy.

text: This said, the Chamber notes that none of these witnesses gave indisputably clear evidence on all points. The intercepted communications use so much unusual phrasing that they are difficult to understand without additional evidence. In some instances witnesses contradicted themselves or each other about particular lines or speakers. There were other occasions when a witness could identify information in a recording that another witness was unsure about. The Chamber recognises that struggling to identify certain voices could be due to many factors, including the poor quality of certain recordings, the complexity of LRA communication, and the nearly 15 years which elapsed between an intercepted communication and the testimony about it. It also cannot be excluded that witnesses attempted to identify speakers from context in limited instances, such as hearing a call-sign or signaller and then inconsistently deducing who is speaking.

text: 987 See P-0016: T-32, p. 39, line 13 – p. 41, line 25, p. 71, lines 3-12 (explanation of approach); P-0059: T-36, p. 73, line 9 – p. 77, line 2. 988 E.g., P-0138: T-121, p. 57, line 13 – p. 67, line 4; T-122, p. 5, line 4 – p. 13, line 10; P-0339: T-134, p. 47, line 21 – p. 49, line 6; T-135, p. 15, line 4 – p. 25, line 23. 989 See e.g. paras 707, 751 and 765 below. 990 See e.g. para. 758 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 202/1077 4 February 2021

text: In principle, the Chamber considers that any such issues can be appropriately accounted for by relying only on those parts of the intercepted communications when the witnesses have a consistent understanding on who is speaking and what they are saying. Issues with understanding the recordings have been sufficiently rare that the Chamber is convinced of these witnesses’ overall capabilities. Evidence on particular recordings overlapped far more often than they did not, especially on conversation portions of consequence. The divergences themselves speak to the witnesses’ credibility – it would be suspicious if every witness had a perfectly mirrored understanding of coded LRA conversations from over a decade ago.

text: None of this is it to say that the Chamber believed what the witnesses said at all times on all points. Some of these points concern such inconsequential matters that may simply have been misunderstandings, such as when P-0059 claimed to have drawn a sketch of the Gulu intercept house when he really had only confirmed the accuracy of another’s drawing. The Chamber places similarly little weight on P-0016’s confusing explanation as to whether or not he received money for witness related expenses.

text: Not every such issue can be explained as a misunderstanding. The Chamber notes P- 0003’s refusal to acknowledge that another officer raised a personnel complaint against 993 994 him, despite there being clear evidence this occurred. The Chamber considers this to be P-0003 evading a potentially embarrassing matter he must have been aware of. But this complaint is unrelated to P-0003’s primary testimony on interpreting intercepted LRA radio communications. The Chamber believes this primary testimony, noting in particular that other witnesses corroborate P-0003’s assessments of discrete communications in nearly all aspects. The Chamber considers this to be a situation where P-0003’s testimony is credible and reliable on matters beyond this particular issue.

text: Similar considerations apply to discrepancies as to how much P-0003, P-0059 and other government interceptors discussed communications across agencies. The UPDF and ISO

text: 991 P-0059: T-38-CONF, p. 32, line 14 – p. 38, line 13; T-39, p. 54, line 20 – p. 58, line 12 (commenting on UGA- OTP-0258-0721-R01). The Chamber notes the Defence submission in this regard, but considers that the Defence overstated the importance of the discrepancy. See Defence Closing Brief, para. 281. 992 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 25, line 9 – p. 30, line 15. 993 P-0003: T-44-CONF, p. 61, line 4 – p. 78, line 22. 994 Letter, UGA-OTP-0242-0219. See also P-0059: T-36, p. 43, lines 10-24; T-38-CONF, p. 39, line 17 – p. 43, line 13. 995 Consistent with Defence Closing Brief, para. 288.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 203/1077 4 February 2021 in Gulu worked in the same building, and were under orders not to discuss their intercept operations with each other. P-0003 and P-0059 testified that no such UPDF-ISO contacts occurred. Despite this, many witnesses believably said that the UPDF and ISO personnel – including P-0003 and P-0059 – would sometimes help each other to understand the meaning of certain parts of communications. The Chamber considers the desire to compare findings to be a natural impulse in these circumstances, noting further that these other witnesses have no reason to lie on this point. This said, the Chamber again considers that this kind of issue does not detract from the fact that both P-0003 and P-0059 demonstrated their independent ability to understand LRA communications during their testimony.

text: The Chamber also considers that other witnesses who testified about intercepted communications gave credible and reliable testimony which reinforced the testimony of the core witnesses. These witnesses include Patrick Lumumba Nyero, P-0138, P-0339 and the various witnesses whose prior recorded testimony were introduced under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules.

text: Patrick Lumumba Nyero gave a detailed account of the more limited intercept operation 1000 executed from the Kamdini Police Station. His police logbook is not prepared as systematically as those of the UPDF and ISO, but the overlap between these entries and those of the other interceptors again confirms the ability of this witness to understand LRA radio communications.

text: 996 P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 27; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027- 0231-R01, at para. 27; P-0339: T-134, p. 21, line 7 – p. 22, line 2; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 35; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 18. 997 P-0003: T-42, p. 17, line 24 – p. 18, line 5 (‘Q. Did you ever have any interaction with personnel from the Internal Security Organisation? A. No. We were not allowed to. We were prohibited. You know, the intelligence prohibits us from sharing information. If we send the information to the superiors, I suppose that there is a way that they analyse the information, but at the moment – but in the performance of our jobs we are not allowed to share information.’); T-44-CONF, p. 34, lines 1-22; P-0059: T-36, p. 41, line 25 – p. 42, line 23. 998 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 50; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796- R01, at paras 18, 26; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 40; P-0291 Statement, UGA- OTP-0246-0061-R01, at paras 55-56; P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 23; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 44-46; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 18. See also P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at paras 51-52 (police in Gulu would sometimes compare interception notes with UPDF/ISO as well). 999 See also para. 661 below. 1000 See para. 631 below. See also para. 582 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 204/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0138 and Francis Ocen (D-0100) are other former LRA soldiers with knowledge about

text: 1001 signalling. The Chamber considers both to have a sound basis for knowledge about

text: LRA radio communication, and found their testimony on such matters to be truthful and

text: reliable. This extends to P-0138’s testimony discussing certain intercepted recordings at

text: the behest of both parties in court, following a procedure similar to the one used for the

text: 1002 core intercept witnesses.

text: b. ISO interception operation: P-0027, P-0032, P-0291, P-0301, P-0303, P-0384, P-0385 and P-0386

text: P-0027’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: 1003 Rules. During the period of the charges, P-0027 worked as an officer for the Ugandan

text: Internal Security Organisation (the ‘ISO’) and, based in Kampala, was the superior to the

text: ISO interception operation in Gulu. He gave evidence on the ISO operation concerned

text: with intercepting LRA radio communications, which he set up in the 1990s, and also

text: provided ISO intercept materials to the Prosecution. The Chamber notes that P-0027

text: testified that the tape recorder used by the ISO intercepting staff in Gulu was voice-

text: 1004 operated, while some of the ISO intercepting staff themselves indicated that they

text: 1005 manually operated the tape recorder. However, in particular, and bearing in mind that

text: he was based in Kampala and did not listen to and intercept LRA radio communications

text: himself, the Chamber finds that this minor difference in the testimonies does not affect

text: 1006 the reliability of P-0027’s account. The Chamber considers that P-0027’s testimony

text: was comprehensive and clear, offering details that supported the credibility of the

text: information provided.

text: 1001 P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 15, line 7 – p. 16, line 21; T-121-CONF, p. 42, line 7 – p. 44, line 12; D-0100: T- 234, p. 16, line 21 – p. 20, line 14, p. 26, line 21 – p. 31, line 12, p. 45, line 6 – p. 46, line 13. 1002 P-0138: T-120, p. 54, line 8 – p. 68, line 14; T-121, p. 57, line 11 – p. 60, line 25; T-122, p. 5, line 4 – p. 15, line 3. 1003 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 0890); P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0280-0895). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 154-58, p. 108. 1004 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 10. See also Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 114. 1005 P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01, at para. 12; P-0059: T-36, p. 37, lines 17-20; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at para. 38; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 42. 1006 The Chamber also notes in this regard that the tape recorder which P-0301 – who stated that he operated the tape recorder manually – identified as being the recorder which he used to tape LRA radio communications (see P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 32(d); Photo, UGA-OTP-0244-3336) bears a print reading ‘voice-operated recording’, but at the same time clearly has a ‘record’-button, in addition to the ‘pause’, ‘play’, ‘stop’, ‘fast forward’, and ‘rewind’-buttons.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 205/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0032’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules. P-0032 supervised the ISO interception staff in Gulu and provided details on

text: this operation, as well as some general information on the LRA from his perspective as

text: intelligence officer. He further made some ISO interception material available to the

text: Prosecution. The Chamber finds P-0032’s testimony clear and comprehensive, offering details that supported the credibility of the information provided. The witness’s

text: testimony is credible and reliable.

text: P-0291’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules. For a significant part of the period of the charges, P-0291 was involved in the

text: ISO operation in Gulu intercepting LRA radio communications, and he testified about

text: the details of the interception process. He also provided some limited evidence regarding

text: the UPDF direction-finding operation. While it is not entirely clear until when P-0291

text: stayed in Gulu, the Chamber finds that overall P-0291’s testimony was clear and

text: comprehensive. The witness offered details supporting the information provided.

text: P-0301’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules. He was involved in the ISO interception operation in Gulu mostly before the

text: 1007 P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 0933); P-0032 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0150-0030-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0280-0939); P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0280-0945). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 163-67, p. 108. The Chamber clarifies that, as anticipated in its decision allowing introduction of the witness’s statements pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules, it has not considered for purposes of the present judgment the discrete part of the second statement in which the witness refers to Dominic Ongwen’s role and actions at the time the statement was taken (see First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 163, n. 291 referring to P-0032 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0150-0030-R01, at para. 8 (first sentence)). 1008 P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1038). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 171-74, p. 110. 1009 See also para. 574 below. The Chamber further notes in this context that P-0291 testified that the UPDF did not intercept from the same house as ISO while he was still working in Gulu (P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0061-R01, at para. 55), while other evidence suggests that the staff working on the UPDF interception operation moved to the same facility as ISO either in 2003 (P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at paras 21(d), 40; P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 25 (stating that when the UPDF directionfinding team in about 2003 moved into the building from which P-0003 used to intercept, P-0003 with the interception team moved to the intercept building)) or in about 2004-05 (P-0003: T-42, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 2; P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 7 (indicating that at the time of the statement, February 2005, the ISO and UPDF interception operations were housed in the same building); P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 20). 1010 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1051). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 175-77, p. 110. The Chamber clarifies that, as anticipated in its decision allowing introduction of the witness’s statement pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules, it has not considered for purposes of the present judgment the discrete part of the statement in which the witness refers to Dominic Ongwen’s alleged responsibility for the attacks on Lukodi and Odek IDP camps (see First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 175-76).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 206/1077 4 February 2021 period relevant to the charges, as he left Gulu in August 2002. P-0301 provided testimony concerning the ISO interception procedure and also testified about his investigation of the attacks on Lukodi and Odek IDP camps. The Chamber finds the witness’s testimony detailed, clear and supported by the related documents.

text: P-0303’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1011 Rules. P-0303 supervised the ISO staff in Gulu intercepting LRA radio communications between 2000 and 2003, after which he transferred to Kampala where he received the information faxed from Gulu. He did not personally listen to LRA radio communications. P-0303 also provided some intercept material to the Prosecution. The Chamber finds that P-0303’s testimony was clear and comprehensive, offering details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: P-0384’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1012 Rules. P-0384 was an ISO radio operator who was, during the period relevant to the charges, briefly involved in the interception operation in Gulu and then in Kampala, although not directly participating in the actual interception of radio communications. P- 0384 was also involved in direction-finding activities, but did not provide specific information in this regard. The Chamber notes that P-0384 indicated that P-0301 joined 1013 the interception team in Gulu after 1997, which does not accord with the evidence 1014 1015 provided by either P-0301 himself or his superiors. However, aside from this minor detail, the Chamber finds that P-0384’s testimony was clear and internally consistent.

text: P-0385’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1016 Rules. Throughout the period of the charges, P-0385 was stationed in Kampala and

text: 1011 P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1065). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 178-81, p. 110. 1012 P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1105). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 190-92, p. 110. 1013 P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01, at paras 17, 19. 1014 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 19 (testifying that he transferred from Kampala, where he had been since 1995, to Gulu in 1996). 1015 P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 18(b) (testifying that he recruited P-0301 in about 1995); P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 23(e) (testifying that P-0301 started intercepting in about 1994 or 1995). 1016 P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1111). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 193-95, p. 110.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 207/1077 4 February 2021 tasked with receiving and recording the information sent by the ISO interception team based in Gulu. The witness’s testimony was detailed and clear and offered details that

text: supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: P-0386’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules. P-0386 worked with the ISO interception team in Gulu and described his

text: involvement in and the details of the operation intercepting LRA radio communications.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0386 stated that he went to Gulu in order to replace P-0291 who transferred to Kampala, but that it appears from the witnesses’ evidence that the

text: time during which they worked in Gulu may have overlapped. Having examined

text: entries in ISO logbooks regarding which P-0386 identified his own handwriting, the

text: Chamber concludes that it is indeed likely that the stay in Gulu of P-0386 and P-0291,

text: respectively, may indeed have partially overlapped. In any event, this does not

text: otherwise affect the substance of P-0386’s testimony or his general credibility.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber takes note of

text: . The Chamber finds that this does not affect the

text: 1017 P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1119). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 196-99, p. 110. 1018 Compare P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 17 (stating that he transferred to Gulu in about September 2003 to replace P-0291 who went to Kampala, and that he is certain about the date because he recalls being in Gulu when hearing about the death of Tabuley) with P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061- R01, at para. 19 (stating that he worked at Gulu station for about one year after Tabuley’s death). See also P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 23(c) (stating that P-0386 joined the operation in Gulu in about 2002). 1019 See, for example, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0024 (entry of 5 November 2003); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0007 (entry of 19 January 2004); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0061-0206, at 0237 (entry of 19 April 2004); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0020 (entry of 7 June 2004); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0149 (entry of 30 July 2004); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0005-06, 0012-13 (entries of 24, 27 October 2004). At the same time, P-0386 reviewed ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234 and indicated that it does not include his handwriting (see P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(k)). This logbook covers the period from 2 August to 26 October 2003. The Chamber further notes in this context that P-0291 was not shown any logbook entries on which to identify his handwriting, but does not attach further consequence to this, in particular bearing in mind that both th P-0291 himself and P-0032 testified that he stopped making entries in the logbooks when the UPDF 4 Division commander complained about his poor handwriting; P-0032 instead transferred P-0291’s intercepts to the logbook (see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 31; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061- R01, at para. 46). 1020 P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at paras 35-36. 1021

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 208/1077 4 February 2021 witness’s general credibility. Overall, and in any event as concerns the subject matter of his testimony – namely the details of the ISO interception operation – the Chamber finds that the witness’s testimony was clear, comprehensive, and offered details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimonies were clear and internally consistent and also were generally mutually consistent as well as consistent with other 1022 reliable evidence.

text: c. UPDF interception operation: P-0029, P-0337, P-0339, P- 0400 and P-0404 P-0029’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1023 Rules. P-0029 was part of the UPDF technical intelligence department and oversaw the UPDF interception of LRA radio communications, which he described in detail. He also gave evidence on the UPDF direction-finding operation. The Chamber finds that P- 0029’s testimony was clear and comprehensive, offering details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: P-0337’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1024 Rules. P-0337 headed the UPDF direction-finding team in Gulu until it was disbanded in June 2005 and provided details on this process. As of 2003, P-0337 also took control of the static interception team in Gulu, as well as administrative control over all UPDF interception operations in Northern Uganda. The Chamber notes that certain smaller aspects of P-0337’s testimony are somewhat unclear, specifically when P-0337 started

text: 1022 See the testimony of P-0059. 1023 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 0907); P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 0919). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 159-62, p. 108. 1024 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 1073); P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0280-1085). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 182-85, p. 110.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 209/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1025 1026 working in Gulu and which role he recalled P-0400 to have, but considers that these points do not affect the reliability of the witness’s evidence as they are easily explained by divergences in the personal memories of different witnesses, in particular bearing in mind the passage of time. In any event, this does not impact on the substance of P-0337’s testimony, which was detailed and comprehensive. He offered details to be expected from a witness in his position, supporting the credibility of the information provided.

text: 1027 P-0339 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. P-0339, as member of the UPDF, worked on intercepting LRA radio communications as of 1996 in Gulu, Achol Pii, Soroti and Lira. He described the process of listening to, recording of and reporting on LRA radio communications, and identified his handwriting in some logbook entries. The Chamber notes some discrepancies pointed out between the witness’s prior statement and his testimony in court, specifically as concerns his relation 1028 1029 with P-0003, as well as the identification of his handwriting in a UPDF logbook. In relation to the first matter, the Chamber considers that even if there may have been personal animosities at times, there is no indication that this would have impacted either witness’s interception activities. With regard to the second point, the Chamber refers to 1030 its discussion in the general intercepts section. The Chamber finds that, bearing in mind the testimony of the witness in court, these differences do not affect the general reliability of the information provided by the witness or his overall credibility. While the witness may, at times during his testimony, have been slightly less responsive to some questions than others, he clearly did answer questions of both parties to the best of his abilities and knowledge. In general, especially as regards the substance of his testimony

text: 1025 See P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 16 (testifying that he came to Gulu at some point after August 2001); P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 55 (stating that the directionfinding operation was set up in about December 1999); P-0339: T-134, p. 20, lines 18-20 (indicating that P-0337 came to Gulu in 2000). 1026 Compare P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at para. 36(f) (testifying that P-0400 came to Gulu to support P-0003 after P-0339 moved to Achol Pii, and that before coming to Gulu, P-0400 did interception work at the brigade level) with P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at paras 27-29, 32-34 (testifying that while he also worked for several months in Gulu, he was part of a mobile interception team which intercepted in Kitgum, Achol Pii and Lira). 1027 P-0339: T-134; T-135. 1028 See P-0339: T-135-CONF, p. 5, line 21 – p. 6, line 3, p. 8, line 2 – p. 9, line 18. 1029 See P-0339: T-135, p. 13, line 11 – p. 14, line 6. 1030 See para. 659 (iv), n. 1209 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 210/1077 4 February 2021 on the UPDF interception efforts, P-0339’s testimony was clear and comprehensive, offering details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: P-0400’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1031 Rules. P-0400 was part of a mobile UPDF interception team which intercepted LRA radio communications from Kitgum, Achol Pii and Lira. He briefly also assisted the UPDF interception in Gulu and intercepted LRA communications while being deployed to southern Sudan for several months in 2004-05. The Chamber finds that the witness’s testimony was clear, detailed and comprehensive.

text: P-0404’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the 1032 Rules. P-0404 was mainly involved in the UPDF direction-finding activities, but also worked for some time on the UPDF interception team in Gulu. The witness’s testimony was detailed and clear, with details which supported the credibility of the information provided. The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimonies were clear and internally consistent and also were generally mutually consistent as well as consistent with other 1033 reliable evidence.

text: d. Police interception operation: Patrick Lumumba Nyero (P- 0125), P-0126 and P-0370 1034 Patrick Lumumba Nyero testified live before the Chamber. Between July 2003 and 2010, Patrick Nyero was stationed at Kamdini police station, where he worked, between September 2003 and some point in 2007, on intercepting LRA radio communications. He described listening to LRA radio communications, identified handwritten notes prepared by him in the process, and reporting the communications to his superiors. Patrick Nyero was a calm, knowledgeable and direct witness. His testimony was to the point, logical and internally consistent. The Chamber notes a small discrepancy between the evidence provided by Patrick Lumumba Nyero and P-0370 as concerns how the

text: 1031 P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1129). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 200-02, p. 110. 1032 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1139). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 203-05, p. 110. 1033 See the testimony of P-0003. 1034 P-0125: T-135; T-136.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 211/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1035 police interception operation in Kamdini initially started. However, considering that

text: the remainder of their testimonies are consistent with regard to the details of the police

text: interception operation in Kamdini, the Chamber attaches no further importance to this discrepancy and considers this not to affect the reliability of either witness’s testimony.

text: P-0126’s prior recorded statements were introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: 1036 Rules. During the period of the charges, P-0126 was a member of the Ugandan police,

text: special branch, and provided evidence on the police interception of LRA radio

text: communications mainly in Kamdini, which he supervised, as well as on general

text: intelligence gathering activities of the Ugandan police. Also, P-0126 provided material

text: from the police interception operation to the Prosecution. The Chamber notes a difference

text: in the way in which P-0126 described P-0370’s role in Kamdini and P-0370’s own

text: 1037 description thereof. However, in light of the evidence provided by Patrick Nyero, who

text: 1038 worked with P-0370, and considering that it is likely, on the basis of the witnesses’

text: testimonies, that P-0126 may not have been fully aware of P-0370’s involvement on the

text: ground, the Chamber relies on P-0370’s own description of his role and does otherwise

text: not consider this to affect P-0126’s overall credibility. This is further based on the fact

text: that the general substance of P-0126’s testimony was clear and comprehensive, offering

text: details that supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: P-0370’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: 1039 Rules. P-0370, a police officer, worked between 2002 and 2006 in Kamdini on

text: 1035 Compare P-0125: T-135, p. 66, lines 2-13, p. 80, lines 14-19; T-136, p. 6, lines 13-15, p. 7, lines 14-19 (testifying that he learned about the LRA frequency in use upon his arrival to Kamdini from P-0370 and that someone else at Kamdini had been listening to LRA communications before his arrival, without, however, taking any notes) with P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 26 (testifying that he and Patrick Nyero discovered together, by chance, that they could intercept LRA radio communications). The Chamber also notes in this regard that P-0126 stated that he first heard about the possibility to intercept LRA radio communications from Patrick Nyero, but that he did not know how Patrick Nyero had discovered this (see P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 39). 1036 P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280- 1011); P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP- 0280-1026). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 168-70, p. 109. 1037 Compare P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para.

text: with P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687- R01, at paras 22-45 (testifying about working on radio monitoring with Patrick Nyero between 2002 or 2003 and 2006). 1038 See P-0125: T-135, p. 55, lines 18-22, p. 65, lines 21 – p. 66, line 13; T-136, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 8. 1039 P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01 (public redacted version available: UGA-OTP-0280-1094). See First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 186-89, p. 110.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 212/1077 4 February 2021 intercepting LRA radio communications, in addition to his general duties as police officer, and provided details on the interception process. With regard to the question of the extent of the witness’s involvement in intercepting LRA radio communications as stated by P- 1040 0126, the Chamber refers to its discussion above. As concerns P-0370, the Chamber finds that his testimony was detailed and clear and offered details which supported the credibility of the information provided.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber points out that the witnesses’ testimonies were clear and internally consistent and, in addition to the individual assessment, also were generally mutually consistent.

text: e. Audio enhancement: Alan Robert French (P-0242) and Xavier Laroche (P-0256) 1041 Alan Robert French testified live before the Chamber. The witness also provided a 1042 prior recorded statement, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. He described the process of enhancing a number of audio recordings he was provided with by the Prosecution and talked about the technical details involved with audio enhancement in general, as well as looking at some specific examples related to the audio recordings of LRA radio communications. Alan French was particularly knowledgeable, forthright and forthcoming in his testimony and provided differentiated answers. His testimony was comprehensive and filled with details of a nature that illustrated his expertise in the field of audio enhancement. 1043 Xavier Laroche testified live before the Chamber. He also provided a prior recorded 1044 statement, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Similar to Alan French, who in fact trained the witness in using the relevant forensic system, Xavier Laroche enhanced, together with another colleague, the audio recordings of some LRA radio communications intercepted by Ugandan authorities and described which procedures were applied. While the witness himself made clear that he is not, as such, an expert in audio enhancement, Xavier Laroche plainly answered all questions to the best of his

text: 1040 See para. 583 above. 1041 P-0242: T-128. 1042 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01. See P-0242: T-128, p. 4, line 23 – p. 6, line 18. See also First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 209, p. 111. 1043 P-0256: T-119. 1044 P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015. See P-0256: T-119, p. 8, line 6 – p. 10, line 2. See also First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 209, p. 111.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 213/1077 4 February 2021 knowledge and ability. He was detailed, straightforward and forthcoming in his testimony. The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimonies were internally consistent and mutually consistent.

text: f. Prosecution analysis of intercept materials: P-0403 1045 P-0403 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. The witness, a member of the Situation Analysis Section within the Prosecution, discussed a report which contains his analysis of the body of evidence collected by the Prosecution in relation to the interception of LRA radio communications by Ugandan authorities, as well as information on how the collection of this evidence took place and the evidence was registered by the Prosecution. P-0403 was forthcoming in his testimony and the information he provided was comprehensive. His evidence, as such, was of limited value 1046 to the Chamber’s consideration of the charges.

text: vii. Witnesses on Dominic Ongwen’s personal background

text: a. Joe Kakanyero (D-0007) Joe Kakanyero, a local councillor in Coorom, Uganda and relative of the accused, 1047 testified live before the Chamber. He testified about being abducted together with Dominic Ongwen, and provided a comprehensive and clear testimony in a narrative manner.

text: b. Johnson Odong (D-0008) Johnson Odong’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of 1048 the Rules. Johnson Odong, Dominic Ongwen’s uncle, testified about the accused’s childhood and subsequent abduction in 1987. He also gave an account of subsequent events, such as the killings of Dominic Ongwen’s parents. His testimony was simple, without artifice, and credible.

text: 1045 P-0403: T-30; T-31. 1046 See also para. 685 below. 1047 D-0007: T-193. 1048 D-0008 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0307 (public redacted version available: UGA-D26-0010-0307-R01). See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), at paras 7-8, p. 12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 214/1077 4 February 2021 c. P’Atwoga Okello (D-0012) P’Atwoga Okello’s prior recorded statement was introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of 1049 the Rules. He was a teacher at Alero Primary School at the time of Dominic Ongwen’s abduction, and testified about his knowledge of Dominic Ongwen before his abduction, as well as about the abduction itself. It is noted that P’Atwoga Okello further testified that he was an uncle of the accused. His testimony was simple and without artifice. The Chamber is satisfied that the witness testified credibly.

text: viii. Expert witnesses

text: a. Mental health expert witnesses The issue of Dominic Ongwen’s mental health at the time relevant for the charges, and in particular the possible presence of a mental disease or defect, is a live issue in the case. Five expert witnesses prepared reports and gave oral testimonies before the Chamber: Dr Catherine Abbo (P-0445), Professor Gillian Mezey (P-0446), Professor Roland Weierstall-Pust (P-0447), Dr Dickens Akena (D-0041) and Professor Emilio Ovuga (D- 0042). In a dedicated section below, the Chamber lays out its analysis of the evidence provided by the experts, including as concerns the reliability of their reports and 1050 conclusions.

text: b. Other expert witnesses

text: i Professor Ate Kloosterman (P-0414)

text: Professor Kloosterman is a forensic reporting expert at the Netherlands Forensic Institute, 1051 who testified live before the Chamber. Ate Kloosterman provided expert reports, 1052 which were submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Professor Kloosterman testified about his analysis of the kinship between Dominic Ongwen and twelve children. Further, he offered detailed information about the DNA testing process and the interpretation of

text: 1049 D-0012 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0336 (public redacted version available: UGA-D26-0010-0336-R01). See Decision on the Defence Request under Rule 68(2)(b), at paras 7-8, p. 12. 1050 See section IV.D.1 below. 1051 P-0414: T-137. 1052 P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529; P-0414 Second Report, UGA-OTP-0265-0106; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160. See Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(3), paras 29-30, p. 19. See also P-0414: T-137, p. 3, line 23 – p. 6, line 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 215/1077 4 February 2021 his findings, which were also not contested by the Defence. His expert testimony is fully reliable, and the Chamber relies on it.

text: ii Professor Tim Allen (P-0422)

text: Professor Allen testified live before the Chamber and his Independent Background Report on the Situation in Northern Uganda was introduced under Rule 68(3) of the 1053 Rules. Professor Allen is a professor in Development Anthropology and Head of the Department of International Development at the London School of Economics, United Kingdom. He provided general background information on the origins of the LRA, development into a politico-military force and the historic and continuing effect the LRA activities have upon the civilian population in Uganda. His expert testimony, which was not contested, is credible and reliable.

text: iii Professor Kristof Titeca (D-0060)

text: 1054 Professor Kristof Titeca testified live before the Chamber. He is a Professor for International Development at the Institute of Development and Policy Management at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He provided an expert report, which was introduced 1055 pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules.

text: Professor Titeca testified about his previous work on the LRA and elaborated on the concepts, methodology and conclusions of his expert report on the ‘cosmological space 1056 of the LRA’. His testimony was candid, comprehensive and clear. However, the Chamber also notes that Professor Titeca did not question the statements made to him about the spiritual influence on LRA fighters and did not consider it to be his role to make a judgment about the truthfulness or falsity of the statements. As such, his evidence is only of very limited value in the present proceedings, especially given the abundance of direct evidence of witnesses.

text: 1053 P-0422: T-28; P-0422’s report, UGA-OTP-0270-0004. See also p. 3, lines 1-14. 1054 D-0060: T-197. 1055 D-0060 Report, UGA-D26-0018-3901. See also D-0060: T-197, p. 10, line 20 – p. 12, line 19. 1056 D-0060 Report, UGA-D26-0018-3901.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 216/1077 4 February 2021 iv Professor Adam Branch (D-0139)

text: Professor Adam Branch is a Professor for Politics and International Studies at the 1057 University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, who testified live before the Chamber. He also provided an expert report, which was submitted pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the 1058 Rules. He offered in particular a detailed account on the economic and security situation in IDP camps. However, his evidence is mostly based on indirect sources and literature, and his own personal experience relates primarily to the situation in Pabbo camp, which is not directly relevant to the charges of the present case. For this reason, in the presence of ample more direct evidence on the situation in IDP camps in Northern Uganda at the relevant time generally, and specifically in relation to the Pajule, Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps, the Chamber does not rely on Professor Adam Branch.

text: v Dr Teddy Atim (V-0001)

text: Dr Teddy Atim, a researcher from Northern Uganda at the Feinstein International Center 1059 at the Tufts University, United States of America, testified live before the Chamber. She provided a joint expert report with Anastasia Marshak, Dyan Mazurana and Jordan 1060 Farrar, which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Dr Atim’s expert report constitutes an assessment of the physical, material and psychosocial effects of the attacks on Odek IDP camp, Lukodi IDP camp and Abok IDP camp on the victims. The report is based on interviews with 396 victims participating in the present case (Victimization Assessment Survey). Findings are compared to a survey on the entire population in Acholi and Lango sub-regions in the same period (Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium Uganda Survey). Dr Atim elaborated on the methods applied in the report as well as on the findings of the report, including relevant information about the victims’ mental and physical well-being before, during and after the attacks. Her testimony was candid, clear and comprehensive. The Chamber notes her evidence, but also observes that it does not directly underlie any part of the Chamber’s analysis as to whether the facts alleged in the charges are established.

text: 1057 D-0139: T-218. 1058 D-0139 Report, UGA-D26-0015-1172. See also D-0139: T-218, p. 5, line 22 – p. 6, line 12. 1059 V-0001: T-174. 1060 V-0001 Report, UGA-V40-0001-0010. See also V-0001: T-174, p. 7, line 11 – p. 8, line 19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 217/1077 4 February 2021 vi Professor Daryn Reicherter (PCV-0001)

text: 1061 Daryn Reicherter testified live before the Chamber. He provided an expert report, 1062 which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Professor Reicherter is a clinical professor for psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, United States of America. He testified about a report he elaborated together with Ryan Matlow and the Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Laboratory at Stanford University on mental health outcomes of rape and other forms of sexual violence, forced marriage and forced pregnancy. His testimony offered a detailed account of the methodology and terminology adopted by the report and its outcomes. Professor Reicherter’s testimony was comprehensive, structured, clear and specific. He offered in particular information on the psychological impact of rape and other forms of sexual violence on men and women in the cultural context of the charged crimes. The Chamber notes his evidence, but also observes that it does not directly underlie any part of the Chamber’s analysis as to whether the facts alleged in the charges are established.

text: vii Professor Michael Wessells (PCV-0002)

text: 1063 Michael Wessells testified live before the Chamber. He provided an expert report, 1064 which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Professor Wessells is a professor of clinical population and family health at Columbia University, United States of America. He testified about his report on the psychological, social, developmental and behavioural consequences of enlistment, conscription and use of children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities. His expert report is based on the testimonies of witnesses and the application forms of the victims represented by the Common Legal Representative of Victims. The Chamber notes his evidence, but also observes that it does not directly underlie any part of the Chamber’s analysis as to whether the facts alleged in the charges are established.

text: 1061 PCV-0001: T-175. 1062 PCV-0001 Report, UGA-PCV-0001-0020. See also PCV-0001: T-175, p. 18, line 2 – p. 20, line 20. 1063 PCV-0002: T-176. 1064 PCV-0002 Report, UGA-PCV-0002-0076. See also PCV-0002: T-176, p. 6, line 8 – p. 8, line 4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 218/1077 4 February 2021 viii Professor Seggane Musisi (PCV-0003)

text: 1065 Seggane Musisi testified live before the Chamber. He provided an expert report, 1066 which was submitted under Rule 68(3) of the Rules. Professor Musisi is a professor of psychiatry at Makerere University College of Health Sciences in Kampala, Uganda. He testified about his expert report on the interplay of Acholi culture with traumas and PTSD. He elaborated in particular on the impact of loss of traditions on the individual’s and community’s development as well as on Acholi cultural approaches to crimes and traumas. He described, for example, in detail the role of Acholi rituals in healing processes. The Chamber notes his evidence, but also observes that it does not directly underlie any part of the Chamber’s analysis as to whether the facts alleged in the charges are established.

text: ix. Other witnesses

text: a. Nathan Iron Emory (D-0018) 1067 Nathan Iron Emory testified live before the Chamber. Nathan Iron Emory, a former consultant to the LRA, testified about his experiences with the LRA and about the history of the LRA. Nathan Iron Emory was a forthcoming witness. His testimony was detailed and comprehensive. The witness provided information which contextualised the conflict 1068 between the LRA and the Ugandan government. The Chamber also notes his evidence in relation to the circumstances of the execution of Otti Lagony, which the Chamber deems reliable based on the witness’s involvement at the time in the negotiations among 1069 the various actors. It is clear that the witness attempts to distance himself from the 1070 LRA and their actions. However, in the Chamber’s view the witness is generally reliable.

text: 1065 PCV-0003: T-177; T-178. 1066 PCV-0003 Report, UGA-PCV-0003-0046. See also PCV-0003: T-177, p. 6, line 7 – p. 8, line 8. 1067 D-0018: T-185; T-186. 1068 See D-0018: T-185, p. 34, line 21 – p. 38, line 3. 1069 See D-0018: T-185, p. 45, lines 6-16. 1070 See for example D-0018: T-185, p. 41, line 22 – p. 42, line 1 (testifying that he did not have any role and was merely an advisor for the LRA in Sudan). The Chamber notes that within the context of his testimony, as the witness describes his activities with the LRA, it is clear that the witness played an active role.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 219/1077 4 February 2021 b. Tommy Obote (D-0084) 1071 Tommy Obote testified live before the Chamber. Tommy Obote, a local politician, testified about his knowledge of the LRA’s activity in Ngai sub-county, the establishment of IDP camps in the region and what he witnessed in Abok IDP camp in the aftermath of the attack relevant to the charges. Tommy Obote offered considered testimony, credible in its detail and range. The witness was comprehensive, offering a historic perspective that can be expected of a close observer of the conflict in the region during the period 1072 relevant to the charges. The witness clearly distinguished between events he witnessed himself and events he heard about.

text: The Chamber also notes that concerning the attack on Abok IDP camp, the witness 1073 testified that he did not witness the attack and came to the camp the next morning. However, the Chamber does not necessarily disregard Tommy Obote’s evidence as to the occurrences at the centre of the camps during the attacks, for example if the witness gained information in the aftermath of the attack from persons who had witnessed the attack.

text: c. Nicolas Ocirowijok (D-0088) Nicolas Ochirowijok, a social consultant and researcher working in Northern Uganda, 1074 provided his testimony live before the Chamber. He testified about his work with World Vision, people who had been forced to be soldiers as children and aspects related to their return from the bush. The witness was responsive and concise when answering questions. The Chamber finds Nicolas Ocirowijok to be a credible and reliable witness. However, since his evidence is related to the treatment of children who returned from the LRA, it is only indirectly related to the issues relevant to the disposal of the charges.

text: d. Eric Awich Ochen (D-0114) 1075 The witness testified live before the Chamber. Eric Awich Ochen is a lecturer at the Makerere University in Kampala and provided evidence on his work with several non-

text: 1071 D-0084: T-235. 1072 E.g. D-0084: T-235, p. 10, lines 12-25 (government forces would cut down trees in the forest so that the LRA would have no cover to hide.). 1073 D-0084: T-235, p. 29, lines 2-24. 1074 D-0088: T-230. 1075 P-0114: T-247.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 220/1077 4 February 2021 governmental organisations such as Save the Children, World Vision and Gusco in the late 1990’s and during the period relevant to the charges. The witness testified in a straight-forward, open and concise manner. The Chamber finds Eric Awich Ochen to be credible and reliable. But while the Chamber did not identify any issue affecting the credibility of the witness, it notes that his testimony is not directly relevant to the disposal of the charges.

text: e. D-0150 1076 D-0150 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. D-0150, a farmer in Northern Uganda, testified about Acholi spiritual traditions, including his own possession by spirits and his experience practicing as an ajwaka (spiritual healer). While the witness explained the phenomenon of spirit possession and his beliefs about Joseph Kony’s alleged possession, the witness had no direct knowledge of Joseph Kony’s 1077 alleged spirits or Joseph Kony himself. Nor did the witness express any knowledge of Dominic Ongwen. While the Chamber did not identify any issue affecting the credibility of the witness, the Chamber notes that his testimony goes to facts that are not directly relevant to the disposal of the charges.

text: f. D-0110 1078 D-0110 testified live before the Chamber with protective measures. D-0110, a child fathered by Joseph Kony and born in the bush, testified about her early childhood in the LRA in Sudan and her subsequent experiences in Uganda after leaving the LRA. She provided a detailed account of her knowledge of Joseph Kony. Her testimony was candid and clear. She described her experiences in a manner which clearly shows that she spoke about her personal experiences. The Chamber, however, found her account not to be directly relevant to the charges.

text: g. D-0130 D-0130, fathered by Joseph Kony and born in the bush in 1999, testified live 1079 before the Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 75 assurances. He testified about his childhood in the LRA in Sudan and his subsequent life in Uganda

text: 1076 D-0150: T-182. 1077 D-0150: T-182, p. 43, line 25 – p. 44, line 8, line 21 – p. 45, line 4. 1078 D-0110: T-231. 1079 D-0130: T-198.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 221/1077 4 February 2021 after his capture by the UPDF in 2002. The Chamber notes, however, that his statements are not of direct relevance to the charges in the present case.

text: h. D-0131 D-0131, fathered by Joseph Kony and born in the bush in 1991, testified live before the 1080 Chamber with protective measures, having received Rule 75 assurances. D-0131 testified in detail about his childhood after having left the bush with his mother shortly after his birth. He further offered . The Chamber notes, however, that his evidence is not of direct relevance to the charges.

text: i. Pollar Awich (D-0133) 1081 Pollar Awich testified live before the Chamber. The witness testified about having 1082 been abducted as a child and integrated in the National Resistance Army and about the experiences of persons who were forced to be soldiers as children. He testified about his own experience, provided evidence on children in the LRA and wrote a report on this 1083 issue, which was submitted into evidence. Pollar Awich answered in a clear and structured manner. The Chamber deems his testimony to be credible. However, the Chamber also notes Pollar Awich’s general conclusions concerning the enduring effect 1084 on the mental health of having been a child soldier, the conditions within the LRA on 1085 abductees and the influence on their free will as a grown up and whether they are, 1086 ultimately, responsible for any of their actions undertaken as an adult. First, Pollar Awich is not a mental health expert and, more importantly, the question of whether

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) or (d) of

text: the Statute

text: are fulfilled can only be determined by the Chamber. Lastly, the Chamber finds Pollar Awich’s statement that ‘there are no cases where 1087 children escaped […] voluntary’ incredible considering the ample evidence received to the contrary. The remainder of Pollar Awich’s testimony does not go to issues of relevance to the disposal of the charged crimes.

text: 1080 D-0131: T-205. 1081 D-0133: T-203; T-204. 1082 D-0133: T-203, p. 20, lines 14-17, p. 21, lines 3-7. 1083 D-0133 Report, UGA-D26-0015-1022. 1084 D-0133: T-203, p. 31, line 25 – p. 32, line 13. 1085 D-0133: T-203, p. 63, line 17 – p. 66, line 6. 1086 D-0133: T-203, p. 33, line 13 – p. 34, line 4. 1087 D-0133: T-203, p. 81, lines 4-15; T-204, p. 33, line 22 – p. 34, line 7, p. 35, lines 10-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 222/1077 4 February 2021

text: Documentary evidence

text: In this section, the Chamber lays out some general considerations with respect to the documentary evidence submitted in the case. The analysis, which responds also to the arguments of the parties, must be read in conjunction with the evidentiary discussion further below in the present judgment. Indeed, certain aspects relating to the relevance or reliability of documentary evidence, are further addressed, as appropriate, in the relevant evidentiary discussion.

text: i. Intercept materials

text: Before assessing the specific intercepted communications the Chamber relies upon, the Chamber will set out its overall understanding of the voluminous intercept evidence submitted in this case. In addition, individual recordings will be discussed in section IV.B.3.ii below.

text: 1088 The Defence raises a variety of arguments against the intercept-related evidence. These arguments are addressed across this section. Ultimately, the Chamber’s general conclusion is that the intercept materials are reliable and the Defence arguments without merit.

text: a. Interception process During the period relevant to the charges, the LRA would communicate over radio at 1089 regular intervals. Jargon, proverbs and/or codes obscured the meaning of these 1090 communications. The Chamber heard from former LRA members with detailed

text: 1088 Defence Closing Brief, para. 225 (summarising these arguments). 1089 P-0003: T-42, p. 19, lines 14-19; P-0016: T-32-CONF, p. 35, lines 5-25; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0027-0231-R01, at paras 20-23; P-0125: T-135, p. 68, lines 3-5; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at paras 42-43; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 29; P-0440: T-40, p. 7, line 10 – p. 8, line 9; D-0100: T-234, p. 46, lines 4-10. 1090 P-0003: T-42, p. 55, line 11 – p. 65, line 19, p. 67, line 3 – p. 71, line 22; T-44, p. 56, line 8 – p. 58, line 18; P-0016: T-32, p. 23, line 17 – p. 27, line 19; T-35: p. 23, line 1 – p. 24, line 14; P-0029 First Statement, UGA- OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 13, 15, 58; P-0440: T-40, p. 8, line 10 – p. 14, line 3; D-0100: T-234, p. 26, line 21 – p. 31, line 12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 223/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1091 1092

text: knowledge of the group’s communication methods, including P-0016, P-0138, P-

text: 1093 1094

text: 0440 and Francis Ocen.

text: Various branches of the Ugandan government intercepted these messages. The primary

text: purpose of the intercept operation was not criminal prosecution, but rather to gain

text: military intelligence to further the war effort against the LRA. On the whole, these

text: agencies conducted their operations independently of each other for purposes of ‘counterintelligence’; i.e. to ensure that no one interceptor was a spy or otherwise

text: manipulating the intelligence collected.

text: The agencies responsible for the interception operation were the UPDF (the army), ISO

text: (the national intelligence agency) and CID (certain local police forces).

text: i Uganda People’s Defence Force interception

text: The primary UPDF interceptor during the time period relevant to the charges was

text: 1097 1098

text: P-0003. Other witnesses involved in the UPDF interception operation are: P-0029;

text: 1099 1100 1101 1102

text: P-0337; P-0339; P-0400 and P-0404. All these witnesses had training in

text: 1091 P-0016: T-32; T-33; T-34; T-35. 1092 P-0138: T-120; T-121; T-122. 1093 P-0440: T-39; T-40; T-41. 1094 D-0100: T-234. 1095 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 18, 19; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0455, at para. 17 (‘[t]he main purpose of the intercept operation was to collect intelligence to support combat operations. We knew there was a lot of information on the sound waves, and our job was to pick up that information, correlate it, and send an intelligence report on to command. It had to be done quickly, so it was actionable’); P-0038: T-116, p. 38, lines 4-11; P-0059: T-36, p. 21, line 8 – p. 22, line 4; P-0291 Statement, UGA- OTP-0246-0061-R01, at para. 18; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 27; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 41. There is some evidence that certain procedures in the intercept operation may have been intended to assist the ICC, but this does not change the primary purpose of the operation. See P- 0003: T-42, p. 37, line 24 – p. 38, line 12. 1096 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 50; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069- 0796-R01, at para. 18; P-0038: T-117, p. 62, line 23 – p. 63, line 9, commenting on P-0038 First Statement, UGA- OTP-0069-0784-R01, at para. 19. See also paragraphs 563, 661-663 below. 1097 P-0003: T-42; T-43; T-44; T-45; T-46. See also P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at para. 11; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 36; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 31. 1098 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455. 1099 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01. 1100 P-0339: T-134; T-135. 1101 P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01 1102 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 224/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1103 1104

text: monitoring radio communications, and/or were the supervisors of these persons.

text: The UPDF interceptors had sufficient experience that they could understand what the

text: LRA was saying and recognise the voices of certain LRA members as they spoke.

text: P-0003 and those working with him in Gulu listened to LRA radio communications.

text: During the period relevant to the charges, they tape recorded these conversations onto

text: audio cassettes. The UPDF interceptors prepared shorthand notes of communications

text: as they unfolded, and then did any necessary work required to understand the contents

text: afterwards (including breaking any codes or playing back the tape to listen again to what

text: was said).

text: As soon as possible after the communication, the interceptor then prepared a logbook

text: summary of what transpired during the LRA communication. The basis for this

text: summary was exclusively the information provided over the radio – the interceptors used

text: no other intelligence in making their summaries except to the extent necessary for code

text: breaking. Though the LRA communications themselves were predominantly in

text: Acholi or Luo, the interceptors wrote the summaries in plain English so that commanders

text: 1103 P-0003: T-42, p. 8, line 15 – p. 11, line 17; P-0339: T-134, p. 6, line 22 – p. 8, line 8; P-0400 Statement, UGA- OTP-0264-0015-R01, at paras 24-26; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at paras 13-15. See also P- 0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 36-37. P-0029 indicates that ‘those who intercept the LRA radio communications do not receive formal training’, but this is understood to mean that there was no formal training in relation to LRA communications specifically. This is not inconsistent with those who stated they received technical intelligence training more generally, and P-0029 himself indicates he took such courses. P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 7, 14. 1104 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 8, 11; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0455, at para. 38; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 15-16. 1105 P-0003: T-42, p. 12, lines 2-25, p. 47, lines 2-17, p. 72, lines 1-18; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027- 0231-R01, at para. 17; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 36; P-0339: T-134, p. 46, line 6 – p. 47, line 8; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 43. 1106 P-0003: T-42, p. 13, line 20 – p. 15, line 23. 1107 P-0003: T-42, p. 19, lines 20-24, p. 37, line 24 – p. 41, line 5; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231- R01, at paras 28-34; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at paras 37-39; P-0404 Statement, UGA- OTP-0267-0470-R01, at paras 35, 39-40. 1108 P-0003: T-42, p. 19, line 20 – p. 29, line 14; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 40- 41; P-0339, p. 9, line 12 – p. 10, line 10; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 38; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 35. 1109 P-0003: T-42, p. 29, line 15 – p. 32, line 12; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 41, 44-45; P-0339: T-134, p. 12, line 25 – p. 15, line 19; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 35. 1110 P-0003: T-42, p. 32, lines 5-12; T-46, p. 12, lines 8-25, p. 17, line 14 – p. 18, line 12; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 48-49, 64; P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 29; P-0339: T-134, p. 14, line 18 – p. 15, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 225/1077 4 February 2021

text: could easily understand them. Logbook entries were dated and appeared in

text: chronological order.

text: The interceptors then gave their logbook entries to their commanders, who read them and

text: marked that they had seen them. The intercepted information would then be

text: communicated to Kampala to inform the UPDF’s broader military operations. All

text: completed recordings and logbooks were securely stored, either at the sites of

text: interception or in Kampala.

text: The UPDF’s intercept operation extended to locations beyond Gulu, most notably Achol

text: Pii, Soroti and Lira. These locations did not record conversations, but the procedure

text: for summarising intercepted communications was otherwise about the same.

text: Communications at each location were summarised independently of on-going intercept

text: operations at other locations, including Gulu.

text: P-0400 also kept a personal logbook in Sudan from April-May 2004. Though this

text: book is P-0400’s personal record, it is apparent that P-0400 wrote it in the same style as

text: 1111 P-0339: T-134, p. 14, lines 3-17; P-0003: T-42, p. 29, lines 15-25, p. 46, lines 6-10. 1112 P-0003: T-42, p. 24, lines 7-14; P-0339: T-134, p. 10, lines 2-6; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470- R01, at para. 40. P-0003 and P-0339 are testifying as to shorthand notes, but the dating procedure described is visibly reproduced in the formal logbooks. 1113 P-0003: T-42, p. 36, line 2 – p. 37, line 21; P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at para. 46; P-0339: T-134, p. 15, line 20 – p. 16, line 4; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 40; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 36. 1114 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at paras 46-48; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0445-R01, at para. 18; P-0339: T-134, p. 15, line 20 – p. 17, line 13; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264- 0015-R01, at para. 41; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at paras 37, 41. 1115 P-0003: T-42, p. 32, lines 13-24, p. 40, line 25 – p. 41, line 5; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0455, at paras 26-28, 46-47; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at para. 41; P-0339: T-134, p. 17, line 14 – p. 18, line 12; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 40. 1116 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at paras 29-32; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0445-R01, at paras 25, 28-31, 33; P-0339: T-134, p. 22, line 23 – p. 32, line 20. 1117 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 32; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0445-R01, at paras 21-25; P-0339: T-134, p. 22, line 23 – p. 32, line 20; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264- 0015-R01, at para. 37. 1118 P-0003: T-44, p. 51, line 13 – p. 52, line 4; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at paras 42-45; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 38-40; P-0339: T-134, p. 26, lines 7-17 (‘Q. Did you ever discuss with [a colleague from Gulu] what you heard in an LRA communication? A. No, it was prohibited. Whenever you finish intercepting, you are not required to discuss what you have recorded.’); P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 29. 1119 UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(i).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 226/1077 4 February 2021 the official UPDF logbooks. P-0400’s operational commander signed the entries in this

text: logbook, and P-0400 gave it to P-0003 upon his return to Gulu.

text: ii Internal Security Organisation interception

text: The primary ISO interceptor during the time period relevant to the charges was

text: 1121 1122

text: P-0059. Other witnesses involved in the ISO interception operation are: P-0027;

text: 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129

text: P-0032; P-0291; P-0301; P-0303; P-0384; P-0385 and P-0386.

text: All these witnesses had training in monitoring radio communications, and/or were the

text: supervisors of these persons. The ISO interceptors had sufficient experience that they

text: could understand what the LRA was saying and recognise the voices of certain LRA

text: members as they spoke.

text: The ISO interception process unfolded similarly to the UPDF process – conversations

text: would be recorded, short hand notes prepared, language de-coded, plain language

text: logbook summaries written chronologically (in English and based exclusively on the

text: 1120 P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(i). 1121 P-0059: T-36; T-37; T-39. See also P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 9; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01, at paras 8-9, 12; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at paras 17, 24. 1122 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01. 1123 P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01; P-0032 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0150-0030-R01; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01. 1124 P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01. 1125 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01. 1126 P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01. 1127 P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01. 1128 P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01. 1129 P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01. 1130 P-0059: T-36, p. 7, line 1 – p. 9, line 9; T-38, p. 15, line 3 – p. 16, line 11; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0246-0061-R01, at para. 16; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 15 (note this witness also had supervisory responsibilities); P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01, at para. 15; P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01, at para. 16 (though P-0385 did not personally intercept LRA communications); P- 0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 16. 1131 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 5; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249- 0444-R01, at para. 16; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01, at paras 4, 8; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 14; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01, at paras 22, 29. 1132 P-0059: T-36, p. 56, line 27 – p. 57, line 25; T-38, p. 16, line 12 – p. 22, line 9, p. 26, line 12 – p. 27, line 6; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at paras 19, 32; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at paras 20-21, 25; P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01, at paras 17-20; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0260-0508-R01, at paras 17-19, 24-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 227/1077 4 February 2021

text: recording), and entries reviewed by commanding officers. The recordings and

text: logbooks would likewise be securely stored.

text: One distinguishing feature of the ISO process is that the ISO would sequentially label

text: each audio cassette, and then use this serial number in their logbooks. This allows a

text: reader to easily identify which logbook summaries reflect the contents of which tape.

text: Once the ISO interceptors in Gulu prepared the logbook summary, it was then faxed to

text: Kampala (often after being re-copied by hand) or communicated by telephone. ISO

text: staff in Kampala then copied the summary by hand into a kind of duplicate logbook.

text: The information was further disseminated as necessary for military intelligence.

text: iii Police interception

text: Patrick Lumumba Nyero was the primary interceptor for the police interception operation

text: 1139 1140

text: in Kamdini. Patrick Nyero conducted his work with P-0370 and reported the

text: 1133 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 11; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069- 0796-R01, at paras 15-20; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 20; P-0059: T-36, p. 22, line 9 – p. 28, line 12; T-39: p. 37, line 23 – p. 42, line 6; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at paras 38-49; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at paras 28-29; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723- R01, at paras 22-30; P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01, at paras 24-26; P-0386 Statement, UGA- OTP-0260-0508-R01, at paras 18, 23. See also P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at para. 55 (would speak to UPDF direction finding team when making summaries, but only for the limited purpose of code breaking). 1134 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at paras 17-20; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0249-0444-R01, at para. 21; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0796-R01, at paras 21-25; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at paras 22(d)-(e), 51; P-0059: T-36, p. 40, lines 10-23; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01, at para. 30. 1135 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at paras 18-19; P-0059: T-36, p. 32, line 16 – p. 33, line 5; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at para. 40; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 41; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 24. 1136 P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 23; P-0032 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069- 0796-R01, at para. 20; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at paras 27-28; P-0059: T-36, p. 28, line 22 – p. 30, line 22; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at paras 46-47; P-0301 Statement, UGA- OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 28; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01, at paras 26, 31-35; P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01, at paras 19-24; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at paras 24, 26. UPDF entries also would sometimes be faxed, but the faxed papers were not retained. P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 25 (saying UPDF faxes were ‘exceptional’); P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at para. 18. 1137 P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 23; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP- 0246-0003-R01, at paras 32-33; P-0059: T-36, p. 28, line 22 – p. 30, line 22; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0061-R01, at para. 48; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01, at paras 31-35; P-0384 Statement, UGA- OTP-0260-0491-R01, at para. 27; P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01, at para. 24 (these were formally called RABMINT logbooks); P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 26. 1138 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at para. 8; P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723- R01, at para. 24. See also P-0059: T-36, p. 30, line 23 – p. 31, line 18. 1139 P-0125: T-135; T-136. See also P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at paras 29, 44-45. 1140 P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 228/1077 4 February 2021

text: results of his work to P-0126. Only Patrick Nyero received significant radio or

text: signalling training, but both Patrick Nyero and P-0370 intercepted LRA

text: communications for many years.

text: Like the other intercepting agencies, the Kamdini police would listen to the LRA, prepare

text: short hand notes of what was being said, and summarise the conversation in a

text: contemporaneous ‘fair copy’ (aka ‘good note’) of the conversation. The police wrote

text: fair copies in English and dated them. But there are gaps in the police entries which

text: do not appear in the UPDF or ISO logbooks, with evidence suggesting that the police

text: notes may be an incomplete collection.

text: The police interception operation was conducted less formally than those of the UPDF

text: or ISO in Gulu. They did not record communications onto cassettes. They destroyed

text: all short hand notes. Patrick Nyero also resorted to ‘human intelligence’ in making

text: his summaries, though he indicated that it was easily detectible when he did so. Also,

text: the police interceptors did not manage to break the LRA codes and therefore only

text: recorded what was communicated in clear language.

text: 1141 P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01; P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01. 1142 Compare P-0125: T-135, p. 50, line 10 – p. 51, line 11 with P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 21. 1143 P-0125: T-135-CONF, p. 52, line 16 – p. 54, line 19; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at paras 25, 51 (noting that, unlike P-0125, he was not able to recognise the voices of the LRA beyond Joseph Kony). 1144 P-0125: T-135, p. 57, line 3 – p. 59, line 11; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 37. 1145 E.g. UGA-OTP-0037-0002; P-0125: T-135, p. 59, line 14 – p. 62, line 9; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258- 0687-R01, at para. 55. 1146 The largest such gap is that there are no submitted police entries before 12 April 2004, despite the operation in Kamdini commencing in 2003 and the UPDF/ISO recording a wealth of LRA communications in the year prior to this date. For a gap appearing within a police entry, compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0272-74; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, 3006-07 (both discussing a conversation from 1 May 2004 at 18:30) with Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0144-46 (entry with a date of ‘1/5/2004’, but no record of any conversations from 18:30 on that day). 1147 See P-0125: T-135, p. 82, lines 7-25; T-136, p. 5, lines 12-21 (police interception could not penetrate communications when LRA used coded language); P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 61 (indicating that he destroyed Patrick Nyero’s notes after using them, which, although this cannot have been done in all instances, would explain gaps in the evidence record). 1148 P-0125: T-135, p. 65, lines 19-20; P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 49. 1149 P-0125: T-135, p. 58, lines 18-22; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 37. 1150 P-0125: T-135, p. 58, line 23 – p. 59, line 11. See also P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 30 (mentioning IDP camp informants as an example of human intelligence). 1151 P-0125: T-135, p. 82, lines 7-25; T-136, p. 5, lines 12-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 229/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1152 The Kamdini interceptors regularly transferred their fair copies to P-0126 in Gulu.

text: 1153 The intelligence gathered was distributed to other agencies like the UPDF or ISO.

text: iv Transfer of intercept materials to the Prosecution

text: Since 2004, the Prosecution was in contact with the Ugandan government authorities to

text: receive all recordings, short hand notes, logbooks and other information it considered

text: relevant for its investigation. The Prosecution received certain intercept materials from

text: others, but the largest batches of materials came from two government contacts: Timothy

text: Kanyogonya and P-0027.

text: Timothy Kanyogonya was the Prosecution’s primary focal point for receiving such

text: 1154 materials. Timothy Kanyogonya is the Head of Legal Affairs for the UPDF, but gave

text: 1155 the Prosecution materials emanating from both the UPDF and ISO. Timothy

text: Kanyogonya was responsible for collecting the materials related to the Prosecution’s

text: 1156 1157 cooperation requests. P-0078, a fellow UPDF officer, assisted him.

text: P-0027 of the ISO is the other person who gave a significant number of materials to the

text: 1158 Prosecution.

text: When it received materials from either Timothy Kanyogonya or P-0027, the Prosecution

text: 1159 prepared a pre-registration form memorialising the exchange. The forms vary as to

text: their completeness, but all contain a date, description of contents, and a name of the

text: government official providing the materials to the Prosecution. Generally, Timothy

text: 1160 Kanyogonya or P-0027 also signed the form.

text: 1152 P-0125: T-135, p. 64, line 17 – p. 65, line 18; P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at paras 47, 57, 60; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at paras 37-38, 42. 1153 P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at paras 47-48, 61; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258- 0687-R01, at para. 27. 1154 P-0038: T-116; T-117; P-0038 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0784-R01; P-0038 Second Statement, UGA- OTP-0244-0912-R01. 1155 P-0038: T-116, p. 4, lines 18-23, p. 8, line 3 – p. 9, line 2; P-0038 CV, UGA-OTP-0279-0294. 1156 P-0038: T-116, p. 10, lines 7-20, p. 34, line 19 – p. 35, line 1, p. 39, lines 1-20; T-117, p. 20, line 12 – p. 22, line 2. 1157 P-0038: T-116-CONF, p. 44, line 19 – p. 50, line 15; T-117-CONF, p. 42, line 11 – p. 46, line 21. 1158 P-0027 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0207-0256-R01, at paras 21-25; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0249-0444-R01, at paras 30 (d)-(e), 34-39. 1159 P-0038 Pre-Registration Forms, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01; P-0027 Pre-Registration Forms, UGA-OTP- 0246-0039-R01. 1160 For P-0038, out of 27 pre-registration forms, six do not bear a ‘source signature’, but indicate the witness’s name as source (see UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0926, 0934, 0935, 0936, 0938, 0940); for P-0027, out of 20

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 230/1077 4 February 2021 b. Assessment of intercept evidence The Chamber will now set out its assessment of the intercept related evidence before it.

text: Preliminarily, the Defence raised two general objections to these materials when the 1161 Prosecution submitted the bulk of them prior to trial. These are repeated in the Defence Closing Brief.

text: First, the Defence variously argued before the trial that these materials required witness 1162 testimony prior to being introduced. The Defence subsequently argued that these 1163 materials are insufficiently authenticated.

text: Although the Chamber disagreed and recognised these items as submitted prior to trial, the Chamber notes that it received testimony from over 20 witnesses on this evidence. The Chamber considers this general objection to be without merit, also bearing in mind that the authenticity of recordings and other intercept material relied upon is further discussed in this section.

text: Second, the Defence argues that matters like technical difficulties or improperly destroyed records mean that the evidence before the Chamber is not a complete collection 1164 of all LRA communications during the relevant period.

text: By definition, all the intercept evidence the Chamber has actually received is unaffected by technical difficulties or improperly destroyed records. As put by P-0059: ‘whatever was brought before court here was not destroyed and that’s why we were able to hear 1165 it.’ While it can be reasonably assumed that the intercept materials available in these proceedings do not cover the totality of LRA radio communications during the relevant

text: pre-registration forms, only one does not bear a ‘source signature’, but indicates the witness’s name as source (UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0042; see also P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(d)). Given the overall content of the forms as well as their similarity with the forms which do bear signatures, the Chamber is satisfied that despite the missing source signatures, the materials mentioned in the forms were indeed provided by the two witnesses respectively. 1161 Defence Response to ”Prosecution’s formal submission of intercept evidence via the ‘bar table’" (ICC-02/04- 01/15-580), 21 November 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-599 (hereinafter: ‘Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material’), summarised in Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, paras 14-21. 1162 Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, paras 17, 25-29. 1163 Defence Closing Brief, paras 234-40. 1164 Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, paras 18-24, 35-44. 1165 P-0059: T-38-CONF, p. 41, line 21 – p. 42, line 15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 231/1077 4 February 2021 time period, the Chamber, in light of all the relevant evidence before it, considers that this probability does not have a bearing on the Chamber’s ability to assess what is available. The Chamber therefore considers that such concerns have no impact on the evidence actually before it.

text: Relatedly, the Defence submits that most of the intercept material lacks relevance and has not been translated or interpreted by witnesses during trial, for which reason also the 1166 related logbooks and rough notes should not be relied upon. As further outlined below, the Chamber has focused in its review of the material on those audio recordings which 1167 could be understood in a working language of the Court. At the same time, the Chamber considers that the discussion of specific audio recordings further below also demonstrates the reliability of the logbook entries in general, irrespective of whether a related audio recording was translated and as such could be independently and in 1168 conjunction assessed by the Chamber. The material which is before the Chamber and could be reviewed in a working language of the Court in itself, and even more so in combination with an abundance of witness evidence which confirms the veracity of the interception procedures, provides sufficient context for the Chamber’s analysis of this material.

text: The argument that the aim for which the intercepts were taken – for military and not 1169 judicial purposes – impacts their reliability, is rejected. While this could, theoretically, affect the probative value of the material, the Chamber fails to see why the purpose of the intercept operations automatically diminishes the reliability of the obtained items. As to the Defence assertions that there is an intrinsic bias which may not reflect exculpatory 1170 1171 exchanges or that the intercept collection is incomplete, the Chamber’s obligation is to consider only evidence submitted and discussed at trial. It cannot speculate as to 1172 what further evidence there could have been. Contrary to the Defence’s suggestion, whatever interest the Ugandan government has in convicting the accused cannot alone

text: 1166 Defence Closing Brief, paras 232-233. 1167 See paras 648-650 below. 1168 See section IV.B.3.ii below. 1169 Defence Closing Brief, paras 243-48; Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 21. 1170 Defence Closing Brief, paras 253-56; Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, para. 22. 1171 Defence Closing Brief, paras 257-62, 288, 295, 315. 1172 Defence Closing Brief, para. 263.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 232/1077 4 February 2021 justify any inference that the intercepts were tampered with or selectively provided in any way. There is no evidence any such issues occurred, nor did the Defence present any evidence that undermines the reliability or probative value of the intercepted material. There is no indication that any further intercept evidence – if it even exists – would be meaningfully different than the voluminous materials presented. Accordingly, the Defence arguments on these points are dismissed.

text: i Chain of custody evidence

text: The Chamber considers that Timothy Kanyogonya’s testimony was clear, consistent and reliable. Timothy Kanyogonya explained with care that his provision of material to the Prosecution did not give him any broader expertise as to what these materials could 1173 mean. The Defence challenged that the materials Timothy Kanyogonya provided are 1174 incomplete and why he selected the materials he did in response to the Prosecution’s 1175 assistance requests. The Chamber considers such challenges to be irrelevant to the question of whether the materials Timothy Kanyogonya provided are authentic. The Chamber is fully satisfied that Timothy Kanyogonya provided the items indicated in his pre-registration forms to the Prosecution. The occasions when other witnesses independently verified the provenance of Timothy Kanyogonya’s materials bolsters this 1176 assessment and reinforces the overall accuracy of Timothy Kanyogonya’s preregistration forms.

text: Similarly, the Chamber is also satisfied from P-0027’s prior recorded testimony that he provided the materials specified in his pre-registration forms to the Prosecution.

text: For purposes of evaluating the chain of custody of specific recordings, the Chamber has used the dates provided in the e-court metadata to isolate the pre-registration form

text: 1173 P-0038: T-116, p. 24, line 8 – p. 26, line 18, p. 29, line 7 – p. 30, line 2, p. 73, lines 7-20, p. 79, lines 16-24; T-117, p. 18, lines 5-23 (‘[w]e have a whole intelligence department with so many different actors. There is an analysis branch of this department, where I belong. I was scanning through basically thousands of documents. I do not think I even had the competence to go through all these letters that I handed over to the ICC. There’s no way. It would have taken me years. Some of these documents I’m just even reading them now, selecting documents because of relevance does not mean I have read them thoroughly’). 1174 P-0038: T-116, p. 18, line 21 – p. 23, line 1. 1175 P-0038: T-116, p. 15, line 6 – p. 16, line 25; T-117, p. 48, line 21 – p. 53, line 12, p. 55, line 11 – p. 56, line 14, p. 60, line 6 – p. 62, line 13. See also T-117, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 13. 1176 E.g. paragraphs 760, 798 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 233/1077 4 February 2021 corresponding to that particular recording. The Chamber has then verified that the preregistration form’s contents are consistent with this metadata.

text: ii Audio recordings

text: The original audio cassettes prepared by the UPDF and ISO are the initial recordings of intercepted radio communications. Short hand notes were prepared while the original audio cassettes were being recorded, and both served as basis for the logbook summaries. The enhanced audios prepared at a later stage are equally derived from the original audio cassettes. The Chamber notes that not all of these recordings have translated transcripts, and accordingly has focused only on those recordings which could be understood in the 1177 working languages of the Court.

text: The audio cassettes provide limited information as to when they were recorded. Some cassettes – either on their label or the cassette paper – provide information on the date of 1178 the recording or its contents. Most do not. Tapes coming specifically from ISO 1179 provide the serial tape number, but often nothing else. This necessitates the Chamber having to consult the corresponding ISO logbook in order to date the tape in question.

text: The contents of the audio recordings are in non-working languages, predominantly Acholi or Luo. They are impossible for the Chamber to understand without translated transcripts, and even then generally require further testimony from witnesses to understand their contents. The Chamber does not consider it has the requisite ability to identify voices on these recordings itself, and has resorted to witness testimony for such identifications. What the Chamber has been able to discern from the original recordings is only the general impression that all intercepts concern men speaking in a non-working language over the radio.

text: iii Enhanced audio recordings

text: The Prosecution selected certain audio recordings for enhancement. Two witnesses were 1180 1181 primarily responsible for this enhancement: Alan French and Xavier Laroche. In

text: 1177 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 293. 1178 E.g. Audio Cassette, UGA-OTP-0039-0006; Audio Cassette, UGA-OTP-0025-0625. 1179 E.g. Audio Cassette, UGA-OTP-0052-0026. 1180 P-0242: T-128; P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01. 1181 P-0256: T-119; P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 234/1077 4 February 2021 the words of Alan French, the enhancement exercise was ‘striving to enhance the quality of audio material to enable members of the court to comprehend or interpret the material to the best possible standard without adding to or detracting from the content of the 1182 original’. The intercept witnesses were primarily played enhanced audios during their

text: testimony, requiring the Chamber to further assess the probative value of the enhanced audios.

text: Alan French is an audio forensic specialist, who set out his detailed experience in 1183 enhancing audio for purposes of criminal proceedings. The audio-enhancement

text: company where Alan French works sells specialised software to clients who want to 1184 conduct their own audio enhancement. The Prosecution is one such client, and Xavier Laroche is the Prosecution forensic officer trained by Alan French to conduct this 1185 enhancement. Xavier Laroche enhanced audios with the assistance of one of his 1186 colleagues, also trained by Alan French.

text: The Chamber found both Alan French and Xavier Laroche to be truthful witnesses, and takes note of the careful steps taken by each to ensure that no speech would be lost in the 1187 process of audio enhancement. The Chamber considers the Defence’s arguments that content could have possibly been lost/distorted is speculative and without a clear 1188 evidentiary basis. Xavier Laroche was quite clear in stating his limitations in this field, and that he was unable to answer specific questions on the science of audio enhancement. 1189 Xavier Laroche often deferred to Alan French’s expertise on these points. Thus, the Chamber has given more weight to Alan French on matters related to the science or mechanics of audio enhancement. But, noting Xavier Laroche’s own training and

text: 1182 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 17; P-0242: T-128, p. 12, line 2 – p. 13, line 2. 1183 P-0242: T-128, p. 4, lines 11-16, p. 18, line 16 – p. 20, line 17; P-0242 CV, UGA-OTP-0261-0343-R01. 1184 P-0242: T-128, p. 4, lines 11-16, p. 20, line 18 – p. 21, line 9. 1185 P-0242: T-128, p. 21, line 16 – p. 23, line 15, p. 57, lines 1-13; P-0256: T-119, p. 18, line 6 – p. 19, line 1. 1186 P-0256: T-119, p. 18, line 6 – p. 19, line 1, p. 20, line 6 – p. 24, line 3. 1187 P-0242: T-128, p. 13, line 3 – p. 16, line 11; P-0256: T-119, p. 25, lines 1-22, p. 32, lines 12-23, p. 39, line 18 – p. 40, line 18. The Defence argues that the Chamber draw adverse inferences due to it having insufficient time to consider Alan French’s documents outlining his enhancement process. Defence Closing Brief, para. 277. The Defence had this information in 2017 – any time constraints it had to consider these materials cannot still be true. 1188 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 269-74, 276. 1189 P-0256: T-119, p. 25, lines 19-22, p. 30, lines 2-15, p. 34, lines 2-16, p. 36, line 10 – p. 37, line 21, p. 40, line 25 – p. 41, line 7, p. 44, line 5 – p. 45, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 235/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1190 experience, the Chamber is satisfied that Alan French and Xavier Laroche both have

text: 1191 the requisite qualifications to enhance audio recordings.

text: When evaluating a particular enhanced audio, the Chamber has considered various

text: indicators to ensure that an enhanced audio is a copy of an original. The Chamber verified

text: whether the labelling of the enhanced audio matches the original recording it is

text: purportedly linked to. The Chamber listened to the enhanced audio to ensure it has at

text: least the same general impression that it contains men speaking in a non-working

text: language over the radio. In this broad sense, and despite being unable to understand the

text: non-working languages spoken, the Chamber checked that the enhanced audio contents

text: are consistent with the original audios. The Chamber also compared the recorded track

text: times on the original and enhanced tapes to see if they sufficiently correspond. If more

text: than de minimis discrepancies exist, the Chamber endeavoured to determine why this was

text: so. The Chamber has also considered these indicators against the full body of evidence,

text: meaning that there may still be sufficient evidence to conclusively link an enhanced audio

text: to an original even if – for instance – the original/enhanced audio track times do not align.

text: The Chamber finds nothing in the evidence to suggest that the enhanced audios are

text: anything other than faithful reproductions of the originals. It must be emphasised that the

text: Prosecution always provided the unenhanced and enhanced recordings together, so that

text: 1192 any listener could identify potential discrepancies in the recorded contents. Alan

text: French and Xavier Laroche also provided technical reports on the exact processes applied

text: 1193 to each audio. The Defence spoke of many possible issues which can come from

text: 1194 enhancing an audio, but generally made no substantiated challenge that any of these

text: 1190 P-0256: T-119, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 5, p. 14, line 23 – p. 16, line 21; P-0256 CV, UGA-OTP-0269-0034, at 0035. 1191 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 264-68. 1192 See P-0242: T-128, p. 16, lines 6-11 (‘I mean, one of the things in this particular case that we have done almost as like a safety net is also to supply enhanced versions of the cassette tapes as digital files but also unenhanced versions of the, of the cassette tapes so that if there was any question about whether or not the enhanced material was of poorer quality than the original material, the two could be compared.’). 1193 E.g. Process Manager Chain for UGA-OTP-0039-0006, UGA-OTP-0281-1219; Process Manager Chain for UGA-OTP-0195-0022, UGA-OTP-0247-1199; Processing Chain for UGA-OTP-0053-0046, UGA-OTP-0261- 0349-R01. 1194 P-0242: T-128, p. 25, line 6 – p. 28, line 21 (possibility of non-Acholi enhancer altering Acholi words), p. 37, lines 3-25, p. 80, line 19 – p. 81, line 21 (possibility of edits being made to the original tape), p. 38, line 1 – p. 40, line 12 (possibility that part of a cassette recorded prior to being re-copied survives on the re-copied version), p. 60, line 13 – p. 62, line 6, p. 64, line 7 – p. 68, line 16 (possibility that adaptive filters unduly affected the quality of the recording, but only directing witness to a recording where an adaptive filter was applied), p. 70, line 25 – p. 71, line 11 (possibility of altering voices when removing frequencies).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 236/1077 4 February 2021 issues affected the particular recordings in this case. Even when the Defence did 1195 exceptionally do so, its arguments failed to persuade.

text: The Chamber cannot find reasonable doubt that the intercepted audio recordings (as enhanced) are altered on the basis of abstract possibilities not grounded in the evidentiary record. The Chamber emphasises that no witness played the enhanced audios – including former LRA soldiers – commented on there being anything unusual about the way they sounded. The Chamber is also able to compare the intercept witnesses’ summaries of the enhanced audio to the logbook entries prepared contemporaneously to when the recording occurred. When the summary matches the logbook – as it consistently did – then this further demonstrates that the audio enhancement did not distort the spoken contents of the original tape.

text: For these reasons, the Chamber considers the enhanced audios to be accurate enhancements of the originals and fully reliable.

text: iv Interceptor logbooks

text: The primary interceptor logbooks are a contemporaneous written record of the LRA’s intercepted communications. They are written in plain language, and have formed an essential part of the Chamber’s assessment of particular recordings.

text: The logbooks before the Chamber are written in a systematic manner, have marks indicating that commanding officers read them, and summarise LRA communications. They give every indication of being what the witnesses describe them to be, and the various witnesses who authored or were otherwise familiar with these books identified them in the course of their testimony. The Chamber can confirm the provenance of the following logbooks:

text: 1195 See paras 772-773 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 237/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1196 1197

text: UPDF (Gulu): UGA-OTP-0254-3399; UGA-OTP-0254-0455; UGA-OTP-

text: 1198 1199 1200

text: 0254-0229; UGA-OTP-0254-0725; UGA-OTP-0254-1077; UGA-OTP-

text: 1201 1202 1203

text: 0254-2982; UGA-OTP-0254-3833; UGA-OTP-0254-4143.

text: 1196 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-2162. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, containing entries from 5 January 2003 – 5 April 2003, considering that it shows identical characteristics to all UPDF logbooks the authenticity of which is considered established, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this re-scanned book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to UPDF 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920- R01, at 0944), and that ‘UPDF 0024’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3400). 1197 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-1224. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, containing entries from 8 April 2003 – 25 June 2003, considering that it shows identical characteristics to all UPDF logbooks the authenticity of which is considered established, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this re-scanned book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to UPDF 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0025’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0456-0457 – the slip of paper is scanned backwards), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu UPDF logbook the authenticity of which is also established (book UGA-OTP-0254-0725’s first entry is 26 June 2003, the day after the book at issue closed). 1198 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-2040. It is noted that there seem to have been errors in scanning this logbook. Both re-scanned and original books clearly start with the same entry (dated 12 October 2003), but the re-scanned book contains additional entries not scanned in the original. These errors make it impossible to determine exactly when this logbook ends. Nevertheless, the authenticity of the overlapping pages is established, as this book shows identical characteristics to all UPDF logbooks the authenticity of which is considered established, the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, a preregistration form signed by P-0038 confirms that certain UPDF logbooks (including with the sequence number 23, which can be found on a separate slip of paper scanned in UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0258-59) were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), and the beginning of this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu UPDF logbook the authenticity of which is also established (book UGA-OTP-0254-0725’s last entry is 11 October 2003, the day before this book opens). 1199 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0400 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(k)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other UPDF logbooks, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to UPDF 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0028’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration from (see UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0726-27), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu UPDF logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0254-0455’s last entry is 25 June 2003 at 11:00, the day before this book opens, while book UGA-OTP-0254-0229’s first entry is 12 October 2003 at 8:00, the day after this book is closed). 1200 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0400 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(l)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other UPDF logbooks, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0029’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1078-79), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0254-3833’s last entry is 3 December 2004, at 11:00, while this logbook starts on 3 December 2004, at 18:30). 1201 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-1670. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0003, P-0400 and P-0404 in this regard (P-0003: T-42, p. 32, line 25 – p. 36, line 10; T-44, p. 34, line 20 – p. 36, line 18; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(b); P- 0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 49(a)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other UPDF logbooks, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 238/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1204 1205

text: UPDF (Achol Pii): UGA-OTP-0242-6018; UGA-OTP-0242-7309.

text: Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0021 to 0023’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0022’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 2983), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other UPDF Gulu logbooks (book UGA- OTP-0254-4143’s last entry is 21 April 2004 at 9:00, while this book opens on 21 April 2004 at 18:30, and book UGA-OTP-0254-3833’s first entry is 2 August 2004 at 11:00, while this book closes on 2 August 2004 at 9:00). 1202 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-0308. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0400 and P-0404 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015- R01, at para. 44(l); P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 49(b)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other UPDF logbooks, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to UPDF 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0026’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration from (see UGA-OTP-0254-3833, at 3834), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu UPDF logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0254-2982’s last entry is 2 August 2004 at 9:00, while this book opens on 2 August 2004 at 11:00, and book UGA-OTP-0254-1077’s first entry is 3 December 2004 at 18:30, while this book closes on 3 December 2004 at 11:00). The Chamber notes that P-0339 also identified as his the handwriting on a number of pages which were identified by P-0404 to be his handwriting (see P-0339: T-134, p. 34, line 22 – p. 35, line 17). However, in light of the fact that two other witnesses identified this logbook as having been written in Gulu, and bearing in mind that it concerned a time at which P-0339 no longer worked in Gulu, but rather in Lira (the book contains entries from 2 August 2004 – 3 December 2004), the Chamber disregards the evidence of P-0339 on this point. 1203 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-0697. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0400 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(a)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other UPDF logbooks, that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 1 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0024 to UPDF 0029’ were provided on this date (UGA- OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0944), that ‘UPDF 0027’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration from (see UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4153), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu UPDF logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0254-0229’s last entry is 10 December at 11:00, the day before this book opens, while book UGA-OTP-0254-2982’s first entry is 21 April 2004 at 18:30, and this book closes on 21 April 2004 at 9:00). 1204 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0400 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(f)), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0015 to 0017’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0943), that ‘UPDF 0015’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration form (see UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6019), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Achol Pii UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0242-7309’s first entry is 21 November 2003, the day after this book closes). 1205 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0400 in this regard (P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(g)), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 007 to 0010’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0942), that ‘UPDF 0008’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration form (see UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7309), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Achol Pii UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0242-6018’s last entry is 20 November 2003, the day before this book opens).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 239/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1206 1207

text: UPDF (Soroti): UGA-OTP-0254-2284; UGA-OTP-0242-6212; UGA-OTP-

text: 1209 1210

text: UPDF (Lira): UGA-OTP-0255-0228; UGA-OTP-0255-0451.

text: 1206 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-1866. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0339 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 36, lines 19-24), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0011 to 0012’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0942), that ‘UPDF 0012’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration form (see UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2285), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Soroti UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0254-1991’s last entry is 13 November 2003 at 11:00 (also headed ‘Compact No. 4’), while this book opens on 13 November 2003 at 11:00 (equally headed ‘Compact No. 4’). P-0400 identified this book as emanating from Lira, noting that he recognised P-0339’s handwriting within it. P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(d). P-0339 testified to recording some of this book in both Soroti and Lira and therefore, there is no significant inconsistency. P-0339: T-134, p. 30, lines 15-19; T- 135, p. 11, line 24 – p. 13, line 10. 1207 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0339 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 37, lines 2-13), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P- 0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0015 to 0017’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0943), and that ‘UPDF 0016’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA- OTP-0242-6212, at 6213). 1208 Re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-1078. The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0339 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 36, lines 9-18), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 0011 to 0012’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0942), that ‘UPDF 0011’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the preregistration form (see UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 1992), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Soroti UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0254-2284’s first entry is 13 November 2003 at 11:00 (also headed ‘Compact No. 4’), while this book closes on 13 November 2003 at 11:00 (equally headed ‘Compact No. 4’). 1209 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0339 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 39, lines 17-23), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 24 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on this date indicates that ‘3 message books’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0946), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Lira UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP- 0255-0451’s first entry is 8 August 2004 at 11:30, while this book closes on 8 August 2004 at 9:21). The Defence pointed P-0339 to his prior statement whereby he did not recognise his handwriting on page 0231 of this logbook – P-0339 indicated his prior statement is in error on this point. T-135, p. 13, line 13 to – p. 14, line 6. Whatever confusion occurred here does not affect the authenticity of this logbook, noting that no challenge is raised against P-0339 further identifying his handwriting on page 0409 of this same book. It is also noted that there appear to be two different handwritings on both pages 0231 and 0409 – the writing in black ink on p. 0231 appears to match that found on the top half of p. 0409. 1210 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0339 and P-0400 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 39, line 24 – p. 40, line 3; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(e)), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 24 August 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on this date indicates that ‘3 message books’ were provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0946), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Lira UPDF logbook (book UGA-OTP-0255-0228’s last entry is 8 August 2004 at 9:21, while this book opens on 8 August 2004 at 11:30).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 240/1077 4 February 2021

text: UPDF (P-0400 Sudan Logbook): UGA-OTP-0242-7194.

text: 1212 1213

text: ISO (Gulu): UGA-OTP-0061-0002; UGA-OTP-0061-0206; UGA-OTP-

text: 1214 1215

text: 0062-0002; UGA-OTP-0062-0145;

text: 1211 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0339 and P-0400 in this regard (P-0339: T-134, p. 38, lines 4-8; P-0400 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0015-R01, at para. 44(i)), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 29 May 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on 1 August 2015 (and indicating a ‘collection date’ of 29 May 2015) confirms that logbooks ‘UPDF 007 to 0010’ were provided on this date (UGA- OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0942), and that ‘UPDF 0007’ appears in a slip of paper in this logbook, matching the identification number range in the pre-registration form (see UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7195). 1212 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(i)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01’s last entry is 17 January 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 747A), while this book opens on 18 January 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 748A), and book UGA-OTP-0061-0206’s first entry is 2 April 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 791A), while this book closes on 1 April 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 790B+791A)). 1213 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(h)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0061-0002’s last entry is 1 April 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 790B+791A), while this book opens on 2 April 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 791A), and book UGA-OTP-0062-0002’s first entry is 30 May 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 830B), while this book closes on 30 May 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 830A)). 1214 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(g)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0061-0206’s last entry is 30 May 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 830A), while this book opens on 30 May 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 830B), and book UGA-OTP-0062-0145’s first entry is 30 July 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 874B+875A), while this book closes on 29 July 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 874B)). 1215 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(f)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0062-0002’s last entry is 29 July 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 874B), while this book

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 241/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1216 1217 1218

text: UGA-OTP-0063-0002; UGA-OTP-0063-0194; UGA-OTP-0064-0002;

text: 1219 1220

text: UGA-OTP-0064-0093; UGA-OTP-0065-0002; UGA-OTP-0066-0002opens on 30 July 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 874B+875A), and book UGA-OTP-0152-0002’s first entry is 22 October 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 922B), while this book closes on 21 October 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 922B)). 1216 This specific book contains entries from 13 March 2003 to 8 May 2003 (0800, Tape 651). The Chamber is satisfied of its authenticity, considering that it shows identical characteristics to all Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP- 0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook the authenticity of which is considered established, with an opening entry of 8 May 2003 (11:00 entry, Tape 652. See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0068-0146, at 0147). 1217 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0384 and P-0385 in this regard (P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01, at para. 28(a); P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498-R01, at para. 30(a)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a preregistration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre- Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook (book UGA- OTP-0064-0002’s first entry is 4 August 2002 at 8:00 (with tape 518B), while this book closes on 3 August 2002 at 8:00 (with tape 517B+518B)). 1218 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, containing entries from 4 August 2002 – 2 September 2002, considering that it shows identical characteristics to all Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA- OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook the authenticity of which is also established, with an opening entry of 4 August 2002 (0800, Tape 518B) which follows the last entry in book UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0344-47 (on 3 August 2002, at 08:00-11:30, referring to Tape 518A). 1219 This specific book contains entries from 2 September 2002 (1100, Tape 539A) – 23 September 2002 (1100, Tape 553B). The Chamber is satisfied of its authenticity, considering that it this book shows identical characteristics to all Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a preregistration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre- Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook the authenticity of which is considered established, with an opening entry of 24 September 2002 (0800, also referring to Tape 553B. See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0003). 1220 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, containing entries from 5 November 2002 – 4 January 2003, considering that it shows identical characteristics to all Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039- R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook the authenticity of which is considered established, with an opening entry of 5 November 2002 (08:00 entry, Tape 577) which follows the last entry in book UGA-OTP- 0068-0002, at 0144-45 (on 4 November 2002, also referring to Tape 577).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 242/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1221 1222 1223

text: R01; UGA-OTP-0068-0002; UGA-OTP-0068-0146; UGA-OTP-0152-

text: 1224 1225

text: 0002; UGA-OTP-0232-0234.

text: 1221 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(j)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0232-0234’s last entry is 26 October 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 704B+705A), while this book opens on 27 October 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 705A), and book UGA-OTP-0061-0002’s first entry is 18 January 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 748A), while this book closes on 17 January 2004 at 8:00 (with tape 747A)). 1222 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0032 in this regard (P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 34(e)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0064-0093’s last entry is 23 September 2002 at 11:00 (with tape 553B), while this book opens on 24 September 2002 at 8:00 (with tape 553B+554), and book UGA-OTP-0065- 0002’s first entry is 5 November 2002 at 8:00 (with tape 577A+B), while this book closes on 4 November 2002 at 11:00 (with tape 577A)). 1223 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0059, P-0032 and P-0303 in this regard (P-0059: T-36, p. 31, line 21 – p. 33, line 17; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 34(a); P-0303 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0723-R01, at para. 37(e)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 7 March 2005, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that 18 ‘Books English Transcripts’ were provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0040; P- 0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(b)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0063-0002’s last entry is 8 May 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 651B), while this book opens on 8 May 2003 at 11:00 (with tape 652A), and book UGA-OTP-0232-0234’s first entry is 2 August 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 675A), while this book closes on 1 August 2003 at 18:00 (with tape 675A)). 1224 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0032 and P-0386 in this regard (P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 34(c); P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(b)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this book to the Prosecution on 21 July 2005, that a preregistration form signed by P-0038 confirms that an ‘ISO (LRA) book of intercepts from 22 Oct 2004 to 05 April 2005’ was provided on this date (UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0933), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with another Gulu ISO logbook (book UGA-OTP-0062-0145’s last entry is 21 October 2004 at 18:30 (with tape 822B), while this book opens on 22 October 2004 at 9:00 (with tape 822B)). 1225 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this logbook, considering the testimony provided by Witness P-0386 in this regard (P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 29(k)), and considering that it shows identical characteristics to other Gulu ISO logbooks the authenticity of which is also established (most notably tick marks or the word ‘seen’ following many entries, see P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0003-R01, at para. 33), that the ecourt metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this book to the Prosecution on 23 April 2015, that a pre-registration form signed by P-0027 confirms that a ‘blue manuscript book opened on 2 Aug 2003, last entry is 26 Oct 2003’ was provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 243/1077 4 February 2021

text: Police: UGA-OTP-0037-0002; UGA-OTP-0151-0002 through UGA-OTP-

text: While other logbooks have been submitted into evidence, the logbooks listed above

text: include content the Chamber considers to be specifically relevant to its evidentiary

text: discussion. These logbooks have been extensively used during the hearings at trial,

text: making it quite clear to all involved what parts of them are most relevant.

text: As discussed previously, there is evidence that, despite orders to the contrary, UPDF and

text: ISO personnel would sometimes help each other to understand the meaning of certain

text: parts of communications. However, all those who acknowledged that such

text: discussions occurred described them in a way which made it clear that each agency was

text: still working independently from the other. There is, for instance, no evidence

text: suggesting that the UPDF simply copied the entries in the ISO logbooks, or vice-versa.

text: The Chamber considers that, despite the possibility that the UPDF and ISO may have

text: 0246-0039-R01, at 0045; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 35(g)), and that this book fits in chronological sequence with other Gulu ISO logbooks (book UGA-OTP-0068-0146’s last entry is 1 August 2003 at 18:00 (with tape 675A), while this book opens on 2 August 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 675A), and book UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01’s first entry is 27 October 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 705A), while this book closes on 26 October 2003 at 8:00 (with tape 704B+705A)). 1226 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this material, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0125 and P-0370 in this regard (P-0125: T-135, p. 59, line 14 – p. 62, line 9; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0258-0687-R01, at para. 55), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0038 of the UPDF provided this material to the Prosecution on 14 December 2004, and that a pre-registration form signed by P-0038 on this date confirms that ‘civilian intercept folder/docs 12 Apr – 04 Nov 04’ was provided on this date (UGA-OTP- 0244-0920-R01, at 0929), with a date range matching the entries in these papers. The police themselves described such papers as ‘fair copies’, and they were not written into a single logbook like those of the UPDF and ISO. However, the collection of papers is functionally equivalent to a ‘police logbook’, and for consistency in referencing the Chamber will describe these collected papers as a logbook. 1227 The Chamber is satisfied of the authenticity of this material, considering the testimony provided by Witnesses P-0125, P-0126 and P-0370 in this regard (P-0125: T-135, p. 62, line 13 – p. 64, line 16; P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 69; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 56), and considering that its ecourt metadata indicates that P-0126 of the Police provided this material to the Prosecution on 24 June 2005, and that a pre-registration form, although not signed by P-0126, confirms that a ‘set of handwritten transcripts of radio-intercepts’ was provided on this date (Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0151- 0001-R01; P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0253-0764-R01, at para. 76), with an ERN range matching this collection of papers (indicated as ‘UGA.00151.001 to UGA.00151.044’, with the end page being the last page of item UGA-OTP-0151-0042). The Chamber notes that these ‘fair copies’ were registered into e-court separately, and will therefore refer to them as ‘police notes’. However, this collection of papers contains notes of the same kind as those included in Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002. 1228 See para. 563 above. 1229 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 50; P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246- 0003-R01, at para. 40; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 44-46 (would read both sets of logbooks, and point out to UPDF or ISO if something caught in one logbook was missing in the other); P- 0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 18 (‘[w]e worked independently from [ISO], but would occasionally compare our findings if there was something we had difficulty with’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 244/1077 4 February 2021 compared findings about aspects of some communications, the work in their respective logbooks still can be understood to be corroborative when their entries are consistent.

text: Further, the UPDF operations in Gulu, Achol Pii, Soroti and Lira were conducted 1230 independently. Matching logbook entries from each of these places can likewise be understood as corroborating each other. 1231 The police interception operation was also independent of those of the UPDF/ISO. For those communications where a police logbook entry exists, these logbooks provide a further layer of corroboration as to what the LRA was saying and when.

text: When considering the corroborative effect of different logbooks, the Chamber is not expecting word-for-word mirroring across the agencies. To the contrary, this would actually suggest the logbook authors did not prepare them independently. It is of particular import in this regard that differences in details are to be expected, noting the diverse experience levels of the interceptors, the potential for varying quality of what could be heard at each interception site, and the inevitability that different people will summarise different parts and focus on varying details of a long conversation. In assessing whether logbooks corroborate each other or witness or documentary evidence (such as transcripts) for a given LRA conversation, the Chamber is only looking for overlapping content sufficient for it to conclude that each logbook is describing the same overall conversation.

text: As to legibility, the Chamber is able to easily read the police logbook in evidence. The contents of ISO logbooks are generally legible, though sometimes the dates of the entries are written faintly. Noting that ISO logbooks are written in chronological order, the Chamber has occasionally made recourse to more legible dates near cited entries in order to confirm the dates of the cited entries themselves. For UPDF logbooks, the Prosecution also re-scanned a number of them to make them easier to read. The initial scans of the logbooks are also provided, meaning that the Chamber has been able to compare versions of these logbooks. As a general rule, the Chamber will cite to the clearest version of the

text: 1230 See n. 1118 above. 1231 P-0125: T-135, p. 66, lines 18-23; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at para. 47; P-0370 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0687-R01, at para. 46.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 245/1077 4 February 2021 evidence in the record. This means that the Chamber generally cites to the re-scanned UPDF logbook entries in its reasoning (as well as enhanced audios for recordings).

text: The Defence argues that logbook entries may discuss conversation topics out of order or 1232 may have inaccurately interpreted proverbs or coded messages. But the Chamber considers that much of the value of these logbooks comes precisely from their providing a plain language summary of an otherwise indecipherable conversation. As will be shown in the discussion on specific intercepted communications, it must also be noted that the summaries in these logbooks have been extensively corroborated by witnesses who were played the corresponding recorded conversations in court. In principle in its evidentiary discussion, the Chamber has taken care to verify the meaning of any LRA conversation sourced from a single logbook, relying on available audio recording transcripts, witness testimonies or other logbooks to corroborate their accuracy. That said, the Chamber notes that in certain instances, it has not been possible to match the details of conversations as recorded in specific logbooks to other available evidence. This holds true in particular when looking at the logbooks produced by ISO in 2002, time for which the Chamber was 1233 not provided with logbooks from other intercepting agencies. In such cases, while the Chamber may be referencing the content of LRA communications sourced from a single logbook, the Chamber considers such logbook entries sufficiently reliable in the context of its evidentiary discussion and in light of the evidence received on how the logbooks were produced. This is also the case in particular bearing in mind the discussion of the specific intercepts below which demonstrates that witnesses corroborated summaries in logbooks when played the corresponding sound recordings, as well as that for years subsequent 2002, for which logbooks from other intercepting agencies are available, in many cases the logbook entries across agencies match to an extent which allows the Chamber to conclude sufficiently on the reliability of the ISO logbooks from 2002. To the extent possible, the Chamber has also noted corroboration for the content of such logbooks entries by reference to other material available. Furthermore, throughout the evidentiary discussion, and as regards logbook entries relevant to the entire period of the charges, in cases in which the Chamber found especially variations in the amount of details recorded across different logbook entries which are of significance to the

text: 1232 Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material, paras 30-32. 1233 The Chamber notes the existence of two logbooks which appear to have been produced by the UPDF between January and April as well as May-June 2002, but considers them of no immediate relevance for the current discussion as they concern a period before the time relevant to the charges.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 246/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber’s discussion, additional reasoning has been provided as to why the Chamber may have decided to rely on one specific logbook entry.

text: v Short hand notes

text: The Chamber has received a large number of short hand notes from the UPDF and ISO 1234 intercept operations. Interceptors wrote these notes as the communications transpired to inform the formal logbook entries made subsequently.

text: On some level, these notes should be probative in that they provide an even more contemporaneous record of LRA conversations compared to the logbook summaries. But there are several competing considerations. First, and understandably, the witnesses’ short hand notes are not as complete a record of the conversation as when they can collect 1235 their thoughts for the full logbook entry. Second, many of the notes are so hard to 1236 read as to be illegible. Third, even when the text is clear enough to read, the notes themselves are written in a mixture of Acholi and English and lack full translations. Fourth, full sentences are not always used, making it difficult for someone other than the author to know the import of isolated words or phrases.

text: All told, this has led to the Chamber placing little reliance on these short hand notes. The Chamber instead uses the logbook summaries for a contemporaneous written record of the intercepted conversation.

text: vi Copies of ISO logbooks

text: ISO interception operations also generated copies of the logbook entries prepared in Gulu. The ISO operation in Gulu often faxed a copy of their logbook entry to Kampala 1237 (sometimes after being rewritten more legibly in Gulu). The Chamber has received

text: 1234 E.g. UPDF Shorthand Notes, UGA-OTP-0254-2619 (re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-2319); ISO Shorthand Notes, UGA-OTP-0242-3630; ISO Shorthand Notes, UGA-OTP-0242-5078. 1235 P-0003: T-42, p. 23, lines 11-21; P-0059: T-36, p. 27, line 18 – p. 28, line 2 (‘[s]ometimes their speed is high, you have to draft very fast and you do not write everything, you skip some things. And then you start rewriting directly in the logbook. That is what can happen. You may not have it in the rough book, but it can surface in the notebook or on the paper.’). 1236 E.g. UGA-OTP-0254-2619, at 2815 (itself a re-scan of UGA-OTP-0197-2319, at 2513), discussed by P-0003: T-42, p. 23, line 22 – p. 29, line 25. The Chamber is unable to read the words on this page and is dependent upon P-0003’s description as to what is written. 1237 Footnote 1136 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 247/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1238 these faxed copies. ISO staff in Kampala would also copy Gulu logbook entries into

text: 1239 new logbooks, and some of these logbooks are in evidence as well.

text: These faxed copies and additional logbooks are ‘new evidence’ in the sense that a fax or

text: handwritten copy is not entirely identical to the original logbook, and some evidence

text: indicates that the handwritten Kampala copies contain some corrected typos or other

text: 1240 marginal differences. That these copies exist provides further proof that the ISO

text: logbooks from Gulu are authentic, but the Chamber has ample witness testimony on the

text: authenticity of these same books. As to the contents of these copied books, the Chamber

text: considers it self-evident that they cannot be considered as corroborative in any way of

text: the original logbooks.

text: As a result, in order to avoid double-counting repetitive evidence, the Chamber will not

text: use copied logbooks – be they faxes or handwritten duplicates – to prove anything beyond

text: the originals. The Chamber has referred to copied logbooks in some limited instances in

text: which the copies assisted with the legibility of an entry in the original logbook.

text: vii Intercept evidence in intelligence reports

text: On a regular basis during the period relevant to the charges, the Ugandan army would

text: 1241 prepare intelligence reports. These reports commonly contain exchanges amongst the

text: 1242 LRA in intercepted communications. The police also prepared certain intelligence

text: 1243 reports on the basis of information received from the Kamdini police interceptors.

text: Other aspects of these intelligence reports will be considered elsewhere in this

text: 1244 judgment. But, for purposes of understanding intercepted communications, the

text: Chamber considers that the probative value of these reports is minimal. The sources of

text: 1238 E.g. ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007; ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0292. 1239 Footnote 1137 above. E.g. ISO Logbook (Kampala), UGA-OTP-0067-0002; ISO Logbook (Kampala), UGA- OTP-0067-0148. 1240 P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 27; P-0385 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0498- R01, at para. 24. 1241 P-0003: T-44-CONF, p. 85, line 21 – p. 88, line 25; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at paras 64-81. 1242 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at paras 25, 28, 71, 74. E.g. 27 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0130; 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0150; 21 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0268; 9 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0353. 1243 E.g. UGA-OTP-0256-0232 to 0233; UGA-OTP-0256-0243, both discussed in P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01, at paras 13-17, 26-27 (discussing other similar reports in subsequent paragraphs). 1244 See section IV.B.3.iii below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 248/1077 4 February 2021 information used to create the intercept sections of these intelligence reports seem to be 1245 the same logbook entries disseminated from the various intercept operations. As such, these reports do not provide any meaningful information about intercepted communications beyond the logbooks.

text: 1246 Contrary to what the Defence intimates, the Chamber also does not consider intelligence reports to be necessarily more reliable because they incorporate information from sources beyond the intercepted communications. An intelligence report’s recounting of an intercepted communication is derivative on at least two levels – the actual communication is summarised in a logbook entry, whose contents are then communicated and further summarised by the author of the intelligence report. Many details are lost in highly abbreviated summaries, as these intelligence reports are only a handful of pages each and cover various subjects beyond intercepted communications. If the goal is to fully understand the contents of an intercepted communication, the Chamber considers that the recorded conversations (as explained by witnesses) and corresponding logbook summaries more accurately reflect the LRA’s communications than such intelligence reports.

text: This is not to say that these intelligence reports have not been useful to the Chamber. They assist in providing general context to what was going on in the conflict at any given point in time, such as what other attacks may have been going on (or not) at the time of a particular intercepted communication. This may, for instance, help to date certain 1247 communications. But, for the purpose of interpreting the intercepted communications, the Chamber considers that better evidence is available for establishing who actually said what during a particular LRA communication.

text: viii Miscellaneous intercept evidence

text: The Chamber will briefly address three miscellaneous kinds of evidence: (i) intercept 1248 operation pictures or sketches; (ii) TONFAS codes and (iii) materials used to

text: 1245 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at paras 25, 28, 71, 74; P-0126 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0253-0764-R01, at paras 47-48, 61. 1246 See P-0059: T-39, p. 12, lines 7-10, p. 21, line 17 – p. 22, line 17. 1247 See para. 734 below. 1248 Not all witnesses had a uniform understanding as to why these were called ‘TONFAS’ codes, but P-0301 describes TONFAS as an acronym for ‘Time of opening/closing net, Operator, Nicknames, Frequencies, Address group, and Security’. P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 39.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 249/1077 4 February 2021 understand the intercept collection. The collection of intercept materials contains items

text: on other subjects – such as LRA command structure lists and information on the

text: UPDF direction-finding operation – but these are discussed more fully elsewhere in

text: the judgment to the extent relevant for the evidentiary discussion.

text: The Prosecution provides various photographs of the ISO/UPDF intercept operations in

text: Gulu and the police interception operation in Kamdini. Witnesses also commented on

text: sketches showing which rooms they worked in during intercept operations. These

text: pictures and sketches – which do not seem to be highly contested – provide a more

text: complete understanding of the interception equipment and the conditions under which

text: the operation was undertaken. Beyond this, they are not particularly relevant to the Chamber’s assessment.

text: The Prosecution provides several documents related to the LRA’s TONFAS codes, most

text: notably a series of code books designed by the LRA.

text: The Chamber understands TONFAS codes as being the LRA version of a well-known

text: classical cryptogram technique, where the letters of a word are defined by indicating their

text: position in a secret code book, according to page, line and numerical position in a real

text: word or group of letters. In this system, the encrypting person can choose a different

text: combination when they have to code the same letter for the second time onwards. By

text: using the same code book at both ends of the communication, the encrypting party puts

text: 1249 E.g. LRA Commander List, UGA-OTP-0244-3328; LRA Commander List, UGA-OTP-0242-1021; LRA Commander List, UGA-OTP-0242-1008; LRA Commander List, UGA-OTP-0242-1005. 1250 See section IV.B.3.iii below. 1251 E.g. Picture of Gulu Intercept House, UGA-OTP-0244-3348; Picture of P-0003’s Office Location, UGA- OTP-0244-3308; Picture of Gulu Barracks Radio Antenna, UGA-OTP-0244-3352; Picture of Kamdini Police Radio Room, UGA-OTP-0254-1647. 1252 E.g. Gulu Intercept House Sketch, UGA-OTP-0246-0022, discussed by P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP- 0246-0003-R01, at para. 21. 1253 E.g. TONFAS Code, UGA-OTP-0025-0173, discussed by P-0003: T-42, p. 63, line 20 – p. 71, line 22; P- 0339: T-134, p. 42, line 5 – p. 44, line 1; T-135, p. 35, lines 10-17; TONFAS Code, UGA-OTP-0053-0118, discussed by P-0059: T-36, p. 51, line 12 – p. 53, line 4; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 34. 1254 P-0003: T-42, p. 63, line 20 – p. 71, line 22; P-0339: T-134, p. 42, line 5 – p. 44, line 14; T-135, p. 35, lines 10-17; P-0059: T-36, p. 51, line 12 – p. 53, line 4; P-0386 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0508-R01, at para. 22 (‘TONFAS code is a pre-agreed written code between LRA commanders and signallers. By following stage-bystage instructions to go to a particular place in the code book, certain letters were picked out which then formed the message’); P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 69, line 9 – p. 71, line 5; T-40, p. 8, line 10 – p. 11, line 3, p. 12, line 13 – p. 13, line 13; D-0100: T-234, p. 30, line 3 – p. 31, line 12. 1255 See P-0003: T-42, p. 70, line 16 – p. 71, line 18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 250/1077 4 February 2021 the text into coded format and, upon receipt, the decrypting party transcribes the text into an understandable format.

text: Following military practice, the LRA code books (or rather code pages) were regularly changed by the LRA leaders in order to render more difficult the understanding of the intercepted communications, especially when they knew or presumed that the current 1256 code book was seised by the Ugandan authorities.

text: 1257 Communicating in TONFAS code was used by the LRA only for select messages. Part of the Ugandan government’s intercept operation was to decode these messages for their plain language logbook entries, relying in large part on seized code books in these 1258 efforts.

text: None of the specific intercepted communications discussed in the next section required the Chamber to consult TONFAS code books in order to understand. So, despite the importance of these books to the government intercept operation, the evidence related to TONFAS code is of limited relevance to the Chamber.

text: Finally, the Chamber notes the materials the Prosecution provides to facilitate the Chamber’s understanding of the intercept evidence. Most notably, a Prosecution evidence analyst – P-0403 – prepared a detailed report describing the intercept evidence 1259 1260 collection. He also testified, giving a general overview of the relevant materials. The Prosecution also provides typed summaries of all relevant ISO logbooks, a chart showing the range of dates covered by each logbook and a spread sheet providing all 1261 information corresponding to each recording in evidence.

text: All these materials have been helpful in guiding the Chamber through the evidence related to the intercepted communications. However, the actual intercept evidence (the

text: 1256 P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 69, line 17 – p. 70, line 1. 1257 See P-0003: T-42, p. 63, line 20 – p. 71, line 22 (discussing UGA-OTP-0025-0173); P-0016: T-34, p. 3, line 1 – p. 5, line 4; P-0339: T-134, p. 40, line 11 – p. 42, line 2. 1258 P-0003: T-44, p. 52, line 5 – p. 53, line 12; P-0059: T-38, p. 27, line 15 – p. 28, line 2 (‘I still repeat that we do not record the TONFAS in the logbook. The person who works on the radio is the one who needs the TONFAS. Whatever is recorded in the logbook is for our superiors.’); P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445- R01, at para. 42; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 32. 1259 P-0403 Report, UGA-OTP-0272-0446. 1260 P-0403: T-30; T-31. 1261 Intercept Analytical Materials, W16/03294 (Records Manager folder).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 251/1077 4 February 2021 recordings, interceptor and LRA witnesses, logbooks, etc.) was the basis for the Chamber’s assessments of particular communications. P-0403’s testimony is useful, but 1262 he only analysed a collection of evidence given to him by the Prosecution. He is not able to say anything about how this evidence was created beyond what other witnesses said. Therefore, the Chamber does not rely upon P-0403 – or any chart/table prepared by the Prosecution – as proof.

text: ii. Specific intercepted communications

text: All intercepted evidence of LRA’s radio communications has been considered and, overall, the Chamber considers these communications to be highly probative evidence in this case. They reveal the LRA’s contemporaneous communications during the period relevant to the charges, giving a unique window into their conversations. Their importance demands that the Chamber set out a precise foundation for its conclusions on when a recorded conversation occurred and who was communicating.

text: The Chamber will now set out its foundational assessment for recordings it considers necessary for purposes of its evidentiary discussion. This includes the recordings played by the parties during the trial or referenced in their closing briefs. The present section establishes the following four points with respect to these recordings: That a given recording, as enhanced, contains radio communications intercepted by the Ugandan authorities. The approximate date on which a conversation at issue occurred. Who is speaking. Where available, the accuracy of the transcript reflecting what was said.

text: As stated previously, LRA communications are often not readily intelligible. They are mostly in non-working languages, and on the basis of other evidence on the record, they are replete with jargon, proverbs and ambiguous phrasing. Here, the Chamber establishes the necessary foundation for an intercepted communication. The Chamber will not discuss the contents of the intercepted communications in this section, including differing interpretations witnesses may give on certain conversations. This will be discussed in the appropriate parts of the evidentiary discussion. To the extent the LRA may not always

text: 1262 Letter of Instruction to P-0403, UGA-OTP-0262-0032.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 252/1077 4 February 2021 have been truthful on the radio, including the possibility of commanders falsely claiming responsibility for certain attacks, this is likewise considered elsewhere when addressing the contents of individual conversations.

text: Generally, the assessments of the individual witnesses testifying on the contents of the specific intercepts – namely P-0003, P-0016, P-0059, Patrick Lumumba Nyero, P-0138, P-0339, P-0440 and Francis Ocen – can be found in section IV.B.2.v above. For any such witness not covered in that section, the Chamber will briefly explain whether it considers the witness’s testimony about the recordings to be reliable.

text: a. 31 March 2003 – Tape 638 (UGA-OTP-0241-0303) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1263 identified as ‘638/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this tape on 3 June 2015. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date 1264 memorialises the exchange of this tape. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: Tape 638 was not audio enhanced.

text: Tape 638 has no date on its label. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 638 indicate a 1265 specific communication at 11:00 on 31 March 2003. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries on this 1266 date that the UPDF heard the same overall conversation recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: The Prosecution played part of this intercepted communication to D-0032, a long-time former LRA member who, despite having significant issues concerning other parts of his 1267 testimony, is well-placed to identify Joseph Kony’s voice. D-0032 confirmed certain

text: 1263 UGA-OTP-0241-0303. 1264 Pre-Registration Form 0155, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0058-59 (item #2). 1265 UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0066-67. 1266 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3544-45. The UPDF logbook from Soroti has entries on 31 March 2003, but does not summarise any communication at 11:00 that day. UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP- 0242-6212, at 6255-56. There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1267 See paras 283-284 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 253/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1268 statements he heard, recognising Joseph Kony as speaking. D-0032’s summary

text: concerns part of the same conversation recorded in the logbooks.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that Tape 638 contains a recording of Joseph

text: Kony and others speaking over the radio on 31 March 2003.

text: b. 20-22 April 2003 – Tape 646 (UGA-OTP-0241-0313)

text: The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette

text: 3RD 1269 identified as ‘646/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO

text: provided this tape on 3 June 2015. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date

text: 1270 memorialises the exchange of this tape. The recording is of men speaking over the

text: radio in a non-working language.

text: Tape 646 was not audio enhanced.

text: Tape 646 has no date on its label. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 646 indicate dates

text: 1271 of 20-22 April 2003. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape

text: 1272 numbers, but it is clear from their entries on these dates that the UPDF heard the same

text: overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: 1273 The Defence produced a partial transcript of side B of this tape. The Defence played

text: part of this intercepted communication to P-0138. P-0138 recognised certain voices, gave

text: an overall summary of the recorded conversation, and annotated one section of the

text: 1274 transcript. P-0138’s summary and the Defence’s transcript concern part of the same

text: conversations recorded in the logbooks. Accordingly, and despite concerns raised by the

text: 1275 Prosecution that parts of the Defence transcript may be inaccurate, the Chamber will

text: 1268 D-0032: T-201, p. 15, line 22 – p. 16, line 24. See also Transcript Tape 638, UGA-OTP-0286-0165, at 0195- 98. 1269 UGA-OTP-0241-0313. 1270 Pre-Registration Form 0155, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0058-59 (item #3). 1271 UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0133-44. 1272 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0502-16; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6273-76, 6278-79. There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1273 Tape 646 Transcript, UGA-D26-0026-0001. 1274 P-0138: T-121, p. 57, line 11 – p. 60, line 25; T-122, p. 5, line 4 – p. 15, line 3; P-0138 Annotations on Tape 646, UGA-REG-0001-0006, at 0013. 1275 See P-0138: T-121, p. 61, line 4 – p. 67, line 5; T-122, p. 2, line 21 – p. 4, line 13; Annex I to the Registration into the Record of the Case of a Document presented during the Trial Hearing held on 1 November 2017 (ICC- 02/04-01/15-HNE-1), 16 November 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-1075-AnxI.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 254/1077 4 February 2021 proceed on the understanding that this transcript, as annotated, accurately reflects the conversation. The voices recognised by P-0138 were Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti.

text: P-0231 was played the same excerpt. P-0231 did not comment on a transcript, but he did 1276 identify the same voices as P-0138. P-0231 is a witness with direct knowledge about the activities of the LRA, and the Chamber considers him well-placed to identify the voices of the LRA senior leadership on the radio.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) Tape 646 contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 20- 22 April 2003; and (ii) the corresponding Defence transcript – as annotated by P-0138 – accurately reflects the speakers and words spoken.

text: c. 9-10 October 2003 – Tape 693 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0247- 1102) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1277 identified as ‘693/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 23 February 2005. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date which memorialises the exchange of ‘12 [c]assette tapes containing relevant data’ to this same staff member mentions the ERN range 1278 including this tape. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: The Prosecution gave this tape to Xavier Laroche and his colleague for audio 1279 enhancement. These persons then performed this enhancement and registered the 1280 enhanced digital copy. An enhanced audio file (UGA-OTP-0247-1102) with a cover page indicating the ERN of Tape 693 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content 1281 on Tape 693’s side B corresponds to the length of the track in this enhanced audio.

text: 1276 P-0231: T-123-CONF, p. 54, line 20 – p. 56, line 25. 1277 UGA-OTP-0054-0010 (and copied disc at 0013). 1278 Pre-Registration Form 0155, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0039 (the ERN range including this tape appears on the bottom of the form); P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(a). 1279 Inventory, UGA-OTP-0269-0044, at 0047; P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 22, 51. 1280 P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 37-39; Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0269-0087, at 0093 (item #19). 1281 Compare UGA-OTP-0054-0010 (31:41) with UGA-OTP-0247-1102 (31:41). For this and all similar determinations subsequently, see para. 654 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 255/1077 4 February 2021

text: The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 693’s side B contents.

text: Tape 693 has no date on its label. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 693’s side B indicate 1282 dates of 9-10 October 2003. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the 1283 ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries on these dates that the UPDF heard the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of this intercepted communication to P-0003. He reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the Prosecution, 1284 identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, P-0003 recognised certain voices, gave an overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain transcript 1285 annotations and confirmed that his annotated transcript matched what was played. The summary describes part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. Although P-0138 did not discuss a transcript of this conversation, he was played part of a recording in court and gave a similar overall summary and some of the same speaker 1286 identifications as P-0003. The voices consistently recognised were those of Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti.

text: This said, the Chamber notes two significant points where the witnesses diverged in their summaries of the recording.

text: First, P-0003 testified that the speakers were discussing an attack that the accused was 1287 responsible for. P-0138 did not indicate this information in his testimony, and the transcript P-0003 annotated shows no clear reference to Dominic Ongwen. Noting that P-0003 was unable to indicate where the lines he claimed to hear appeared in this 1288 transcript, the Chamber cannot conclude that there is any reference to Dominic

text: 1282 UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0542-48. 1283 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1065-71; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 6018, at 6158-60; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2111-19. There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1284 P-0003 Tape 693 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0105-R01, at 0133-36. 1285 P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 12, line 21. 1286 P-0138: T-120, p. 65, line 25 – p. 68, line 14. 1287 P-0003: T-43, p. 4, lines 6-9, p. 5, lines 4-13. 1288 P-0003: T-43, p. 10, line 21 – p. 12, line 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 256/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen in this part of the recording. The Chamber does not consider that this warrants any broader concern about P-0003’s abilities or any potential bias on his part against the accused – the witness did not insist on Dominic Ongwen being referenced in every 1289 recording he heard and other recordings where P-0003 actually heard Dominic 1290 Ongwen speaking were independently corroborated by other witnesses. The Chamber considers P-0003 to simply be mistaken on this occasion.

text: Second, P-0138 indicated that the recording relates to orders to attack Adilang and 1291 Orum. P-0003 did not give these locations in his summary, nor do they appear in his annotated transcript. But it must be noted that P-0138 did not provide this information in 1292 his initial in-court summary of the recording, and he says quite clearly that the 1293 speakers ‘did not mention a place’ in their discussion. P-0138 rather seems to have attempted to speculate on the incidents being discussed based on information beyond what is in the recording itself. The Chamber therefore does not consider P-0138’s discussion of these locations to be part of his overall summary of the recording, and therefore sees no conflict between P-0003 and P-0138 on this point.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0247-1102 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 693’s side B; (ii) Tape 693’s side B – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 9-10 October 2003; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcript accurately reflects the speakers and words spoken.

text: d. 13-14 October 2003 – Tape 695 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0247- 1110) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1294 identified as ‘695/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 23 February 2005. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date which memorialises the exchange of ‘12 [c]assette

text: 1289 E.g. P-0003: T-43, p. 12, line 22 – p. 17, line 25 (Tape 695). 1290 See as examples, the discussion of Tapes 808, 824 and 837 below. 1291 P-0138: T-120, p. 67, line 6 – p. 68, line 9. 1292 P-0138: T-120, p. 66, lines 12-21. 1293 P-0138: T-120, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 2. 1294 UGA-OTP-0054-0014 (and copied disc at 0017).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 257/1077 4 February 2021 tapes containing relevant data’ to this same staff member mentions the ERN range

text: 1295 including this tape. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working

text: language.

text: The Prosecution gave this tape to Xavier Laroche and his colleague for audio

text: 1296 enhancement. These persons then performed this enhancement and registered the

text: 1297 enhanced digital copy. An enhanced audio file (UGA-OTP-0247-1110) with a cover

text: page indicating the ERN of Tape 695 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content

text: 1298 on Tape 695’s side A corresponds to the length of the track in this enhanced audio.

text: The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape

text: 695’s side A contents.

text: Tape 695 has no date on its label. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 695’s side A indicate

text: 1299 dates of 13-14 October 2003. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the

text: 1300 ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries on these dates that the UPDF heard

text: the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of an intercepted

text: communication to P-0003 and P-0138. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the

text: 1301 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, both witnesses recognised certain

text: voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain

text: transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what was

text: 1295 Pre-Registration Form 0155, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0039 (the ERN range including this tape appears on the bottom of the form); P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(a). 1296 Inventory, UGA-OTP-0269-0044, at 0047; P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 22, 51. 1297 P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 37-39; Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0269-0087, at 0093 (item #20). 1298 Compare UGA-OTP-0054-0014 (31:42) with UGA-OTP-0247-1110 (31:42). 1299 UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0559-71. Note that some entries across these pages have no ISO tape reference (they are marked ‘not rec’d’ where the reference should be). However, ISO logbooks follow a pattern whereby entries are prepared in chronological order. The first and last entries in this range of pages explicitly refer to Tape 695’s side A, and the ‘unreferenced’ entries are dated in chronological order (13 October at 08:00, then 11:00, then 13:00, and finally 14 October at 08:00). It is therefore understood that all pages in this range are part of the same side of the same ISO tape. 1300 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0234-42; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 6018, at 6162-64; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2130-40. There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1301 P-0003 Tape 695 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0243-R01, at 0263-69 (Tape 695 transcript begins at 0253); P- 0138 Tape 695 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0191-0623-R01, at 0635-39 (each individual page is a separate ERN).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 258/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1302 played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. Although P-0016 did not review a transcript of this intercept prior to testifying, he was played the recording in court and gave the same overall summary and speaker 1303 identifications as the other witnesses. The voices consistently recognised were those of Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0247-1110 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 695’s side A; (ii) Tape 695’s side A – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 13-14 October 2003; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: e. 22-24 November 2003 – Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239-0062) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of an un-numbered cassette with no label other than an ICC ERN (UGA-OTP-0037-0314). Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 14 December 2004. A pre-registration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date which memorialises the exchange of, amongst other items, 113 intercept 1304 tapes to this same staff member mentions the ERN range including this tape. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: The Prosecution gave Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 to Alan French for audio 1305 1306 enhancement. Alan French then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/37’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-OTP-0239-0062) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/37’ and the ERN of the original tape is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on the tapes does not entirely correspond, with over a minute of additional recording on the original tape tracks relative to those on the enhanced

text: 1302 P-0003: T-43, p. 12, line 22 – p. 17, line 25; P-0138: T-120, p. 54, line 8 – p. 65, line 24. 1303 P-0016: T-33, p. 53, line 13 – p. 55, line 10. 1304 Pre-Registration Form 00311, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0929 (the ERN range including this tape appears on the bottom of the form); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 29. 1305 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1306 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 1).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 259/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1307 audio. The Chamber nevertheless notes the number of Alan French’s other enhanced

text: audios whose provenance the Chamber establishes elsewhere in this section, confirming

text: the overall accuracy of the purported associations between original and enhanced audios. The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of the

text: original tape’s contents. Overall, the Chamber is satisfied that what is captured on the

text: enhanced audio derives from Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314.

text: Also, in the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of an intercepted

text: communication to P-0003, P-0016 and P-0059. Each reviewed the draft transcript

text: prepared by the Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where

text: 1308 necessary.

text: Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314’s cassette paper indicates ‘Recorded Ended 25-11-03’, but

text: 1309 no further information is given as to when the recording began. However, by

text: comparing the contents of the transcripts reviewed by the witnesses to the ISO logbook entries, it appears that this tape’s recorded contents are dated 22-24 November 2003

text: 1310 (corresponding to ISO tape 720). The overlapping content in the corresponding UPDF

text: 1311 logbook entries on these dates further indicates that the UPDF heard the same

text: conversations recorded in the relevant part of the ISO logbook.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, P-0003, P-0016 and P-0059

text: recognised certain voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation,

text: explained certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript

text: 1307 Compare UGA-OTP-0037-0314 (track 1: 32:27; track 2: 32:23) with UGA-OTP-0239-0062 (track 1: 31:33; track 2: 31:37). 1308 P-0003 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0224-R01, at 0251-54; P-0016 Tape UGA- OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0128; P-0059 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0248-0342-R01, at 0369-72. 1309 UGA-OTP-0037-0314, at 0315. 1310 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0076-87. Compare, e.g., UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0086-87 (reference to Taban Amin, followed by discussion of overthrowing Yuweri Museveni) with P-0003 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0224-R01, at 0250-54 (same); UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0085 (‘Kony seriously blamed LC 5 c/man Mahaman Ojwee as being a very bad man’) with P-0003 Tape UGA- OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0224-R01, at 0248 (‘[t]he other day you heard me saying Ojwee is very bad, Ojwee is very bad, Ojwee is someone that among all the Acholi’s should be killed and he should not stay amongst the Acholi’s Over.’); UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0077 (‘…one civilian tried to grab the gun from one of his soldiers and what he did was to shoot him dead’) with P-0003 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0224-R01, at 0228 (‘[s]ome guy tried to grab my gun Over, then I just started firing, then everybody I captured I hit them all on the back of their head Over.’). 1311 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0390-402; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254- 2284, at 2342-58; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7311-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 260/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1312 matched what was played. As already indicated, the summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Joseph Kony and Buk Abudema.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0062 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314; (ii) Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Buk Abudema and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 22-24 November 2003; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: f. 25-26 November 2003 – Tape 721 (enhanced: UGA-OTP- 0239-0101) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 1313 identified as ‘721 A+B/G 3rd’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only pre-registration form related to Timothy Kanoygonya on this date is one memorialising the exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff 1314 member. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1315 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French 1316 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/65’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-OTP-0239-0101) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/65’ and the ERN of Tape 721 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on both tapes 1317 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in Tape 721. The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 721’s contents.

text: 1312 P-0003: T-43, p. 48, line 22 – p. 51, line 20; P-0016: T-33, p. 51, line 11 – p. 52, line 23; P-0059: T-37, p. 29, line 17 – p. 31, line 11. 1313 UGA-OTP-0049-0068. 1314 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1315 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1316 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 15). 1317 Compare UGA-OTP-0049-0068 (track 1: 48:00 re-encoded; track 2: 48:00) with UGA-OTP-0239-0101 (track 1: 32:09; track 2: 32:14). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 261/1077 4 February 2021

text: communication to P-0016 and P-0059. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the

text: Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Tape 721 is undated. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 721 do not follow the standard

text: sequencing in logbooks, as entries for Tape 721 appear both before and after entries for

text: Tape 720. This makes it more difficult to precisely date Tape 721, as its contents

text: could correspond to dates ranging anywhere from 23-26 November 2003. However,

text: by comparing the contents of the transcripts reviewed by the witnesses to the ISO

text: logbook entries, it appears that the ISO logbook entries actually corresponding to Tape

text: 721 are only those from 25-26 November 2003. The corresponding UPDF logbooks

text: do not contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries on 25-26 November

text: 2003 that the UPDF heard the same conversations recorded in the relevant part of the

text: ISO logbook.

text: Upon being played the enhanced audio in court, P-0016 and P-0059 recognised certain

text: played. As already indicated, the summaries describe part of the same conversation

text: recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Joseph Kony

text: and Vincent Otti.

text: fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P- 0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1318 P-0016 Tape 721 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0265-0439, at 0439-68; P-0059 Tape 721 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0258-0791-R01. 1319 UGA-OTP-0049-0068, at 0068-69. 1320 UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0081-93. 1321 UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0081-93. The date on the first page is illegible. The date immediately preceding the relevant entries clearly reads ‘22/11/2003’ (p. 0076), meaning that date on p. 0081 should be ‘23/11/2003’. The dates listed around the end of the relevant entries are faint, but legible in the logbook. The last date in the cited entries is ‘26/11/2003’ on p. 0090, and the date just after the cited entries is ‘27/11/2003’ on p. 0094. 1322 UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0087-93. Compare UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0087 (discussion of an attack at ‘Labwor Omor’ – the only entry in the entire logbook mentioning this exact place), with P-0016 Tape 721 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0265-0439, at 0440-41; P-0059 Tape 721 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0791-R01, at 0792-93 (discussing an attack at this same location at the beginning of the transcript). 1323 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0403-08; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2359-71; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7315-16. There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1324 P-0016: T-33, p. 36, line 20 – p. 45, line 12; P-0059: T-37, p. 42, line 18 – p. 47, line 15. Note that P-0016 was played approximately one minute more of this tape than P-0059.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 262/1077 4 February 2021

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0101 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 721; (ii) Tape 721 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 25- 26 November 2003; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: g. 6 February 2004 – Tape 757 (UGA-OTP-0141-0005) and Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1325 identified as ‘757/G ’.

text: The Chamber further recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of an unnumbered tape (UGA-OTP-0025-0625) whose cassette label only reads ‘Abiya 1326 Attack’.

text: For Tape 757, its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 14 April 2005. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date memorialises the exchange of, amongst other items, Tape 757 to this same staff 1327 member.

text: For Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625, its e-court metadata indicate that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 17 October 2004. A pre-registration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date memorialises the exchange of, amongst 1328 other items, six audio tapes of intercepts to this same staff member. P-0032 confirms that the writing on this tape as well as the voice which can be heard at the beginning of 1329 side A is his.

text: 1325 UGA-OTP-0141-0005. 1326 The following is written on the cassette paper: ‘LRA attack on Abiya IDP Camp. Odyambo reported to Kony st that he attacked the camp and fought with UPDF 31 Bri, charged weapons, killed civ. indiscriminately whose no, he doesn’t know and burnt all their huts’. 1327 Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0042; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249- 0444-R01, at para. 34(d). 1328 Pre-Registration Form 00193, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0924 (the ERN range including this tape appears on the bottom of the form); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 24. 1329 P-0032 Third Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0003-R01, at para. 55(h).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 263/1077 4 February 2021

text: Both recordings are of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: Neither Tape 757 nor Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 was audio enhanced.

text: Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 is undated, but a UPDF report states that the Abiya attack

text: 1330 referenced on the tape label took place on 4 February 2004. ISO and UPDF logbook

text: entries for 6 February 2004 contain detailed discussions about an Abiya attack one or

text: 1331 two days after it occurred. The ISO logbook entry on this date indicates it corresponds

text: to Tape 757. The intercepted conversation is described similarly in both logbooks,

text: 1332 indicating that both agencies heard the same conversations.

text: The Defence played part of Tape 757 to P-0339, and arranged for him to annotate a short

text: 1333 transcript extract. P-0339 was also asked to identify voices, give an overall summary

text: 1334 of the recorded conversation, and explain certain transcript annotations. The voice

text: recognised by P-0339 in the excerpt played was that of Joseph Kony. The Prosecution

text: did not prepare an annotated transcript for Tape 757.

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of Tape UGA-OTP-0025-

text: 0625 to P-0016. He reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the Prosecution, identifying

text: 1335 speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 in court, P-0016 recognised

text: certain voices, gave an overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain

text: parts of the transcript having listened to the related excerpts of the audio and confirmed

text: 1330 UGA-OTP-0069-0423. See also Pre-Registration Form 00561, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0931 (including this document in the provided ERN range, and indicating in the catalogue of items description that P- 0038 gave a document on ‘witnesses in Abiya/Barlonyo attacks’ to the Prosecution on 17 March 2005); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 31. 1331 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0047-51 (corresponding to Tapes 756-57); UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4227-28; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7364-65. There are no police logbook entries on this date. 1332 The partial transcript for tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 also includes details equally mentioned in the ISO logbook entry corresponding to Tape 757 on 6 February 2004 and the UPDF logbook entries for 6 February 2004. Compare UGA-OTP-0167-0118, at 0121-0123 with UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0047 and UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4227; UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7364. 1333 Tape 757 Transcript, UGA-D26-0027-0003; P-0339 Annotations to Tape 757 Transcript, UGA-REG-0001- 0021, at 0035-36. 1334 P-0339: T-134, p. 47, line 21 – p. 49, line 6; T-135, p. 15, line 4 – p. 26, line 4. 1335 P-0016 Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0167-0118.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 264/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1336 that his annotated transcript matched what was played. The voices recognised by P- 0016 in the excerpt played were Joseph Kony and Raska Lukwiya.

text: P-0016 and P-0339 discuss entirely distinct conversations, and neither was played the 1337 part of the intercepted conversation specifically mentioning Abiya. Both witnesses testified exclusively concerning separate transcript extracts, making it impossible for the Chamber to confirm whether the contents of Tape 757 and Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 overlap. But both witnesses describe parts of the same overall conversations recorded in the logbooks for 6 February 2004.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) Tape 757 contains a recording of Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio on 6 February 2004; (ii) Tape UGA-OTP-0025- 0625 contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Raska Lukwiya, and others speaking over the radio on this same date; and (iii) the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: h. 12 February 2004 – Tape 760 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239- 0079) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1338 identified as ‘760/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only preregistration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the 1339 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1340 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French 1341 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/51’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-OTP-0239-0079) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/51’

text: 1336 P-0016: T-33, p. 19, line 7 – p. 24, line 18. 1337 This said, reference to an attack at Abiya can be found in an earlier part of P-0016’s transcript. P-0016 Tape UGA-OTP-0025-0625 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0167-0118, at 0120-23. 1338 UGA-OTP-0046-0063. 1339 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1340 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1341 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 8).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 265/1077 4 February 2021 and the ERN of Tape 760 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 760 1342 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 760’s

text: contents.

text: 1343 Tape 760 is undated. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 760 indicate dates of 12-14 1344 February 2004. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape 1345 numbers, but it is clear from their entries on 12-14 February 2004 that the UPDF

text: heard the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: communication to P-0016 and P-0059. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the 1346 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, P-0016 and P-0059 recognised

text: certain voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained

text: certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what 1347 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the

text: logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent

text: Otti and Labalpiny.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0079 is an enhanced

text: audio copy of Tape 760; (ii) Tape 760 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic

text: Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Labalpiny and others speaking over the radio at some point in the

text: period of 12-14 February 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing

text: 1342 Compare UGA-OTP-0046-0063 (track 1: 47:44; track 2: 47:04) with UGA-OTP-0239-0079 (track 1: 31:46; track 2: 31:48). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1343 UGA-OTP-0046-0063, at 0063-64. 1344 UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0067-78. The dates in the entries are a little faint, but the entry right before it is ‘11/2/2004’ (p. 0063) and the one just after is ‘15/2/2004’ (p. 0078). 1345 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4235-40; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7368-72. There are no police logbook entries on this date. 1346 P-0016 Tape 760 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0106; P-0059 Tape 760 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0772- R01. 1347 P-0016: T-33, p. 16, line 19 – p. 18, line 21; P-0059: T-37, p. 37, line 13 – p. 42, line 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 266/1077 4 February 2021 witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts

text: accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: i. 6 March 2004 – Tape 771 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239-0085)

text: 3RD 1348 identified as ‘771/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya

text: provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only preregistration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the

text: 1349 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. The

text: recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1350 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: 1351 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/55’. An enhanced audio disc

text: (UGA-OTP-0239-0085) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/55’

text: and the ERN of Tape 771 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 771

text: 1352 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 771’s

text: contents.

text: 1353 Tape 771 is undated. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 771 cover, in relevant part, 6

text: 1354 March 2004. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape numbers,

text: 1355 but it is clear from their entries on 6 March 2004 that the UPDF heard the same overall

text: conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: 1348 UGA-OTP-0047-0044. 1349 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1350 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1351 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 10). 1352 Compare UGA-OTP-0047-0044 (track 1: 47:37; track 2: 47:39) with UGA-OTP-0239-0085 (track 1: 32:04; track 2: 32:03). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1353 UGA-OTP-0047-0044, at 0046. 1354 UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0128-30. The date ‘6/3/2004’ can be seen within the page range (p. 0128), and the date immediately following the cited entry is ‘7/3/2004’ (p. 0130). 1355 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4272-73; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2556-58; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7404-06. There are no police logbook entries on this date.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 267/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of an intercepted communication to P-0016 and P-0059. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the 1356 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, P-0016 and P-0059 recognised certain voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what 1357 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen and Vincent Otti.

text: Both witnesses also identify a signaller of Joseph Kony speaking, but diverge on which 1358 signaller it is. The Chamber considers this discrepancy immaterial, as both witnesses are consistent in identifying Joseph Kony as the ultimate source behind the words relayed.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0085 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 771; (ii) Tape 771 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, a signaller of Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 5-6 March 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: j. 20 March 2004 – Tape 781 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239-0106) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1359 identified as ‘781/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only preregistration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the

text: 1356 P-0016 Tape 771 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0094; P-0059 Tape 771 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0782- R01. 1357 P-0016: T-32, p. 67, line 20 – p. 75, line 13; P-0059: T-37, p. 26, line 16 – p. 29, line 17. 1358 P-0016: T-32, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 21 (Okot Odoge); P-0059: T-37, p. 26, line 19 – p. 27, line 17 (Labalpiny). 1359 UGA-OTP-0051-0020.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 268/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1360 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. The

text: 1361 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: 1362 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/69’. An enhanced audio disc

text: (UGA-OTP-0239-0106) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/69’

text: and the ERN of Tape 781 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 781

text: 1363 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general

text: impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 781’s

text: contents.

text: 1364 Tape 781 is undated. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 781 cover, in relevant part,

text: 1365 20 March 2004. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape

text: 1366 numbers, but it is clear from their entries on 20 March 2004 that the UPDF heard the

text: same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: 1367 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what

text: 1360 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1361 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1362 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 17). 1363 Compare UGA-OTP-0051-0020 (track 1: 47:22 re-encoded; track 2: 47:27) with UGA-OTP-0239-0106 (track 1: 32:02; track 2: 32:14). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P- 0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1364 UGA-OTP-0051-0020, at 0020-21. 1365 UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0165-67. 1366 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4293-97; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7415-16 (while this logbook does not include an entry on 19 March 2004 at 13:00 hours, which corresponds to the start of Tape 781, it is clear from the entries for 20 and 21 March 2004 that the same overall conversation was recorded). There are no police logbook entries on these dates. 1367 P-0016 Tape 781 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0265-0402, at 0407-9, 0411-20; P-0059 Tape 781 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0266-0260, at 0265-79.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 269/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1368 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen, a signaller, 1369 Joseph Kony and Raska Lukwiya.

text: As to the signaller in the conversation, P-0059 identified him as Lukwiya’s signaller in 1370 his annotated transcript. But, during his testimony, P-0059 only referred to the 1371 signaller as ‘Two Victor’ and could not recognise the voice. P-0016 testified to being 1372 unsure whether this signaller worked for Lukwiya or Charles Tabuley. The evidence is unclear, and the Chamber cannot conclude the identity of this signaller’s commander with certainty.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0106 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 781; (ii) Tape 781 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Raska Lukwiya, Joseph Kony, a signaller and others speaking over the radio on 20 March 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: k. 30 April 2004 – Tape 808 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0235-0038) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1373 identified as ‘808/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only preregistration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the 1374 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. P-0059

text: 1368 P-0016: T-33, p. 8, line 22 – p. 16, line 17; P-0059: T-38, p. 5, line 17 – p. 8, line 14. 1369 P-0059 did not testify to hearing Raska Lukwiya, but he was not played the part of the tape where P-0016 clearly heard Raska Lukwiya speaking. Compare P-0016: T-33, p. 12, line 9 – p. 13, line 4 (recording played until 15:29), with P-0059: T-38, p. 5, line 17 – p. 8, line 14 (recording played until 12:03). P-0059’s annotated transcript also indicates Lukwiya (‘LOK’) as a speaker just after timestamp 12:03. P-0059 Tape 781 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0266-0260, at 0275. 1370 P-0059 Tape 781 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266-0260, at 0265; P-0059: T-38, p. 7, lines 14-20. 1371 P-0059: T-38, p. 5, line 17 – p. 6, line 20. 1372 P-0016: T-33, p. 11, lines 14-20, p. 14, line 20 – p. 15, line 11. 1373 UGA-OTP-0051-0074. 1374 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 270/1077 4 February 2021

text: recognised his handwriting on the tape label. The recording is of men speaking over

text: the radio in a non-working language.

text: The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/23’. An enhanced audio disc

text: (UGA-OTP-0235-0038) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/23’

text: and the ERN of Tape 808 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 808

text: corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general

text: impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 808’s

text: contents.

text: Tape 808 is undated. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 808 indicate a date of 30 April

text: The corresponding UPDF and police logbooks do not contain the ISO tape

text: numbers, but it is clear from their entries of 30 April 2004 that these agencies heard

text: communication to P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440. Each reviewed a draft transcript

text: necessary.

text: 1375 P-0059: T-36, p. 38, line 25 – p. 39, line 12. 1376 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 20. 1377 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 21; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0347 (line 13; duplicate ERN UGA-OTP-0235-0055). 1378 Compare UGA-OTP-0051-0074 (track 1: 47:20 re-encoded; track 2:47:25) with UGA-OTP-0235-0038 (track 1: 31:35; track 2: 31:34). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P- 0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1379 UGA-OTP-0051-0074, 0074-75. 1380 UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0267-70. The date ‘30/04/2004’ can be seen just before the cited entry of the same date (at p. 0266) and the date ‘1/5/2004’ can be seen just after the cited entry associated with the sequentially following tape number (at p, 0271). 1381 th UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3003-05 (the entry with date ‘30 April 2004’ starts at 3002, but the summary for the communication at 11:00 hours can be found at 3003); UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7480-81; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7244-46 (the entry with th date ‘Friday 30 Apr 2004’ starts at 7243, but the summary for the communication at 11:00 hours can be found at 7244-45); Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0144-46 (describing conversations from this date). 1382 P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263-R01, 0300-04, 0315-24; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0499-501, 0513-22; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0336-42, 0352-62.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 271/1077 4 February 2021

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, all four witnesses recognised certain voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what 1383 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen, Ocen, Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and Labalpiny. It is also noted that the Defence played 20 seconds of this tape to Patrick Lumumba Nyero, but only for the limited purpose of asking whether the witness heard a particular person’s call sign and any instructions 1384 given to or from this call sign.

text: P-0003 and P-0016 further recognised the voice of Labongo (first name Ocen or Ocan) 1385 when summarising this recording while testifying. These witnesses also attributed 1386 certain lines of their annotated transcripts to him. P-0059 did not mention Labongo when summarising this recording in court. His annotated transcript attributed these same lines to an ‘LAB’, but P-0059 is not consistent in whether this is a reference to Labongo 1387 or Labalpiny. P-0440 appears to have identified yet another speaker in his annotated transcript of this recording, but when testifying was not played the part of the recording 1388 where other witnesses heard Labongo. The Chamber is satisfied on the basis of the corroborating testimony of P-0003 and P-0016 that Labongo also speaks on this tape, noting further that neither party appears to contest that this is the case. But these discrepancies do suggest that this portion of the recording may be particularly difficult to follow, even for those with lots of experience in recognising voices on LRA radio communications.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0235-0038 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 808; (ii) Tape 808 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Ocen, Joseph Kony, Labongo (first name Ocen or Ocan), Vincent Otti,

text: 1383 P-0003: T-43, p. 18, line 1 – p. 31, line 2; T-45, p. 50, line 14 – p. 52, line 16; P-0016: T-32, p. 42, line 4 – p. 64, line 9; P-0059: T-37, p. 2, line 23 – p. 13, line 5; T-39, p. 25, line 23 – p. 27, line 23; P-0440: T-40, p. 21, line 17 – p. 27, line 24; T-41, p. 28, lines 12-25. 1384 P-0125: T-136, p. 27, line 20 – p. 30, line 8. 1385 P-0003: T-43, p. 18, line 7 – p. 19, line 18 (appearing to distinguish an ‘Ocen’, also called ‘Madilu’, with ‘Ocen Labongo’); P-0016: T-32, p. 42, line 21 – p. 43, line 3. 1386 P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263-R01, at 0302; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0259-0065, at 0068. 1387 P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0501; Compare P-0059: T-37, p. 21, line 22 – p. 22, line 3 with P-0059: T-39: p. 23, lines 4-11. 1388 P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0338-41 (indicating ‘KWO’ as the speaker of these lines); P-0440: T-40, p. 21, line 17 – p. 22, line 21 (timestamp of recording ends at 07:40).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 272/1077 4 February 2021

text: Labalpiny and others speaking over the radio on 30 April 2004; and, (iii) at least for all

text: portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the

text: corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: l. 1 May 2004 – Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 (enhanced: UGA- OTP-0235-0015)

text: The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of an un-numbered

text: cassette labelled only with a date and an ICC ERN (UGA-OTP-0039-0006). Its e-court

text: metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff

text: member on 14 December 2004. The only pre-registration form related to Timothy

text: Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the exchange of, amongst other items, 113

text: 1389 intercept tapes to this same staff member. The recording is of men speaking over the

text: radio in a non-working language.

text: 1390 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: 1391 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/3’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-

text: OTP-0235-0015) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/3’ and the

text: ERN of the original tape is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape UGA-

text: 1392 OTP-0039-0006 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio.

text: 1393 UGA-OTP-0039-0006’s contents.

text: 1389 Pre-Registration Form 00311, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0929; P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-0912-R01, at para. 29. 1390 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 20. 1391 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 21; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0347 (line 2; duplicate ERN UGA-OTP-0235-0055). 1392 Compare UGA-OTP-0039-0006 (track 1: 31:55; track 2: 31:58) with UGA-OTP-0235-0015 (track 1: 31:36; track 2: 31:34). The small discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being unrecorded sections in approximately the first five seconds and last 10 seconds on the original tape’s two tracks. The enhanced audio tracks do not have these small gaps. 1393 The Chamber notes the Defence argument that, having been played excerpts of UGA-OTP-0039-0006 in Court, Alan French would have noted pauses and a possible edit in the recording caused at the source of the recording (see Defence Closing Brief, para. 387). However, it is clear from Alan French’s testimony that he referred to the possibility of there being pauses or clicks in the relevant excerpts, while at the same time insisting that further investigation in a laboratory setting would be necessary to make any further determinations (see, in particular, T-218, p. 42, lines 12-13, p. 43, line 6 – p. 44, line 2, p. 46, line 8-23, p. 48, lines 8-10, p. 49, lines 2- 5), and that he also referred to possible causes of a technical nature (see T-218, p. 41, lines 1-11, p. 46, line 24 – p. 47, line 22). Bearing this in mind, the Chamber considers that Alan French’s testimony does not undermine its findings as regards the nature and reliability of tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 and its related enhanced recording.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 273/1077 4 February 2021

text: Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006’s label reads ‘01 May 2004 1830 HRS’. The ISO logbook

text: 1394 entry for this time corresponds with parts of ISO Tapes 809 and 810. The

text: 1395 corresponding UPDF logbook entries for this date and time show that the UPDF heard

text: communication to P-0059 and P-0440. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the

text: 1396 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: 1397 played. Francis Ocen was also played part of the enhanced audio and gave a similar

text: 1398 overall summary of the recorded conversation. The summaries describe part of the

text: same conversations recorded in the logbooks. This is further indication that Tape UGA-

text: OTP-0039-0006 concerns a conversation from the evening of 1 May 2004. The voices

text: consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen and Joseph Kony.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence focused on certain audio discontinuities in the

text: 1399 unenhanced Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 when examining Alan French. Alan French

text: suggested that these discontinuities could be caused by stopping the tape recorder and

text: 1400 then starting it again.

text: To the extent the Defence suggests that these discontinuities may demonstrate that the

text: conversation was edited – such as by combining audio from different days to make it

text: 1394 UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0272-74. Entries for ‘1/5/2004’ begin on page 0271, and the date ‘2/5/2004’ is clearly visible on the last page of the cited entry. 1395 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3006-07; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7481-83; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7247-7250. There is a police logbook entry with a date of ‘1/5/2004’, but it does not record any conversations from 18:30 on that day. See Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0144-46. 1396 P-0059 Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0809-R01; P-0440 Tape UGA-OTP-0039- 0006 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0205-R01. 1397 P-0059: T-37, p. 47, line 16 – p. 50, line 21; P-0440: T-40, p. 27, line 25 – p. 30, line 2. 1398 D-0100: T-234, p. 50, line 13 – p. 52, line 20, p. 54, lines 16-20. 1399 See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 386-87. 1400 Defence Closing Brief, paras 249-52; P-0242: T-128, p. 41, line 18 – p. 49, line 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 274/1077 4 February 2021 sound like a single conversation – the Chamber does not consider this to be a reasonable possibility.

text: First, and most importantly, none of the testifying witnesses commented about hearing anything abnormal in this recorded conversation.

text: Second, no evidence indicates that the Ugandan government ever deliberately altered the contents of this or any other intercept tape. To the contrary, such tapes were made as part 1401 of a broader procedure intended to ensure accurate, timely interception.

text: Third, it is equally unclear what motive the Ugandan government would have had in doing so. This tape was collected and stored for military operations, not the Prosecution’s 1402 investigation. Altering tapes would have risked the accuracy of the intelligence needed for the war effort. To the extent the Defence insinuates that alterations may have been made to overstate Dominic Ongwen’s personal culpability, it must also be noted that this tape was given to the Court before the Prosecution had filed any arrest warrant applications targeting particular LRA commanders.

text: Fourth, if new audio content was edited into this recording then there would be a large discrepancy between the recording and the logbook summaries contemporaneously prepared by the UPDF and ISO. But there is no such discrepancy.

text: Whatever issues there may have been in the recording of Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006, the only reasonable conclusion inferable from the evidence is that this tape is a single conversation.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0235-0015 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006; (ii) Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio on 1 May 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: 1401 See generally section IV.B.3.i.a above. 1402 See n. 1095 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 275/1077 4 February 2021 m. 18 May 2004 – Tape 822 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0235-0043)

text: 3RD 1403 identified as ‘822/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya

text: 1404 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. The

text: 1405 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: 1406 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/27’. An enhanced audio disc

text: (UGA-OTP-0235-0043) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/27’

text: and the ERN of Tape 822 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 822

text: 1407 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general

text: impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 822’s

text: contents.

text: 1408 Tape 822’s cassette label and paper indicate the date of ‘18/5/2004’. The ISO logbook

text: 1409 entries for Tape 822 correspond to this same date. The corresponding UPDF and

text: police logbooks do not contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries of

text: 1410 18 May 2004 that these agencies heard the same overall conversations recorded in the

text: ISO logbook.

text: 1403 UGA-OTP-0052-0038. 1404 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1405 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 20. 1406 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 21; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0347 (line 15; duplicate ERN UGA-OTP-0235-0055). 1407 Compare UGA-OTP-0052-0038 (track 1: 48:05; track 2: 48:09) with UGA-OTP-0235-0043 (track 1: 31:28; track 2: 31:04). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. 1408 UGA-OTP-0052-0038, at 0038-39. 1409 UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0316-17. The date is a little faint, but the date just prior to the one in the cited entry is ‘17-05-2004’ (on p. 0314). 1410 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3039-41; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0250-54; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7280-84; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0127-28.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 276/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of an intercepted communication to P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440. Each reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where 1411 necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, all four witnesses recognised certain voices, gave the same overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what 1412 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Joseph Kony and Vincent 1413 Otti. While he did not comment on any transcript, D-0032, to whom the recording was also played, gave a similar overall summary and equally recognised the voices of 1414 Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0235-0043 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 822; (ii) Tape 822 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio on 18 May 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: n. 21-22 May 2004 – Tape 824 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239- 0123) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1415 identified as ‘824/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 23 February 2005. A pre-registration form related to P- 0027 on this date which memorialises the exchange of ‘12 [c]assette tapes containing

text: 1411 P-0003 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0198-R01, at 0201-06; P-0016 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0259-0044; P-0059 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0436-R01, at 0437-46; P-0440 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0399-R01, at 0400-09. 1412 P-0003: T-43, p. 31, line 3 – p. 33, line 13; P-0016: T-33, p. 6, line 16 – p. 8, line 17; P-0059: T-37, p. 13, line 8 – p. 15, line 24; P-0440: T-40, p. 40, line 1 – p. 42, line 10. 1413 P-0016 did not address who Joseph Kony was speaking to in his testimony, but identifies Vincent Otti as this person in his annotated transcript. P-0016 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0044, at 0049-50 (‘OT’ and ‘JK’ appearing across the lines corresponding to timestamp played in court, namely from 04:03-06:31). 1414 D-0032: T-201-CONF, p. 26, line 7 – p. 29, line 13. 1415 UGA-OTP-0054-0046. See also UGA-OTP-0052-0044.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 277/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1416 relevant data’ to this same staff member mentions the ERN range including this tape.

text: The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1417 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French

text: 1418 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/83’. An enhanced audio disc

text: (UGA-OTP-0239-0123) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/83’

text: and the ERN of Tape 824 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 824

text: 1419 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general

text: impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 824’s

text: contents.

text: The cassette paper accompanying Tape 824 indicates that: ‘21/5/04 is partly on 824A

text: 1420 and partly 824B. The text is from 1830-1915Hrs only’ and ‘824/G 3rd 22/5/04’. The

text: 1421 ISO logbook entries for Tape 824 correspond to these same dates. The corresponding

text: UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries on

text: 1422 these dates that the UPDF heard the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO

text: logbook.

text: 1423 necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, all four witnesses recognised

text: 1416 Pre-Registration Form 0155, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0039 (the ERN range including this tape appears on the bottom of the form); P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0444-R01, at para. 34(a). 1417 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1418 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 24). 1419 Compare UGA-OTP-0054-0046 (track 1: 31:57; track 2: 31:56) with UGA-OTP-0239-0123 (track 1: 31:50; track 2: 31:52). 1420 UGA-OTP-0054-0046, at 0047-48. 1421 UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0320-22. 1422 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3045-47; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0263-66; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7291-92. There are police logbook entries discussing communications on 20 and 23 May 2004, but there appear to be no entries corresponding to these conversations. See Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0121-26. 1423 P-0003 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0093-R01, 0102-03; P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0129-0419, 0428-29; P-0059 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266-0084, at 0113-15, 0137-39; P-0440 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0235-R01, at 0277, 0288-90.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 278/1077 4 February 2021 certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what 1424 was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen and 1425 Vincent Otti.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0123 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 824; (ii) Tape 824 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 21-22 May 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: o. 30-31 May 2004 – Tape 830 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0239- 0112) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 3RD 1426 identified as ‘830/G ’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only preregistration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the 1427 exchange of, amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1428 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French 1429 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/73’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-OTP-0239-0112) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/73’ and the ERN of Tape 830 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 830

text: 1424 P-0003: T-42, p. 78, line 11 – p. 88, line 17; T-46, p. 26, line 14 – p. 30, line 2; P-0016: T-32, p. 75, line 14 – p. 77, line 17; T-35, p. 29, line 18 – p. 33, line 13; P-0059: T-36, p. 73, line 14 – p. 77, line 2; T-38, p. 60, line 7 – p. 74, line 15; T-39, p. 3, line 18 – p. 21, line 15; P-0440: T-40, p. 30, line 3 – p. 36, line 13. 1425 The Chamber notes that while for a small part of the communication, P-0440 also identified Joseph Kony as speaking (see P-0440: T-40, p. 34, line 21 – p. 35, line 20), he equally recognised the voice of Vincent Otti in the exchange with Dominic Ongwen, as did the other witnesses. See P-0440: T-40, p. 30, line 3 – p. 36, line 13. 1426 UGA-OTP-0052-0056. 1427 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1428 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 22. 1429 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 23; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0348 (line 19).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 279/1077 4 February 2021

text: corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 830’s

text: contents.

text: Tape 830’s cassette label and paper indicate that the tape ‘covers 30/5/2004 partly and

text: 31/5/04 partly’. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 830 correspond – a small part of

text: the tape seems to have been recorded at the end of 29 May 2004 with the remainder on

text: the dates indicated on the cassette label. The corresponding UPDF and police

text: logbooks do not contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries of 29-31

text: May 2004 that these agencies heard the same overall conversations recorded in the

text: ISO logbook.

text: necessary.

text: was played. The summaries describe part of the same conversations recorded in the

text: logbooks. Vincent Otti’s voice was consistently recognised, and all witnesses were

text: 1430 Compare UGA-OTP-0052-0056 (track 1: 47:31; track 2: 47:34) with UGA-OTP-0239-0112 (track 1: 31:53; track 2: 32:57). The discrepancy in track times is due almost entirely to there being a long unrecorded section on the original tape’s two tracks. Alan French explains that such gaps are commonly seen when using a fast copier to transfer a 60 minute cassette onto a 90 minute one. P-0242: T-128, p. 8, line 3 – p. 10, line 14; P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at paras 27-32, 60. Even accounting for this, there is still a gap of about 1 minute and 20 seconds for track 2. But this remaining discrepancy is explained by unrecorded sections at the beginning and end of the enhanced audio’s track 2 being significantly longer than those on the original. 1431 UGA-OTP-0052-0056, at 0056-57. 1432 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0341-42 (with the ‘29/05/2004’ date indicated on p. 0340); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0003-06. 1433 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3060-63; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0301-07; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0104-07. 1434 P-0003 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0143-R01, at 0179-82; P-0016 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0259-0116; P-0059 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0381-R01, at 0417-19; P-0440 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0425-R01, at 0438-45. 1435 P-0003: T-43, p. 40, line 18 – p. 43, line 15; P-0016: T-33, p. 3, line 2 – p. 6, line 15; P-0059: T-37, p. 23, line 21 – p. 26, line 13; P-0440: T-40, p. 42, line 11 – p. 44, line 13. 1436 P-0016 did not address who Joseph Kony was speaking to in his testimony, but identifies Vincent Otti as one of these persons in his annotated transcript. P-0016 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0116, at 0118-23 (‘OT’

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 280/1077 4 February 2021 likewise consistent that he was speaking to either Joseph Kony or a signaller acting on Joseph Kony’s behalf.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0239-0112 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 830; (ii) Tape 830 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Joseph Kony (or a signaller acting on his behalf), Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 30-31 May 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: p. 9-10 June 2004 – Tape 837 (enhanced: UGA-OTP-0235- 0049) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 1437 identified as ‘837’. Its e-court metadata indicates that Timothy Kanyogonya provided this tape to a Prosecution staff member on 15 February 2005. The only pre-registration form related to Timothy Kanyogonya on this date is one memorialising the exchange of, 1438 amongst other items, 136 ISO tapes to this same staff member. P-0059 further 1439 confirms that the ISO made Tape 837. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: 1440 The Prosecution gave this tape to Alan French for audio enhancement. Alan French 1441 then enhanced the audio and labelled the copy ‘AF/31’. An enhanced audio disc (UGA-OTP-0235-0049) marked with Alan French’s company name, the code ‘AF/31’ and the ERN of Tape 837 is in evidence. The length of the recorded content on Tape 837 1442 corresponds to the length of the audio tracks in this enhanced audio. The general

text: and ‘JK’ primary speakers appearing across the lines corresponding to timestamp played in court, namely from 12:25-15:47, starting at p. 0117). 1437 UGA-OTP-0053-0006. 1438 Pre-Registration Form 0153, UGA-OTP-0244-0920-R01, at 0930 (UGA-OTP-0045-0001); P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01, at para. 30. 1439 P-0059: T-36, p. 39, line 13 – p. 40, line 2. 1440 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 20. 1441 P-0242 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0333-R01, at para. 21; Enhanced Copies Schedule, UGA-OTP-0261- 0347 (line 17; duplicate ERN UGA-OTP-0235-0055). 1442 Compare UGA-OTP-0053-0006 (track 1: 31:22; track 2: 31:17) with UGA-OTP-0235-0049 (track 1: 31:27; track 2: 31:26).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 281/1077 4 February 2021 impression of the enhanced audio’s contents is consistent with that of Tape 837’s

text: contents.

text: The label on Tape 837 and its cassette shell indicates ‘Tape 837 covers 9/6/04 to

text: 10/6/04’. The ISO logbook entries for Tape 837 correspond – a small part of the tape

text: seems to have been recorded at the end of 8 June 2004, with the remainder on the dates

text: indicated on the cassette label. The corresponding UPDF and police logbooks do not

text: contain the ISO tape numbers, but it is clear from their entries of 8-10 June 2004 that

text: these agencies heard the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook.

text: necessary.

text: Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Labalpiny (Joseph Kony’s signaller) and Joseph Kony.

text: 1443 UGA-OTP-0053-0006, at 0006-07. 1444 UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0022-26. The date on p. 0022 is not visible, and the dates of the two 09:00 entries on p. 0023 are difficult to see, but ISO logbooks follow a pattern whereby entries are marked in chronological order. Looking before the relevant entries, the most recent visible date is the 09:00 entry for ‘7/6/2004’ on p. 0019. The next entries leading up to p. 0023 are at the following times: 11:00, 18:30, 09:00 (an entry for the next day, i.e. 8 June 2004) and 18:30. This means that the first 09:00 entry on p. 0023 is the entry for 9 June 2004, and the second is an entry for 10 June 2004. The date immediately after the relevant entries clearly reads ‘11/6/2004’ (p. 0026), confirming that the two dates on p. 0023 should be ‘9/6/2004’ and ‘10/6/2004’, respectively. 1445 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3076-80; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0324-26; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0099-101 (describing conversations from 9 and 10 June 2004). 1446 P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0121-34; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0259-0086; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0539-52; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0378-90. 1447 P-0003: T-43, p. 33, line 14 – p. 40, line 17; T-45, p. 61, line 17 – p. 64, line 14; P-0016: T-32, p. 64, line 10 – p. 67, line 17; P-0059: T-37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 23, line 18; P-0440: T-40, p. 36, line 14 – p. 39, line 25. 1448 P-0440 did not testify to hearing Vincent Otti, but he did indicate him as one of the main speakers in the transcript annotated by him and related to the audio excerpt that he was played in court (see UGA-OTP-0262- 0363-R01, at 0381-5 (approx. lines 399-497)). P-0016 did not testify to hearing Labalpiny or Joseph Kony, but was not played the portion of the tape where the other three witnesses heard them speaking. Compare P-0016: T-

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 282/1077 4 February 2021

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0235-0049 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 837; (ii) Tape 837 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Labalpiny, Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 8-10 June 2004; and, (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcripts accurately reflect the speakers and words spoken.

text: q. 31 July-1 August 2004 – Tape 876 (enhanced: UGA-OTP- 0258-0143) The Chamber recognised the formal submission of the audio contents of a cassette 1449 identified as ‘876’. Its e-court metadata indicates that P-0027 of the ISO provided this tape on 1 June 2015. A pre-registration form related to P-0027 on this date memorialises 1450 the exchange of, amongst other items, Tape 876 to the Prosecution. The recording is of men speaking over the radio in a non-working language.

text: The Prosecution gave this tape to Xavier Laroche and his colleague for audio 1451 enhancement. These persons then performed this enhancement and registered the 1452 enhanced digital copy. An enhanced audio file (UGA-OTP-0258-0143) with a cover page indicating the ERN of Tape 876’s side B is in evidence.

text: 1453 Tape 876 has no date on its label. A second page of cassette paper reads ‘Tape No 03 th 1454 24 6-97’. This suggests the tape dates back to June 1997, but this is irreconcilable with the other evidence available. First, the reference to ‘Tape No 3’ suggests this 1997 date corresponds to an entirely different tape number than the one listed on the first page of the cassette paper (876). Second, as ISO tapes in the relevant time period were numbered sequentially, other tapes with numbers close to 876 – and which the Chamber has already dated above – suggest that Tape 876 must actually date sometime in mid-

text: 32, p. 64, line 10 – p. 67, line 17, with P-0003: T-43, p. 37, line 20 – p. 40, line 17; P-0059: T-37, p. 20, line 25 – p. 23, line 18; P-0440: T-40, p. 38, line 17 – p. 39, line 25. 1449 UGA-OTP-0241-0257. 1450 Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0246-0039-R01, at 0054; P-0027 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0249- 0444-R01, at para. 37(p). 1451 Inventory, UGA-OTP-0269-0044, at 0053; P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 22, 51. 1452 P-0256 Statement, UGA-OTP-0269-0015, at paras 37-39; Pre-Registration Form, UGA-OTP-0269-0101, at 0101 (item # 2). 1453 UGA-OTP-0241-0257, at 0257. 1454 UGA-OTP-0241-0257, at 0258.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 283/1077 4 February 2021

text: The ISO logbook entries for Tape 876 confirm this, as they are dated 31 July-1 1455 August 2004. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain the ISO tape 1456 numbers, but it is clear from their entries on these same dates that the UPDF heard the same overall conversations recorded in the ISO logbook. Considering the above, the Chamber finds that the conversations recorded on Tape 873’s side B, and as reflected in the corresponding logbook entries, took place on 31 July-1 August 2004.

text: In the course of its investigation, the Prosecution played part of an intercepted communication to P-0016 and P-0059. They reviewed a draft transcript prepared by the 1457 Prosecution, identifying speakers and annotating amendments where necessary.

text: Upon being played part of the enhanced audio in court, P-0016 and P-0059 recognised certain voices, gave an overall summary of the recorded conversation, explained certain transcript annotations and confirmed that their annotated transcript matched what was 1458 played. The summary describes part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks, providing further proof that Tape 876 concerns a conversation from mid-2004. The voices consistently recognised were those of Dominic Ongwen and Ocen (identified by P-0059 as a signaller of Abudema).

text: The Chamber notes a massive discrepancy between the length of the recorded content on the original audio’s side B (05:35) and the enhanced audio’s track 2 (33:17). This discrepancy makes it impossible to hear whether the original and enhanced audio tracks actually sound like each other throughout the tape. But both P-0059 and P-0016 seemed to hear the same conversation on the enhanced audio segment, and this conversation is reflected in the ISO logbook under Tape 876 (i.e. the number on the label of the original tape). The Defence also seems to consider the words said by Dominic Ongwen on this 1459 tape to be exculpatory, suggesting that it does not contest the provenance of this

text: 1455 UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0150-54. The dates are hard to read, but the book itself is opened on 30 July 2004 (p. 0146), the date ’31 July’ appears just before the cited entry (p. 0149), and a faint ‘2 Aug 2004’ can be seen in the date just after the cited entry (p. 0156). 1456 st UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3166-68 (the date of ‘31 July 2004’ is visible on p. 3165); UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0427-29. There is a police logbook entry partially corresponding to these dates, but any LRA communications before 1830 on 1 August 2004 were not summarised. See Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0044-45. 1457 P-0016 Tape 876 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0265-0481, at 0490; P-0059 Tape 876 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266- 0146, at 0154-55. 1458 P-0016: T-33, p. 24, line 20 – p. 32, line 5; P-0059: T-37, p. 31, line 12 – p. 37, line 2; T-38, p. 52, line 23 – p. 55, line 1. 1459 P-0059: T-38, p. 54, line 9 – p. 55, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 284/1077 4 February 2021 particular enhanced audio. In these circumstances, the Chamber is satisfied that the parts of the enhanced audios reviewed and discussed by the witnesses are part of the original tapes.

text: From the above, the Chamber concludes that: (i) UGA-OTP-0258-0143 is an enhanced audio copy of Tape 876’s side B, at least for the part commented upon by the witnesses; (ii) Tape 876 – as enhanced – contains a recording of Dominic Ongwen, Ocen and others speaking over the radio at some point in the period of 31 July-1 August 2004; and (iii) at least for all portions where the reviewing witnesses had a consistent understanding, the corresponding annotated transcript accurately reflects the speakers and words spoken.

text: iii. Direction-finding evidence

text: The evidence in the case includes a specific category of information produced by the UPDF in the course of its particular operation to determine the location of LRA commanders by intercepting and analysing their radio communications with special equipment. This information, which has been referred to during the trial as ‘directionfinding evidence’, is contained in several UPDF intelligence reports, some of which are 1460 specifically relied upon by the Defence in its closing brief.

text: In its pre-trial brief, the Prosecution averred that it would not rely on the direction-finding evidence since it was not satisfied as to the reliability of the process by which direction- 1461 finding information was obtained. Also the Defence initially indicated that it intended to ‘challenge’ the direction-finding 1462 process and ‘explain the deficiencies in the UPDF techniques’.

text: While the Prosecution then submitted the UPDF intelligence reports into evidence, it 1463 reiterated that it would not rely on the direction-finding information. Although the

text: 1460 See 27 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0130; 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0017-0150; 1 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0157; 18 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0017-0262; 9 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0353. 1461 Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief, 6 September 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-533 (hereinafter: ‘Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief’), para. 78. See also Prosecution’s second request for introduction of prior recorded testimony pursuant to rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules, 20 September 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-538-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-538-Red), para. 29. 1462 Defence Response to Prosecution’s second Request pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b), 5 October 2016, ICC-02/04- 01/15-555-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-555-Red2), para. 17. 1463 Prosecution’s formal submission of intercept evidence via the ‘bar table’, 28 October 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15- 580, para. 43. See also Confidential Annex D, ICC-02/04-01/15-580-Conf-AnxD.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 285/1077 4 February 2021

text: Defence generally opposed the submission of all intercept-related material by the

text: Prosecution, it did not, in this context, specify its position regarding the direction-finding 1464 data included in the UPDF intelligence reports.

text: In November 2016, prior to the commencement of the trial, the Chamber decided on

text: whether certain previously recorded testimonies, some of which partly discussed the

text: process for the collection of the UPDF direction-finding data and were intended to be

text: relied upon for other purposes by the Prosecution, could be introduced under Rule

text: 68(2)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: . On the basis of the initial positions expressed by the parties, the

text: Chamber concluded that the unreliability of the UPDF direction-finding evidence was

text: not disputed between the parties, neither of which intended to rely on this material in the 1465 trial, and that the information concerning this process was therefore irrelevant to the 1466 case. However, because the Chamber found the conditions of Rule 68(2)(b) of the

text: Rules to be met, the statements were introduced in their entirety, including the parts in

text: which the witnesses refer to the direction-finding process. The witness statements 1467 1468 1469 1470 concerned were those of P-0029, P-0337, P-0384, and P-0404.

text: The Defence subsequently argued that its position on the direction-finding evidence had 1471 been misinterpreted and that it ‘provisionally’ considered the material reliable, ‘hop[ing] to be able to establish through questioning that the material was collected

text: 1472 correctly’. It sought reconsideration of the decision allowing the introduction of the

text: statements of P-0029, P-0337, P-0384 and P-0404, and submitted that ‘[i]f the

text: Prosecution wishe[d] to rely upon these witnesses, they should be called to testify viva

text: 1464 See Defence Response to Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material. See also Decision on Prosecution’s Submission of Intercept Material. 1465 First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 160. 1466 First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), paras 183, 191. 1467 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455. 1468 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01. 1469 P-0384 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0491-R01. The Chamber notes that while P-0384 seems to have been involved in ISO direction-finding activities, he did not provide any specific information in this regard. 1470 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01. 1471 Defence Request for Re-Consideration of ‘Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules’ with Regards to Four Individuals, 19 January 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-659, para. 13. 1472 Defence Request for Re-Consideration of ‘Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules’ with Regards to Four Individuals, 19 January 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-659, para. 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 286/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1473 voce’. The Defence also specified ‘that in no way ha[d] it waived its rights to rely

text: upon the direction-finding material, raise questions in cross-examination with

text: interception-related witnesses, and present expert-testimony or expert-reports in the

text: Defence case or prior to any ruling upon the reliability of the direction-finding

text: 1474 evidence’.

text: The Chamber then held that the new interpretation by the Defence of its previous

text: submissions was untenable, and that in fact the Defence had (legitimately) changed its

text: 1475 strategy. The Chamber further held that, in any case, the Defence could rely on the

text: evidence of the four witnesses which had been introduced pursuant to Rule 68(2)(b) of

text: 1476 the Rules, as well as attempt to obtain supplementary statements from the same

text: 1477 witnesses or call its own witnesses with respect to the direction-finding operations.

text: Subsequently, in its closing brief, the Defence relied on material originating from

text: 1478 direction-finding with a view to supporting its submissions that Dominic Ongwen

text: could not have been in the vicinity of attacks relevant to the charges at the time of their

text: 1479 occurrence.

text: In consequence, the Prosecution reiterated in its closing statements that it did not rely on

text: 1480 the direction-finding material and did not ask the Chamber to rely on it to convict

text: 1481 Dominic Ongwen. The Prosecution submitted that there was not much evidence about

text: direction-finding and how precise or reliable it is, and even if reliable, it had

text: 1482 limitations.

text: 1473 Defence Request for Re-Consideration of ‘Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules’ with Regards to Four Individuals, 19 January 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-659, para. 20. 1474 Defence Request for Re-Consideration of ‘Decision on the Prosecution’s Applications for Introduction of Prior Recorded Testimony under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules’ with Regards to Four Individuals, 19 January 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-659, para. 21. 1475 Decision on the Defence Request for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 23 February 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-711, para. 8. 1476 Decision on the Defence Request for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 23 February 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-711, para. 11. 1477 Decision on the Defence Request for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision under Rule 68(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 23 February 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-711, para. 11. 1478 Defence Closing Brief, para. 347. 1479 Defence Closing Brief, paras 346-48, 351, 372-74, 396-98, 405-07, 409-10, 444-45. See also Defence Opening Statement: T-179, p. 39, lines 12-22. 1480 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 72, lines 19-20. 1481 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 74, lines 13-14, p. 76, lines 23-24. 1482 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 74, lines 15-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 287/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence in turn restated its position on the direction-finding evidence in its own

text: closing statements.

text: According to the witness evidence before the Chamber, the UPDF direction-finding

text: operation was set up in Gulu as of 1999 and further developed in 2003-2004. It

text: developed incrementally until it became part of the UPDF strategy, with information

text: gathered through direction-finding being used for UPDF operational planning and

text: included in intelligence reports.

text: Further witness evidence indicates that while direction-finding – also called radio wave

text: surveillance – and interception of radio communications formed separate

text: 1490 1491

text: operations, they were both part of technical intelligence.

text: According to P-0337, the purpose of the direction-finding operation was to determine the

text: locations of certain LRA commanders at the time of their radio communications by

text: intercepting the transmissions and calculating the geographical coordinates of their

text: whereabouts.

text: Witnesses stated that the direction-finding operation was commanded by P-0337, who

text: set up the operation in Gulu. He deployed staff to the field, collected the information

text: 1483 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 37, lines 10-11, p. 38, lines 7-10. The Chamber notes in this regard that the Defence relied on a statement of P-0027 which, however, has not been submitted into evidence (UGA-D26- 0011-0508. See Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 87, line 15 – p. 88, line 1). Therefore, the Chamber will not consider it further. 1484 The Chamber considered, most importantly, witnesses P-0029, P-0291, P-0337 and P-0404. 1485 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 55. 1486 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 54. 1487 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 25. 1488 See para. 835 below. See also P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 67. 1489 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 25. 1490 P-0029 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0231-R01, at para. 64. 1491 P-0003: T-44-CONF, p. 23, line 18 – p. 24, line 1; T-44, p. 29, lines 2-3. 1492 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 36, 40. See also P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 54; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 25; P-0003: T-46- CONF, p. 11, lines 15-25. 1493 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 58; P-0291 Statement, UGA-OTP-0246-0061-R01, at para. 55; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 15. 1494 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 30, 35; P-0339: T-134, p. 20, lines 22-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 288/1077 4 February 2021

text: and disseminated it to UPDF military commanders. P-0029 was P-0337’s direct

text: 1496 1497

text: supervisor and ordered direction-finding equipment and trained the team.

text: P-0337 specified that in about 2003, he became the commanding officer of both static

text: interception team and direction-finding team when they were merged, although in

text: practice nothing changed in terms of reporting. He also took administrative control

text: over all UPDF interception operations in Northern Uganda.

text: P-0404 stated that several direction-finding teams worked in different locations,

text: including Soroti, Masindi and Nebbi. In addition, P-0337 explained that the staff

text: involved in the direction-finding operation trained on the job and improved the accuracy

text: of their capabilities and speed of deployment over time.

text: P-0337 testified that in 2005, the direction-finding operation was disbanded because it

text: became obsolete in light of technical failures and fewer LRA radio communications.

text: The witness evidence indicates that direction-finding staff worked in mobile teams of at

text: 1504 1505

text: least three people with vehicles that carried the technical equipment. A minimum

text: of two direction-finding staff were assigned to each vehicle. The teams deployed

text: every day, except if there was equipment failure, which it could take several days to

text: fix.

text: 1495 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 30; P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470- R01, at para. 27. 1496 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 34; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0445-R01, at para. 15; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 38. 1497 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 24. 1498 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 28; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0445-R01, at para. 15; P-0003: T-44-CONF, p. 35, lines 15-23. 1499 P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0445-R01, at paras 16-17. The Chamber notes in this context that P-0339 maintained that P-0337 was only engaged in direction-finding and did not assume any other role (see P- 0339: T-134, p. 21, lines 1-6). However, the Chamber is of the view that P-0339 may not have been aware of all organisational details, also bearing in mind that by that time he had left Gulu to intercept at other locations, and that indeed P-0337 is best placed to indicate which roles he assumed in the course of his career, and therefore does not consider this small discrepancy to cast doubt on P-0337’s statement regarding this aspect. 1500 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 25. 1501 P-0404 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0470-R01, at para. 27. 1502 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 31. 1503 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 33. 1504 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 59. 1505 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 31, 37. 1506 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 51. 1507 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 289/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0029 stated that the teams went into the field with their equipment to locate the

text: 1508 strongest signal. P-0337 and P-0029 further specified that a minimum of two

text: intercepting teams with vehicles were needed to pinpoint the geographical coordinates of

text: 1509 a transmitting LRA commander. Both witnesses also explained that the staff searched

text: 1510 for the right frequency, ensured that both teams were listening to the same

text: 1511 communication and that it was also the same LRA radio signal as the one being

text: 1512 intercepted in Gulu. According to P-0029, one person recorded the geographic

text: 1513 coordinates while the operation was ongoing.

text: P-0337 and P-0029 elaborated on the steps followed in the field: the mounted

text: 1514 antennae identified the strongest signal from a certain direction relative to the north,

text: 1515 the ‘directional bearing’. The equipment automatically calculated the direction from

text: where the signal came and issued the bearings, also called line of sight or line of

text: 1516 bearing. The geographical coordinates of the target (Northings and Eastings) were

text: 1517 calculated by the command station computer in a third vehicle. Liaison officers

text: stationed in Gulu coordinated between the direction-finding vehicles and the vehicle

text: 1518 carrying the command station computer.

text: The evidence shows that the accuracy of readings gained through direction-finding

text: depended on a number of factors. P-0337 explained how distance from the target affected

text: the accuracy of the results. He stated that most accurate results were obtained if the

text: direction-finding vehicles were less than 30 kilometres from the target, receiving the so-

text: 1519 called ‘ground wave’. According to P-0337, direction-finding was entirely impossible

text: in the so-called ‘skip zone’, at a distance between 30 and 100 kilometres from the target,

text: due to the fact that the interception devices were receiving the signal as it bounced off

text: 1508 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 58. 1509 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 37; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0455, at para. 57. 1510 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 39. 1511 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 39; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0455, at para. 60. 1512 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 59. 1513 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 62. 1514 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 38. 1515 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 56. 1516 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 40. 1517 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 42-43. 1518 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 45. 1519 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 52.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 290/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1520 the sky, at a too steep angle. Beyond 100 kilometres from the target, direction-finding

text: became possible again, but results were inaccurate, with a range of accuracy around five

text: 1521 kilometres. Even further away from the target, at over 150 kilometres, the results

text: 1522 became more accurate again, with a range of accuracy of about three kilometres.

text: Significantly, P-0337 stated that the coordinates were transferred as intelligence in the

text: same way, irrespective of whether they were intercepted from under 30 or over 100

text: 1523 kilometres away from the target.

text: P-0029 testified that in general the results came with a range of accuracy of around three

text: kilometres, and also depended on variables such as signal strength, number of readings

text: 1524 and terrain. Further, P-0337 clarified that the direction-finding vehicles and the target

text: 1525 had to form a triangle with the target at the apex. P-0337 stated that if the triangle was

text: 1526 not well formed, the coordinates could not be accurately determined and were

text: 1527 discarded. Even taking these factors into account, P-0029 also testified that the UPDF

text: direction-finding operation was not able to produce reliable direction-finding intelligence

text: 1528 until after 2004.

text: P-0337 stated that the direction-finding team was told in advance which LRA commander

text: 1529 to target on any given day or week. Further according to P-0337, the bearings of each

text: commander were recorded as they transmitted – because usually one person

text: communicated at a time, there was little chance of making a mistake with the

text: 1530 coordinates.

text: P-0337 also testified that after an intercepted radio communication, at the end of the

text: communication time, the liaison officers liaised with the UPDF interception team in Gulu

text: 1520 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 53. 1521 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 54. 1522 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 55. 1523 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 62. 1524 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 67. See also P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0256-0201-R01, at para. 55. The Chamber notes that even from this it is unclear whether this was the case throughout, or whether the range of accuracy of three kilometres was an improved result which started being achieved after 2004. 1525 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 41. 1526 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 43. 1527 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 43. 1528 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 55. 1529 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 56. 1530 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 43.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 291/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1531 which could identify the real names of the targets. Witness evidence indicates that the

text: data collected by all direction-finding teams was collated and communicated up the

text: 1532 UPDF chain of command. Both P-0337 and P-0029 testified that any notes taken by

text: 1533 the teams in the field were destroyed for security reasons.

text: According to witnesses, UPDF intelligence reports included the directional data gathered

text: 1534 by the direction-finding operation, in Eastings and Northings, as well as locations. P-

text: 1535 0337 made clear that these reports were not produced by the direction-finding team.

text: P-0029 testified that the synopses of LRA communications included in the reports were

text: based on merging the direction-finding intelligence and information received from the

text: 1536 interception team.

text: P-0337 testified that the direction-finding liaison officers as well as he himself had access

text: to the UPDF and ISO interception logbooks; P-0337 consulted them on a daily basis to

text: 1537 understand what the LRA commanders were talking about.

text: Bearing in mind the above, and as further outlined below, the Chamber finds that the

text: reliability of information gathered through direction-finding cannot sufficiently be

text: established.

text: First, the Chamber notes that according to P-0029, the UPDF direction-finding operation

text: 1538 – which was disbanded in mid-2005 inter alia due to technical failures – was not able

text: 1539 to produce reliable intelligence until after 2004. This evidence is significant for two

text: reasons: first, because it comes from the person who supervised the operation and was

text: therefore well suited to give an assessment of its reliability, and, second, because the

text: 1531 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 46-47. 1532 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 48-49; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0455, at para. 62. 1533 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 44; P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0455, at para. 63. 1534 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 67; P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256- 0201-R01, at para. 60. 1535 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at paras 58-59. 1536 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 73. Additional considerations regarding the probative value of the content of these reports can be found in the section discussing the interception operation, see paras 673-676 above. 1537 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 27; P-0337 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267- 0445-R01, at para. 44. 1538 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 33. 1539 P-0029 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0455, at para. 55.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 292/1077 4 February 2021 reliability of direction-finding evidence is a live issue with respect to events which occurred in 2004, in particular the attacks on the Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps.

text: Second, the evidence indicates that, irrespective of how far developed the operation or how skilled the participating staff, direction-finding could only produce accurate results under specific circumstances, as to which it is unclear whether they were present at the 1540 relevant time. By design, precision was limited as the results came with a range of 1541 accuracy, sometimes up to five kilometres. It appears that coordinates were transmitted in the same format, irrespective of whether they were gathered at less than 1542 30 kilometres or more than 100 kilometres from the target. The UPDF intelligence reports including direction-finding results do not specify if a given result was collected at under 30 kilometres distance to the target or any other distance. Yet as explained above, distance from the target was a crucial factor for accuracy.

text: In fact, it is equally unclear in which way it was determined whether a specific target could be found at a certain distance. While the evidence suggests that the directionfinding teams would attempt to first set up at over 100 kilometres from the target, and then, having determined the coordinates, approach to under 30 kilometres for more 1543 accurate results before the next communication, there is no information in which way the direction-finding teams knew that a specific target was indeed at over 100 kilometres away from their own location to begin with.

text: While P-0337 claimed that the location of a target would be accurate if the teams set up 1544 well and recorded the coordinates accurately, and that positive feedback was received 1545 about the accuracy of the coordinates, he did not refer to any process of assessment or verification of the accuracy of the coordinates.

text: Third, additional questions arise when analysing the direction-finding data included in the intelligence reports. P-0337 stated that, based on his experience, a forward slash separating two Eastings and Northings in the reports meant either (i) that the two sets

text: 1540 See paras 831-832 above. 1541 See paras 831-832 above. 1542 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 62. 1543 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 56. 1544 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 65. 1545 P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 64.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 293/1077 4 February 2021 give a general range of transmitting location, or (ii) a target communicated at one time

text: from a particular location and then moved to another for a later communication. Yet

text: nowhere in the intelligence reports is it specified which of these two options it would be,

text: either generally or with respect to particular entries. The Chamber is therefore unable to

text: determine whether the data in fact provides general areas in which a target could have

text: been or if a target may have moved. It is also impossible to tell whether the double entries

text: were intended to take into account the range of accuracy, or whether the range of

text: accuracy would have to be considered with each entry. This is of particular note insofar

text: as of all reports analysed, only a minority provides merely one reading

text: (Easting/Northing) for each LRA commander listed. Indeed, some reports include not

text: only two Eastings and Northings for a specific commander, but three or even four.

text: While the format of the reports slightly changed over time, the Chamber notes that some

text: reports show readings indeed listed by different communication times, and yet still

text: include several readings for an individual within what appears to be the same

text: communication time. Even if not explicitly separated into different communication

text: 1546 See P-0337 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0256-0201-R01, at para. 63. 1547 Of the 271 reports analysed, merely 36 (approx. 13%) include not more than one reading for each LRA commander reported (the number of 271 takes into account that the total of 285 intelligence reports submitted to the Chamber includes some duplicates, but at the same time also reports for two or more dates within one ERN; it does not discount those intelligence reports which do not include any direction-finding data at all (either because the first page is blank, or because there is no page for direction-finding data included)). 1548 See, e.g., 19 December 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0756, at 0756; 23 December 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0772, at 0772; 21 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0065, at 0065; 23 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0057, at 0057; 24 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0052, at 0052; 25 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0049, at 0049; 2 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0009, at 0009; 12 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0053, at 0053; 13 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0059, at 0059; 17 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0078, at 0078; 20 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0016-0092, at 0092; 23 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0107, at 0107; 11 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0196, at 0196; 27 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0298, at 0298; 15 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0065, at 0065; 17 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0074, at 0074; 18 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0078, at 0078; 21 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0093, at 0093. 1549 See, e.g., 6 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0523, at 0523; 8 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0514, at 0514; 9 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025- 0509, at 0509; 14 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0481, at 0481; 17 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0460, at 0460; 8 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0181, at 0181; 9 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0185, at 0185; 10 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0191, at 0191; 16 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0228, at 0228; 23 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0263, at 0263; 24 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016- 0270, at 0270; 25 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0278, at 0278. Similarly, in the 25 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0515, at 0515, even though not separated into different communication times, two commanders (Kony and Anum) are listed twice, with an indication of ‘same as above’ for the readings of the second mentioning, which would suggest that the entries are meant for different communication times.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 294/1077 4 February 2021

text: times, other intelligence reports mention commanders more than once with several

text: 1551 1552 1553

text: readings in one, several, or all of the listings. This indicates that the different

text: readings included for a single commander within the same communication time indeed

text: related to broader areas of transmission. It could be argued that for a number of reports

text: which include several readings for the first mention of a commander, but not the

text: second, that these were instances in which the direction-finding team first established

text: 1550 The Chamber notes that some reports include remarks which relate a second entry for a specific commander in the report to an earlier entry, thereby suggesting that the different listings do indeed relate to different communication times (see, for example, 15 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0218, at 0218; 23 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0101, at 0101; 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0017-0108, at 0108; 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141; 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0150, at 0150; 3 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0170, at 0170; 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573; 13 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0544, at 0544; 13 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0232, at 0232; 25 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0515, at 0515; 11 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0428, at 0428; 12 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0424, at 0424; 15 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0412, at 0412; 26 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0384, at 0384; 26 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0384, at 0384 (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0411); 28 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0423, at 0423; 4 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016- 0366, at 0366). However, this is not the case for all intelligence reports. 1551 See, e.g., 2 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0009, at 0009; 7 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0033, at 0033; 8 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0038, at 0038; 20 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0092, at 0092; 21 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0097, at 0097; 26 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0125, at 0125; 7 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0176, at 0176; 1 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0010, at 0010-11; 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0108, at 0108; 28 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0134, at 0134; 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141-42; 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0150, at 0150; 1 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017- 0157, at 0157; 3 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0170, at 0170; 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573; 13 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0544, at 0544 (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0232); 22 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0538, at 0538; 23 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0528, at 0528-29; 11 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0016-0428, at 0428; 12 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0424, at 0424; 15 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0412, at 0412; 16 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0405, at 0405; 26 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0384, at 0384 (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017- 0411); 28 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0423, at 0423; 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0371, at 0371-72 (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0433). 1552 See, e.g., 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0108, at 0108; 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141-42. 1553 See, e.g., 25 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0049, at 0049; 2 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0009, at 0009; 12 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0053, at 0053; 24 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0113, at 0113; 6 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0170, at 0170; 7 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0176, at 0176; 11 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0196, at 0196; 15 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0218, at 0218; 23 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0101, at 0101; 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0108, at 0108; 25 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0119, at 0119; 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573; 25 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0515, at 0515; 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0371, at 0371 (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA- OTP-0017-0433); 4 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0366, at 0366. 1554 See, e.g., 9 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0509, at 0509-10; 20 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0092, at 0092; 21 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016- 0097, at 0097; 26 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0125, at 0125; 8 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0181, at 0181; 1 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0010, at 0010-11; 29

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 295/1077 4 February 2021 a range of transmission and then was able to further narrow down the location in the

text: course of the day. However, the Chamber notes that numerous reports either include

text: several readings for each mentioning of the commander in question, or include several

text: readings only the second or third time a commander is mentioned in a specific report.

text: Bearing in mind the discussion above that it is also not clear whether several readings

text: linked to one commander may refer to general ranges of transmission or a commander

text: having moved – which further raises questions when considering that a commander being

text: mentioned several times in a report may already account for a commander having been

text: targeted by the direction-finding team several times during the day –, this leads to the

text: conclusion that the multiple entries cannot simply be explained as part of a process of

text: obtaining more accurate readings.

text: In this context it is also of note that some reports at times indicate the same location for

text: the second mention of a commander or also a different commander while, however, at

text: April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141-42; 1 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0017-0157, at 0157; 3 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0170, at 0170; 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573; 13 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0544, at 0544 (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0232); 22 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0538, at 0538; 23 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0528, at 0528-29; 12 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0424, at 0424; 15 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0412, at 0412; 16 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0405, at 0405; 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0371, at 0371-72 (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0433). 1555 See para. 840 above, suggesting that a team would attempt to set up at a further distance in the beginning and then approach closer to the target before the next communication time. 1556 See, e.g., 14 November 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0481, at 0481; 25 January 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0012-0049, at 0049; 12 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016- 0053, at 0053; 24 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0113, at 0113; 6 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0170, at 0170; 7 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0176, at 0176; 8 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0181, at 0181; 9 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0016-0185, at 0185; 10 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0191, at 0191; 11 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0196, at 0196; 15 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0218, at 0218; 16 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0228, at 0228; 23 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0263, at 0263; 24 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0270, at 0270; 23 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0101, at 0101; 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017- 0108, at 0108; 3 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0170, at 0170; 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573; 25 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0515, at 0515; 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0371, at 0371 (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0433); 4 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0366, at 0366. 1557 See, e.g., 7 February 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0033, at 0033; 7 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0176, at 0176; 25 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0278, at 0278; 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0108, at 0108; 28 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0017-0134, at 0134; 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141; 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0150, at 0150; 11 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0428, at 0428; 26 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0384, at 0384 (a duplicate of this report is at UGA- OTP-0017-0411); 28 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0423, at 0423.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 296/1077 4 February 2021

text: the same time providing slightly different geographical coordinates. This again

text: supports the assumption that the direction-finding data was reported as accurate and

text: relating to a specific location even in cases in which the location was in fact not a pinpoint

text: determination, but rather, as discussed above, concerned a range of transmission. The

text: Chamber is of the view that this is an indication that direction-finding data in general

text: related to broader areas of transmission, and that it is therefore not possible to conclude

text: from the reported data on the accurate location of a specific target (meaning, LRA

text: commander), at any given communication time. This is of note also insofar as some

text: intelligence reports provide several readings for a particular listing, yet at the same time

text: giving pinpoint locations going down to mere hundreds of metres.

text: 1558 See, e.g., 29 August 2003 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0619, at 0619 (Tabuley is listed at 1°57'18"N and 33°31'11"E, with location ‘Amatikile, Katini county’, while Okulu is listed at 1°55'00"N and 33°33'07"E, with the same location); 8 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0181, at 0181 (Odiambo is listed for 09:00 hours, at 2°35'54"/2°36'02"N and 33°17'55"/33°20'56"E, with location ‘3 Km E, of Patongo-Corner Adwari rd, 21Km N of Orum’, and listed for 16:00 hours, at 2°37'11"/2°32'10"N and 33°17'25"/33°18'52"E, with the same location reference); 12 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0202, at 0202 (Otti is listed at 4°02'49"/4°03'51"N and 32°38'47"/32°39'47"E, with location ‘Katire Valley’, while Kony is listed at 4°05'32"N and 32°39'49"E, also with location ‘Katire Valley’); 13 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0057, at 0057 (Kony is listed at 4°32'37"/4°30'39"N and 31°45'40"/31°45'04"E, with location ‘Lubanga Tek, 5.5 Km S of Jabelin, 9Km E of R. Kit’) compare with 14 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0061, at 0061 (Kony is listed at 4°31'51"/4°32'26"N and 31°45'33"/31°46'26"E, with location ‘Lubanga Tek area, 5.5 Km S of Jabelin, 9 Km E of R. Kit as per loc of 130404’); 24 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0108, at 0108-09 (Angola is first listed at 2°49'59"/2°48'35"N and 32°39'26"/32°40'37"E, with location ‘At the confluence of R. Chome and Aswa in Lalogi/Atanga boundary. 13 Km Nort of Acet IDP’, and then at 2°48'35"/2°50'16"N and 32°40'37"/32°37'10"E, with indication ‘Same loc as previous at 130 Hrs.’; Abudema appears in a second listing at 2°56'52"/2°53'02"N and 32°59'52"/33°02'38"E, with location ’01 Km North of Pader IDP’, while Lamola is listed at 2°57'14"/2°51'19"N and 33°01'33"/33°04'29"E, with indication ‘Same location with Abudema’); 4 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0366, at 0366 (Raska is listed first at 4°07'20"/4°08'27"N and 32°26'59"/32°26'26"E, with location ‘9.8 Km North of Palabek, 18.4 Km East of Magwi, 6.3 Km NW [illegible], 9.5 Km NW of Ngong Peak’, and then at 4°05'11"/4°05'16"/4°07'25"N and 32°27'17"/32°28'47"/32°27'43"E, with indication ‘Same as loc at 1100Hrs’). The Chamber also notes that when reports draw relations between different locations, yet the locations are reported with several different readings per specific commanders, it remains unclear in which way these relations are determined (see, e.g., 4 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0573, at 0573 (Abudema is first listed at 3°02'23"/3°00'56"N and 33°09'59"/33°09'00"E, with location ‘Along the Eastern bank of R. Kimiya, 13.2 Km Se of Latanya IDP, 15 Km SW of Wol IDP (per yester evening 030405)’, and then listed a second time at 3°00'02"/3°00'20"N and 33°09'00"/33°10'14"E, with location ‘2.7 Km S of his loc. as of 040504 at 0900 hrs’). From these coordinates it appears that the distance between the reported locations could be anywhere between approximately 1.6 and 4.7 kilometres, depending on whether the first or the second readings are related, or the first with the second readings and vice versa. A similar example can be found in 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141. 1559 See, e.g., 10 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0191, at 0191 (for Odiambo, two readings related to specific distances seem to be approximately four kilometres apart; for Dominic, two readings related to specific distances from a trading centre seem to be approximately 10 kilometres apart); 11 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0196, at 0196 (for Raska, two readings related to specific distances seem to be approximately eight kilometres apart); 15 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0218, at 0218 (for Ochan Bunia, two readings related to specific distances from a trading centre and other landmarks seem to be approximately five and a half kilometres apart); 16 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0228, at 0228 (for Ochan Bunia, two readings related to specific distances from a town seem to be approximately ten

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 297/1077 4 February 2021

text: Fourth, even for reports which provide a single reading for a specific commander, and

text: this reading, to the extent it can be determined, at least approximately corresponds to the

text: location indicated in the report, the above leaves doubts as to whether the commander

text: in question was indeed present at that specific location, or in its wider area. The Chamber

text: recalls in particular in this regard that the direction-finding data were transmitted in the

text: same format, even if they were in fact collected with varying ranges of accuracy, and

text: that, in addition, the intelligence reports were not compiled by the direction-finding team

text: kilometres apart); 4 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0462, at 0462 (for Otti, two readings related to specific distances from a number of IDP camps seem to be approximately 10 kilometres apart). 1560 See, e.g., 10 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0191, at 0191 (for c/s Bogi); 19 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0239, at 0239 (for Raska); 24 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP- 0016-0270, at 0270 (for Abudema); 25 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0278, at 0278 (for Lagulu); 26 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0287, at 0287 (for Lapanyikwara); 29 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0308, at 0308 (for Lapanyikwara); 10 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0017-0042, at 0042 (for Angola) (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0016-0588); 11 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0047, at 0047 (for Abudema); 14 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0061, at 0061 (for Angola); 22 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0097, at 0097 (for Abudema); 26 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0124, at 0124 (for Abudema, Odiambo); 28 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0134, at 0134 (for Kapere, Abudema); 29 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0141, at 0141 (for Kapere, Otti, Lagulu); 9 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0207, at 0207 (for Abudema, Angola, Onen Kamdule); 11 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0556, at 0556 (for Otti); 12 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0548, at 0548 (for Otti); 14 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0236, at 0236 (for Otti); 16 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0250, at 0250 (for Wokorach, Abudema); 21 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017- 0268, at 0268 (for Lakati, Kapere); 22 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0538, at 0538 (for Kapere); 24 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0522, at 0522 (for Dominic, Abudema) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0284); 25 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0515, at 0515 (for st Otti (1 ), Angola); 26 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0509, at 0509 (for Wokorach, Angola); 28 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0500, at 0500 (for RT-Otti) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA- OTP-0017-0309); 29 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0493, at 0493 (for Kapere, Otti); 31 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0481, at 0481 (for Labong, Dominic); 3 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0466, at 0466 (for Labong) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0340); 8 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0445, at 0445 (for Abudema, Kapere); 9 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0440, at 0440 (for Dominic) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0353); 11 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0428, at 0428 (for Bunia, Angola, Otti); 12 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0424, at 0424 (for Abudema) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0370); 13 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0420, at 0420 (for Otti); 15 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0412, at 0412 (for Dominic, Kamdule); 16 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0405, at 0405 (for Kapere, Dominic); 20 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0395, at 0395 (for Bunia); 26 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0384, at 0384 (for c/s Labongo Lworo) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0411); 27 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0416, at 0416 (for Abudema, Angola); 28 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0423, at 0423 (for Angola); 30 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0378, at 0378 (for Otti, Abudema); 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA- OTP-0016-0371, at 0371-72 (for Otti, Abudema, Angola); 4 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016- 0366, at 0366 (for Otti); 28 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0326, at 0326 (for Labong) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP-0017-0444); 29 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0319, at st 0319 (for Kapere 1 listing, Abudema); 31 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0314, at 0314 (for Otti, Kapere, Kamdule, Abudema); 1 August 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0453, at 0453 (for Kapere, Ocan Bunia, Labong, Otti); 9 August 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0469, at 0469 (for Labong); 14 August 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0487, at 0487 (for Dominic, Abudema); 21 August 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0499, at 0499 (for Labong). 1561 See paras 831-832 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 298/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1562 which only transmitted the geographical data. It is not clear from the evidence if the UPDF staff compiling the intelligence reports merely mapped the geographical coordinates as received, without taking into account that they may involve ranges of 1563 accuracy and areas of transmission.

text: All of the above are important issues affecting the reliability of information gathered through direction-finding and of its derivative location data in this particular case. Of special note is the fact that, according to the evidence and information available to the Chamber, it is not possible to ultimately determine the range of accuracy and that this range of accuracy may well have been in the range of several kilometres, which renders the direction-finding evidence inconclusive for purposes of the Chamber in the sense that it merely represents another estimate. Further, it must be recalled that according to the supervisor of the operation, it was not possible to produce reliable direction-finding 1564 results until after 2004 and that, at the same time, the commanding officer of that 1565 operation stated that it was disbanded in mid-2005 inter alia due to technical failures. In light of the information before the Chamber, the Chamber does not consider that the reliability of direction-finding evidence has been established to the extent that it would be possible to rely on it, in particular as concerns the whereabouts of Dominic Ongwen at the time of the attacks on the Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps. For this reason, the Chamber does not rely on direction-finding evidence.

text: iv. Other documentary evidence

text: Apart from the intercept and direction-finding evidence, the parties and the legal representatives of the participating victims have submitted other documentary evidence including, inter alia, photographic material, police investigation reports, forensic reports, official documentation and documents obtained from the LRA. The Chamber has

text: 1562 See paras 834-835 above. 1563 This is supported by the fact that for some reports which provide several readings for a specific commander, any indicated specific location appears to approximately correspond with one of the readings, but not necessarily with the other (see, e.g., 16 March 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0228, at 0228 (for Lagulu); 4 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0462, at 0462 (for Bunia) (a duplicate of this report is at UGA-OTP- 0017-0346); 14 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0416, at 0416 (for Dominic); 1 July 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0371, at 0371 (for Labong) (a partial duplicate of this report is at UGA- OTP-0017-0433)). This suggests that the UPDF staff mapping the coordinates in these instances simply took one of the readings to find a map location, without assessing the possible area of transmission implicated in the reporting of several readings. 1564 See paras 832, 838 above. 1565 See paras 827, 838 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 299/1077 4 February 2021 reviewed this evidence, and considered the arguments of the parties made at the time of submission, the use of the evidence in the courtroom, and any further arguments made during closing submissions. The Chamber’s reasoning for the use or non-use of a particular item, as the case may be, is given below in pertinent context in the evidentiary analysis as appropriate.

text: The Defence argued generally against the reliability of documentary evidence obtained with the assistance of the Government of Uganda. In its closing brief, the Defence submitted that ‘[t]he Court should treat with caution and avoid overly relying on evidence procured from, or with the assistance of investigations carried out by the GoU, one of the 1566 protagonists in the conflict of which the case is a direct consequence’.

text: Whereas the Defence is factually correct in asserting that the Prosecution obtained large amounts of evidence through requests for assistance made to the Government of Uganda, the Chamber sees no basis to hold that the reliability of the evidence thus obtained is generally impaired for this reason. It is natural that a State may possess evidence in relation to crimes allegedly committed on its territory, and it is the duty of the Prosecution to seek access to such evidence through the appropriate statutory avenues. The Defence does not allege any specific irregularity, and its argument is based exclusively on the mere fact that the Government of Uganda is the LRA’s adversary in the conflict. No irregularity has also become apparent during the trial. As such, the suggestion is speculative and therefore rejected. The Chamber does not see any general impediment to the use of the evidence obtained through the assistance of the Government of Uganda, and, in principle, makes use of such evidence. As stated, the Chamber provides below further specific reasoning, as appropriate, for the use or non-use of a particular item.

text: Agreed Facts

text: As provided in Rule 69 of the Rules, the Prosecution and Defence submitted 23 agreed facts related to Dominic Ongwen’s background, the parentage of certain children, geographical facts, the meaning of certain acronyms and the occurrence of an attack on 1567 1568 Pajule. These agreed facts are proven for the purposes of the judgment.

text: 1566 Defence Closing Brief, para. 9. See also Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 13, lines 14-22. 1567 Agreed Facts. 1568 Decision on Joint Agreed Facts Submission, 19 July 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-500.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 300/1077 4 February 2021

text: C. Evidentiary analysis for findings of fact

text: The Chamber sets out below its assessment of the evidence submitted and discussed before it at trial with respect to each of the findings of fact identified above in Section III (‘Findings of fact’). In particular, the Chamber details below the evidence which supports each of those findings of fact, and explains how any such finding was reached in light of the available evidence – and the arguments made at trial – both in support of and against that particular finding, as appropriate. This also includes instances when findings on the facts and circumstances described in the charges are reached by way of inference – thus, through facts which are of ‘intermediate’ or ‘subsidiary’ nature – on the basis of circumstantial evidence. At the same time, the Chamber clarifies that while it structures its discussion below delineating its analysis of evidence with respect to each individual finding of fact, evidence may be relevant to more than one factual finding even if not necessarily reiterated in each instance, and all evidence submitted and discussed before it at trial has been considered holistically.

text: LRA as an organisation in 2002-2005

text: The analysis of the evidence begins with a discussion of the basic features of the LRA as an organisation. Because the charges focus on the Sinia brigade, this brigade is analysed in more detail in section IV.C.2, further below.

text: The Chamber obtained relevant information in relation to the issues at hand from different witnesses, and mostly from insider witnesses. The value of their evidence, however, differs. In particular, the Chamber considers that certain witnesses are better placed than others to provide reliable information on the issues under consideration. This primarily includes insiders who held a relatively high position in the LRA or spent a long time in the organisation, such as P-0070 and P-0205, . These witnesses were in a position to give reliable descriptions of the structure of the LRA and of the interactions within the LRA leadership. In addition, the Chamber relies on the evidence of lower ranking insiders, or of insiders who spent a comparatively shorter period of time within the organisation, when it relates to facts or events these witnesses directly observed. The records of intercepted radio communications are also of significance in order to establish certain dynamics within the LRA at the relevant time.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 301/1077 4 February 2021

text: At the time relevant for the charges, i.e. from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, the LRA had a hierarchical structure. Joseph Kony was the highest authority in the LRA. During the time period relevant for the charges, his deputy was Vincent Otti, who led a headquarters unit called Control Altar. Further, the LRA was divided into four brigades: Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle. From 2003, there was also a division called Jogo. The brigades were divided into battalions and further into companies or ‘coys’. Each of these

text: units was led by a commander.

text: It is agreed between the parties that Joseph Kony was ‘in charge’ of the LRA between 1

text: 1570 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. Witnesses with knowledge of the internal structure

text: 1571 1572 of the LRA refer to his position as ‘overall leader’, ‘overall commander’, ‘chief

text: 1573 1574 1575 commander’, ‘chairman’, or to him being ‘like the president of the LRA’.

text: Insider witnesses testified that Vincent Otti was Joseph Kony’s deputy at the relevant

text: 1576 time. P-0070 further explained that Vincent Otti was in Control Altar, which was ‘the

text: high command’ with several departments, of which P-0070 could recall the support

text: department, a ‘Yard’ department, an elders group, a religious affairs group, a medical

text: 1577 group and the group of signallers. P-0144 defined ‘Yard’ as ‘a place to hold

text: 1578 ceremonies, prayers’. P-0070 further stated that Nyeko Tolbert Yadin was an army

text: commander in Control Altar, and that Raska Lukwiya was a brigade general, also in

text: 1579 Control Altar.

text: Other witnesses provided essentially compatible definitions of Control Altar as the

text: 1580 1581 ‘overall group’ and headquarters of the LRA. P-0209 defined Control Altar as ‘the

text: 1582 big group where most senior commanders are’. P-0231 corroborated the fact that

text: 1569 Para. 123 above. For ease of reference, the findings of fact serving as headings in this evidentiary analysis include a footnote directing to the corresponding paragraph of the findings of fact in section III above. 1570 Agreed Fact, A8. 1571 P-0054: T-94, p. 6, lines 21-23; P-0209: T-161, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 2; P-0379: T-58, p. 45, lines 4-8. 1572 P-0070: T-105, p. 56, lines 6-11; P-0440: T-39, p. 75, lines 5-8. 1573 P-0264: T-65, p. 73, lines 3-7. 1574 D-0074: T-187, p. 40, lines 22-24. 1575 P-0264: T-65, p. 73, lines 3-7. See also P-0070: T-105, p. 56, lines 12-15. 1576 P-0070: T-105, p. 56, line 20 – p. 57, line 2; P-0085: T-158, p. 27, lines 9-11; P-0138: T-120, p. 13, lines 18- 21; P-0205: T-48, p. 20, lines 4-6; P-0209: T-161, p. 21, lines 5-7. The Chamber notes that evidence indicates that at some point after the period relevant to the charges, Vincent Otti was killed on the orders of Joseph Kony, see para. 2613 below. 1577 P-0070: T-105, p. 57, line 12 – p. 59, line 3. 1578 P-0144: T-92, p. 19, lines 8-16. See also P-0054: T-94, p. 4, lines 12-15; P-0231: T-123, p. 31, lines 5-9; P- 0264: T-66, p. 31, lines 11-15. 1579 P-0070: T-105, p. 59, lines 11-21. 1580 P-0440: T-39, p. 68, lines 1-4. 1581 P-0138: T-120, p. 13, lines 22-23; P-0144: T-91-CONF, p. 15, lines 7-8. 1582 P-0209: T-160, p. 9, lines 7-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 302/1077 4 February 2021 during the period relevant to the charges Control Altar was within the domain of Vincent

text: Otti.

text: The principal unit in the LRA hierarchy was the brigade, of which there were four,

text: referred to as Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle. It is noted that according to P-0070

text: and Ray Apire, Trinkle brigade was responsible for providing security to Control Altar

text: and Joseph Kony.

text: Brigades were headed by a brigade commander, and there was also a brigade second-in-

text: command (2IC). According to an intercepted radio message of 20 September 2002,

text: the brigade commander of Sinia at the time was Buk Abudema, of Stockree Charles

text: Tabuley, of Gilva Ocan Bunia, and of Trinkle Okot Odhiambo. Changes to the

text: individuals who held the position of brigade commander in the context of Sinia brigade

text: are discussed in more detail further below.

text: P-0070 testified that initially, each brigade had two commanders of equal rank, but that

text: with the creation of the division, this was reduced to one. At another point in his

text: testimony, he indicated that Stockree brigade had switched from two commanders to one

text: already at the time of Iron Fist. Charles Lokwiya testified that at the time when he

text: went to Soroti in 2003, Stockree brigade had ‘Tabuley as a commander, and Okullu’.

text: 1583 P-0231: T-122, p. 46, lines 16-17. 1584 P-0070: T-105, p. 57, lines 3-6, p. 60, lines 6-12; P-0085: T-158, p. 20, lines 13-18. The four-brigade structure is also revealed in some intercepted radio messages, such as in the list of radio call signs recorded in the ISO logbook on 4 December 2002 (ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0083-84. The Chamber notes that the date for this specific entry in the logbook is not legible. However, the Chamber considers it likely that this conversation was intercepted on 4 December 2002. This is based on the fact that the entries preceding the relevant excerpt are dated 3 December 2002, with tape number 593A and B, recorded at 08:00 and 11:00 (at 0079, 0081), while the following entry still under tape reference 593B is recorded on 5 December 2002 at 09:00 (at 0085). Indeed, the entry with the same tape and time reference, as well as reproducing the same content, in the ISO Logbook (Kampala), UGA-OTP-0066-0201, at 0261, is recorded under the date of 4 December 2002.), and in the schedule of commanders transmitted on 20 September 2002 (ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0166-67). 1585 P-0070: T-105, p. 60, lines 6-12; P-0172: T-114, p. 3, lines 17-21. 1586 This structure is clearly visible from an intercepted radio communication dated 20 September 2002; see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0167. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. See also P-0085: T-158, p. 24, line 16 – p. 25, line 6; P-0205: T-48, p. 51, lines 5-10. 1587 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0167. The same source also gives the names of the brigade 2IC’s: Lapanyikwara (Sinia), Okulu Ben (Stockree), John Lagoga (Gilva) and Opiro Livingstone (Trinkle). 1588 See section IV.C.2.i below. 1589 P-0070: T-105, p. 62, lines 3-14. 1590 P-0070: T-105, p. 64, lines 18-25. 1591 D-0134: T-240, p. 53, line 23 – p. 54, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 303/1077 4 February 2021

text: A similar testimony was provided by P-0016, who stated that he was told brigades within

text: 1592 the LRA had two brigade commanders that were working together. On the other hand,

text: when asked whether each brigade had one or two commanders at the time of the LRA’s

text: re-entry into Uganda, P-0145 stated that there was one brigade commander in each

text: 1593 brigade. Kenneth Oyet testified that there were two brigade commanders per brigade

text: 1594 at the time of Iron Fist, but added that one was superior to the other. These testimonies,

text: given by witnesses who were questioned specifically on the matter, are not univocal.

text: Overall, the Chamber considers that the evidence discussed above, which demonstrates

text: that each brigade had one commander and one second-in-command, is not undermined

text: by the evidence of witnesses who testified about the presence of two commanders

text: simultaneously in each brigade also during the period of the charges. Specifically, the

text: Chamber also emphasises that as to the period and the events relevant for the charges,

text: there is no evidence that Dominic Ongwen’s authority as Sinia brigade commander was

text: 1595 shared with another person.

text: P-0070 testified that a brigade commander had departments, such as the operation room

text: 1596 and intelligence. As the charges in the present case focus on the Sinia brigade, the

text: organisation of that particular brigade as well as Dominic Ongwen’s positions during the

text: relevant period first as battalion commander and later as brigade commander in Sinia are

text: 1597 analysed in more detail below.

text: 1598 Brigades were divided into battalions. The evidence indicates that the number of

text: 1599 battalions fluctuated in the range of between two and four per brigade. Battalions were

text: 1600 headed by a commander, commonly referred to as ‘CO’. The evidence also indicates

text: 1592 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 71, line 25 – p. 73, line 17. 1593 P-0145: T-144, p. 11, line 24 – p. 12, line 2. 1594 D-0026: T-191, p. 35, lines 4-21. 1595 See paras 1075-1083 below. See also para. 890. 1596 P-0070: T-105, p. 61, line 15 – p. 62, line 2. 1597 See section IV.C.3 below. 1598 P-0070: T-105, p. 60, lines 13-14; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0166-67. 1599 P-0070: T-105, p. 60, line 22 – p. 61, line 1 (indicating that, initially, there were three battalions per brigade, which was increased to four at some point in 2003 and reduced back to three sometime thereafter); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0167 (radio communication intercept dated 20 September 2002, indicating four battalion commanders per brigade); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0414-15 (radio communication intercept dated 17 September 2003, indicating two battalion commanders per brigade). The communication of 17 September 2003 can also be found in the UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0992-94. 1600 P-0205: T-48, p. 20, lines 17-19. See also as examples of specific references to battalion commanders, P- 0054: T-94, p. 22, lines 5-8; P-0070: T-105, p. 64, lines 2-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 304/1077 4 February 2021 that battalions were still further divided in companies, commonly referred to as ‘coys’,

text: 1601 again under the control of a designated commander.

text: As to the division, P-0070 explained that it went by the name of ‘Jogo’, and that it was

text: created in 2003 because ‘it was realised that LRA has many soldiers’ and ‘because in the

text: 1602 army when there is a brigade then there also has to be a division’. This fact is also

text: corroborated by the intercepted communication recorded in the ISO logbook on 17

text: 1603 September 2003. According to P-0070, the division commander ‘was in charge of all

text: 1604 the brigades’ and was ‘second-in-command after Control Altar’. He also stated that

text: Charles Tabuley was the commander when the division was created, and that after

text: Charles Tabuley’s death in late 2003, Raska Lukwiya and then Buk Abudema held this

text: 1605 post.

text: LRA soldiers also carried ranks, as demonstrated by the testimonies of a number of

text: 1606 witnesses.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence argued that the LRA was ‘not a conventional

text: 1607 army’ and had a ‘highly irregular structure’ in which only Joseph Kony exercised

text: 1608 effective control. However, irrespective of what the initial or claimed origin of any

text: orders within the organisation may have been, the evidence outlined above and below

text: clearly shows that the LRA exhibited an established functioning structure which operated

text: across hierarchically built units.

text: 1601 P-0205: T-48, p. 20, lines 20-21, p. 53, lines 2-23; P-0070: T-105, p. 61, lines 11-14; P-0379: T-57, p. 68, line 21 – p. 69, line 9. See also P-0054: T-93, p. 31, lines 6-8. See also as examples of specific references to coy commanders, P-0205: T-47, p. 39, line 25 – p. 40, line 3; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 59, lines 14-17. 1602 P-0070: T-105, p. 57, lines 7-11, p. 62, lines 15-17. 1603 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0413. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 0992. 1604 P-0070: T-105, p. 62, lines 18-20. 1605 P-0070: T-105, p. 62, line 21 – p. 63, line 20. See also P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 29, lines 18-20; P-0205: T- 47, p. 36, lines 13-15; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0413 (mentioning Tabuley as new division commander); UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0992 (mentioning Tabuley as new division commander); UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6138 (mentioning Tabuley as division commander). In relation to the death of Tabuley, see para. 1076 below. 1606 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 18, lines 1-3; P-0054: T-93, p. 13, lines 4-5; T-94, p. 7, line 13 – p. 8, line 7; P-0142: T-70, p. 17, lines 3-6; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 11, lines 6-10; P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 68, line 25 – p. 69, line 1. 1607 Defence Closing Brief, para. 22. See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 23. 1608 Defence Closing Brief, para. 164.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 305/1077 4 February 2021

text: Finally in this context, the Chamber notes that witness testimonies have indicated that

text: movement of people from one unit to another, including between brigades, was a

text: 1609 relatively common occurrence in the LRA.

text: Orders were generally communicated from Joseph Kony directly or through Vincent Otti to the brigade commanders, who communicated them to the battalion commanders, who in turn passed them to their subordinates. Joseph Kony’s orders were generally complied with. At the same time, in particular when Joseph Kony was geographically removed from LRA units, brigade and battalion commanders took their own initiatives. This was regularly the case during the period of the charges, when Joseph Kony was in Sudan

text: while various LRA units operated in Northern Uganda.

text: Insider witnesses agreed that, in principle, orders in the LRA originated from Joseph

text: 1611 Kony. P-0070 stated that Joseph Kony could give orders via radio directly to all units,

text: 1612 or through Vincent Otti, his second-in-command. In such cases, Vincent Otti passed

text: 1613 the orders down to the brigade commanders. P-0205 similarly testified that there were

text: a number of ways in which Joseph Kony issued orders: on some occasions, he convened

text: 1614 everybody and issued an order directly, otherwise, he only convened the senior

text: 1615 commanders or gave the order to a specific person. The witness described a standard

text: procedure for military orders, by which Joseph Kony issued the order to his second-incommand Vincent Otti, from whom the orders were passed down to brigade, battalion

text: 1616 and company commanders.

text: Daniel Opiyo similarly testified that there were ‘two different ways communication

text: 1617 would move’. In Sudan, Joseph Kony would summon the brigade commanders and

text: hold a meeting, after which some of the information would trickle down to the lower

text: 1618 ranking officers. In Uganda, when Vincent Otti was the highest ranking officer,

text: information would go from Joseph Kony to Vincent Otti, through a signaller or

text: 1609 P-0054: T-93, p. 9, line 23 – p. 10, line 3, p. 12, line 20 – p. 13, line 3; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 10, line 17 – p. 11, line 2; P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 29, lines 15-17; P-0264: T-65, p. 78, lines 16-24. 1610 Para. 124 above. 1611 P-0070: T-105, p. 79, lines 23-25; P-0142: T-71, p. 28, lines 14-16; P-0205: T-48, p. 19, lines 3-4; P-0231: T- 123, p. 28, lines 15-24. 1612 P-0070: T-105, p. 80, lines 1-7. 1613 P-0070: T-105, p. 80, lines 8-17. 1614 P-0205: T-48, p. 19, lines 5-9, 23-25. 1615 P-0205: T-48, p. 19, lines 9-13. 1616 P-0205: T-48, p. 19, line 9 – p. 20, line 21. 1617 D-0056: T-229, p. 37, line 18 – p. 38, line 11. 1618 D-0056: T-229, p. 38, lines 12-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 306/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1619 directly. However, if Joseph Kony wanted a message to go to a brigade commander directly, he could do that, and the brigade commander would then assign tasks down the 1620 hierarchy.

text: P-0070 observed generally that in the LRA, ‘there was no strict following of the chain of 1621 command’. More specifically, P-0205 testified that occasionally Joseph Kony would 1622 bypass the hierarchy and issue orders directly to battalion commanders. P-0016 also stated that Joseph Kony could choose to give orders directly to the battalion commanders, and clarified that Joseph Kony could not directly approach platoon commanders because 1623 they did not have radio communication equipment. P-0070’s testimony also indicates 1624 that Joseph Kony did not give orders to persons lower than battalion commanders. Similar testimony was provided by D-0027, who stated that Joseph Kony could issue direct orders to a splinter group if that group had a radio device, but otherwise had to go 1625 through the brigade commander.

text: The Chamber considers that the terms in which witnesses have spoken of Joseph Kony issuing orders directly to brigade or battalion commanders indicates that these were occasional deviations from an otherwise effective hierarchical organisation. Indeed, these same witnesses are also among the main witnesses who testified about the hierarchical organisation of the LRA. Their testimonies, laid out in appropriate detail above, indicate that the witnesses perceived the LRA hierarchy to be effective. Accordingly, what is at hand is not a contradiction in the evidence, but a precise and nuanced description of the LRA as an organisation.

text: 1626 While this is also an issue explored below in the context of duress, the Chamber notes that several insider witnesses explained how Joseph Kony’s orders were received and implemented.

text: 1619 D-0056: T-229, p. 38, lines 16-19. 1620 D-0056: T-229, p. 38, lines 19-22. 1621 P-0070: T-107, p. 34, lines 11-17. 1622 P-0205: T-49, p. 54, line 20 – p. 55, line 21. 1623 P-0016: T-34, p. 86, lines 5-23. 1624 P-0070: T-107, p. 34, lines 1-4. 1625 D-0027: T-202, p. 27, lines 3-13. 1626 See section IV.D.2.ii below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 307/1077 4 February 2021

text: In this regard, P-0440 stated, in response to the question whether subordinate

text: commanders obeyed Joseph Kony’s order to stop abductions, that ‘some people could 1627 violate the orders’. He testified that some commanders ‘like Onen Unita and Odongo’

text: disobeyed Joseph Kony’s orders, assigning tasks to others rather than going on mission

text: 1628 themselves, and that Joseph Kony complained about them and called them lazy. P-

text: 0440 explained that commanders would also make up excuses not to go on mission, such 1629 as pretending to be ill. Conversely, the witness named Dominic Ongwen and 1630 Odhiambo as commanders who obeyed Joseph Kony’s orders. Whereas this

text: distinction made by P-0440 between obedient and disobedient commanders appears

text: based on reputation rather than personal knowledge of facts – in particular noting that,

text: as discussed just below, Dominic Ongwen would not always execute orders from above –, it is nonetheless indicative of the fact that the high commanders of the LRA had a

text: considerable degree of choice and independence.

text: In addition, many of Joseph Kony’s orders were general, such as orders to conduct attacks,

text: 1631 or to abduct. For much of the relevant period of the charges, Joseph Kony was also in

text: Sudan, while LRA units were in Uganda, communicating mostly by radio and in person 1632 only during occasional visits from the units operating in Uganda. As a result, it fell

text: upon the commanders closer to the units on the ground to translate these general orders 1633 into concrete acts. This necessitated that the commanders display a considerable degree of initiative. Daniel Opiyo’s testimony is illustrative in this regard. Asked

text: specifically about Dominic Ongwen, he stated that Dominic Ongwen ‘would not just

text: engage in something without being sure’, that if there was an order from his senior,

text: Dominic Ongwen ‘would sit down with his officers and they would assess’, and that

text: 1627 P-0440: T-39, p. 84, lines 10-14. 1628 P-0440: T-40, p. 4, line 17 – p. 5, line 12. 1629 P-0440: T-40, p. 6, line 18 – p. 7, line 9. 1630 P-0440: T-40, p. 3, line 21 – p. 4, line 13. 1631 See the discussion of Joseph Kony’s orders in section IV.C.4III.D below. See also sections IV.C.11.ii and IV.C.12.ii below. 1632 See P-0070: T-105, p. 81, line 24 – p. 82, line 1; P-0205: T-48, p. 5, lines 1-4; P-0233: T-111, p. 26, lines 6- 14; P-0314: T-75, p. 56, lines 19-24; P-0372: T-149, p. 51, lines 16-25. See also P-0138: T-121, p. 30, line 14 – p. 31, line 7. 1633 P-0205’s testimony indicates that a similar relationship could also exist at brigade and battalion levels. P-0205 testified about a specific gathering at Koyo, during which Dominic Ongwen instructed the LRA soldiers subordinate to him to ‘attack’, but did not give specifics on the targets to be selected, and instead stated that, as reported by P-0205: ‘[W]henever you get the opportunity to make an attack or to stage an ambush, you should do so when you think you can do it, if you feel capable of doing it’, P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 13, line 17 – p. 14, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 308/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1634 Dominic Ongwen would only act if he knew he could accomplish the objective. Intercepted radio communications also demonstrate that attacks were typically reported 1635 to Joseph Kony only after they had already been carried out. In light of this evidence, which is more specific and/or coming largely from well-informed high-level insiders, the Chamber does not accept the general evidence of Simon Tabo to the effect that Joseph Kony did not give blanket authorisations, but only specific instructions to attack specific locations, and that carrying out an operation without authorisation by Joseph Kony would 1636 be punished by execution.

text: In sum, the Chamber finds that the LRA had a functioning hierarchy, but that it relied also on the independent actions and initiatives of commanders at division, brigade and battalion levels. For the organisation to operate and sustain itself, coordinated action by its leadership, including the brigade and battalion commanders, was necessary. In other words, the LRA was a collective project, and the Chamber does not accept the proposition of the Defence that the LRA should be equated with Joseph Kony alone, and all its actions 1637 attributed only to him.

text: The LRA had at its disposal weapons and ammunition for use in military operations. It regularly seized weapons from the UPDF during combat. It also obtained weapons and other supplies from Sudan. The LRA supplied itself with food, medicines and other items of use by looting from civilians in Northern Uganda, in particular from IDP camps. The LRA relied on high-frequency radio as the principal mode of communication between

text: units in various locations in Northern Uganda and Sudan.

text: The evidence indicates that the LRA possessed personal firearms which it distributed 1639 among its soldiers. It also possessed other kinds of weapons, including heavy

text: 1634 D-0056: T-229, p. 33, line 17 – p. 34, line 9. 1635 See sections IV.C.5, IV.C.8.v, IV.C.9.v below. 1636 D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 34. 1637 Defence Closing Brief, paras 6, 30, 164, 174, 202, 466, 501. See also Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 20, line 20 – p. 22, lines 21. 1638 Para. 125 above. 1639 P-0309: T-60, p. 53, line 22 – p. 54, line 12, p. 77, lines 10-21. See also paras 942-945 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 309/1077 4 February 2021 weapons, such as PKM machine guns, RPG, recoilless, SPG-9, 12.7 and 60 mm

text: 1640 1641

text: mortars. Grenades were also available.

text: There are also numerous references in the evidence before the Chamber to the LRA

text: obtaining weapons from adversaries during combat. P-0205 testified about a specific

text: order by Dominic Ongwen, as brigade commander, to engage in attacks on places where

text: ammunition and weapons could be found. There are numerous reports in records of

text: intercepted communications of LRA units seizing weapons, as well as uniforms and

text: boots. Indicative is also the entry in the ISO logbook on 21 September 2003, which

text: records Joseph Kony instructing Vincent Otti to order that ammunition be replenished by

text: taking it from the UPDF.

text: 1640 P-0070: T-105-CONF, p. 55, lines 8-16 (identifying a 12.7 and an SPG-9 on a photograph shown in the courtroom: Photo compilation, UGA-OTP-0028-0073, at 0082); P-0142: T-70, p. 13, lines 6-10 (mentioning grenades, RPG, SPG-9, SMG and B-10); P-0144: T-91, p. 30, lines 15-18 (mentioning SMG, PKM machine gun, RPG, recoilless, SPG-9, 12.7 and 60 mm mortar); P-0264: T-64, p. 67, lines 15-18 (referring to ‘PK, RPG, mortar, B10 and SPG9’). 1641 P-0142: T-70, p. 13, lines 5-8. 1642 P-0205: T-47, p. 29, lines 19-25; P-0309: T-61, p. 28, lines 17-20. See also paras 1380, 1382, 1710 below. 1643 P-0205: T-47, p. 41, lines 9-13. 1644 See, for example, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194 at 0209, 0211, 0213, 0217, 0219, 0230, 0236, 0238, 0249 (see Chamber’s discussion on the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks, para. 666 above); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0147, 0168, 0175, 0191, 0200, 0209, 0238, 0244, 0299, 0302 (see also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0596, 0602-03, 0630, 0641-42, 0675, 0683-84; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6358, 6367-68, 6377, 6405; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 6018, at 6022); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0169-70 (see also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0254-1077, at 1194; Police Notes, UGA-OTP-0151-0021, at 0021-22). 1645 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0442. The Chamber notes that this detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0441 (Michael reporting on entering UPDF ambush on Bobi road on 17 September, capturing one UPDF soldier called Okot from Pabo alive, with list of items taken; Kony recorded as being ‘very happy’) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1006 (Michael reporting on clash with UPDF in Bobi on 17 September, capturing one UPDF soldier called Okot from Pabbo alive, with same list of items taken; Kony recorded as being ‘very happy’) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA- OTP-0242-6018, at 6140 (Michael reporting on entering UPDF ambush on Pabo road on 17 September, capturing one UPDF soldier called Okot from Pabbo alive, with same list of items taken; Kony recorded as congratulating Michael ‘with great happiness’) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2030-31 (Michael reporting on clash with UPDF at Bobi on 17 September, capturing one UPDF soldier called Okot from Pabbo alive)); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0441-42 (Kony telling Otti he wants LRA ‘to start killing seriously, right from Soroti up to Atyka (Acholi), mercilessly, as if LRA are going to finish pple’) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1006 (Kony instructing Otti to ‘refragment LRA rebels in all corners for havocs’ and ‘kill very many civs’) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6140-41 (Kony telling Otti should ‘begin serious operations starting from Soroti district to Gulu district without mercy’) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2031 (Kony telling Otti to issue orders to all units to start ‘serious heavy atrocities against the civilians starting fm Soroti to Atiak areas’)). Bearing this in mind, as well as the fact that the entries are overall less detailed, the Chamber consider its appropriate to refer to this particular detail of the radio communication as recorded by ISO.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 310/1077 4 February 2021

text: In addition, the LRA received significant support from Sudan. The historical context of

text: this support, which was at its most intense in the mid- to late 1990s, is briefly laid out

text: above. However, the evidence indicates that even after Operation Iron Fist, there were

text: LRA units based in Sudan, including an LRA armoury. There is consistent witness

text: evidence to the effect that the Government of Sudan provided weapons, as well as

text: 1648 1649 1650 1651

text: ammunition and uniforms, to the LRA. P-0085, P-0144, P-0231, D-0006,

text: 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656

text: D-0013, Joseph Okilan, Francis Okot, D-0032, Kenneth Oyet, Daniel

text: 1657 1658

text: Opiyo, and Acama Jackson are among the witnesses who testified to this effect.

text: P-0410 testified specifically that the heavy weapons brought from Sudan were used in

text: the attacks on Odek and Lukodi IDP camps. Several witnesses mentioned that the

text: Government of Sudan also trained LRA fighters in the use of heavy weapons. In

text: addition to weapons, a number of witnesses stated that the Government of Sudan

text: provided food and medicine to the LRA. There is also evidence that in some cases

text: LRA members received medical treatment at hospitals in Juba and Khartoum. Daniel

text: Opiyo explained that even after Operation Iron Fist assistance to the LRA continued, and

text: that some LRA remained in Sudan. Finally, the Chamber notes that there is evidence

text: 1646 See section I.A above. 1647 P-0205: T-48, p. 34, lines 5-13; P-0138: T-121, p. 27, lines 13-18 (stating that they frequently went to Sudan from Uganda to collect ammunition). 1648 P-0085: T-158, p. 19, lines 5-13. It is noted that P-0085 stated that he saw, on one occasion, how the weapons were brought. 1649 P-0144: T-91, p. 14, lines 8-14. 1650 P-0231: T-123-CONF, p. 59, line 6 – p. 60, line 3. 1651 D-0006: T-194, p. 39, lines 4-5. 1652 D-0013: T-244, p. 28, lines 22-25. 1653 D-0019: T-236, p. 14, lines 10-21. 1654 D-0024: T-192, p. 9, line 21. 1655 D-0032: T-199, p. 42, lines 12-17. 1656 D-0026: T-191, p. 13, lines 6-10. 1657 D-0056: T-228, p. 28, lines 14-16. 1658 D-0074: T-187, p. 29, lines 20-23. 1659 P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 12-15, p. 64, lines 13-17. 1660 D-0019: T-236, p. 25, lines 17-19; D-0056: T-228, p. 27, line 18 – p. 28, line 11; D-0074: T-187, p. 30, lines 5-19. 1661 P-0172: T-114, p. 18, lines 18-19; P-0231: T-123-CONF, p. 59, line 6 – p. 60, line 3; P-0233: T-112, p. 35, line 25 – p. 36, line 12; D-0006: T-194, p. 38, line 22 – p. 39, line 3; D-0019: T-236, p. 25, lines 4-8; D-0056: T- 228, p. 28, lines 12-17; D-0068: T-222, p. 32, lines 8-17; D-0074: T-187, p. 29, line 24 – p. 30, line 1. 1662 D-0026: T-191, p. 17, line 6 – p. 18, line 15; D-0056: T-228, p. 28, lines 17-22. See also D-0006: T-194, p. 39, lines 4-10. This evidence, however, does not indicate that professional medical care was generally available. See also para. 1009 below. 1663 D-0056: T-228, p. 29, lines 15-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 311/1077 4 February 2021 that before the time of the charges, the LRA received some support from the Government 1664 of Kenya.

text: There is considerable evidence of the LRA engaging, in a systematic manner, in looting from civilians in order to obtain food, medicines and other items of use. P-0070 stated generally that the LRA obtained food and livestock from IDP camps, or from the fields 1665 left behind by civilians. P-0379 testified that food, in particular beans, goats, chicken and cattle, was looted from civilians, and that ‘[t]here was no other way other than getting 1666 the items from the civilians’. It is also notable that P-0379, when asked about any instructions before a specific attack, stated that ‘[w]e were instructed that we were going on a mission to the centre, but we were not told not to abduct, but you knew that when 1667 you go on mission, abduction is part of the mission, looting is part of the mission’. There is further corroboration of this evidence by P-0406, who testified that the LRA 1668 took food, including goats, chicken and cattle, from civilians. He further stated that 1669 items other than food, such as gumboots or jackets, were also taken from civilians. P- 0314 testified that orders to pillage were given to obtain food for the LRA fighters, and 1670 that for this purpose, camps or vehicles were attacked. P-0307 is another witness who testified that the LRA used to supply itself with food by looting, in particular from IDP 1671 camps. This topic is explored in further detail in the Chamber’s evidentiary analysis 1672 concerning the four attacks relevant to the charges.

text: Turning to communications, the Chamber refers to its analysis above of the evidence on 1673 intercepted radio communications. The evidence discussed there conclusively establishes that high-frequency radio was the principal mode of communication in the LRA.

text: As stated by witnesses, and demonstrated by the records of intercepts, in particular comprehensive series of logbooks, radio communication took place consistently and

text: 1664 D-0032: T-199, p. 42, lines 24-25. 1665 P-0070: T-105, p. 79, lines 10-19; T-106, p. 24, lines 4-12. 1666 P-0379: T-56, p. 25, lines 12-16. 1667 P-0379: T-56, p. 49, lines 2-6. See also P-0379: T-57, p. 36, lines 3-12. 1668 P-0406: T-154, p. 79, lines 15-20. 1669 P-0406: T-154, p. 79, line 21 – p. 80, line 6. 1670 P-0314: T-74, p. 59, lines 10-18. 1671 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 25; T-152, p. 65, line 24 – p. 66, line 10. 1672 See sections IV.C.6.iii, IV.C.7.vi, IV.C.8.iv, IV.C.9.iv below. 1673 See section IV.B.3.i above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 312/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1674 methodically several times a day. As explained above, a code system was used to

text: 1675 increase security. Solar energy was used to power the radios, using equipment

text: 1676 obtained through looting. Notably, the radio communications system used by the

text: LRA made possible the exchange of messages between LRA units around Northern

text: 1677 Uganda and in Sudan.

text: P-0016 and P-0264 testified that radios were available in the LRA from the battalion

text: 1678 level and upwards. P-0440 stated that radios were only systematically available from

text: brigade level and upwards, but not usually below brigade level, unless there was a

text: 1679 specific mission for which the commander was given a radio. This evidence is not

text: necessarily contradictory, and the Chamber in any case considers that it suffices to

text: conclude, on the basis of the witness testimonies, that access to radio equipment below

text: brigade level was limited.

text: 1680 There were designated radio operators, or signallers. However, as explained by P-

text: 1681 0205, commanders spoke on the radio in person too. P-0101 testified that she saw

text: 1682 Dominic Ongwen operate the radio by himself to communicate.

text: In addition to the long-range radio communication system, there is also evidence that the

text: 1683 LRA used walkie-talkies.

text: 1674 P-0070: T-105, p. 83, line 14 – p. 84, line 1; P-0379: T-57, p. 64, lines 12-17; P-0440: T-40, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 5; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0103. See also generally the logbooks listed at paras 659-660 above. 1675 See para. 616 above. 1676 P-0440: T-39, p. 75, line 23 – p. 76, line 4. 1677 P-0016: T-32, p. 21, lines 12-20. See also P-0372: T-149, p. 51, lines 16-25 (stating that when Joseph Kony was in Sudan, he communicated with the units in Uganda by radio). 1678 P-0016: T-32, p. 20, lines 11-16; P-0264: T-65, p. 18, lines 6-8. 1679 P-0440: T-40, p. 7, lines 16-24. 1680 P-0016: T-32, p. 20, lines 4-10; P-0070: T-105, p. 84, lines 2-5; P-0205: T-48, p. 55, lines 10-20; P-0264: T- 65, p. 18, lines 9-10. 1681 P-0205: T-48, p. 55, lines 21-23. 1682 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 38, lines 18-24. 1683 P-0016: T-35-CONF, p. 16, line 21 – p. 17, line 14; P-0070: T-105, p. 83, lines 1-11; P-0252: T-88, p. 7, lines 17-25; P-0144: T-91, p. 31, line 19 – p. 32, line 19; P-0045: T-104-CONF, p. 68, line 24 – p. 69, line 8; P-0067: T-126, p. 11, lines 1-14, p. 46, lines 5-11; P-0264: T-64, p. 47, lines 10-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 313/1077 4 February 2021

text: Organisational features of the Sinia brigade

text: The following section explores in detail some organisational features of the Sinia brigade.

text: It commences with a description of the structure itself, before focusing on the various

text: mechanisms employed in the Sinia brigade to ensure effectiveness of the organisation

text: and – in essence – compliance with orders. As laid out further below, Dominic Ongwen

text: 1684 held commanding positions in Sinia during the period relevant to the charges. Indeed,

text: 1685 the charges in this case focus primarily on Sinia. However, on the basis of the

text: evidence it can be stated that Sinia was a typical LRA brigade, and that the below

text: conclusions can also be drawn with respect to the LRA generally.

text: i. Structure and command

text: At the time relevant for the charges, i.e. from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, Sinia brigade was led by a brigade commander, who had at his disposal a headquarters unit, which included the brigade intelligence officer, the brigade major, and the support

text: commander.

text: Witness evidence indicates that from 2002, and until Dominic Ongwen took over the

text: 1687 position, Buk Abudema was Sinia brigade commander. This is confirmed by the ISO

text: 1688 logbook entries of intercepted communications for 20 September 2002, 2 December

text: 1689 1690 2002, and 17 September 2003, which indeed list Buk Abudema as Sinia brigade

text: commander.

text: Dominic Ongwen was officially appointed Sinia commander on 4 March 2004, as

text: discussed in detail below as part of the Chamber’s assessment of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 1691 position within the LRA.

text: 1684 See section IV.C.3 below. 1685 See also para. 12 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p.73). 1686 Para. 126 above. 1687 P-0085: T-158, p. 24, lines 22-23; P-0138: T-120, p. 38, lines 9-11; P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 29, lines 13-14; P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 5, lines 4-9. It is noted that at some point, P-0205 stated that Buk Abudema replaced Tabuley as brigade commander in 2003 (see P-0205: T-47, p. 21, lines 20-25). However, in light of all other evidence, the Chamber considers that this was simply an inaccurate recollection of the year by the witness. 1688 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0167. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. See also P-0085: T-158, p. 24, lines 22-24. 1689 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0079. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. See also P-0085: T-158, p. 24, lines 22-24. 1690 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0414. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. See also P-0085: T-158, p. 24, lines 22-24. 1691 See paras 1075-1077 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 314/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0205, a witness well-placed to describe the internal structure of the Sinia brigade, was

text: questioned on the matter. He described the Sinia brigade headquarters as including the

text: brigade commander, the brigade intelligence officer (BIO), the brigade major (BM), the

text: 1692 administrator and the support commander in charge of heavy weapons. These people

text: 1693 were assisted by persons assigned to support them. P-0205 also stated that there was

text: an operations room, the function of which was to receive orders from the brigade

text: 1694 commander and implement them. The operations room included the BIO, the BM, the

text: 1695 administrator, as well as the ‘RCM’, who was the officer who supervised foot soldiers.

text: 1696 Other witnesses also spoke of the headquarters unit in Sinia.

text: Sinia brigade was composed of three battalions: Oka, Terwanga and Siba. Each of these battalions was led by a battalion commander, who reported to the brigade commander,

text: and was composed of companies, or ‘coys’.

text: Insider witnesses stated consistently that Sinia included three battalions, and gave their

text: 1698 names as Oka, Terwanga and Siba. Each battalion was controlled by a battalion

text: 1699 commander, commonly referred to as ‘CO’.

text: In relation to the hierarchy under the battalion commander, P-0205 testified that

text: 1700 battalions also had a deputy commander (2IC), and that intelligence officers and

text: support commanders at battalion level reported to the brigade intelligence officer and the

text: 1701 brigade support commander, respectively. He further explained that the equivalent of

text: 1702 an administrator at battalion level was referred to as the adjutant. Similarly, Daniel

text: Opiyo testified that, at least at battalion level, the deputy commander and the intelligence

text: 1703 officer worked together in the operation room which the battalion had at its disposal.

text: 1692 P-0205: T-48, p. 51, lines 5-16. See also P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 11, lines 9-10. The Chamber notes that the witness was specifically asked about the composition of Sinia brigade headquarters in 2004-2005. 1693 P-0205: T-48, p. 51, lines 17-19. 1694 P-0205: T-48, p. 51, line 20 – p. 52, line 4. 1695 P-0205: T-48, p. 52, lines 5-12. See also P-0264: T-64, p. 69, lines 13-14. 1696 P-0054: T-93, p. 12, line 23 – p. 13, line 3; P-0231: T-123, p. 50, lines 2-5; P-0264: T-64, p. 38, lines 17-19. 1697 Para. 127 above. 1698 P-0054: T-93, p. 11, lines 8-13; P-0016: T-34, p. 8, lines 8-17; P-0142: T-70, p. 17, lines 11-16; P-0264: T- 64, p. 38, lines 17-19. See also P-0406: T-154, p. 33, lines 13-16. 1699 See P-0205: T-48, p. 52, lines 17-21. 1700 P-0205: T-48, p. 53, lines 13-15. 1701 P-0205: T-48, p. 53, line 24 – p. 54, line 13. See also P-0379: T-58, p. 56, line 7 – p. 58, line 1. 1702 P-0205: T-48, p. 52, line 22 – p. 53, line 1. 1703 D-0056: T-229, p. 12, lines 3-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 315/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0205 stated that the unit below battalion level was the ‘coy’ or company, and that each

text: coy was headed by an ‘OC’. He also stated that a battalion would typically have three

text: 1705 1706

text: companies. This evidence is confirmed by other witness testimonies.

text: In addition to Buk Abudema and Dominic Ongwen, the two successive brigade

text: commanders during the period of the charges, prominent members of Sinia who held

text: various positions during the period relevant to the charges were Kalalang, Lapaicho

text: 1708 1709 1710

text: (also Lapaico, Lapanyikwara or Paicho), Pokot, Celestino Akuri, Loum

text: 1711 1712 1713 1714

text: Icaya, , Okwer (also Okwee or Okwera), Ocaka, and Ben

text: Acellam. In light of certain submissions made by the Defence in relation to the attack

text: on Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004, the Chamber notes in particular that Ocan

text: 1704 P-0205: T-48, p. 53, lines 19-23. See also P-0205: T-48, p. 20, lines 20-21. 1705 P-0205: T-48, p. 54, lines 24-25. 1706 P-0070: T-105, p. 61, lines 11-14; P-0379: T-57, p. 68, line 21 – p. 69, line 2; D-0056: T-229, p. 11, lines 14- 18. 1707 P-0054: T-93, p. 11, line 24 – p. 12, line 5 (stating that Kalalang was Terwanga battalion commander at some point). 1708 P-0054: T-93, p. 11, line 24 – p. 12, line 1 (stating that Lapaicho was Terwanga battalion commander at the time of Operation Iron Fist); P-0264: T-64, p. 80, line 25 – p. 81, line 5. See also P-0264: T-64, p. 81, lines 9-25 (stating that at the time of his abduction in 2002, Lapaico was the commander of Terwanga); P-0406: T-154, p. 33, line 20 – p. 34, line 2 (stating that Paicho was Terwanga battalion commander at the time of Tabuley’s death). 1709 P-0205: T-49-CONF, p. 62, lines 7-10 (stating that Okello Pokot was Terwanga battalion commander at the time Dominic Ongwen was commander of the Sinia brigade). 1710 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 15, lines 19-21. See also P-0264: T-64, p. 82, lines 10-15 (stating that ‘Cele Akuri’ was Oka commander at some point). 1711 P-0205: T-47, p. 35, lines 11-18 (stating that Loum Icaya was Terwanga commander at the time of Tabuley’s death). 1712

text: 1713 P-0016: T-35, p. 36, lines 7-10 (stating that Okwer was an intelligence officer in Control Altar who was transferred to Sinia and later also to other brigades); P-0142: T-70-CONF, p. 21, lines 17-19 (referring to Okwee as the brigade intelligence officer of Sinia brigade); P-0205: T-47, p. 39, lines 5-10 (also stating that Okwer was brigade intelligence officer of Sinia brigade). 1714 P-0054: T-93-CONF, p. 12, line 20 – p. 13, line 20 (stating that Ocaka was a support commander in Sinia brigade); P-0016: T-35, p. 35, line 7 – p. 36, line 16 (stating that Ocaka was a lieutenant and later a captain in Sinia brigade); P-0142: T-70, p. 44, lines 19-25 (also stating that Ocaka was a captain in Sinia, specifically at the time of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp). 1715 P-0264: T-64, p. 83, lines 12-16 (stating that Ben Acellam was Oka commander after Celestino Akuri). 1716 P-0016: T-34, p. 62, line 2 – p. 63, line 7; P-0059: T-39, p. 29, lines 8-17; P-0440: T-41, p. 28, line 12 – p. 13, line 5; P-0003: T-45, p. 39, line 10 – p. 40, line 9; P-0205: T-51, p. 5, line 21 – p. 6, line 15; T-51-CONF, p. 30, line 1 – p. 31, line 24; P-0330: T-55, p. 43, lines 17-20; P-0309: T-63, p. 17, lines 13-14; P-0264: T-66, p. 68, line 18 – p. 69, line 18; P-0269: T-86, p. 64, line 23 – p. 65, line 14; P-0340: T-103, p. 53, line 17 – p. 54, line 14; P-0359: T-110, p. 48, line 9 – p. 50, line 7; P-0372: T-149, p. 77, lines 7-10. However, in its closing brief, it appears the Defence holds the view that at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen was as brigade commander superior to Ocan Labongo, see Defence Closing Brief, para. 377.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 316/1077 4 February 2021

text: Labongo is attested in the evidence as commander of Siba battalion. There is also an entry in the ISO logbook indicating that at the time of Dominic Ongwen’s appointment

text: to Sinia brigade commander, Ocan Labongo had been left as caretaker when Buk

text: Abudema departed for Sudan. P-0205 testified unequivocally that upon his

text: appointment to brigade commander of Sinia, Dominic Ongwen was hierarchically

text: superior to Ocan Labongo. There is no evidence that Ocan Labongo was, in particular

text: at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004, brigade commander of

text: Sinia individually or jointly with Dominic Ongwen.

text: Altogether, at the time relevant to the charges, between 1 July 2002 and 31 December

text: 2005, Sinia brigade included several hundred soldiers.

text: The Chamber received evidence on the approximate size of the Sinia brigade and its

text: battalions from several witnesses in a position to make informed estimates. P-0231

text: estimated the number of people in Sinia brigade at ‘about 700 to 800’, of which

text: ‘approximately 200 and over’ were in Oka battalion when he was there. P-0205

text: estimated that there were 120 men in Terwanga in 2004, and about 180 in Siba at the

text: 1723 1724

text: same time. In relation to Oka, P-0205 testified that there were about 100 men. P-

text: 0379 testified that, at the time he was in Oka battalion in 2002-2003, the battalion had

text: ‘perhaps more than 150 [men]’. More generally, P-0054 estimated that a brigade in

text: 1717 P-0205: T-47, p. 35, lines 11-18 (stating that Ocan Labongo was Siba commander at the time of Tabuley’s death); P-0264: T-64, p. 83, line 25 – p. 84, line 8; T-65, p. 78, lines 10-15 (also stating that Ocan Labongo was Siba commander). 1718 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002 at 0128. The intercepted message is Joseph Kony’s order to Dominic Ongwen to meet with Ocan Labongo for the handover. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0254-4143, at 4272; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7405. The Chamber notes that the UPDF Soroti logbook records Ben Acellam as being instructed to take over the command of Sinia brigade (see UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2556). However, in light of the other logbooks consistently referring to Dominic Ongwen, as well as the other evidence on Dominic Ongwen taking over the command of Sinia Brigade, the Chamber disregards this aspect of the UPDF Soroti logbook. See also Enhanced audio Tape 771, UGA-OTP- 0239-0085; P-0016 Tape 771 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0094; P-0016: T-32, p. 67, line 20 – p. 75, line 13; P- 0059 Tape 771 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0258-0782-R01; P-0059: T-37, p. 26, line 16 – p. 29, line 17. The Chamber notes its discussion of this particular audio tape at section IV.B.3.ii.i. 1719 P-0205: T-49, p. 46, line 25 – p. 47, line 9. P-0205 testified that after the attack on Abok IDP camp, Ocan Labongo was brought to the Sinia brigade headquarters and started working together with Dominic Ongwen; P- 0205: T-48, p. 3, line 24 – p. 4, line 2. The Chamber does not understand this particular testimony to be that Ocan Labongo and Dominic Ongwen were sharing the position of brigade commander. 1720 Para. 128 above. 1721 P-0231: T-122, p. 42, lines 12-17. The Chamber notes that P-0231 did not place any specific time frame on this estimate, but referred generally to when he was ‘in the bush’, which was a period from 1994-2007. See P- 0231: T-122-CONF, p. 27, lines 2-5, p. 30, lines 16-19. 1722 P-0231: T-122, p. 42, lines 5-11. 1723 P-0205: T-48, p. 28, lines 10-15. 1724 P-0205: T-48, p. 27, lines 16-21. 1725 P-0379: T-57, p. 37, lines 11-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 317/1077 4 February 2021 the LRA included from 500 people upwards, whereas a battalion was 50 to 100

text: people.

text: While actual numbers may in fact differ in the estimates provided by the different

text: witnesses at varying times, the Chamber considers that their approximations remain at a

text: coherent scale and that it can be concluded that at the relevant time the Sinia brigade was

text: composed of several hundred soldiers.

text: ii. Ways to ensure capability to undertake military operations

text: a. Recruitment through abduction

text: Sinia brigade obtained new fighters through abductions of civilians. These abductions

text: were targeted at civilians deemed capable for fighting, including young children.

text: During the course of the trial, the Chamber heard numerous personal stories of abduction

text: into the LRA by persons who came to testify as insiders. For the relevant time period,

text: there is no evidence of any recruitment system based on voluntary enlistment. Witnesses

text: also mentioned that they had no knowledge of anyone voluntarily joining the LRA. It

text: is an uncontested fact of the case that Dominic Ongwen himself was abducted into the

text: LRA as a child.

text: 1726 P-0054: T-94, p. 38, line 24 – p. 39, line 17. P-0054 was in the LRA from 1992-2005. P-0054: T-93, p. 8, lines 11-19, p. 10, line 24 – p. 11, line 2. 1727 Para. 129 above. 1728 See P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 9, lines 11-17; P-0054: T-93, p. 7, line 15 – p. 8, line 15; P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 8, lines 1-6; P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 27, lines 5-7; P-0016: T-32-CONF, p. 12, lines 19-21; P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 18-21; P-0097: T-108, p. 6, line 23 – p. 7, line 5; P-0138: T-120, p. 8, lines 2-8; P-0142: T-70, p. 9, lines 20-25; P-0144: T-91, p. 7, line 23 – p. 8, line 8; P-0145: T-143, p. 7, lines 8-14; P- 0209: T-160, p. 8, lines 9-17; P-0252: T-87, p. 9, line 25 – p. 10, line 5; P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 10, lines 11-18; P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 29-35; P-0280: T-83, p. 50, line 3 – p. 51, line 19; P- 0286: T-131, p. 10, line 14 – p. 12, line 16; P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 7, lines 12-17; P-0340: T-102, p. 10, lines 20-23; P-0372: T-148-CONF, p. 8, lines 4-7; P-0379: T-56-CONF, p. 7, lines 6-20; P-0406: T-154, p. 8, lines 15- 22; P-0440: T-39, p. 65, lines 12-25; P-0070: T-105-CONF, p. 40, lines 16-25; P-0085: T-158-CONF, p. 6, lines 19-24; P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at paras 14-16; P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 12, lines 14-24; P- 0410: T-151, p. 6, lines 18-25; P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0406-R01, at lines 562-582; P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18; P-0130 Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0272-R01, at paras 9-17; P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1698-R01, at lines 1130-57; D-0007: T-193, p. 5, line 15 – p. 6, line 6; D-0024: T-192, p. 5, lines 12-19; D-0026: T-191, p. 4, lines 8-22; D-0027: T-202, p. 10, lines 6-23; D- 0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 7-18; D-0079: T-189, p. 7, lines 18-21; D-0081: T-220, p. 23, line 19 – p. 24, line 18; D-0092: T-208, p. 7, lines 10-14; D-0134: T-240, p. 10, lines 17-23; D-0100: T-234, p. 9, lines 6-7; D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at paras 2-4; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0075-R01, at lines 508-35. 1729 P-0233: T-111, p. 49, lines 12-15; D-0024: T-192, p. 45, line 20. 1730 See section I.C above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 318/1077 4 February 2021

text: There is ample evidence of the LRA abducting persons in Northern Uganda, and of the integration of the abductees into the LRA as fighters. Although there is evidence of female LRA members participating in military training and operations, including 1731 combat, the evidence discussed below indicates that the role of fighter was primarily intended for male abductees. The phenomenon of abduction of women and girls, of great 1732 significance in this case, is discussed separately. Similarly, the Chamber will address at the relevant juncture below the phenomenon of abduction and recruitment into the 1733 LRA of children under the age of 15. While that specific evidence is also relevant in the present context, the Chamber focuses its analysis on the more general matter of abduction of civilians as a method through which the LRA obtained new recruits.

text: The evidence establishes that abduction of civilians for the purpose of increasing ranks was a long-standing policy of the LRA, including the Sinia brigade. A very succinct and clear description of this policy is contained in a radio communication intercepted by the ISO on 29 July 2002, wherein Joseph Kony is recorded as stating that the LRA will not stop abductions, because they were replacing those released, escaped or killed in the 1734 war.

text: P-0205 testified that, shortly after becoming commander of Sinia, Dominic Ongwen instructed the LRA soldiers going to attack an IDP camp that ‘if they found anybody who 1735 can participate in the army, then that person should be abducted’.

text: P-0231 testified very similarly, stating:

text: You know, at the time when we were in the bush during the period of abduction, as I stated earlier, even when you’re on the move, for example if we are leaving one location going across some road, at the time when people were still at home, before the camps were established, whoever you come across, whoever you think is able to fight you abduct that person. You abduct that person. And the abduction means an initiation into the army, starting from 10 or – if you estimate that the person is older, so anybody from between the ages of 10 to 30. But there are certain times when some operations are organised and you’re sent to collect food, you’re

text: 1731 P-0045 testified in detail about her experience as a female fighter in the LRA, in addition to being made a socalled ‘wife’, see P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 90, line 19 – p. 92, line 10. See also P-0252: T-87, p. 52, lines 4-5; P- 0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 67; P-0448: T-157, p. 24, line 17 – p. 25, line 5. 1732 See sections IV.C.10, IV.C.11 below. 1733 See section IV.C.12 below. 1734 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0331. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 1735 P-0205: T-47, p. 40, line 16 – p. 41, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 319/1077 4 February 2021 sent to fight, when you fight if you overran the soldiers, if you find anybody who is capable of joining the ranks of the LRA, that person is abducted and put in the 1736 LRA.

text: P-0379, speaking from his vantage point as a lower-ranking soldier, stated that during an operation, ‘it was automatic […] that whoever was fit to be in the bush, there was no

text: 1737 reservation about abducting such a person because that is part of the operation’. Asked to explain further, he stated:

text: What I know is that, personally, if, for instance, I entered into a house and I found food items, I would not carry that food item alone unless I get somebody to abduct. I would abduct that person to come and carry the food items. That person can – could be later released but for those who were within the age that could be kept would not be released. That was something that kept on happening over and over 1738 again. So that was part of the operation.

text: Asked still further what was ‘within the age that could be kept’, P-0379 indicated the

text: 1739 range from 10 up to about 20 to 25 years of age. He also stated that abductees who 1740 were not ‘useful’ were released.

text: Similar is the evidence of P-0307, who, from his experience of an ordinary Sinia soldier, observed:

text: [A]s a standard practice, each time we came across young people, we would abduct them and take them to the bush. We had to do this as we had to increase our numbers in the bush. So abducting new recruits was part of routine activities during attacks so that there was no need for any commander to order you to abduct because 1741 this was part of the job.

text: The Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0233, who observed that ‘in the bush when you have been selected to go and do something […], fighting and abduction go hand in

text: 1742 hand’.

text: One ISO logbook records a report given to Joseph Kony by LRA commander Lapanyikwara on 29 September 2002, where it was stated that in the period of 13 to 25

text: 1736 P-0231: T-122, p. 73, lines 11-21. 1737 P-0379: T-56, p. 45, lines 18-23. 1738 P-0379: T-56, p. 45, line 24 – p. 46, line 6. 1739 P-0379: T-56, p. 46, lines 7-9. 1740 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 36, lines 13-17. 1741 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 36. 1742 P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 11, lines 17-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 320/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1743 September 2002 Dominic Ongwen ‘charged’ 127 recruits. It is further recorded that

text: Joseph Kony was ‘very happy’ with Dominic Ongwen’s results, and told Lanyikwara to

text: ‘reduce on the rate of abduction because it might be a problem to handle them when the

text: 1744 [number] has become so big’. It is noted that Dominic Ongwen is recorded as

text: speaking during the conversation, and in particular as stating that his recruits have high 1745 morale and are disciplined.

text: Following abduction, abductees deemed suitable for recruitment were integrated into the

text: LRA. P-0205 stated that abductees were ‘distributed amongst the people’ according to the need, and that they could also be sent to the ‘commander in charge of that place’ or

text: 1746 to ‘the person who went to conduct the operation’. Thereafter, their training

text: 1747 commenced.

text: P-0231 also explained that following abduction, the abductee would initially stay with 1748 the specific unit that abducted him. According to this witness, it was following the 1749 training that a person could be transferred to another battalion or elsewhere.

text: Daniel Opiyo similarly stated that while in Uganda, an abducted person would stay with 1750 the unit that abducted that person. He distinguished the situation in Sudan and testified

text: that there all abductees would be gathered together and distributed, some to Joseph 1751 Kony’s household, and others to the various other households.

text: b. Initiation of recruits

text: Following their abduction, recruits generally passed through initiation rituals, most regularly including anointment with shea butter, intended to instil obedience and prevent

text: escape. Beating was also a common feature of such initiation.

text: In relation to the initiation rituals, the evidence before the Chamber establishes that, while

text: displaying variations and while not used in all cases, they were a stable feature of the

text: 1743 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0022. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 1744 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0022. 1745 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0022. 1746 P-0205: T-48, p. 31, line 23 – p. 32, line 5. 1747 P-0205: T-48, p. 31, line 23 – p. 32, line 5. 1748 P-0231: T-122, p. 45, lines 5-21. 1749 P-0231: T-122, p. 45, line 22 – p. 46, line 6. 1750 D-0056: T-229, p. 17, lines 1-5. 1751 D-0056: T-229, p. 17, lines 5-8. 1752 Para. 129 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 321/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA. The evidence, in particular the statements of witnesses who underwent initiation

text: rituals and testified of what they were told during such rituals, indicates that the LRA’s

text: 1753 initiation rituals were intended to instil obedience and prevent escape.

text: 1754 P-0252, who was still a child at that time, testified that the day after his abduction

text: during the attack on Odek, he passed through a ritual in the presence of Dominic Ongwen,

text: during which P-0252’s shirt was removed, and a substance (‘I don’t know what it is, but

text: it’s – they say it’s an oil’) was used to smear the sign of the cross on his forehead, chest,

text: knees, and the back of his legs; the witness was thereafter told that ‘when you want to

text: escape and flee, you will walk in circles and be confused. You will not be able to

text: 1755 escape.’ P-0252 also stated that he was beaten as part of the initiation process, and

text: told that the reason why they did that was ‘for you to become a soldier and to leave your

text: 1756 civilian life behind’.

text: Similarly, P-0307 testified that his initiation consisted of the rubbing of ‘some sort of oil’

text: on his forehead, and of caning, with the explanation that this was ‘to take away the

text: 1757 civilian life from [him]’.

text: 1758 P-0264 testified about the use of caning as a form of initiation. He explained that

text: while this did not happen to him, he saw his older colleagues with whom they were

text: 1759 abducted be initiated in this way. The witness also described a separate ceremony,

text: during which a group of about 20-30 persons including him were summoned, undressed

text: 1760 to bare chests and told they would be anointed. Then, they were told to start clapping

text: 1761 and sung a praise song. After they stopped, each of them had to put shea oil on their

text: 1762 forehead, chest, feet and hands. On all those spots, including the back, a sign of the

text: 1763 cross was put. Thereafter, the recruits were told that ‘if you want to escape that thing

text: will make you confused and you – you keep rotating until you go back to where you left

text: 1753 On the latter, see also section IV.C.2.ii.e below. 1754 See section IV.B.2.ii.b.xiii above. 1755 P-0252: T-87, p. 47, lines 4-21. 1756 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 3-11. 1757 P-0307: T-153, p. 23, lines 3-11. 1758 P-0264: T-64, p. 23, line 21 – p. 24, line 2. 1759 P-0264: T-64, p. 24, lines 3-9. 1760 P-0264: T-64, p. 24, line 10-20, p. 25, line 25 – p. 26, line 2. 1761 P-0264: T-64, p. 24, lines 21-22. 1762 P-0264: T-64, p. 24, lines 22-24. 1763 P-0264: T-64, p. 24, line 25 – p. 25, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 322/1077 4 February 2021 from, and if you go to the battlefield it will shield bullets and you will not be touched by

text: 1764 any bullet’.

text: P-0379 stated that following abduction, recruits were beaten with a stick, anointed with

text: shea oil, with the sign of the cross on the forehead and hand, and instructed to declare

text: 1765 that they would not escape, and that they should be killed in case they do.

text: P-0016 also referred to the practice of anointing recruits with shea oil with the stated

text: 1766 purpose of preventing escape.

text: 1767 P-0231, who was abducted in 1994, testified that after he was anointed with shea

text: butter oil, soil was smeared on him, and he was also made to drink a mixture of the

text: 1768 two. The witness stated that he was told that the rituals were to cleanse him so that he

text: 1769 could join the LRA. The witness stayed in the LRA for a long time, including in a

text: 1770 relatively important position, which is why the Chamber also considers reliable the

text: witness’s testimony that most newly abducted people were initiated using the same

text: 1771 ritual.

text: P-0227 testified that her brothers, who were abducted at the same time as her in April

text: 1772 2005, were beaten with canes on the orders of Dominic Ongwen, ‘so that they may

text: 1773 forget about their homes’.

text: 1774 P-0097, who was abducted in February 2005, testified that when he was brought to

text: the group together with other new abductees, they were whipped with freshly cut canes,

text: and told that ‘that is how [the LRA] welcome people so that you do not have any thoughts

text: 1775 of escaping’.

text: 1764 P-0264: T-64, p. 25, lines 2-5. 1765 P-0379: T-57, p. 48, line 16 – p. 49, line 9. 1766 P-0016: T-34, p. 37, lines 16-19. 1767 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 27, lines 2-5. 1768 P-0231: T-123, p. 19, lines 1-8. 1769 P-0231: T-123, p. 19, lines 9-13. 1770 See section IV.B.2.ii.a.ix above. 1771 P-0231: T-123, p. 19, lines 19-22. 1772 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 6, lines 8-9, p. 8, lines 3-8. 1773 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 3. 1774 P-0097: T-108, p. 7, line 3-5, p. 53, lines 9-11. 1775 P-0097: T-108, p. 13, lines 5-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 323/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1776 P-0249, who was abducted during the Pajule attack, testified that after leaving Pajule, Dominic Ongwen told the abductees that if anyone tried to escape or dropped the load 1777 they were assigned to carry, they would be killed. According to P-0249, Dominic 1778 Ongwen also said that the abductees would be trained to become soldiers.

text: With some regularity, recruits were forced to brutally kill, or were forced to witness

text: brutal killings, shortly after their abduction.

text: As explained below, the evidence demonstrates that new recruits were often forced to kill and/or to witness brutal killings. It is notable that even though memory fades with time, witnesses were able to describe their own experience in striking detail. This is in itself, in the Chamber’s opinion, an indication of the significance of this traumatic experience. In the Chamber’s evaluation, this experience largely contributed, as an

text: instrument of control, to obtain, and maintain, a tight grip on the part of the LRA commanders over newly abducted, often young individuals.

text: The Chamber recognises the evidence of P-0314 as particularly informative in this context. P-0314 testified that newly abducted people would be instructed to kill a person, 1780 while the ‘older people’ watched; a general observation which he was in position to

text: make on the basis of his personal experience in the LRA. P-0314 then went on and stated:

text: This was a way of showing the person that if you also escape, then your friends will kill you. So that was a way to instill fear into the younger people, the people who had been newly abducted. The older people, if, for example, someone is extremely tired and – because sometimes people would walk for long distances carrying heavy luggage, if your feet are swollen, if you are tired, yeah, the people would disappear. But if somebody disappears, you don’t know whether the person 1781 has been released and sent back home or killed.

text: Indeed, the Chamber has heard evidence relating to a number of specific events of this kind.

text: P-0264 testified that on the second day after he was abducted, and before the witness was 1782 given any training, his unit ‘found’ some civilians. The witness and other abductees,

text: 1776 See para. 1344 below. 1777 P-0249: T-79, p. 39, line 23 – p. 40, line 3. 1778 P-0249: T-79, p. 40, lines 4-6. 1779 Para. 129 above. 1780 P-0314: T-74, p. 29, lines 18-22. 1781 P-0314: T-74, p. 29, line 22 – p. 30, line 3. 1782 P-0264: T-64, p. 17, lines 14-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 324/1077 4 February 2021 who had been tied and were carrying items, were instructed to put down the items, untied

text: 1783 and told that if anybody tried to run away, they would be shot. An old civilian man

text: 1784 was bound, and the abductees were instructed to beat him. In the words of the witness:

text: There were so many of us, we beat the old man to death. […] We were told to, to get the old man’s blood and put it on our foreheads. We were still new, we were civilians, we were scared, there was blood, there was brains. We started taking the 1785 old man’s blood and put it on our foreheads.

text: In addition, P-0264 referred to another occasion in Teso, where ‘kadogi’, in the witness’s

text: own definition the ‘children or the young soldiers’, executed an order to kill three civilian

text: 1786 women by stoning them to death.

text: As discussed below, P-0252, who was abducted during the attack on Odek,

text: 1787 . P-0252 testified that

text: the LRA soldiers asked him: ‘Are you still going to escape?’, to which the witness

text: 1788 responded ‘In the name of God I will not escape’.

text: P-0236 stated that shortly after her abduction, after she had been handed over to Dominic

text: Ongwen, two people who had allegedly escaped were killed in front of her and three

text: 1789 other newly abducted persons. The abductees were told that if they tried to escape,

text: 1790 the same thing would be done to them.

text: The Chamber also considers in this context the evidence provided by P-0379, discussed

text: in detail below, in relation to an incident where a young boy was killed ostensibly because

text: 1791 he had tried to escape, and the abductees were forced to beat and touch the body.

text: A specific subset of evidence concerns abductees witnessing, shortly after their abduction,

text: the killings of other abductees who were unable to keep up with the movement of the

text: group that abducted them.

text: 1783 P-0264: T-64, p. 17, lines 22-24. 1784 P-0264: T-64, p. 17, lines 24-25. 1785 P-0264: T-64, p. 17, line 25 – p. 18, line 4. 1786 P-0264: T-65, p. 23, line 5 – p. 25, line 12. 1787 See . 1788 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 1. 1789 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 21. 1790 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 11, lines 1-2. See also p. 11, line 22 – p. 12, line 3. 1791 See para. 981 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 325/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0340 testified about two children from his neighbourhood who he used to play football

text: 1792 with and who were abducted at the same time as the witness. He testified that during

text: the walk to Sudan following their abduction, on a mountain, ‘their feet were swollen,

text: they were weak, there was no food because we did not have enough food on top of that

text: 1793 mountain’. The witness stated that while walking, he saw two corpses along the road,

text: 1794 one next to a tree, and the other a little further down the road. He explained that he

text: did not himself identify the two bodies as it was not possible to stop and do that, but that

text: he was told that the two bodies belonged to his friends and he also noticed their absence

text: 1795 from the group. In more general terms, P-0340 stated:

text: At the time, if somebody became weak and was unable to walk, they would, they would say that the person should be put to rest or sent to rest. And the rest, we came 1796 to understand that rest meant that you would be killed.

text: 1797 P-0406 testified that he saw the killing of one Ojuko in the Gulu area. According to

text: the witness, Ojuko was killed because he was unable to walk, and it was the newly

text: 1798 abducted who were made to kill him.

text: P-0307 testified about an occasion in Pader, after the return from Teso, when the new

text: abductees who could no longer keep up with the group’s movement were killed by

text: 1799 bayonet or clubbing. The witness stated that at the time, the commanders, including

text: 1800 Dominic Ongwen, were there.

text: This is brought in context by the testimony of P-0070, who convincingly and logically

text: explained the link between the killings of abductees with the policy of the LRA to attack

text: 1801 civilians in Northern Uganda who were perceived as supporting the government.

text: Speaking specifically in the context of the LRA operation in Lango and Teso, P-0070

text: stated that Joseph Kony gave the instruction to abduct more soldiers, but that the adults

text: 1792 P-0340: T-102-CONF, p. 19, line 12 – p. 20, line 10. 1793 P-0340: T-102, p. 18, lines 12-14. 1794 P-0340: T-102, p. 18, lines 16-17. 1795 P-0340: T-102, p. 18, line 21 – p. 19, line 7. 1796 P-0340: T-102, p. 18, lines 4-8. 1797 P-0406: T-154, p. 13, lines 2-7. 1798 P-0406: T-154, p. 13, lines 6-21. 1799 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 57. 1800 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 58. 1801 See section IV.C.4 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 326/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1802 who ‘are not able to move’ should be killed so as not to ‘send the secret of the group’.

text: The Chamber understands this to be a reference to the perception on the part of the LRA

text: leadership that civilians in Northern Uganda were cooperating with the government,

text: 1803 which is discussed in detail below.

text: P-0070 further described the order given by Joseph Kony for what the LRA should be

text: doing in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader:

text: The order that was there was purely an operation to add on to our number. People were supposed to be abducted. Those who could walk were to continue with us, 1804 those who could not were supposed to be killed.

text: P-0070 also testified:

text: If somebody is unable to walk, if – or if the person is weak, the person would be released from the ropes and killed. The rebels had a rule that you do not release people, because if you release somebody, if you release an abductee, then you are 1805 showing where you were, you are showing your direction.

text: c. Training

text: Upon abduction into Sinia brigade, recruits were given training in fighting skills, including the use of firearms. Weapons were distributed to recruits. As part of the

text: training, recruits were also taught military discipline.

text: P-0070, asked specifically about boys under 15 years of age, testified that after their

text: abduction, they would immediately be subjected to training on how to operate a gun and

text: 1807 how to march. P-0231 similarly stated that training commenced immediately upon

text: 1808 ‘arrival in the bush’.

text: P-0205 explained that the training of the recruits was generally within the domain of the

text: 1809 commander of the unit to which they were assigned. According to the witness, only

text: 1810 at the base in Sudan was it possible for all recruits to be gathered and trained together.

text: 1802 P-0070: T-105, p. 86, lines 5-12, p. 86, line 24 – p. 87, line 4. 1803 See section IV.C.4 below. 1804 P-0070: T-106, p. 23, lines 13-18. 1805 P-0070: T-106, p. 56, lines 16-21. 1806 Para. 130 above. 1807 P-0070: T-106, p. 3, lines 17-20. 1808 P-0231: T-122, p. 43, lines 6-12. 1809 P-0205: T-48, p. 32, lines 22-25. 1810 P-0205: T-48, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 327/1077 4 February 2021

text: The fact that the training of recruits was not centrally organised is corroborated by several

text: other witnesses. P-0309 stated that he was trained within the household where he was,

text: 1811 and did not see any other person being trained. P-0252 testified that training took

text: 1812 place ‘when people are having down time’, and not on the move. P-0340 described

text: the training as ‘spontaneous’ and stated that ‘each group would be in charge of training

text: 1813 the people who were composed of it’. P-0406 also explained that recruits were trained

text: within their groups: in his group, four people were being trained, but in other groups

text: 1814 other people were being trained as well. P-0249 testified that training took place

text: 1815 ‘wherever people encamp, at any time’. A point about this was made by P-0101 who

text: stated that some recruits were ‘not actually trained’, and continued: ‘As soon as you are

text: 1816 abducted they put a gun in your hand and you are sent out to fight’.

text: As to the content of training, P-0054 stated that LRA recruits were given training on how

text: to dismantle a gun, how to shoot, how to parade, and ‘how to manage yourself when you

text: 1817 are at the fighting or fighting front’. P-0205 stated that recruits were trained in

text: observation post (OP) work, and in fighting, including combat skills and in what to ‘pick’

text: 1818 from ‘houses’. P-0252 testified that the skills taught were how to march, how to

text: 1819 handle a gun, and fighting tactics during battle. He stated that he was taught how to

text: 1820 shoot a gun.

text: P-0264 testified that he was trained to be an escort by the person who abducted him, and

text: that the training involved carrying the person’s chair, walking with him, and how to use

text: 1821 1822 a gun. Later, the witness was further trained as escort by another commander. He

text: 1811 P-0309: T-61, p. 34, lines 15-18. 1812 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, line 23 – p. 51, line 15. 1813 P-0340: T-102, p. 23, line 22, p. 24, lines 3-8. 1814 P-0406: T-154, p. 23, lines 15-20. 1815 P-0249: T-79, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 4. 1816 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 64, line 24 – p. 65, line 1. The Chamber clarifies that it does not understand P-0101’s testimony to be even on its face contradictory of the testimonies of witnesses who testified as to their military training in Sinia. In any case, P-0101’s evidence is valuable, in the context of the other evidence, as the impression of a person who spent a long time in Sinia. 1817 P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 4-11. P-0054 testified that he saw this training take place in Sinia brigade after Operation Iron Fist, and that he himself trained recruits in Sinia, see P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 12-13; T-94, p. 3, lines 17-18. 1818 P-0205: T-48, p. 33, line 14 – p. 34, line 4. 1819 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 12-19, p. 51, line 23 – p. 52, line 3. See also p. 51, lines 5-15. 1820 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 20-22. 1821 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 12, lines 14-21. 1822 P-0264: T-64, p. 28, lines 9-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 328/1077 4 February 2021 also told the Court that he received training in the operation of the SMG – short machine

text: 1823 gun. Further, the witness stated that when he was in Sudan, he was trained in target

text: 1824 1825 shooting, in how to defend and to attack a position, and how to ambush.

text: P-0309 testified that within Dominic Ongwen’s household, the veteran LRA soldiers

text: 1826 taught P-0309 to operate the AK-47 gun. He testified that he was also taught how PK

text: 1827 and RPG weapons were operated. In addition to training in the use of weapons, the

text: 1828 witness stated that he was trained ‘to be disciplined and have respect’. P-0309 stated

text: that he was trained ‘how to be respectful to the commanders like Dominic, the battle-

text: 1829 hardened LRA soldiers’.

text: P-0314 stated that a month or two after he was abducted he was trained in marching, use

text: 1830 of guns, and in ‘how to show respect’.

text: P-0340 testified that while in Sudan he was trained in marching, assembling and

text: 1831 disassembling the gun. P-0340 confirmed that the training also included how to

text: 1832 behave during a live attack. The witness testified that he received a gun at a later time,

text: 1833 after his group returned to Uganda.

text: P-0379 testified that he received training on how to dismantle and reassemble a gun and

text: 1834 the names of the various parts. He stated that the veterans or the commander of the

text: 1835 unit would instruct the newly abducted on discipline.

text: 1823 P-0264: T-64, p. 28, line 20 – p. 29, line 8. 1824 P-0264: T-64, p. 29, lines 13-21. 1825 P-0264: T-64, p. 29, line 24 – p. 30, line 2. 1826 P-0309: T-61, p. 32, lines 1-8. 1827 P-0309: T-61, p. 32, line 9 – p. 33, line 2. 1828 P-0309: T-61, p. 34, line 1-5. 1829 P-0309: T-61, p. 34, lines 1-5. 1830 P-0314: T-74, p. 18, line 8 – p. 19, line 5. 1831 P-0340: T-102, p. 23, line 17 – p. 24, line 2, p. 52, lines 18-22. 1832 P-0340: T-102, p. 52, lines 23-25. 1833 P-0340: T-102, p. 25, lines 12-17. 1834 P-0379: T-56, p. 23, lines 10-20. 1835 P-0379: T-57, p. 67, line 22 – p. 68, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 329/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1836 P-0307 stated that he was trained in how to salute a superior, and in the use of a gun.

text: He stated that he once saw Dominic Ongwen come to the training area during his

text: 1837 training.

text: P-0406 confirmed that he received military training in the LRA, and stated that this

text: 1838 training took place in Sudan. He stated that he was trained in a group of ‘about

text: 1839 four’. He stated that he was trained in marching, how to dismantle and reassemble a

text: 1840 gun, how to clean a gun. In addition, this witness testified that after the training the

text: 1841 recruits were given three bullets each to try out.

text: As to the distribution of weapons to recruits, the evidence indicates that this was related

text: to their performance. P-0054 stated that a recruit who was ‘liked by [his] boss’ could be

text: given a gun after two or three months, but if a recruit was ‘lazy’, they could stay long

text: 1842 without one.

text: P-0054 testified that the brigade commander and ‘CO’ were the ones to decide on the

text: 1843 distribution of weapons, based on the maturity and strength of the person. P-0205

text: similarly stated that a recruit was given a gun when they ‘have already got used to the

text: 1844 activities’ and had the courage to stay in the bush.

text: P-0307 testified that he received a gun after training, around Pader in about May 2003,

text: 1845 when the person carrying it previously was killed in an exchange of fire. He stated

text: 1846 that his superior officer ordered that the gun be given to him. He also testified more

text: generally that a gun was given to a recruit when it was established that he would not

text: 1847 escape, and that this could take up to about nine months.

text: 1836 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at paras 68-69, 71. 1837 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 69; P-0307: T-153, p. 20, lines 13-18. 1838 P-0406: T-154, p. 17, lines 14-18. 1839 P-0406: T-154, p. 21, lines 1-6. 1840 P-0406: T-154, p. 22, lines 22-25. 1841 P-0406: T-154, p. 22, line 25 – p. 23, line 5. 1842 P-0054: T-93, p. 22, line 25 – p. 23, line 3. 1843 P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 14-21. 1844 P-0205: T-48, p. 34, lines 16-21. 1845 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 72; T-153, p. 24, lines 13-23. 1846 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 72. 1847 P-0307: T-153, p. 23, lines 13-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 330/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0314 testified that AK-47 guns were distributed to recruits who had spent around six 1848 months in the LRA after abduction, including to himself.

text: Recruits were not taught, as part of their training, to distinguish between civilians and

text: combatants, or between civilian objects and military objectives.

text: Even though, as can be seen from the above analysis, many witnesses were asked about the content of their training upon integration into the LRA, they did not provide any information which would go to indicating that there was any training in the distinction between enemy combatants and civilians, or between legitimate targets and protected objects, let alone any training in international humanitarian law. In fact, the testimonies of the witnesses who spoke about training in the LRA provide a basis to find that any such training was not given.

text: The only witness to assert that the LRA paid any attention to the principles of international humanitarian law was P-0054, who testified that as an instructor in Sinia he 1850 taught his soldiers not to mistreat civilians. However, whereas the Chamber generally deems P-0054 to be a credible witness, it remains unconvinced by this particular statement. As observed, no witness other than him – who, as an LRA instructor, had an interest in presenting himself in a positive light – provided any statement to the same effect, nor did P-0054, who merely accepted a general proposition put to him, provide any particulars of how this training would have taken place.

text: In fact, the Chamber cannot but make specific reference to P-0142’s response to the question whether shooting a civilian during the course of an attack would constitute an offence, which was that ‘nobody would see it as a crime if a civilian is injured or if a 1851 civilian is shot at’.

text: In any case, the Chamber recalls the evidence laid out just above by those who underwent training upon integration into the group, the evidence leading to the finding that the LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the 1852 civilians living in Northern Uganda, and the evidence of the orders given to, and the

text: 1848 P-0314: T-74, p. 20, line 18 – p. 21, line 6. 1849 Para. 130 above. 1850 P-0054: T-94, p. 3, line 19 – p. 4, line 3. 1851 P-0142: T-71, p. 25, lines 18-21. 1852 See section IV.C.4 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 331/1077 4 February 2021 behaviour of LRA soldiers during operations, including during the four attacks relevant 1853 to the charges. In light of this, the Chamber concludes on the basis of the evidence that the LRA did not pay attention to the protection of civilians or civilian objects in the training of its soldiers.

text: d. Rules of obedience and disciplinary system

text: There were clear rules requiring obedience of LRA soldiers, and a violent disciplinary system that guaranteed adherence to them. LRA soldiers were punished, for example, for not executing orders, losing a gun, or failing to prevent abducted persons from escaping. Penalties ranged from beating to execution. Dominic Ongwen personally ordered

text: disciplinary measures.

text: As laid out below, several insider witnesses testified about the basic rules applicable to soldiers within the LRA. The Chamber finds instructive in this context the evidence of those insider witnesses who were asked whether, during their time in the LRA, they could refuse orders. This evidence, while general or even hypothetical, provides insight into the insiders’ understanding of their own status within the LRA, and is as such of

text: assistance to the Chamber.

text: A considerable number of witnesses, in particular lower ranking insiders, testified 1855 categorically that in the LRA, no one could refuse orders, most commonly referring 1856 to the risk of being killed. In the view of the Chamber, this evidence of how LRA soldiers perceived their situation while integrated into the organisation, is highly indicative of the nature of the organisation and demonstrative of the ability of its commanders to rely on their subordinates for the execution of the orders they issued.

text: P-0252 summarised the rules applicable in the LRA as follows:

text: The rules that was given to me, one, respect your superior, when he is passing refer to him as ‘lapwony’. When they call you, you should respond while calling the name of that person and say – when you mention the name, make sure it accompanies with the word ‘lapwony’. When you are sent to do something, ensure 1857 that you do it and you do it quickly.

text: 1853 See sections IV.C.6, IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below. 1854 Para. 131 above. 1855 P-0067: T-126, p. 37, lines 14-18; P-0142: T-72, p. 62, lines 7-14; P-0226: T-9-CONF, p. 36, lines 5-8; P- 0252: T-87, p. 61, lines 4-5; P-0264: T-65, p. 15, lines 9-21, p. 16, lines 4-11; P-0379: T-57, p. 67, lines 10-18. 1856 P-0142: T-72, p. 62, lines 7-14; P-0226: T-9-CONF, p. 36, lines 9-10; P-0252: T-87, p. 61, lines 6-13; P-0264: T-65, p. 15, lines 22-24, p. 16, lines 4-11. 1857 P-0252: T-89, p. 35, lines 19-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 332/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0264 also testified that LRA members were obliged to address their commanders by 1858 titles indicating their higher seniority, in particular ‘lapwony’, ‘ladit’ or ‘afande’. On

text: this point, the evidence indeed demonstrates that Dominic Ongwen was referred to by 1859 1860 the title ‘lapwony’, as well as by the title ‘afande’.

text: Asked about whether he could have refused the order to participate in an attack on Acet, 1861 P-0252 stated: ‘You cannot refuse. There is no way out when you are told to go.’

text: Asked what would happen if one refused, the witness stated one would be considered as 1862 wanting to escape or being a collaborator and killed.

text: P-0264 summarised as follows the rules of obedience applicable in battle:

text: The rules about battles is that when you are instructed not to capture people, then when you’re a soldier you should not capture anybody. If you’re instructed to go and fight and charge every item that you will find, so if any of the soldier does not charge the items, then there are rules that will also target you. Or there could be rules that says when you fight do not charge any item, but you go against and you go ahead to charge, then you will also be punished. If you get money, a big sum of money and you hide that money, you don’t declare, then there are also rules that will be used because they will say you want to escape. If you get a woman during when you go to fight and you rape that woman, yes, then there are also rules that 1863 will apply against you.

text: More generally in relation to the rules enforced in the LRA, P-0264 stated:

text: The rules that are put in the LRA, which were general rules for all – for everybody, is that when instructions are given not to do a certain thing and you violate it, then you are taken as somebody who has violated. Then the appropriate punishment will 1864 be decided.

text: The record of the case contains consistent evidence of disciplinary measures being

text: applied in the LRA in an immediate, crude and brutal manner. It was not based on clear

text: rules and procedures, but on arbitrariness and fear.

text: 1858 P-0264: T-65, p. 16, line 20 – p. 17, line 11. 1859 P-0097: T-108, p. 41, lines 4-6. See also P-0097: T-108, p. 14, lines 14-21; P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 18, lines 16-19; P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 69, lines 11-16; P-0249: T-79, p. 42, lines 19-21; P-0280: T-84, p. 69, line 4 – p. 70, line 23; P-0340: T-102, p. 17, lines 8-9. 1860 P-0293: T-139, p. 18, lines 11-18. 1861 P-0252: T-87, p. 61, lines 4-5. 1862 P-0252: T-87, p. 61, lines 6-13. 1863 P-0264: T-65, p. 15, lines 10-19. 1864 P-0264: T-65, p. 16, lines 3-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 333/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0379 made this point very clearly, testifying about a certain Olet, who was severely

text: 1865 punished by beating for forgetting his gun during an attack. Asked about who carried

text: out the beating, the witness responded:

text: You know, when you are in the army, if you, if you breach any rules, if somebody is supposed to be beaten we all usually rush to beat that person, because that person, whoever it is, you also feel that you have to punish that person regardless of whether or not that person is your friend. Because if next time you are the one who is in breach of the rules the same thing will happen to you. So everybody actually 1866 [beat] Olet.

text: P-0314 testified in some detail about his experience of disciplinary measures in Sinia. He

text: gave the example of a soldier who was beaten with sticks and later had to carry luggage

text: 1867 ‘like newly abductees’ because he had lost his gun. He also gave the example of

text: himself, testifying that on one occasion he was beaten with sticks because he had

text: 1868 forgotten the salt that he was assigned to carry. More generally, he mentioned letting

text: 1869 prisoners or abductees escape as a reason for beating.

text: P-0252 further described an incident in the Atoo hills after the Abok attack when he, and

text: 1870 another LRA soldier, were ordered to kill a cow. The witness stated:

text: We were helpless. We were not strong enough. I refused, that I could not kill the animal. I was hit on my chest with a big stick. I still have the scar up to now. And when I bent down, then I was kicked that I should get up. I got up but I would fall 1871 again.

text: 1872 In the end, P-0252 participated in killing the animal.

text: P-0406 stated that he was beaten with a stick for imitating radio communications for

text: 1873 fun. The witness testified that he was also beaten in Teso, because two abductees who

text: 1865 P-0379: T-57, p. 50, lines 10-22. 1866 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 51, lines 8-13. 1867 P-0314: T-74, p. 31, line 6 – p. 32, line 10. 1868 P-0314: T-74, p. 32, lines 11-19. 1869 P-0314: T-74, p. 32, lines 19-20. 1870 P-0252: T-87, p. 82, lines 7-23. 1871 P-0252: T-87, p. 82, line 23 – p. 83, line 1. 1872 P-0252: T-87, p. 83, lines 1-8. 1873 P-0406: T-154, p. 40, line 17 – p. 41, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 334/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1874 were put under his guard escaped. P-0406 also testified that not making the 1875 commander’s bed properly was another offence punished by beating.

text: P-0205 referred to a specific instance after the attack on Lukodi, when a soldier was given 1876 100 lashes for refusing to ‘go on the standby to collect food’. The witness also mentions himself being punished by beating,

text: 1877 .

text: Even though Dominic Ongwen was battalion and brigade commander, respectively, in Sinia during the period of the charges, and therefore relatively high in the hierarchical organisation of the brigade, witness evidence indicates that he also intervened in specific disciplinary matters, including minor ones. For the Chamber, this is an important indicator that Dominic Ongwen was fully aware of the organisational features of Sinia, and that he contributed to sustaining it.

text: An example of Dominic Ongwen enforcing discipline and hierarchy was reported by P- 0307. He stated that soon after his abduction, in one instance he failed to salute 1878 properly. According to the witness, Dominic Ongwen then held a knife to the witness’s chest and reprimanded the witness, commanded him to lie down and ordered 1879 the others to hit him on the back of his head with a club. The witness specified that 1880 he was hit lightly and was in the end left unharmed. Upon suggestion by Defence counsel that it could have been meant as a joke by Dominic Ongwen, the witness rejected 1881 this and stated ‘he was threatening me’. He also stated: ‘From that day I knew who 1882 Dominic Ongwen was and never forgot him’.

text: 1874 P-0406: T-154, p. 41, lines 12-16. 1875 P-0406: T-154, p. 41, lines 9-11. 1876 P-0205: T-48, p. 44, line 11 – p. 45, line 4. 1877 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 49, lines 14-25. 1878 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 20. 1879 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 20. 1880 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 20. 1881 P-0307: T-153, p. 12, lines 20-25. 1882 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 335/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0097 testified that he saw that on a specific occasion, Dominic Ongwen ordered the 1883 beating of a boy who had been instructed to prepare meals and ‘did not cook well’.

text: The evidence indicates that corporal punishment was predominant, but there is some evidence of other types of punishment. P-0070 testified that if somebody fled from battle they would be punished by having to carry heavy weapons, or by being sent onto the 1884 battlefield without weapons.

text: The Chamber notes that while, as stated above, LRA soldiers referred to the threat of being killed if they did not obey orders, the actual occurrence of killings as punishment is mainly attested in relation to escapes and in the context of the LRA treatment of women 1885 and girls, and is as such addressed below. The Chamber also returns to this topic in 1886 the section on duress as a ground excluding criminal responsibility.

text: The Chamber also notes the evidence in relation to ‘arrest’ and ‘prison’ in the LRA, which is discussed in detail below in the context of the brief arrest of Dominic Ongwen 1887 in April 2003.

text: The evidence on the record leaves no doubt to the Chamber that the LRA was effective in the use of a disciplinary system to ensure compliance. But to accurately reflect the evidence, the findings in the present section need to be juxtaposed with findings in relation to a particular issue discussed above in respect of the higher echelons of the LRA hierarchy. Whereas LRA commanders at levels such as brigade or battalion did not have the general power to ignore or refuse orders from Joseph Kony – coming directly or indirectly through in particular Vincent Otti –, there is indication in the evidence that 1888 they were at least occasionally able to do so. In addition, as discussed above, the commanders possessed a degree of autonomy on which also the operation of the LRA as 1889 such depended. Thus, it is clear that the constant fear of violence affected the lower levels of the LRA hierarchy more strongly. Indeed, the narrative of the LRA as an organisation where all decisions and orders emanated exclusively from Joseph Kony

text: 1883 P-0097: T-108, p. 42, lines 3-15. 1884 P-0070: T-106, p. 41, lines 20-24. 1885 See sections IV.C.2.ii.e and IV.C.11.iv below. 1886 See section IV.D.2 below. 1887 See section IV.C.3 below. 1888 See para. 870 above. 1889 See para. 872 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 336/1077 4 February 2021 while any other person was constrained to simply execute them regardless of their will, is not demonstrated by the evidence in such absolute terms; to the contrary, as outlined above, any such narrative needs to be relativised as concerns persons at relatively high positions in the hierarchy, such as brigade and battalion commanders, who, instead, maintained agency within the organisation.

text: e. Preventing escape

text: Sinia members, and LRA members generally, were threatened with death if they attempted escape. On certain occasions, execution of re-captured escapees in fact took place. Dominic Ongwen personally issued threats to LRA members that they would be killed if they attempted to escape, and ordered killings of abductees in front of LRA

text: members to illustrate this threat.

text: 1891 Considering that, as explained above, the LRA obtained new members through abduction, it is not surprising that in any examination of the LRA as an organisation the topic of escape must feature prominently. In the present case, due to duress having been raised by the Defence as a ground excluding criminal responsibility, the possibility of escaping in particular of the accused from the LRA has become one of the central 1892 disputed issues of fact. It is discussed within the context of duress below. But the possibility of escape, and the measures taken to prevent escape by the leaders of Sinia, and the LRA in general, are also relevant for a determination of the nature of the organisation. In the view of the Chamber, the repression of escape from Sinia and the LRA was one of the crucial factors in how the organisation sought to and succeeded in having at its disposal a sufficient number of individuals to execute the orders and instructions given by the leaders. As shown below, Dominic Ongwen personally participated in sustaining the LRA system of repression of escape.

text: The issue before the Chamber is not whether people escaped from the LRA as it is clear that many did. The subject of interest is rather the stance that the LRA took towards members escaping, and the effect it had on the membership.

text: Several witnesses testified generally about this topic. The Chamber begins its analysis by reference to those witnesses who, on account of their position within the LRA and/or on

text: 1890 Para. 132 above. 1891 See section IV.C.2.ii.a above. 1892 See section IV.D.2.iv below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 337/1077 4 February 2021 account of their long stay inside the organisation, were well positioned to make general observations.

text: P-0054 testified that LRA members were told that if they escaped and were captured 1893 again, they would be killed. He further stated that he indeed witnessed someone being 1894 killed. P-0070 similarly stated that if an abducted person attempted to escape, they 1895 would be beaten to death with a log.

text: P-0205 stated that when abductees were brought in, they were told that they were to stay, that they were not to try to escape, and that they would be killed if they escaped and were 1896 caught. When asked whether any other form of punishment was applied to those who tried to escape, the witness responded:

text: With the LRA if you escape and they follow you, if they apprehend you, if you are 1897 lucky, you are beaten. If you are unlucky, you are killed. P-0205 also explained that sometimes, recaptured escapees were killed on the spot, but on other occasions they were brought back into the group where they were killed in the 1898 presence of others. P-0226 similarly made the point that ‘[i]f the person who tried to escape was a boy, then they would call the other boys, his peers to come and kill him’, and that if it was a girl who tried to escape, ‘[t]hen it would be the girls who would be 1899 called to beat the person to death’. This evidence of execution for attempted escape regularly taking place in front of other members is important, as it indicates that such executions had a deterrent purpose.

text: Several other witnesses provided evidence of having been present when threats were made towards members of Sinia during gatherings to prevent escape attempts. Notably, P-0309 and P-0379 provided testimony indicating that at least on two occasions, on Dominic Ongwen’s specific order, abductees were killed in front of LRA members for

text: 1893 P-0054: T-94, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 10. 1894 P-0054: T-94, p. 46, lines 11-14. 1895 P-0070: T-106, p. 63, lines 10-12. 1896 P-0205: T-48, p. 31, lines 11-22. 1897 P-0205: T-49, p. 6, lines 10-13. 1898 P-0205: T-49, p. 7, lines 3-16. 1899 P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 64, lines 12-16. See also P-0226: T-9-CONF, p. 3, lines 3-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 338/1077 4 February 2021 no reason other than to impress on those present that they would also be killed if they attempted to escape.

text: P-0309 stated that one day, Dominic Ongwen gathered people together, sat in front of 1900 them and spoke about the escapes from the LRA. The witness testified that Dominic Ongwen ordered some more senior LRA soldiers to select four newly abducted people 1901 and kill them. Four persons were indeed selected, tied using the shirts that they were wearing, pushed so that they fell down and then stabbed with knives until they died; in 1902 the presence of others, including the witness. Those present were warned that if they 1903 attempted to escape, that was what would happen to them. The Chamber clarifies that, in light of its general assessment of P-0309’s credibility, and on the basis that this particular part of his testimony is detailed and coherent, it fully accepts the testimony of the witness in this regard, including on the personal involvement of Dominic Ongwen.

text: A similar description of an incident personally involving Dominic Ongwen is given by P-0379, who stated that at one point near Pajule, Dominic Ongwen addressed the soldiers at a parade and stated that he did not know why people were escaping, and why people 1904 did not want to stay in the bush ‘when the whole world is crying out against us’. According to the testimony of P-0379, Dominic Ongwen asked those present: ‘If you 1905 escape where are you going to stay?’ Dominic Ongwen continued stating that if anybody tried to escape, he was going to teach them a lesson and let them know that it is 1906 bad to escape. Dominic Ongwen then instructed two boys who had been tied up to be brought in, and ordered those present, , and persons under 15 years 1907 of age, to kill them as a lesson that it is bad to escape. They, , 1908 started beating the two boys, and killed them.

text: 1900 P-0309: T-60, p. 40, lines 7-9. 1901 P-0309: T-60, p. 39, lines 19-24, p. 40, lines 21-23. 1902 P-0309: T-60, p. 40, lines 10-12, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 3. 1903 P-0309: T-60, p. 40, lines 10-12. 1904 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 75, lines 13-24. See also T-57-CONF, p. 78, lines 4-7. 1905 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 75, line 24. 1906 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 76, lines 4-6. 1907 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 76, lines 6-8, p. 77, line 22 – p. 78, line 3. 1908 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 75, lines 9-11, p. 76, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 339/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0379 also described a parade shortly after his abduction, after which the abductees

text: 1909 were gathered together and a boy who had been bound was brought. The witness

text: stated that he and the other abductees were told the following:

text: [I]n the LRA what we really don’t want is the issue of escaping, or having to think about home. Whenever you are here forget about home. Whoever tried to escape will be killed. And we are going to show you as an example, we abducted him earlier and he thought he was wise, he refused to stay with us, he escaped thinking we would not find him again. We shall not forgive him. We shall kill him. You will 1910 be the ones to kill him.

text: Still according to the witness, thereafter some more senior LRA soldiers went away from

text: 1911 the scene with the boy and killed him using a bayonet. Afterwards the abductees,

text: including the witness, were told to go see the body, touch it, and beat it, which they

text: 1912 did.

text: Also in this regard, it is noted that P-0231 testified that he was told in the LRA that if he

text: 1913 1914 tried to escape and was caught, he would be killed. P-0330 stated the same.

text: P-0309 testified that on another occasion, one boy called Cidoro attempted to escape but

text: 1915 was apprehended, brought back and flogged. P-0309 testified that this ‘really scared’

text: 1916 him. Indeed, when asked why he did not try to escape during his time in the LRA, the witness stated that this was ‘because of the things that I witnessed, killing people, the

text: extreme punishment of anybody who tried to escape, and the killing of people who tried

text: 1917 to escape’. Noting that the witness did in the end escape after about a year and a

text: 1918 half, the Chamber finds his testimony compelling, emblematic of the fate of LRA

text: members in general, and indicative of the effectiveness of the organisation.

text: P-0406 testified that he was present when Joseph Kony addressed the LRA soldiers in

text: Sudan from the top of a rock, telling them not to escape and warning that if they did

text: 1909 P-0379: T-56, p. 21, lines 22-24. 1910 P-0379: T-56, p. 21, line 24 – p. 22, line 5. 1911 P-0379: T-56, p. 22, lines 10-11. 1912 P-0379: T-56, p. 22, lines 11-16. 1913 P-0231: T-123, p. 20, lines 18-20. 1914 P-0330: T-52, p. 72, lines 9-14. 1915 P-0309: T-61, p. 41, lines 11-18. 1916 P-0309: T-61, p. 41, line 18. 1917 P-0309: T-61, p. 41, lines 6-10. 1918 P-0309: T-61-CONF, p. 42, lines 1-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 340/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1919 escape, they would be caught and killed. Asked what impression these words made

text: on him, the witness stated: ‘At that time I believed it because he warned us that if you

text: 1920 don’t believe, he would know.’

text: In fact, witnesses have stated that they were afraid during their time in the LRA of

text: engaging in actions, even if innocuous, which could make it appear that they were

text: 1921 thinking of escaping and thus put them at risk of violence. Witnesses were also

text: 1922 hesitant about sharing their escape plans with others. This fear, entirely explicable in

text: light of the evidence, also finds validation in radio intercept evidence. On 11 November

text: 2003, the ISO logbook records a message sent by Joseph Kony instructing that if any

text: 1923 plans of escaping are discovered, the person must immediately be killed.

text: Further on this topic, P-0264 provided a personal story of how the threats and fear

text: affected his thinking about escape. He testified that after the first battle in his life, the

text: fighters were convened in the evening, and went on to say the following:

text: [W]e were given instructions to boost our morale, we were told not to be afraid of those kind of things. The people who had sustained injuries were thinking about escaping and that’s why they got shot. So each and every individual should stop thinking about going home. If you’re still thinking about escaping, thinking about going home, then, yes, you will be shot and, yes, you will be shot and killed. So every individual should stop thinking about going home. And, well, I was – personally I was extremely afraid of that happening. After that, I kept on thinking […] about the instructions that we’d been given and I decided not to think about home and I decided to follow what my commanders […] were instructing me. And 1924 that’s how I remained in the LRA.

text: P-0264 also testified that shortly after his abduction, one of his friends escaped, and was

text: 1925 chased by LRA soldiers. These soldiers later returned and said that they had found

text: 1926 and killed the escapee. It was only when the witness returned back home that he

text: 1919 P-0406: T-155, p. 17, lines 3-24. 1920 P-0406: T-155, p. 18, lines 3-7. 1921 See, for example, P-0097: T-108, p. 71, lines 12-18; P-0138: T-121, p. 47, lines 13-16; P-0374: T-150, p. 45, lines 15-21; P-0406: T-156, p. 12, lines 7-14; D-0006: T-194-CONF, p. 19, line 23 – p. 20, line 4; D-0074: T-187, p. 49, line 20 – p. 50, line 3. 1922 See, for example, P-0016: T-34, p. 37, lines 20-25; P-0097: T-108, p. 51, line 24 – p. 52, line 2; D-0024: T- 192, p. 45, lines 15-23; D-0068: T-222, p. 46, lines 2-8; D-0092: T-208, p. 54, lines 4-16; D-0119: T-196, p. 44, lines 15-21; D-0134: T-241-CONF, p. 21, lines 6-9. 1923 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0038. 1924 P-0264: T-64, p. 36, lines 6-16. It is noted that in the end, P-0264 succeeded in escaping when the LRA was in the Central African Republic, see P-0264: T-65, p. 35, line 23 – p. 40, line 10. 1925 P-0264: T-64, p. 18, lines 14-17. 1926 P-0264: T-64, p. 18, line 17 – p. 19, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 341/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1927 learned that in fact the friend who had escaped was still alive. In the assessment of

text: the Chamber, this event – indicating that ensuring that individuals in the organisation

text: believed that punishments for persons who disobeyed the rules were carried out was more

text: important than actually inflicting those punishments – also helps to understand that the

text: repression of escapes in the LRA was employed primarily as a tool to maintain control

text: within the organisation over the individuals at large, going beyond the mere function of

text: punishment of persons who disobeyed the rules.

text: There is further evidence of specific incidences of persons being killed for attempting to

text: escape from Sinia. P-0314 testified about one Opoka who escaped with ‘some young

text: 1928 girls who belonged to the commander’, and was caught. He stated that Opoka was

text: killed, while the girls were ‘just beaten because there was somebody else who was trying

text: 1929 to escape with them’.

text: P-0351 stated specifically that while she was staying in Dominic Ongwen’s group, a man

text: 1930 who had attempted escape was re-apprehended and brought back. A group of men

text: 1931 and boys beat the man with a log and killed him. P-0307 also referred to a specific

text: 1932 occasion when an escapee was re-apprehended and beaten to death.

text: Finally, P-0264 reported that he attempted to escape at some point but was re-

text: 1933 apprehended. He provided a detailed account of how he was beaten with a machete and stepped on and told to ‘[l]ook at the sun for the last time’, but then his punishment

text: was interrupted by the arrival of a helicopter which started dropping bombs and shooting

text: 1934 at the LRA. He explained that afterwards, the people who had beat him decided to let

text: 1927 P-0264: T-64, p. 19, lines 8-11. 1928 P-0314: T-74, p. 34, line 10 – p. 35, line 12. The witness remembered that Opoka and the girls were staying at ‘the superior commander’s household’, but initially could not remember who that person was. After the regular hearing break, he stated that that commander was Buk. When read a prior statement to the effect that Opoka was one of the soldiers who stayed with Dominic Ongwen, he stated that he was not sure which was right. P-0314: T- 74, p. 36, lines 4-24. In light of this, without this having any further effect on the reliability of the witness, the Chamber cannot make any finding as to who was the senior commander in question. 1929 P-0314: T-74, p. 35, lines 2-5. 1930 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 66. 1931 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 66. 1932 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 56. 1933 P-0264: T-64, p. 20, lines 15-19. 1934 P-0264: T-64, p. 20, line 18 – p. 21, line 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 342/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1935 him live. P-0264 specified that this incident happened when he was in Terwanga

text: 1936 battalion, and gave the names of the persons involved in his beating.

text: Members were also threatened that their home areas would be attacked by the LRA if

text: they escaped.

text: There is consistent witness evidence that LRA members were threatened with collective

text: punishment of their home areas if they attempted to escape. P-0205 testified that all

text: abductees in the LRA would be told that their home areas would be attacked if they tried

text: 1938 to escape. He also stated that he was himself in fear that if he escaped, his village

text: 1939 would be punished. P-0231 provided similar testimony, stating that he was told that

text: if someone escaped and survived they would go to their home area and kill people there,

text: and that they would leave a letter stating that people were killed because the person

text: 1940 1941 escaped. P-0406 also confirmed that he heard this threat in the LRA.

text: P-0070, speaking in general terms, stated that if somebody escaped and the LRA knew

text: their home area, when they passed through the area there would be repercussions in the

text: 1942 form of attacking and killing people. The witness testified that on abduction, the

text: abductee’s name as well as the names of their parents and their home area would be

text: written down, and they would be told that in case they escaped this information would

text: 1943 be used.

text: Turning to whether this form of punishment in fact occurred, the Chamber first notes that

text: there is evidence that this was the case before the relevant period for the charges, in

text: particular in the 1990s. two such operations, in

text: 1944 Padibe in 1995 and in Mucwini in 1997. Daniel Opiyo also testified about an LRA

text: attack directed at the home area of an escaped child, around the end of 1996, in

text: 1945 Cetkana.

text: 1935 P-0264: T-64, p. 22, lines 2-5. 1936 P-0264: T-64, p. 22, line 16 – p. 23, line 16. 1937 Para. 132 above. 1938 P-0205: T-49, p. 10, line 24 – p. 11, line 2. 1939 P-0205: T-49, p. 11, lines 3-8. 1940 P-0231: T-123, p. 20, lines 21-25. 1941 P-0406: T-156, p. 10, lines 10-13. 1942 P-0070: T-106, p. 62, lines 17-22. 1943 P-0070: T-107, p. 10, lines 10-16. 1944 1945 D-0056: T-228-CONF, p. 18, lines 10-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 343/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Defence has emphasised that at least one such attack occurred also during the period 1946 of the charges, in July 2002 at Mucwini.

text: 1947 1948 1949

text: In addition, an entry in the ISO logbook for the date of 27 July 2002 records Joseph Kony explaining to Vincent Otti that the killings of civilians which had recently been undertaken by the LRA in Mucwini came as a result of one person grabbing the gun from 1950 an LRA soldier. According to the ISO logbook, Joseph Kony also stated that up to 54 1951 people were killed in the operation.

text: 1952 1953

text: In conclusion on this point, the Chamber accepts as established that the attack on civilians in Mucwini took place and that it was executed in response to escape by an abductee, immediately preceding it.

text: The Chamber also accepts that this event was significant and became notorious in the 1954 LRA, as demonstrated by the fact that it was reported by witnesses who heard about it. In the view of the Chamber, the collective awareness of the attack in Mucwini added to the believability of the threat issued to LRA members that if they escaped, their home 1955 areas would be attacked. This was explicitly acknowledged by P-0233. This is independent from the fact that, actually, as it appears on the evidence, the circumstances of the attack on Mucwini, i.e. in particular the fact that the person who escaped did so

text: 1946 Defence Closing Brief, para. 690. 1947 1948 1949 1950 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0327. 1951 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0327. 1952 1953 1954 See P-0233: T-112, p. 24, lines 13-23; P-0352: T-67, p. 90, lines 4-10. 1955 P-0233: T-112, p. 24, line 24 – p. 25, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 344/1077 4 February 2021 after stealing a weapon and opening fire on the LRA, are distinguishable. It is notable that the fact that a gun was stolen and that were emphasised in Joseph Kony’s radio message.

text: A further measure taken to discourage escaping was giving soldiers false or negative information about life outside of the LRA, including that they would be killed by government soldiers if they escaped and went home, and preventing them from obtaining

text: information through public radio broadcasts.

text: There is witness testimony in relation to LRA members being given false or negative information about life outside of the LRA. Several witnesses testified that LRA members were told that government soldiers would kill them if they escaped from the LRA and 1957 went home. P-0070 confirmed that LRA members were told that the UPDF would kill 1958 them. P-0231 stated that it was frequently explained to people that if they escaped and returned home, the government soldiers would capture and imprison them, and not allow 1959 visits from their family members.

text: In addition, very specifically, P-0264 testified that he was told by an LRA soldier about two weeks after his abduction that his parents had both been killed and that there was ‘no

text: 1960 1961 reason for you to go home’. This was, however, not true.

text: As concerns the prohibition of listening to public radio broadcasts, the Chamber first notes that the radio broadcasts in question were primarily those of Mega FM, a Gulubased radio station which frequently reported on LRA activities and also broadcast a radio show known as Dwog Cen Paco, which featured persons who had successfully escaped from the LRA and published direct appeals to LRA members to defect, including 1962 by publicising the promise of amnesty.

text: 1956 Para. 132 above. 1957 P-0054: T-94, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 7; P-0138: T-121-CONF, p. 20, lines 2-11; P-0172: T-113, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 7; P-0314: T-74, p. 62, line 25 – p. 63, line 4; P-0372: T-149, p. 22, line 19 – p. 23, line 1. 1958 P-0070: T-107, p. 35, line 24 – p. 36, line 5. 1959 P-0231: T-123, p. 24, lines 7-13. 1960 P-0264: T-64, p. 19, line 12 – p. 20, line 2. 1961 P-0264: T-64, p. 20, lines 3-5. 1962 See P-0145: T-143, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 25; P-0307: T-152, p. 69, lines 2-13; P-0440: T-40, p. 15, lines 2-14; T-41, p. 5, lines 2-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 345/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0054 stated that it was generally not allowed in the LRA to listen to the radio, and that 1963 1964 this prohibition came from Joseph Kony. P-0440 testified identically on this issue. The ISO logbook contains a reference to Joseph Kony instructing LRA members not to listen to Radio Uganda and other FM radio stations, with the explanation that they only 1965 ‘talk lies’. P-0145 stated that there were times when LRA soldiers were prohibited from listening to Mega FM except for senior commanders, but, at times, junior 1966 commanders or officers were allowed to listen too. This means that in spite of the prohibition, some information broadcasted did reach the members of the LRA. P-0145 confirmed that the main programme of interest to those in the bush was Dwog Paco: ‘what most people wanted to find out was whether it was true; if you went home, would 1967 you be killed, would you survive?’ P-0307 also testified that he was able to listen to 1968 Mega FM while in the LRA.

text: P-0054 also stated that ‘[t]he LRA would say if you returned home the government soldiers would take you to the radio, but while holding you [at] a gunpoint, they would 1969 require you to speak only what they would want you to communicate out’. Similarly, P-0406 testified that he was told that the voices of escapees on Mega FM were just 1970 recordings, and that the people who spoke were recorded and killed thereafter. P-0145 stated that in the LRA, people were told that as soon as they came out of the bush they 1971 would be killed, and that voices would be recorded and put on Mega FM as a hoax.

text: This evidence indicates convincingly that the LRA sought to manage the information available to its members, in order to prevent them from developing a realistic view on the possibility and consequences of escaping. As such, this is a means squarely fitting within the measures employed in the LRA to sustain a sufficient number of individuals on whom to rely for the execution of orders. This measure affected mostly the lower ranking soldiers, who were largely prohibited from listening to public radio broadcasts.

text: 1963 P-0054: T-94, p. 40, lines 13-21. 1964 P-0440: T-41, p. 5, lines 8-10. 1965 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0499. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254- 1991, at 2069. 1966 P-0145: T-143, p. 37, lines 18-22. 1967 P-0145: T-143, p. 38, lines 16-20. 1968 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 79; P-0307: T-152, p. 69, lines 2-18. 1969 P-0054: T-94, p. 46, lines 15-19. 1970 P-0406: T-156, p. 11, lines 12-20. See also P-0231: T-123, p. 24, line 22 – p. 25, line 4. 1971 P-0145: T-143, p. 36, lines 14-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 346/1077 4 February 2021

text: On the other hand, the evidence demonstrates that commanders generally had the ability to and did listen to public radio.

text: f. Living conditions

text: Sinia, and more generally LRA members, especially those of lower rank, suffered from hunger and lack of adequate clothing. They regularly slept outside on the ground. There

text: was no or very limited treatment available in case of sickness or injury.

text: In the view of the Chamber, hunger, as well as lack of adequate clothing and medical treatment, which were reported by witnesses as regular problems faced in the LRA, compounded the suffering of the LRA members. Some witnesses described specifically the emotional strain this placed on them during their time in the LRA. It is only natural to conclude that this situation made LRA members more susceptible to the authority of the leaders, and less able to resist their control.

text: P-0252 testified that LRA soldiers survived on ‘greens and leaves and whatever you find edible from the bush’, and that there was a difference between what the commanders ate 1973 and what the foot soldiers ate. He gave the specific example of the practice of drying 1974 beef so that the commander could ‘keep[] eating that dried meat’. P-0340 similarly testified that in periods of shortage, food was reserved only for commanders, and the rest of the LRA members had to continue moving until food was looted, when they could eat 1975 again. P-0379 testified that if there was enough food, and if they were not being 1976 pursued, there could have been two meals a day in his unit. However, during a pursuit or when there was a helicopter gunship hovering above, there would be no meal during 1977 the day, but only in the evening. The witness also testified that the quantity of the available food depended entirely on the looting from civilians, and that in times of 1978 shortage items like chicken or beans were given to the commanders. P-0406 stated that when he was abducted in 2002 there was enough food, but ‘between 2003 and 2004, life became extremely hard, and we did not have sufficient food. If you wanted food, you

text: 1972 Para. 133 above. 1973 P-0252: T-88, p. 30, lines 11-16. 1974 P-0252: T-88, p. 30, lines 17-20. 1975 P-0340: T-102, p. 50, lines 19-25. 1976 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, lines 15-21. 1977 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, lines 22-23. 1978 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, line 24 – p. 10, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 347/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1979 had to go to the camps and fight.’ P-0314 also testified that there was a food shortage

text: 1980 in the LRA.

text: P-0070 testified that sometimes things were fine for the newly abducted, and sometimes

text: 1981 not, depending on the situation. He stated that in particular following an abduction of

text: a large number of persons, they could not have anywhere to sleep, blankets or anything

text: 1982 to cover themselves, or enough food. Asked specifically about footwear, the witness

text: explained that new abductees who arrived with shoes kept them, but otherwise were not

text: 1983 given any. Similarly, P-0406 stated that in 2003-2004, LRA members were wearing

text: 1984 tattered clothing, and did not have bedsheets to cover themselves.

text: 1985 P-0264 testified that there was nowhere else to sleep except in the bush. After arriving

text: at a position each day, ordinary soldiers had to set up their own beds, using a net or tent

text: 1986 if they had one, and otherwise using grass in the rainy season. P-0314 testified that

text: when he was abducted there was no tent that he could use, so he slept in the open, but

text: 1987 that during the rainy season a tent was put up and eight persons slept inside. The

text: witnesses consistently testified that relatively more comfort was available to

text: commanders. P-0340 stated that tents were only meant for the commanders, and the rest

text: 1988 of the people would sleep around a bonfire without the protection of a tent. P-0286

text: 1989 also testified that only commanders had tents, whereas P-0379 stated that some foot

text: 1990 soldiers also had tents. P-0379 testified that in many cases commanders had thin,

text: foldable mattresses, but that the ordinary soldiers and the newly abducted people did not

text: 1991 have beds. P-0410 also mentioned that his commander’s bed was made using a

text: 1992 foldable mattress. Some soldiers had polythene bags that they used for sleeping as a

text: 1979 P-0406: T-154, p. 84, lines 16-20. 1980 P-0314: T-75, p. 52, lines 5-7. 1981 P-0070: T-106, p. 57, lines 2-6. 1982 P-0070: T-106, p. 57, lines 6-9. 1983 P-0070: T-106, p. 58, lines 9-14. 1984 P-0406: T-154, p. 84, lines 21-25. 1985 P-0264: T-65, p. 58, lines 8-10. 1986 P-0264: T-65, p. 58, lines 13-18. 1987 P-0314: T-75, p. 50, line 23 – p. 51, line 7. 1988 P-0340: T-102, p. 52, lines 2-7. 1989 P-0286: T-131, p. 58, lines 13-14. 1990 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, lines 1-7. 1991 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, lines 8-13. 1992 P-0410: T-151, p. 24, lines 10-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 348/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1993 bed. P-0406 testified that while commanders had beds, ‘we just slept anywhere we

text: 1994 could rest our heads’. In this context, the Chamber also refers to its findings below,

text: to the effect that commanders, including Dominic Ongwen, forced abducted women and

text: 1995 girls to perform domestic work in their households.

text: P-0070 stated that in the LRA, people also died of sickness, and mentioned in particular

text: 1996 that during the time the LRA was in Sudan, a cholera epidemic killed a lot of people.

text: 1997 P-0205 also stated that in the LRA, obtaining medicines was a problem. P-0372 stated

text: that no medicine was available in the LRA, and that apart from dressing the wounds, no

text: 1998 other treatment could be given to the injured.

text: In addition, the Chamber also heard evidence describing generally the emotional

text: condition of LRA members. P-0070 stated that newly abducted people were very fearful,

text: because they were not used to gunshots or being pursued by gunships or armoured

text: 1999 vehicles. Indeed, P-0309 testified that he had never seen killings before his abduction,

text: 2000 and that the first time he saw it he got ‘so scared’ and was shaking.

text: The Chamber also finds very compelling the testimony of P-0340, who, asked about the

text: relationships with other abductees, responded as follows:

text: In the bush there was nowhere you could form friendship. Because if you stay close to each other they would think you are either planning to escape and it was therefore 2001 difficult for you to create friendship with others.

text: This, even if just a personal perception on the part of the witness, illustrates the constant

text: state of fear and apprehension created by the conditions in which LRA members lived.

text: 1993 P-0379: T-58, p. 9, lines 13-14. 1994 P-0406: T-154, p. 85, lines 1-3. 1995 See sections IV.C.10.ii.c, IV.C.11.vi below. 1996 P-0070: T-106, p. 63, lines 13-15. See, on the cholera epidemic before the period of the charges, also P-0231: T-123, p. 5, lines 9-10; P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 43, lines 16-19. 1997 P-0205: T-49, p. 66, lines 19-22. 1998 P-0372: T-148, p. 65, line 25 – p. 66, line 4. 1999 P-0070: T-106, p. 61, line 22 – p. 62, line 2. 2000 P-0309: T-61, p. 50, line 22 – p. 51, line 2. 2001 P-0340: T-102, p. 52, lines 8-12. See also P-0330: T-53, p. 47, lines 10-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 349/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dominic Ongwen’s position within the LRA

text: At the beginning of the period relevant for the charges, on 1 July 2002, Dominic Ongwen was battalion commander, in charge of the Oka battalion of Sinia brigade. Dominic

text: Ongwen was promoted to the rank of major on 1 July 2002.

text: In the present section, the Chamber lays out its analysis of evidence in relation to the

text: position occupied by Dominic Ongwen in the LRA, and in particular within Sinia, during

text: the period relevant for the charges, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. It is

text: important to note that the evidence in relation to how Dominic Ongwen exercised his

text: authority, discussed at various other points in this judgment, is also relevant and supports

text: the conclusions reached in this section.

text: 2003 Dominic Ongwen was born in or around 1978 and abducted into the LRA in 1987. At

text: the commencement of the period relevant for the charges, he held the position of

text: commander of Oka battalion in Sinia brigade. This is established by the testimonies of

text: P-0205 and P-0231, who testified that Dominic Ongwen was the commander of Oka 2004 battalion at the time the LRA returned from Sudan following Operation Iron Fist.

text: ISO logbooks of radio communications provide further corroboration. They record, on 2005 2006 20 September 2002 and 2 December 2002, transmissions of overviews of the

text: structure of the LRA, including references to Dominic Ongwen as battalion commander

text: in Sinia brigade.

text: As to Dominic Ongwen’s rank, the ISO logbook indicates that he was promoted from the

text: 2007 rank of captain to the rank of major on 1 July 2002. This is confirmed by P-0231, who

text: testified that at the time of his injury, which as discussed in the following section occurred 2008 in October or November 2002, Dominic Ongwen held the rank of major.

text: 2002 Para. 134 above. 2003 See section I.C above. 2004 P-0205: T-47, p. 17, line 25 – p. 18, line 7; P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 27, line 24 – p. 28, line 5. See also P- 0070: T-105, p. 67, line 24 – p. 68, line 3 (testifying that Dominic Ongwen was battalion commander in Sinia ‘[f]rom the time we left Sudan during the Iron Fist’ up to 2003). As explained above, the LRA move from Sudan following Operation Iron Fist occurred a short time before 1 July 2002. See section I.A above. 2005 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0166-67. 2006 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0079. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2007 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0246, 0248. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2008 P-0231: T-122, p. 53, lines 12-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 350/1077 4 February 2021

text: In October or November 2002 Dominic Ongwen was injured and placed in sickbay until around mid-2003. From at least December 2002 onwards, he again exercised his authority as battalion commander. In April 2003, Dominic Ongwen was briefly arrested by Vincent Otti. The arrest did not interrupt the exercise of his authority for any significant

text: period.

text: There are two particular events in Dominic Ongwen’s personal chronology in the LRA of which the particular relevance for the charges has been extensively discussed during the trial and is disputed by the parties: Dominic Ongwen’s injury in late 2002, and his arrest by Vincent Otti in 2003.

text: 2010 As to the injury, the parties agree, and the evidence consistently demonstrates that Dominic Ongwen was injured in late 2002. The disagreement between the parties relates to the effect this injury had on his performance of tasks as an active senior LRA commander. While the Prosecutor submits that even if injured, Dominic Ongwen retained control over Sinia fighters and was operational again by at least 6 December 2011 2002, the Defence submits that Dominic Ongwen ‘spent the next one to one and a half years in sickbay’, did not retain command of his unit at the time, and, in the final 2012 instance, could not have participated in the LRA attack on Pajule in October 2003.

text: As concerns the arrest, the Defence case is that at the time of the Pajule attack, while in 2013 sickbay, Dominic Ongwen was under arrest by Vincent Otti. The Prosecution, relying primarily on the radio intercepts, concedes that Dominic Ongwen was indeed arrested ‘briefly’ in 2003, but argues that this occurred around 20 April 2003 and that Dominic 2014 Ongwen was ‘back in action two days after his arrest’.

text: In the following paragraphs, the Chamber considers first the evidence relating to Dominic Ongwen’s injury in late 2002 and, second, the evidence in relation to his arrest by Vincent Otti in April 2003. Third, the Chamber addresses the question of the impact of either of these events on Dominic Ongwen’s activities in the LRA in mid-2003.

text: 2009 Para. 135 above. 2010 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 33 (stating that Dominic Ongwen was injured ‘on or around 9 November 2002’); Defence Closing Brief, para. 313 (stating that the injury took place in ‘late 2002’). 2011 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 34-45. 2012 Defence Closing Brief, paras 313-314. 2013 Defence Closing Brief, paras 308, 315, 322, 685. 2014 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 46-49.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 351/1077 4 February 2021

text: The circumstances of Dominic Ongwen’s injury are described consistently by witnesses

text: P-0231, P-0205 and P-0379, who have detailed knowledge of the matter, based on their

text: personal observation as LRA fighters in close proximity to Dominic Ongwen.

text: P-0231 stated that Dominic Ongwen was injured during a mission ‘towards the border

text: between Acholi and Karamoja’, specifically ‘between Adilang and Patongo, towards the

text: 2015 Lango side’. He testified that the unit did not actually arrive at the place of the mission

text: but turned back before, and engaged in fighting with some UPDF soldiers during their

text: 2016 return, at which point Dominic Ongwen was shot in the leg.

text: P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen was injured at Ngora on the way to attack

text: 2017 Abim. Specifically, P-0205 states that Dominic Ongwen was shot in the leg during an

text: 2018 ambush while they were trying to cross the Ngora road. P-0205 stated that he had

text: already crossed the road, when an escort of Dominic Ongwen found him and told him

text: 2019 that Dominic Ongwen had been injured. P-0205 turned back with the escort and went

text: 2020 to the location where Dominic Ongwen was. P-0205 carried Dominic Ongwen from

text: 2021 there.

text: P-0379 and P-0330 corroborated this sequence of events from their viewpoint. P-0379

text: stated that Dominic Ongwen was shot in the thigh when crossing a road, and initially left

text: 2022 behind with his escort. The witness was in a group that had already gone ahead, when

text: 2023 Dominic Ongwen’s escort came and told them Dominic Ongwen had been shot. They

text: 2024 returned to where Dominic Ongwen was and carried him away from there. P-0330 in

text: turn stated that he was in the same group with Dominic Ongwen when the latter was shot

text: 2025 in the leg in an ambush while crossing a road.

text: 2015 P-0231: T-122, p. 52, lines 13-25. 2016 P-0231: T-122, p. 53, lines 1-4. 2017 P-0205: T-47, p. 22, lines 4-10, p. 25, lines 10-18. 2018 P-0205: T-47, p. 22, lines 4-10. 2019 P-0205: T-47, p. 22, lines 15-21. 2020 P-0205: T-47, p. 22, lines 21-22. 2021 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 22, line 22. 2022 P-0379: T-56, p. 55, lines 4-11. The Chamber notes that P-0379 stated that Dominic Ongwen was injured on the ‘road leading to Patongo’ (T-57, p. 3, lines 9-11), around Kalongo (T-59-CONF, p. 20, line 23 – p. 21, line 11), which is compatible with P-0205’s evidence. 2023 P-0379: T-56, p. 55, lines 12-13. 2024 P-0379: T-56, p. 55, lines 16-20. 2025 P-0330: T-52, p. 67, lines 13-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 352/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2026 Further corroboration of the above testimonies was provided by P-0226 and P-0235.

text: The Chamber observes that the witnesses referred to above have used different place

text: names to indicate the approximate location, but that these indications are compatible, and

text: all indicate that Dominic Ongwen was injured at a location somewhere in the area of

text: Patongo, Kalongo, and Adilang.

text: Regarding the approximate date of the injury, the Chamber notes that the testimonies of

text: P-0231 and P-0205, who testified about the date, are relatively consistent. P-0231 stated

text: that it happened at some point in the period between August and October 2002, after 2027 operation Iron Fist and during the rainy season when the grass had overgrown. P-0205 2028 testified that the injury took place in October or November 2002.

text: The Prosecution puts forward the specific date of 9 November 2002, referring in particular to logbook evidence as ‘mak[ing] clear that Mr Ongwen was injured in early

text: 2029 November’. The logbook entry in question, summarising a radio conversation

text: intercepted by the ISO on 12 November 2002, reads as follows:

text: M/while Kony asked Dominic to send him the loses he incured in the two contacts with UPDF recently. Dominic told Kony that 54 soldiers were wounded in Saturdays clash with UPDF at Olung [?] Primary school. He reported among the 2030 wounded were some offrs, and one offr has his right leg broken.

text: In the view of the Chamber, the content of the logbook entry is not conclusive by itself

text: because it does not explicitly refer to Dominic Ongwen as the injured officer. Also from

text: the other information given, that link cannot be made with confidence. For this reason,

text: 2026 P-0226 testified that Dominic Ongwen was shot after an attack on Patongo, when they were walking away and crossing a road. P-0226: T-9-CONF, p. 67, line 22 – p. 68, line 13. P-0235 also testified that Dominic Ongwen was injured near the Kalongo road, which is an indication of location compatible with the above-cited witnesses, and that he was carried away by his escort to a meeting with Vincent Otti. P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 57, line 10 – p. 58, line 3. 2027 P-0231: T-122, p. 52, lines 13-17; T-123, p. 48, lines 16-24. 2028 P-0205: T-47, p. 22, lines 4-10, p. 25, lines 10-18. 2029 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 33. 2030 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0025. The Saturday before 12 November 2002 was 9 November 2002. The same clash had been reported the day before, on 11 November 2002, as having taken place ‘y/day’, i.e. on 10 November 2002, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0021-22. The ISO logbook also records Dominic Ongwen as sending a report in the morning of 10 November 2002, reporting a clash with the UPDF ‘in a place called Ciga Ciga’, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0019-20. It is not possible to determine on the face of the logbook whether this is the same or a separate clash, or indeed to conclusively date the clash in which the officer had his leg broken.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 353/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber does not rely on this logbook entry for the determination of the date of Dominic Ongwen’s injury, and instead relies on witness testimonies.

text: The Chamber also acknowledges the statement of P-0236 as it is relatively precise as to when Dominic Ongwen’s injury occurred. P-0236 stated that Dominic Ongwen was brought injured during Independence Day celebrations around one month after her 2031 abduction, meaning around 9 October 2002. Accounting for the difficulties in estimating the dates of distant events, P-0236’s testimony may be considered in line with the rest of the evidence. The reference to Independence Day celebrations, however, is not confirmed by P-0231, P-0205 or P-0379, all witnesses with more immediate direct knowledge, and therefore the Chamber attributes no significance to it.

text: It must in any case be noted that a finding on the specific date of the injury is not required. The Chamber considers the evidence to be overall compatible, and finds it sufficient to conclude that the injury took place in October or November 2002.

text: On this specific point, the Chamber considered, but ultimately did not accept, the 2032 evidence of P-0235. P-0235 spontaneously placed the time of injury in 2003, and 2033 testified it took place ‘around August’. In light of other evidence, discussed above, which is detailed and contextualised, the estimation of the date given by P-0235 is 2034 unconvincing.

text: The evidence is clear that following his injury, Dominic Ongwen was placed in an LRA 2035 sickbay. According to the evidence, in the LRA a sickbay was where the sick and 2036 injured as well as nursing mothers were kept grouped together. A sickbay was organised for one or more brigades, depending on the location where an injury occurred 2037 and where the nearest sickbay was. Notably, a sickbay was not fixed at a particular

text: 2031 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 38, line 18 – p. 39, line 13. 2032 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 57, lines 9-18. 2033 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 59, lines 9-15. 2034 It is also noted that P-0235 estimated the duration of Dominic Ongwen’s recovery at one and a half years (see para. 1043 below), which would bring the recovery towards the end of 2004 if not further, a proposition which is entirely out of line with the rest of the evidence. 2035 P-0231: T-122, p. 53, lines 16-21; P-0205: T-47, p. 25, lines 3-9; P-0309: T-61, p. 38, lines 4-24; P-0379: T- 56, p. 56, lines 11-14. See also P-0330: T-52, p. 69, lines 7-9. In light of the other consistent evidence, the Chamber attributes no consequence to P-0330 describing the sickbay as a ‘Gilva bay’. 2036 P-0142: T-71, p. 22, lines 2-7; P-0016: T-34, p. 7, line 22-23. 2037 P-0142: T-71, p. 22, lines 13-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 354/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2038 place, but moved, depending on the danger posed by government soldiers. As such, the Chamber observes that an LRA sickbay was not so much a fixed place, but rather an organisational unit.

text: The evidence indicates that part of the Oka battalion, the battalion under Dominic Ongwen’s command, stayed at the sickbay with him, and that altogether there were about 2039 20-25 people at the sickbay. P-0231 stated that Odong Cowboy, Oka deputy commander at the time, was in charge of the sickbay until his surrender to the 2040 government. Evidence indicates that Odong Cowboy escaped from the LRA in March 2041 2003.

text: Another part of the Oka battalion, however, did not stay at the sickbay with Dominic 2042 Ongwen. These soldiers were under the responsibility of another person from the Oka 2043 battalion, whom P-0205 identified as Cele.

text: Some of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen span across the period of his injury and subsequent stay in sickbay. The Chamber must therefore determine whether Dominic Ongwen exercised his powers as commander of Oka battalion also during that period.

text: In this regard, the Chamber concludes that any disruption to Dominic Ongwen’s exercise of his powers as Oka battalion commander was limited in time. As laid out in the following paragraphs, as early as December 2002, Dominic Ongwen was again exercising his authority as battalion commander.

text: This is demonstrated first by the evidence which shows that Dominic Ongwen retained command while in sickbay. P-0231 testified that the sickbay sustained itself through

text: 2038 P-0142: T-71, p. 22, lines 17-22. See also P-0205: T-49, p. 68, lines 8-10. 2039 P-0205: T-47, p. 25, lines 19-23; P-0231: T-122, p. 55, lines 21-24; P-0309: T-62, p. 27, line 22 – p. 28, line 2. 2040 P-0231: T-122, p. 53, line 22 – p. 54, line 3; T-123, p. 50, lines 19-25. P-0205 corroborated that Odong Cowboy was at the sickbay with Dominic Ongwen and that he was Oka deputy commander at the time, P-0205: T-47, p. 25, line 19 – p. 26, line 13. 2041 See para. 2622 below. 2042 P-0231: T-122, p. 57, lines 6-13. 2043 P-0205: T-50, p. 12, lines 14-16. See also P-0205: T-49-CONF, p. 64, lines 18-21. P-0231 testified that the part of Oka battalion which did not stay with Dominic Ongwen at the sickbay was under the responsibility of Otto Agweng, the IO in Oka battalion, while there were also ‘some other officers (P-0231: T-122, p. 59, lines 6-17). Noting that P-0231 explained that he was not sure about the matter, and noting that the issue is of limited importance, the Chamber considers that there is no need to further address the matter.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 355/1077 4 February 2021

text: ‘operations’, which meant going to ‘collect food’, and that whenever fighters went on

text: such operations, they informed Dominic Ongwen and obtained his go ahead in

text: 2044 advance. P-0231 testified generally that during Dominic Ongwen’s time in sickbay,

text: the members of Oka battalion who were in sickbay followed Dominic Ongwen’s

text: instructions, but that Dominic Ongwen otherwise did not issue any orders to other

text: 2045 members of the group during that time. Daniel Opiyo also testified that at the time

text: Dominic Ongwen did not have any authority, but was ‘respected as a high ranking officer

text: 2046 who was a patient at the sickbay’.

text: The matter-of-fact observation of P-0101 is also valuable in this context. She stated in

text: respect of Dominic Ongwen’s authority while in sickbay: ‘[e]ven if he was still weak

text: physically he could still use his mouth to give instructions or orders because if a superior

text: 2047 gives instructions, you have to go and follow what he says’.

text: 2048 P-0205 testified that while in sickbay, Dominic Ongwen sent people to ‘work’.

text: Specifically, P-0205 stated that in December 2002, Dominic Ongwen ‘sent people to

text: 2049 collect cows, cattle from Pajule’, and that in February 2003 Dominic Ongwen, while

text: 2050 still in sickbay, ordered an attack on Opit. P-0205 also testified that a month after the

text: attack on Opit, he attended an RV where it was stated that Dominic Ongwen was

text: 2051 promoted. According to the witness, Buk Abudema had come from Sudan and handed

text: 2052 over to Dominic Ongwen the items he had brought, and gave him instructions. P-0205

text: testified that because Dominic Ongwen ‘couldn’t move far’, he was taken back to the

text: 2053 sickbay.

text: P-0379 similarly stated that sometime between February and April 2003, Dominic

text: Ongwen sent people to conduct an ambush on the UPDF who were patrolling on the

text: 2054 Lalogi road, but did not himself go. He stated that at that time, Dominic Ongwen

text: 2044 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 54, lines 16-23. 2045 P-0231: T-122, p. 60, lines 8-16. 2046 D-0056: T-228, p. 61, lines 22 – p. 62, line 1. 2047 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 57, lines 3-5. 2048 P-0205: T-47, p. 28, lines 23-25. 2049 P-0205: T-47, p. 29, lines 1-3. 2050 P-0205: T-47, p. 29, line 16 – p. 30, line 10. 2051 P-0205: T-47, p. 32, lines 15-23. 2052 P-0205: T-47, p. 32, line 24 – p. 33, line 11. 2053 P-0205: T-47, p. 33, lines 7-9. 2054 P-0379: T-59-CONF, p. 36, line 8 – p. 37, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 356/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2055 could walk, but was still limping, and ‘wasn’t yet doing very well’. He also testified

text: 2056 that while in sickbay, Dominic Ongwen sent soldiers to Awere. P-0379 also testified

text: that Dominic Ongwen personally led an attack on Opit, and that he was able to walk at

text: 2057 2058 the time. Considering that P-0379 placed this attack after the attack on Awere,

text: 2059 which took place in April 2003, this was a separate event than the one described by

text: P-0205 as taking place in February 2003.

text: Further, P-0366 testified that at the time when she escaped, Dominic Ongwen was able

text: 2060 to ‘walk for short distances and rest’. As discussed above, P-0366 escaped around

text: 2061 February 2003. In turn, P-0231 testified that at the time of Dominic Ongwen’s arrest

text: 2062 he was able to ‘walk but using a stick’.

text: It can be concluded from the above that Dominic Ongwen was able to walk by around

text: February – April 2003. Because the evidence of P-0205, P-0379, P-0366 and P-0231 is

text: more specific and contextualised, the Chamber does not base itself on P-0235’s statement

text: that Dominic Ongwen’s recovery took about one and a half years until he was able to

text: 2063 finally walk. While the Chamber does not doubt that P-0235 spent time with Dominic

text: Ongwen during this period, her evidence is but a general estimate, and is affected also

text: by her claim that Dominic Ongwen was injured in August 2003, which, as outlined above,

text: 2064 is unconvincing and does not accord with the rest of the evidence.

text: The evidence also indicates that while in sickbay, Dominic Ongwen maintained

text: communication with other high commanders of the LRA. P-0379 testified that during the

text: 2065 time in sickbay ‘many people’ came to visit Dominic Ongwen. He stated that Buk

text: Abudema came once, Charles Tabuley came several times, and Lagoga and Odhiambo

text: 2066 also came. P-0205 also testified that he visited Dominic Ongwen while he was in

text: 2055 P-0379: T-59, p. 37, lines 3-13. 2056 P-0379: T-57, p. 8, lines 10-15. See para. 1160 below. 2057 P-0379: T-57, p. 13, lines 14-15, p. 14, lines 3-5. 2058 P-0379: T-57, p. 8, lines 10-17. 2059 See para. 1160 below. 2060 P-0366: T-147, p. 93, line 25 – p. 94, line 17. 2061 See para. 410 above. 2062 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 63, line 23 – p. 64, line 1. 2063 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 59, lines 2-8. 2064 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 59, lines 9-15. 2065 P-0379: T-57, p. 5, lines 8-9. 2066 P-0379: T-57, p. 5, lines 10-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 357/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2067 sickbay. The Chamber notes that P-0309 stated that he did not see Vincent Otti, Raska

text: Lukwiya, Charles Tabuley or Tolbert Yadin come visit Dominic Ongwen at the sickbay,

text: and that he did not know whether Buk Abudema, David Oyenga or Cesar Acellam visited

text: 2068 either. However, the Chamber considers that this evidence does not bring into

text: question the reliability of the testimonies of P-0379 and P-0205, especially given that P-

text: 0309 was a low-ranking LRA member and that visits to Dominic Ongwen could occur

text: 2069 without his knowledge.

text: As to radio communications, P-0231 testified that at the sickbay Dominic Ongwen did

text: 2070 not have any radio communication equipment. But asked how Dominic Ongwen

text: would communicate from the sickbay with the rest of the Oka battalion, the witness stated

text: 2071 2072 that ‘they would find us’. There was a scheduled RV every month for this purpose.

text: P-0231 testified that while Dominic Ongwen did not normally attend these meetings, he

text: came for meetings with the brigade commander, or if there was anything specific that he

text: 2073 wanted to discuss. Similarly, Daniel Opiyo stated that there was no radio at the

text: 2074 sickbay, but that the units which brought food sometimes came with the radio. He

text: 2075 stated that it was important for Dominic Ongwen to know what was going on. In line

text: with these witnesses on the point that Dominic Ongwen used a radio device brought by

text: visitors while in sickbay, P-0016 stated that when he visited Dominic Ongwen in sickbay,

text: his own radio was used to send out a message that Dominic Ongwen was fine, as Dominic

text: 2076 Ongwen did not have a radio at the time. P-0205 further testified that Dominic

text: 2067 P-0205: T-47, p. 27, lines 2-5. 2068 P-0309: T-62, p. 24, lines 5-12. 2069 See also section IV.B.2.ii.b.xvi above. 2070 P-0231: T-122, p. 57, lines 16-18. See also P-0330: T-52, p. 81, lines 6-13. 2071 P-0231: T-122, p. 57, lines 16-20. Indeed, the ISO logbook indicates that in late November 2002, arrangements were made to transfer Dominic Ongwen’s radio to another unit, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0063, 0067. 2072 P-0231: T-122, p. 57, line 21 – p. 58, line 2. 2073 P-0231: T-122, p. 59, line 20 – p. 60, line 3. 2074 D-0056: T-228, p. 61, lines 8-11. 2075 D-0056: T-228, p. 61, lines 12-21. D-0056 testified that he spent time with Dominic Ongwen at the sickbay, T-228, p. 60, line 20 – p. 61, line 1. 2076 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 19, lines 8-17; T-35-CONF, p. 16, lines 8-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 358/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen had access to radio communications when he visited him in sickbay. P-0235

text: testified that in sickbay, Dominic Ongwen used a radio to communicate.

text: Finally, in this context, it is noted that Dominic Ongwen’s name is included in the list of

text: call signs transmitted by Joseph Kony’s signaller on 2 December 2002, and a number

text: of radio communications were intercepted which indicate that Dominic Ongwen was

text: active on radio shortly after this time.

text: According to the ISO logbook, on 8 December 2002, Dominic Ongwen told Joseph Kony

text: that he ambushed a vehicle on 6 December 2002 on the Kitgum-Gulu road at Ogom near

text: Angagura. The logbook records Joseph Kony responding that ‘what Dominic did was

text: very good by ambushing [a] veh[icle]’. A UPDF logbook of intercepted

text: communication records Dominic Ongwen as active on radio on 1, 5, 6 and 9 February

text: Then, on 10 February 2003, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as informing Raska

text: Lukwiya that Pokot was with him, but that Ojok had gone for another mission. This

text: entry specifically corroborates the evidence of witnesses who stated that even when in

text: sickbay, Dominic Ongwen exercised his role as commander, including by sending his

text: subordinates on missions. Further logbook evidence indicates that on 12 February 2003,

text: Dominic Ongwen reported that he ambushed and burnt a vehicle the previous day.

text: 2077 P-0205: T-47, p. 27, lines 6-8. 2078 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 5. In light of the evidence cited in this paragraph, the Chamber does not find decisive the evidence of P-0330, who responded negatively to the question whether he saw anyone visit Dominic Ongwen at the sickbay with a radio, see P-0330: T-52, p. 81, lines 14-15. 2079 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0079. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2080 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0093. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2081 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0093. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2082 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3446, 3450, 3452, 3457. The Chamber notes that there are no corresponding logbook entries from other intercepting agencies for these specific dates, but considers, in light of its general discussion of the reliability of intercept evidence, that the UPDF logbook is sufficiently reliable in the context at hand. 2083 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3459. The Chamber notes that there are no corresponding logbook entries from other intercepting agencies for this specific date, but considers, in light of its general discussion of the reliability of intercept evidence, that the UPDF logbook is sufficiently reliable in the context at hand. 2084 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3461. The Chamber notes that there are no corresponding logbook entries from other intercepting agencies for this specific date, but considers, in light of its general discussion of the reliability of intercept evidence, that the UPDF logbook is sufficiently reliable in the context at hand.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 359/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 18 March 2003, Vincent Otti is recorded in the ISO logbook as sending a message to Dominic Ongwen instructing him to ‘make sure he plants landmines (APM) in the

text: 2085 position he is moving to attack’. On 1 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen is recorded in

text: the ISO logbook as reporting to Joseph Kony that a soldier, ‘left to keep women in the

text: 2086 camp (hideout)’, had sex with Abudema’s and Charles Otim’s so-called ‘wives’. On

text: 2 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen reported that he had already killed the soldier pursuant

text: 2087 to Joseph Kony’s order. On 9 April 2003, Vincent Otti is recorded as giving an order

text: 2088 to, inter alia, Dominic Ongwen to mobilise soldiers. On 16 April 2003, Joseph Kony

text: is recorded in the ISO logbook as ‘blast[ing]’ Dominic Ongwen, calling him a ‘weak’

text: commander and saying that ‘if Dominic is not careful, then he will be demoted so that

text: 2089 another off[ice]r take charge of that BN’.

text: The Chamber therefore concludes, on the evidence, that Dominic Ongwen’s access to

text: radio communication during his stay in sickbay may not have been permanent, but that

text: he nevertheless had access to a radio at times and did communicate on radio with some

text: regularity.

text: Following the chronology of the relevant historical facts, the Chamber considers at this juncture the evidence in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s arrest by Vincent Otti. As

text: submitted by the Prosecutor, on 20 April 2003, in a radio communication which was

text: intercepted and logged by both the ISO and the UPDF, Joseph Kony ordered the arrest

text: 2085 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0026-27. The Chamber notes that while the entries in the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not mention this specific detail, both in fact stop their entries after recording the conversation between Joseph Kony and the person not affiliated with the LRA, while the ISO logbook clearly recorded more details of the LRA radio communication at this broadcast time (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0254-3399, at 3523; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6248). 2086 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0071-72. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3399, at 3548; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6257. 2087 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0073. The Chamber notes that while the entries in the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not seem to contain this detail, they appear overall less detailed than the ISO logbook entry for this specific communication time (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3548- 49 or UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6257-58). 2088 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0098. The Chamber notes that while not containing the specific instruction given by Vincent Otti, the UPDF Gulu logbook does mention Tabuley as passing on the order from Kony to Otti which precedes the instruction from Otti (see UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0463). While the UPDF Soroti logbook does not mention either instruction, it overall contains much less detail than the other logbook entries for this communication time (see UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6265-66). 2089 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0124. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0491.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 360/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2090 of Dominic Ongwen over a matter involving contact with General Saleh of the UPDF.

text: 2091 On 21 April 2003, Vincent Otti reported that Dominic Ongwen had been arrested.

text: P-0231 testified that Dominic Ongwen was arrested by Vincent Otti and accused of

text: 2092 communicating with the Government of Uganda by phone. As a result, the senior

text: soldiers who had been at the sickbay with Dominic Ongwen were told that they were

text: going to be monitored by Vincent Otti’s security, while the rest of the people would be

text: 2093 staying nearby. Vincent Otti stated that he would wait for an instruction from Joseph

text: 2094 2095 Kony. The order was given that their weapons be taken away. Dominic Ongwen

text: and the rest of the group remained under arrest by Vincent Otti for ‘between three weeks

text: 2096 and a month’. Thereafter, the arrestees were summoned by Vincent Otti and told they

text: 2097 were now free. They separated from Vincent Otti and went to an area close to the

text: 2098 2099 Aswa River. At some point afterwards, they went to Teso.

text: There is a great amount of detail both in the record of the intercepted communication and

text: in the testimony of P-0231, which leads the Chamber to conclude that both sources refer

text: to the same event and complement each other. P-0231’s evidence provides detail as to

text: how Dominic Ongwen’s arrest came about and what it meant for him to be arrested,

text: whereas the intercept evidence assists in dating the occurrence. In this last regard, the

text: Chamber notes that P-0231 understandably did not provide a date when Dominic

text: Ongwen was arrested. Nevertheless, the relative references to the timing of the event in

text: his testimony, i.e. the reference that it happened while Dominic Ongwen was in sickbay

text: 2100 and after the first escape of Odong Cowboy in 2003, are entirely compatible with the

text: logbook evidence.

text: 2090 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0136-37; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0505-06. See also section IV.B.3.ii.b above. 2091 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0139; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0509-10. 2092 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 62, lines 2-19. 2093 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 62, line 24 – p. 63, line 4. 2094 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 62, lines 15-18. 2095 P-0231: T-123-CONF, p. 56, lines 13-17. 2096 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 64, lines 8-11. 2097 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 64, lines 11-14. 2098 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 64, lines 15-18. 2099 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 78, lines 4-9. 2100 The evidence generally indicates that Odong Cow escaped in March 2003. See para. 2622 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 361/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that whereas P-0379 admitted to having only very limited knowledge, he stated that Kidega at one point, after Odong Cow had already escaped, brought a phone 2101 to Dominic Ongwen, which P-0379 saw. This, in the specific circumstances, provides additional corroboration to the logbook evidence and the evidence of P-0231.

text: The Chamber clarifies that it does not base its findings on the issue of Dominic Ongwen’s 2102 arrest on the UPDF intelligence report referred to by the Defence. The report, dated August 2003, and signed by a UPDF intelligence officer, states that ‘Comdr Odomi narrowly escaped firing squad when he was [sic] reportedly received some bags and 2103 money from Saleh’. However, it is not possible to ascertain the source from which the UPDF obtained the information. For this reason, the Chamber does not rely on the UPDF intelligence report and instead relies on the available reliable evidence of events surrounding Dominic Ongwen’s arrest, in particular the logbook evidence and the testimony of P-0231.

text: Together with the above witness and logbook evidence, which relates specifically to the question of arrest, it is pertinent to also take into account other evidence which indicates Dominic Ongwen’s activities in the immediate period following this arrest around April 2003. This is because, in the final instance, the question of fact is not whether Dominic Ongwen was arrested, but rather whether he was active as LRA commander throughout this period, without any significant interruption. It may be added that the same evidence also allows for determining any impact that the continuing effects of Dominic Ongwen’s injury may have had on his activities.

text: In this regard, the Chamber notes that already on 22 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen is recorded in the logbooks as communicating with other senior LRA commanders in 2104 relation to the retrieval of certain hidden weapons. He is recorded as on air in the 2105 UPDF logbook on 25, 26 and 27 April 2003. On 28 April 2003, according to both the ISO and UPDF records of intercepted communications, he reported to Joseph Kony on

text: 2101 P-0379: T-59, p. 67, lines 13-23. 2102 Defence Closing Brief, para. 685, n. 1113 referring to UPDF Report, UGA-OTP-0255-0943, at 0945. 2103 UPDF Report, UGA-OTP-0255-0943, at 0945. 2104 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0141; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0512. 2105 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0522, 0525, 0527. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0063-0002, at 0149, 0152, 0155.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 362/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2106 the situation on the ground in Lagile, and received instructions. The intercept

text: logbooks also record Dominic Ongwen as communicating on the radio on 29 April

text: 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2003, 1 May 2003, 3 May 2003, 4 May 2003, and 5 May 2003.

text: At this point, the Chamber makes several observations. First, the Chamber notes the

text: evidence received in relation to ‘arrest’ and ‘prison’ within the LRA. This evidence

text: indicates that these concepts referred not to punishment by detention in a confined space,

text: but rather to a specific measure used for commanders, of which the central feature was

text: the (temporal) stripping of usual authority. P-0054 explained, in general terms:

text: [I]f, for example, someone does something bad, that person will be removed from there and transferred to another brigade. Once you arrive there you would be told to remain there as a prisoner. When you arrive there you may have been transferred with your whole family so you would still be doing some duties. So when you are transferred sometimes you are transferred with the whole family. And when there is work to be done you may be deployed. Or at least one of your soldiers would go 2112 for that duty.

text: The witness also stated that being in prison meant that one’s rank has been removed, and

text: 2113 that the person has been put under someone else.

text: 2114 P-0070 testified that this punishment was applied ‘regularly’, ‘on several occasions’.

text: He explained that the arrest or jailing of a commander meant the loss of the right of

text: leadership, whereas a junior soldier would be given luggage to carry under this

text: 2115 punishment. P-0070 specified that an imprisoned person would not be taken to

text: 2106 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0161; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0531. 2107 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0164; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0534. 2108 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0171; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0543. 2109 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0552. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063- 0002, at 0177. 2110 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0559. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063- 0002, at 0183. 2111 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0562-63. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063- 0002, at 0186-87. 2112 P-0054: T-94, p. 13, lines 16-25. 2113 P-0054: T-94, p. 14, lines 14-20. 2114 P-0070: T-106, p. 41, line 25 – p. 42, line 1. 2115 P-0070: T-106, p. 42, lines 2-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 363/1077 4 February 2021 another place, but would stay in the convoy; only a brigade commander would be sent to 2116 Control Altar.

text: P-0070’s evidence received corroboration from P-0144, who stated that when a commanding officer of a unit was detained, he would be free to move, but would lose 2117 control of his unit until he was reinstated. Simon Tabo also provided a similar 2118 description of ‘prison’ as a form of punishment in the LRA.

text: Second, for this reason the Chamber does not see a contradiction between the radio intercept evidence, which shows Dominic Ongwen as active mere days after the order for his arrest was given by Joseph Kony, and the evidence of P-0231, who stated that the arrest continued for up to one month. Even under arrest and under close supervision by Vincent Otti, Dominic Ongwen could in fact continue to act. There is evidence of his actions as LRA commander from the end of April onwards and in light of this evidence, the fact whether he was formally under arrest fades in importance. 2119 Third, Dominic Ongwen was promoted in September 2003 as discussed below. In the assessment of the Chamber, this is another element which shows that the effect of Dominic Ongwen’s arrest in April 2003 was limited.

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen’s arrest in April 2003 did not for any significant period interrupt the exercise of his authority as commander.

text: As discussed in the following paragraphs, the evidence indicates that at some point in mid-2003, Dominic Ongwen also left the sickbay where he had stayed following his injury. However, the relevance of this fact for the charges is limited, given the evidence that he was active also during his stay in the sickbay. The time that Dominic Ongwen finally left the sickbay can be distilled from the following evidence, consisting of various broadly compatible estimates.

text: 2116 P-0070: T-106, p. 42, lines 7-14. 2117 P-0144: T-91, p. 27, 3-10. 2118 D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 21. 2119 See para. 1071 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 364/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence also demonstrates that for some time in mid-2003, Dominic Ongwen was

text: 2120 assigned to Control Altar and operated together with Vincent Otti. It is not clear what

text: the reason was for this arrangement, but, as discussed in detail below, the evidence does

text: not indicate that it meant that Dominic Ongwen was deprived of his authority as LRA

text: 2121 commander.

text: 2122 P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen stayed in sickbay for about eight months. He

text: stated that ‘while we were moving to Teso we were all out of the sickbay. Dominic was

text: 2123 now able to walk.’ The Chamber notes that the Defence raised with the witness, on

text: the basis of his prior statement, the question whether or not his evidence was that at the

text: 2124 time of Charles Tabuley’s death Dominic Ongwen was still in sickbay. P-0205

text: clarified that at the time of Charles Tabuley’s death Dominic Ongwen was out of sickbay

text: 2125 and in a convoy with Vincent Otti. This evidence is consistent with the evidence of

text: Dominic Ongwen’s movements around the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp,

text: 2126 discussed below.

text: In line with P-0205’s testimony, P-0231 confirmed that Dominic Ongwen left sickbay to

text: 2127 2128 go to Teso. He stated that this was between August and September 2003. It is

text: noted that P-0231 testified that this was the time that he separated from Dominic Ongwen

text: 2129 to serve under Charles Tabuley. For this reason, as also explained below, the Chamber

text: does not rely on P-0231 stating that Dominic Ongwen was ‘not involved’ in the attack

text: on Pajule IDP camp, but in fact, as is explained below, concludes the opposite on the

text: basis of other evidence, in particular that given by witnesses who were present and had

text: 2120 P-0205: T-47, p. 35, line 7 – p. 36, line 7; T-49-CONF, p. 64, line 10; P-0209: T-160, p. 15, lines 6-8 (stating that Dominic Ongwen was in Control Altar at the time of the attack on Pajule); P-0231: T-122, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 3, p. 35, line 22 – p. 36, line 20 (notably stating that Dominic Ongwen moved to Control Altar because of a disagreement with Buk Abudema, who was brigade commander in Sinia at the time, and that Dominic Ongwen was still in Control Altar at the time of the attack in Abia, which took place in February 2004, see paras 1164- 1165 below). 2121 See paras 1181-1182 below. 2122 P-0205: T-49, p. 59, lines 13-20. 2123 P-0205: T-49-CONF, p. 64, lines 8-10. 2124 P-0205: T-49, p. 60, lines 7-11; T-50-CONF, p. 10, line 20 – p. 11, line 10. Charles Tabuley died in late 2003, see para. 1076 below. 2125 P-0205: T-50-CONF, p. 10, line 20 – p. 11, line 10. 2126 See section IV.C.6 below. 2127 P-0231: T-122-CONF, p. 29, lines 4-8. 2128 P-0231: T-123, p. 49, lines 5-10. 2129 P-0231: T-122, p. 66, lines 4-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 365/1077 4 February 2021 an opportunity to observe the planning and execution of the attack on Pajule IDP

text: 2130 camp.

text: The Chamber also notes that P-0309 estimated that Dominic Ongwen was at the sickbay

text: 2131 for four to six months. P-0379 estimated the time to be between five and six

text: 2132 2133 months, and P-0330 at approximately three months. P-0214 estimated the time

text: 2134 Dominic Ongwen stayed at sickbay at over one year. In the assessment of the

text: Chamber, such variations can be explained by the difficulty of estimating the duration of

text: time while in the bush. Because P-0205 and P-0231 provided context, the Chamber relies

text: on their testimonies, and does not consider that they are brought in doubt by P-0309 and

text: P-0214’s estimates.

text: An ISO logbook records, under the date of 22 August 2003, Vincent Otti giving an

text: instruction that some soldiers should be sent to ‘keep those […] casualties who are in the

text: sickbay together with Dominic’, and noting that ‘Dominic [was] one of the injured who

text: 2135 [were] being kept at the sickbay’. On 16 September 2003, the logbook summarises a

text: communication by Joseph Kony as follows:

text: Kony told Otti to give Dominic radio call as he does not have one but was talking fm that of Michael. He said since Dominic is now a dis-abled comdr he can operate 2136 in Acholi areas mostly Gulu side but should have radio call.

text: Importantly, further analysis of the logbook evidence militates against allowing for the

text: possibility that the consequences of the injury continued to affect the exercise of his

text: authority as a senior LRA commander. Joseph Kony’s appointment of Dominic Ongwen

text: 2130 See para. 1184 and generally section IV.C.6 below. 2131 P-0309: T-61, p. 39, lines 4-18. 2132 P-0379: T-59, p. 62, lines 4-10. 2133 P-0330: T-52, p. 69, lines 11-13. 2134 P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 38, lines 11-16. 2135 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0297-98. The Chamber notes that the corresponding UPDF logbook entries do not contain this particular detail. However, bearing in mind its discussion on the general reliability of the intercept logbooks above, in particular that different interceptors at different agencies were bound to, at times, focus on summarising varying details of specific radio communications (see para. 666 above), the Chamber finds it appropriate to rely on this particular detail from the ISO logbook. 2136 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0411. The Chamber notes that the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not seem to contain this specific detail. However, bearing in mind its discussion on the general reliability of the intercept logbooks above, in particular that different interceptors at different agencies were bound to, at times, focus on summarising varying details of specific radio communications (see para. 666 above), the Chamber finds it appropriate to rely on this particular detail from the ISO logbook. The Chamber also notes in this context that part of the relevant tape was played to D-0025 (see T-226, p. 55, line 9 – p. 58, line 6), but that this witness’s evidence has been set aside by the Chamber (see paras 377-378 above).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 366/1077 4 February 2021 to the position of second-in-command of Sinia is discussed just below. In addition, a

text: radio communication intercepted by the ISO on 27 September 2003 indicates that Joseph

text: Kony praised Dominic Ongwen for his hard work. Then on 30 September 2003, the

text: ISO intercepted Joseph Kony as telling Dominic Ongwen to stay behind with Vincent

text: Otti on account of Dominic Ongwen having good plans which could help Vincent

text: Otti.

text: On 17 September 2003, Joseph Kony appointed Dominic Ongwen as second-in-command of the Sinia brigade. On 15 November 2003, Joseph Kony promoted Dominic Ongwen to

text: the rank of lieutenant colonel.

text: The records of intercepted radio communications indicate that, in the second half of 2003,

text: Dominic Ongwen progressed within the LRA hierarchy twice, by order of Joseph Kony. In particular, the ISO logbook records that on 17 September 2003, Vincent Otti ‘sent the

text: 2137 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0477. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly reflect the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0477 (Lamola reporting attack as planned the previous day, with details to follow at 11:00) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1024-25 (Lamola reporting attack on UPDF detachment with 300 soldiers, capturing one alive, with details to follow at 11:00) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6147 (Lamola reporting attack on UPDF detachment with 300 soldiers, as planned the day before, capturing one alive, with details to follow at 11:00) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2052 (Lamola reporting attack on UPDF, capturing one UPDF soldier alive); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0475-76 (report on attack in ‘market in Bar Oriyo’, with details on items taken) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1025 (report on attack in ‘market call Bar Oriyo’, with same details on items taken) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6147 (report on attack in ‘Bar-Riu’, with same details on items taken)). Bearing this in mind, but noting at the same time that these entries are overall less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 2138 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0501. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly reflect the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0498 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, without sending anything on items taken) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 1036 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, stating he could not take anything due to bushy grass) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2067 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, stating he could not take anything due to grass being very tall); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0499 (Kony stating that ‘highest tactics/styles of guerrilla war fare are surprise attacks and ambushes’) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1036 (Kony advising Otti that ‘highest tactic of guerrila’ should be ‘surprise attack and ambush and planting mines’) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA- OTP-0254-1991, at 2067 (Kony informing Otti that ‘highest tactics of gorrilas is to surprise’); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0501 (Kony wanting all LRA to move to Teso) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1038 (Kony ordering Otti to inform all LRA units to immediately advance to Soroti) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2069 (Kony ordering that all LRA groups in Uganda move to Teso)). The UPDF Achol Pii logbook does not include an entry for this communication time (see UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6149-50). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that the entries in the UPDF logbooks are overall less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook and that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 2139 Para. 136 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 367/1077 4 February 2021

text: details of their meeting with senior LRA Com[man]d[e]rs as below’. Vincent Otti

text: stated that ‘they formed a new LRA Division and also reshuffled the Bde Comds’.

text: The report then lists the various units and their commanders as well as other officers,

text: including referring to Dominic Ongwen as second-in-command of Sinia brigade, with

text: the following note: ‘but since he is still sick, Lapanyikwara (Lapaico) should act’. On

text: 18 September 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded as asking Vincent Otti ‘whether Dominic

text: now can walk properly as he was injured some time ago and if he can take up his post of

text: 2I/C Bde Co as Vincent Otti appointed him recently’. Vincent Otti responded that

text: ‘Dominic can now walk and can manage that post very well without any problem’.

text: The Defence points to the absence of Dominic Ongwen’s name on a UPDF overview of

text: 68 LRA commanders dated 21 September 2003. However, also noting that the list,

text: which is well-organised as reflecting the LRA command structure, does not include any

text: entry as to the second-in-command of Sinia or any other brigade, the Chamber considers

text: that this list is outweighed by the specific evidence relating to the position of Dominic

text: Ongwen at the time, and does not rely on it.

text: 2140 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0413. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 0992. 2141 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0413. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 0992. 2142 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0414. The same source indicates that on the same day, Kony decided that Lapanyikwara take Isaya Lowum’s post of Division second-in-command, and that Isaya Lowum take his position as Sinia second-in-command. The Chamber considers, also in light of the communication between Joseph Kony and Otti on 18 September 2003, that this appointment was an exchange of roles between Lapanyikwara and Isaya Lowum, and did not have a bearing on Dominic Ongwen’s appointment; see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0419. The communication of 17 September 2003 can also be found in the UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0992-94. The Chamber notes that the corresponding UPDF Logbook does not record Dominic Ongwen as still being sick, but rather indicates him being still far from Soroti as a reason for Lapanyikwara to act as second-in-command (at 0993). However, the Chamber, noting the additional details provided by the communication of 18 September 2003 recorded in the ISO Logbook, which do not appear in the UPDF Logbook record of the 18 September 2003 communication (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0996), considers the ISO Logbook record of the communication to be more reliable in this regard. 2143 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0422. The Chamber notes that while the entries in the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain this particular exchange, they are overall much less detailed (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0996; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6138-39) or do not contain any entry for the same communication time (see UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP- 0254-1991, at 2015). This said, and bearing in mind its general discussion on the reliability of intercept logbooks, the Chamber considers it appropriate to rely on this information from the ISO logbook. 2144 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0422. 2145 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 22, line 22 – p. 23, line 2; LRA Commander List, UGA-OTP-0242- 1005.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 368/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 10 October 2003, the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp took place. Dominic Ongwen

text: 2146 exercised a command role during that attack, as laid out in detail below.

text: Another entry in the ISO logbook indicates that on 15 November 2003, Joseph Kony

text: 2147 promoted Dominic Ongwen to the rank of lieutenant colonel.

text: On 4 March 2004, Joseph Kony officially appointed Dominic Ongwen as brigade

text: commander of Sinia brigade.

text: An intercepted radio communication indicates that Joseph Kony appointed Dominic

text: 2149 Ongwen to Sinia brigade commander on 4 March 2004.

text: The Chamber notes that several witnesses testified about Dominic Ongwen’s promotion

text: to the top of Sinia brigade, but mostly linked that promotion to the death of Charles

text: 2150 Tabuley, which took place in late 2003 during the LRA operation in Teso. P-0205

text: testified that at an RV at Omot following the death of Charles Tabuley, Dominic Ongwen

text: was the brigade commander of Sinia, and that Buk Abudema became Division

text: 2151 commander. P-0070 testified that Dominic Ongwen became Sinia brigade

text: commander ‘in the year 2003 at the height of the operation’, after the death of Charles

text: 2152 Tabuley and Tolbert Yadin. P-0264 testified that the first time he realised that

text: Dominic Ongwen was brigade commander was when he was with him in Teso, and that

text: 2153 this was after Charles Tabuley’s death. P-0231 also testified that Dominic Ongwen

text: became Sinia brigade commander after the death of Charles Tabuley, and also after the

text: 2154 attack on Abia. P-0406 similarly testified that he learnt of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: appointment to brigade commander of Sinia on the return from Teso, around November-

text: 2146 See section IV.C.6 below. 2147 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0051. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0254-0229, at 0366. 2148 Para. 137 above. 2149 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0122. See section IV.B.3.ii.i above. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4269. 2150 See P-0070: T-106, p. 23, lines 5-8; P-0205: T-47, p. 35, lines 7-10; P-0231: T-122, p. 67, lines 9-17; P-0372: T-148, p. 25, lines 6-24; D-0100: T-234, p. 43, line 23 – p. 44, line 3; D-0125: T-242, p. 11, line 21 – p. 12, line 14. 2151 P-0205: T-47, p. 36, line 13 – p. 38, line 25. 2152 P-0070: T-105, p. 68, line 19 – p. 69, line 13. 2153 P-0264: T-66, p. 40, line 17 – p. 41, line 6. 2154 P-0231: T-122, p. 32, line 14 – p. 33, line 3. The attack on Abia took place in February 2004. See paras 1164- 1165 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 369/1077 4 February 2021

text: December 2003, when Buk Abudema informed the soldiers that he was from that time in 2155 charge of Division, and that Dominic Ongwen would be Sinia commander.

text: Thus, it would appear that the witnesses place Dominic Ongwen’s promotion to brigade

text: commander at an earlier time than 4 March 2004. However, in light of the specific and

text: clear record of a promotion ordered by Joseph Kony on that date, the Chamber concludes

text: that Dominic Ongwen was officially appointed Sinia brigade commander on 4 March

text: Dominic Ongwen remained Sinia commander until 31 December 2005, and further. On

text: 30 May 2004, Joseph Kony promoted him to the rank of colonel, and sometime in late

text: 2004 to the rank of brigadier.

text: Three of the attacks central to the charges in the case took place in the months following Dominic Ongwen’s appointment to Sinia brigade commander, between April and June

text: P-0142, P-0231 and P-0264 testified that at the time of the Odek attack in April 2157 2004, Dominic Ongwen was in charge of Sinia. P-0054 testified that Dominic 2158 2159 Ongwen was brigade commander at the time of Lukodi, as well as at Abok. Dominic Ongwen’s role and exercise of authority at the time of each attack are discussed

text: 2160 in the respective sections below.

text: Radio intercept evidence indicates that on 30 May 2004, Joseph Kony promoted Dominic 2161 Ongwen to the rank of colonel.

text: The evidence indicates that Dominic Ongwen maintained his position as Sinia brigade

text: commander in the ensuing period. P-0440 testified that when he left the LRA in August 2162 2004, Dominic Ongwen was Sinia brigade commander. P-0406, who served as soldier

text: 2155 P-0406: T-154, p. 34, lines 3-15. 2156 Para. 138 above. 2157 P-0142: T-71, p. 3, lines 18-23; P-0231: T-122, p. 68, lines 13-24; P-0264: T-64, p. 40, lines 2-8. See also section IV.C.7 below. 2158 P-0054: T-93, p. 31, lines 4-11; P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 13-15. See also section IV.C.8 below. 2159 P-0054: T-93, p. 34, lines 18-19. See also section IV.C.9 below. 2160 See sections IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below. 2161 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0004; section IV.B.3.ii.o above. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3062. P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen was promoted to the rank of colonel ‘after he had sent the operation report of Lukodi’, which corresponds to the radio intercept evidence; P- 0205: T-48, p. 4, lines 9-21. 2162 P-0440: T-40, p. 15, lines 18-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 370/1077 4 February 2021 in Sinia, testified that they went to Sudan in November 2004 and that Dominic Ongwen 2163 was commander of Sinia at that time.

text: A faxed copy of an entry in the ISO logbook indicates that Joseph Kony promoted 2164 Dominic Ongwen to the rank of brigadier on 4 December 2004. In the UPDF logbook, 2165 the corresponding promotion is dated 23 October 2004. The Chamber notes that both

text: radio messages were logged by the intercepting agencies in mid-2005, which was – at

text: least in case of the UPDF – attributed to the fact that the LRA code was broken only at 2166 that time. In any case, the Chamber considers that the evidence is sufficient to

text: conclude that the promotion did occur, and that it occurred sometime in late 2004.

text: The Chamber notes that the Prosecution claims that on 16 March 2005, Dominic Ongwen 2167 was made deputy to Vincent Otti. The UPDF logbook cited by the Prosecution as 2168 evidentiary basis indeed contains such an entry. However, in the corresponding ISO

text: logbook, the same message is logged as praise for Dominic Ongwen and another person as ‘still having LRA at heart’ and continuing that ‘they are the ones now following Otti

text: 2169 Vincent’. Records of intercepts by the police do not assist in resolving the matter.

text: Indeed, while a typed report dated 17 March 2005 states that Dominic Ongwen and another person were ‘appointed […] to second deputy LRA chief’ by an ‘unknown

text: 2170 commander’, a hand-written report, dated 16 March 2005, instead states that Dominic

text: Ongwen and another person were ‘pinpointed […] as second to deputy LRA chief for

text: 2171 their operations/activities’. In light of this different interpretations of the radio

text: communication by the intercepting agencies, the Chamber does not see a basis to make

text: the finding as proposed by the Prosecution.

text: 2163 P-0406: T-154, p. 34, lines 16-22. 2164 ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0165. 2165 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1363. 2166 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1360. Note that likewise in the ISO logbook, the message appears out of timeline, in a short section entitled ‘Enemies msgs sent in codes’, ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP- 0163-0007, at 0164. 2167 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 66. 2168 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1208. 2169 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0181 (emphasis added). It is the date of the message and the information logged before and after that establish conclusively that this is the same radio communication. 2170 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0241, at 0241. 2171 Police Notes, UGA-OTP-0151-0016, at 0017.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 371/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2172 In any case, P-0054 testified that he was in Sinia until 2005, and that at the time he

text: 2173 left, Dominic Ongwen was still the commander of Sinia brigade. Finally, P-0231

text: testified that Dominic Ongwen stayed in the position of Sinia brigade commander for ‘[m]aybe one year, eight, nine months or two years’, after which he became a ‘director

text: 2174 of operations’ when they went to the DRC. The Chamber understands these latter

text: events to already fall outside of the period of the charges.

text: Objectives and policies of the LRA

text: As to the objective of the LRA, P-0138 testified that, to his understanding, Joseph Kony’s

text: aim was to overthrow President Museveni’s government ‘so that he can become the

text: 2176 president of Uganda’.

text: P-0406 testified about a speech given by Joseph Kony to the assembled members of the

text: LRA, in which Joseph Kony stated that he was a prophet, sent to ‘save the Acholi

text: community from poverty’, and spoke of his intention to overthrow the Government of

text: 2177 Uganda and rule ‘places like Gulu town, Kitgum’. P-0085 similarly testified that he

text: came to know that the LRA was fighting because of ‘bad government’, which ‘took away

text: 2178 the wealth of the Acholi people and the Langi’. P-0097 also reported hearing senior

text: LRA members, including Dominic Ongwen, state that they were fighting to overthrow

text: 2179 the government. P-0145 testified that he was told the same during his training in the

text: 2180 LRA.

text: P-0231 stated that when he had just been abducted, he was told that they were ‘fighting to overthrow the Government of Uganda’, that this government included civilians, and

text: 2181 that the guns they had were to kill people, including those civilians.

text: 2172 P-0054: T-93, p. 10, lines 23-24. 2173 P-0054: T-93, p. 12, lines 17-19. 2174 P-0231: T-122, p. 35, lines 2-10. 2175 Para. 139 above. 2176 P-0138: T-120, p. 24, lines 7-11. See also P-0138: T-121, p. 33, line 18 – p. 34, line 4. 2177 P-0406: T-155, p. 17, lines 9-22. See also the similar theme of Joseph Kony’s speeches to the membership as recalled by P-0045: T-104, p. 44, lines 13-21. See also P-0410: T-151, p. 10, lines 7-16. 2178 P-0085: T-158, p. 13, lines 18-24. 2179 P-0097: T-108, p. 35, line 15 – p. 36, line 2. 2180 P-0145: T-143, p. 42, line 22 – p. 43, line 5. 2181 P-0231: T-123, p. 20, lines 8-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 372/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0264 stated that while in the bush, they used to be told that Joseph Kony would say that when they eventually overthrow the government, they will have a ‘very good life’ 2182 ahead of them.

text: Certain documentary evidence is relied on by the Prosecution to demonstrate that the 2183 LRA aimed to overthrow the Government of Uganda. In particular, an undated document entitled ‘LRA Manifesto’, an (undated) LRA ‘Constitution’, and a 1997 document entitled ‘A brief look of the struggle’, contain language indicating that the objective of the LRA was to ‘liberate’ Uganda from the rule of the government in 2184 place.

text: The first document was provided to the Prosecution by Professor Allen, who testified before the Chamber that there was ‘consensus’ (in the understanding of the Chamber, this refers to a consensus in the academic community to which Professor Allen belongs), 2185 that this document ‘came from the LRA in some way’. He pointed out that in an 2186 interview, Joseph Kony referred to the manifesto. The second and third documents were instead provided to the Prosecution by Timothy Kanyogonya. However, neither his prior recorded testimony introduced pursuant to Rule 68(3) of the Rules – in which he explains his transmission to the Court of documents that had been seized from the 2187 2188 LRA – nor his in-court testimony provide any further information on these two particular documents. The documents were also not discussed with any insider witnesses.

text: The Chamber does not have concerns on the authenticity as such of these documents, while noting that some were raised by the Defence in respect of the manifesto at the time 2189 of its submission into evidence. The Chamber is mindful, however, of the testimony of Professor Allen, who stated that ‘[i]t is not clear the degree to which [these documents]

text: 2182 P-0264: T-65, p. 59, lines 1-8. 2183 Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, para. 158. 2184 LRA Manifesto, UGA-OTP-0269-0791, at 0794, 0796; LRA Constitution, UGA-OTP-0012-0326, at 0329- 30; LRA Policy Document, UGA-OTP-0012-0242, at 0246. 2185 P-0422: T-28, p. 40, line 6 – p. 41, line 4. 2186 P-0422: T-28, p. 41, lines 7-8. See also Book, UGA-OTP-0272-0002, at 0129. 2187 P-0038 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0784-R01; P-0038 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-0912-R01. 2188 P-0038: T-116; T-117. 2189 Confidential Annex A to Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of evidence from the ‘bar table’” (ICC-02/04-01/15-654), 7 February 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-701 (hereinafter: ‘Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”’), ICC-02/04-01/15-701-Conf-AnxA, pages 126-27, 152. See also Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”, para. 66.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 373/1077 4 February 2021 genuinely represented the views of the movement as a whole’, and that he did not think

text: that ‘we can say with any certainty that […] these documents were adopted consciously

text: by all those figures within the LRA forces’. In these circumstances, as it is not clear

text: how the documents were prepared and in the absence of an indication in the available

text: evidence to the effect that they were in fact widely used as reference documents for LRA

text: members, the Chamber decides not to use them for its findings in relation to the

text: objectives of the LRA.

text: In any case, in addition to the evidence provided by witnesses referred to above, there

text: are regular references in the records of intercepted communications to the overall goal of

text: the LRA being the removal of President Museveni from power. Among the clearest

text: and most explicit is the message intercepted by the ISO as transmitted by Joseph Kony

text: on 29 July 2002, wherein Joseph Kony stated that the LRA had a political agenda for

text: fighting President Museveni’s government and that they must remove him from

text: power.

text: The LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in governmentestablished IDP camps in Northern Uganda. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort against the government and should be killed by the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself

text: 2190 P-0422: T-28, p. 41, lines 4-24. 2191 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0204 (Kony referring to LRA capturing state power), 0234 (Kony instructing that prayers be held saying that ‘Museveni must go’), 0245 (Kony and Otti discussing that they want to remove Museveni from state power), 0339 (Kony stating that the LRA will struggle until Museveni is removed from power); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0056 (Kony stating that he was fighting to remove Museveni from power, and that Museveni must go); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0073 (Otti stating that it is only the LRA who will remove Museveni from power); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0068-0146, at 0254 (Otti referring to the LRA struggle to remove Museveni from power) (see Chamber’s discussion on the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks, para. 666); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0484 (Kony stating that the LRA have started an attack to remove Museveni from power), 0485 (Otti calling on all LRA units to start a real war to remove Museveni from power) (see also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA- OTP-0242-6018, at 6147-48); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0045 (Kony stating that the LRA were fighting to remove Museveni from power because he was a dictator), 0055-56 (Kony vowing that the war will not end until Museveni is removed from power) (see also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0229, at 0356-59); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0098 (Kony stating that the LRA will continue fighting and killing people for as long as Museveni is president), 0176 (Kony stating that by all means Museveni must go); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0289 (Kony stating that the LRA did not want peace talks and that Museveni would be removed from power ‘through gun’), 0327 (Kony swearing that he himself would be the one to remove Museveni from power) (see also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7491-93; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7262-64; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0139-40). 2192 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0331. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 374/1077 4 February 2021 perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of

text: Uganda – and thus as the enemy.

text: There is considerable evidence on the record demonstrating that the LRA perceived civilians in Northern Uganda as the enemy. In this section, the Chamber lays out the most

text: relevant evidence demonstrating that this perception was specifically articulated by the LRA leadership, including by Dominic Ongwen. However, the Chamber emphasises that this is not the only basis on which the conclusion is taken. Indeed, the pattern of attacks 2194 against civilians, explored below, is an equally powerful indicator of the same.

text: Asked generally whether at the end of 2003 or in 2004 in Pader the LRA perceived the civilians as supporting or opposing the LRA, P-0070 responded:

text: They looked at the civilians as not supporting them, because whenever the civilians saw the LRA moving, it will not take long before they come under attack. In a very short while you will see the gunship above trying to attack the LRA. So they knew 2195 the civilians were not for the LRA.

text: D-0032 confirmed that by the time of Operation Iron Fist, Joseph Kony was regularly ordering civilians to be killed and issued an order to attack, inter alia, homes and camps, 2196 and to commit a lot of atrocities. He explained that, as civilians in Lango, Teso and Acholi were supporting the government through militia groups that fought the LRA, 2197 Joseph Kony ordered attacks on civilians in those areas.

text: P-0138 testified that in 2003, after the arrival of the LRA in Soroti and from the time that the Arrow groups started organising, ‘Kony gave an instruction that we needed to start

text: 2198 killing the civilians because they had become stubborn’. Asked what ‘stubborn’

text: meant in this context, P-0138 stated that, in his view, Joseph Kony meant that the 2199 civilians were joining the army or taking information to the UPDF. The witness also stated that in Teso, all male civilians were presumed to be part of the Arrow groups, and 2200 consequently targeted by the LRA.

text: 2193 Paras 140-141 above. 2194 See sections IV.C.5, IV.C.6, IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below. 2195 P-0070: T-106, p. 24, line 21 – p. 25, line 2. 2196 D-0032: T-201, p. 8, lines 1-13. 2197 D-0032: T-201, p. 14, lines 3-12. 2198 P-0138: T-120, p. 20, lines 8-14. 2199 P-0138: T-120, p. 21, lines 4-11. 2200 P-0138: T-120, p. 22, lines 20-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 375/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0145 also testified about having seen Joseph Kony gather people and issue an order to 2201 kill civilians because they were ‘stubborn’.

text: P-0406 also testified that Joseph Kony told the LRA that Acholi people ‘do not want to support his war’ because they inform the government forces of encountering the LRA, 2202 after which government forces come and attack the LRA. P-0406 stated that this was 2203 the reason Joseph Kony gave for killing civilians.

text: P-0264 referred to a specific occasion in Apala in Lango, during the time that Dominic Ongwen commanded the Sinia brigade, when the Oka battalion abducted civilians, but because an order had been given that civilians should not be abducted or know of the presence of the LRA, the abductees were killed rather than released, so they would not 2204 ‘come back with soldiers’.

text: The Chamber also takes into account the testimony of P-0101, who stated that the LRA 2205 ‘did not like civilians’, and elaborated as follows:

text: The reason why the LRA didn’t like civilians was they said that it was civilians who would inform government soldiers, as when the government soldiers are in the area civilians would inform them that there are Holy soldiers in the area and 2206 then the government soldiers would go and attack the Holy soldiers. P-0101’s testimony is a valuable indication of the perception of the LRA from the viewpoint of a person who spent a long period of time within the organisation.

text: The Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0205 to the effect that there was an order in the LRA that every civilian who raised alarm on the LRA, or who was captured and it was found out that that civilian was the one who reported about the LRA, should be 2207 killed.

text: 2201 P-0145: T-143, p. 51, line 22 – p. 52, line 6. Although the witness does not use the word ‘civilians’ but ‘people’ and ‘Acholi’, context makes it clear that he is referring to orders in relation to civilians. 2202 P-0406: T-155, p. 20, lines 7-12. 2203 P-0406: T-155, p. 20, lines 12-13. 2204 P-0264: T-65, p. 26, lines 5-25. See also para. 1169 below. 2205 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 65, lines 2-6. 2206 P-0101: T-14-CONF, p. 3, lines 18-21. 2207 P-0205: T-48, p. 61, lines 2-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 376/1077 4 February 2021

text: Hillary Daniel Lagen equally testified that Joseph Kony gave the order that in addition to the UPDF, the LRA should also target civilians ‘because they are the ones […] who 2208 also join[] the UPDF and make it difficult for us to, to win’.

text: Furthermore, Hillary Daniel Lagen provided evidence which gives a basis to reconstruct a slightly different, yet fully compatible, purported rationale for the LRA’s aggressive attitude to civilians. He testified that he heard Joseph Kony order that ‘a lot of civilians’ be killed in order to draw the attention of the international community and put pressure on the Government of Uganda to accept talks with the LRA as a result of its inability to 2209 protect civilians. According to the witness, Joseph Kony gave this order on 31 2210 December 2003 while on the bank of the Agago River. Considering that the witness simultaneously stated that the order was given before Charles Tabuley’s death and insisted even when the interviewer suggested to him that Charles Tabuley died in 2211 2212 2003 – as indeed clearly emerges from the evidence available to the Chamber –, the precise date given by the witness is possibly inaccurate. Instead, it is more likely that the order was given in December 2002, in light of the evidence of Joseph Kony’s 2213 movements as reported in the records of intercepted radio communications. Nonetheless, the Chamber considers that the precise date is not of crucial importance, given that the witness otherwise described the event in detail and in a manner which is internally consistent.

text: The Chamber also notes that the evidence supporting the conclusion that the LRA perceived civilians in Northern Uganda as associated with the government also includes evidence which indicates a specific focus on people residing in government-established IDP camps.

text: 2208 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0704-R01, at 0706-07, lines 40-100. 2209 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0678-R01, at 0685-86, lines 246-57. 2210 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0678-R01, at 0686, lines 258-75. 2211 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0678-R01, at 0686-87, lines 291-316. 2212 See para. 1076 above. 2213 See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0130 (including a comment on 28 December 2002 from the operator that Joseph Kony was going to Odek for prayers, which is relatively close to the Agago River); ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0134 (noting down: ‘Kony was very happy with this information he said LRA should continue hitting vehs until all vehs are finished here in the north. That it’s until p/talks begin between LRA and the gov’t when they will stop shooting or ambushing vehs’, displaying a similarity in substance with the testimony of P-0040), at 0135 (including a comment that Joseph Kony was preparing to go back to Sudan). See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0162 (placing Joseph Kony in Sudan on 31 December 2003). See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4179.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 377/1077 4 February 2021

text: The information available indicates that IDP camps came into existence in Northern Uganda before the period directly relevant to the charges, and further suggests that some 2214 people were moved into IDP camps against their will. Indeed, P-0081 stated that he believed that he did not have a choice to stay in his village at the time the government 2215 said people should move to the Pajule-Lapul IDP camp. P-0269 testified that she moved with her family to Odek IDP camp in 2003 because government soldiers said that if they stayed back home, ‘then it is the civilians who are actually sustaining the 2216 rebels’. D-0083 stated that the Ugandan government gave to the population an 2217 ‘ultimatum’ to move into the camps. Several witnesses testified of occurrences of 2218 abuse by camp residents at the hands of government soldiers, and that the government soldiers and local defence units mandated to protect IDP camps were understaffed and 2219 did not offer sufficient protection. Further, IDP camp residents gave testimony indicating poor living conditions, due to lack of food, access to water and adequate health 2220 facilities.

text: P-0070 testified about Joseph Kony’s resentment towards the people residing in government-established IDP camps, stating that Joseph Kony said that ‘the people in the camps were not supporting him because every time they saw his people, they would run 2221 and report to the government soldiers that the LRA fighters have passed here or there’.

text: Beyond witness evidence, there is ample evidence in the records of intercepted radio communications of orders having been given to LRA soldiers to direct violence against civilians, and that the reason given was collaboration with the Government of Uganda, or even mere absence of support for the LRA. The records of intercepts of radio communications also indicate the specific focus on residents of IDP camps. The records relate to a large number of specific occasions when instructions or reports were transmitted, are always placed in a context, and on most occasions provide unique detail.

text: 2214 See section I.A above. 2215 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 9. 2216 P-0269: T-85, p. 32, lines 15-18. 2217 D-0083: T-217, p. 19, line 12 – p. 20, line 11. 2218 P-0067: T-125, p. 71, line 14 – p. 72, line 5; P-0269: T-85, p. 33, lines 5-14. 2219 P-0218: T-90, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 8; D-0113: T-221, p. 13, lines 10-12; T-221-CONF p. 21, lines 15- 23. 2220 P-0269: T-85, p. 59, lines 11-21, p. 60, lines 16-20; P-0280: T-84, p. 6, line 2 – p. 7, line 1; D-0123: T-238, p. 10, lines 7-9. 2221 P-0070: T-106, p. 26, lines 8-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 378/1077 4 February 2021

text: Some of the intercepts, as indicated, were discussed in court in detail. The Chamber also 2222 notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks above.

text: According to the ISO logbook, on 27 July 2002, Joseph Kony instructed the LRA commanders to tell the fighters sent on mission ‘not to kill civilians who are pro- 2223 LRA’.

text: On 9 August 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as instructing a subordinate to ‘tell UN that LRA doesn’t kill innocent civilians’ and that ‘they only kill 2224 civilians who are siding with Museveni govt’, referring further to the attack in 2225 Mucwini discussed above.

text: The ISO logbook records Joseph Kony as stating on 31 August 2002 that ‘this time LRA 2226 shouldn’t spare any civilian who doesn’t want to side with LRA’. During the same communication as recorded in the logbook, Joseph Kony also overruled Raska Lukwiya’s order that certain soldiers who had ‘forced mothers with young children to have sex with them’ be punished, stating that ‘Lukwiya shouldn’t punish any soldiers who do such thing’, and that ‘the Acholi even if you do something good to them they 2227 will not appreciate it’.

text: Also on 31 August 2002, as recorded in the ISO logbook, Joseph Kony instructed LRA commanders in Uganda to write letters and distribute them in ‘all places’, telling people that the LRA would follow them into IDP camps if they do not join the LRA in the fight 2228 against Museveni. According to the same entry, Charles Tabuley next stated that since people do not want to listen, the LRA should start ambushes, plant mines and kill 2229 ‘mercilessly’ so people are ‘brought in line’. Joseph Kony is recorded as responding that Charles Tabuley’s ideas were ‘very ok[a]y’ and that he opened the ways for all LRA 2230 commanders to ‘resume atrocities on civilians’. P-0009 testified that occasionally the LRA would write letters to IDP camp residents telling them to leave the camps or be

text: 2222 See para. 666 above. 2223 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0327-28. 2224 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0025. 2225 See paras 994-998 above. 2226 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0086. 2227 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0085. 2228 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0086. 2229 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0086. 2230 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0086.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 379/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2231 killed. It is noted that the statement of P-0084 corroborates the fact that on some occasions LRA sent threatening letters, including before the attack on Pajule in October 2232 2003.

text: On 9 September 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as instructing Vincent Otti to tell his commanders to assess whether the people in a specific area supported the 2233 LRA and, if not, ‘then [people] in that area should be killed all’. Later on the same day, Vincent Otti is recorded as stating that all LRA should concentrate on this order of Joseph Kony rather than on peace talks, and that if the LRA intensified its killing, people, including the international community, would ‘come kneeling’ before the LRA, while at 2234 that moment people did not appreciate ‘the danger of siding with UPDF (govt)’.

text: On 9 October 2002, the ISO logbook records an order by Joseph Kony ‘that his 2235 com[man]d[e]rs should start killing civilians because they are siding with Museveni’.

text: On 10 November 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded as instructing all LRA commanders to combine and attack one UPDF defence or ‘t/centre’ and kill all people there, and that if they fail to hit a ‘military target’, they ‘can plan and hit soft target even [local government 2236 officials] because these are Museveni’s p[eo]ple’. Joseph Kony added that his commanders could ‘use any type of gun they have on any target’, and that even people 2237 travelling on bicycles could be shot using support weapons. Dominic Ongwen is 2238 recorded as on air for this conversation.

text: On 27 November 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as ordering that 2239 ‘civilians should only be killed once any LRA gr[ou]p comes across.’ He explained this order by stating that he wanted all people to be ‘in camps’ so that ‘fighting UPDF becomes easier because any person that you will meet you will know you have met with

text: 2231 P-0009: T-81, p. 10, line 20 – p. 11, line 9. 2232 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 73-79. 2233 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0122. 2234 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0124. 2235 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0053. 2236 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0020. 2237 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0020. 2238 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0019. 2239 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0064.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 380/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2240 UPDF and shot straight away on sight’. Joseph Kony also stated that ‘support

text: 2241 weapons like BIO and others should be used on any civilians they come across’.

text: On 13 December 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as stating that he

text: was ‘right’ to kill innocent civilians, as he was accused of doing, since ‘all Acholis are

text: 2242 mobilising alongside with Museveni to kill him’.

text: On 18 March 2003, an interaction is recorded in the ISO logbook between Joseph Kony

text: and a person not affiliated with the LRA, who, inter alia, confronted Joseph Kony about

text: 2243 the LRA killing innocent civilians travelling. Joseph Kony’s response is noted down

text: as: ‘All p[eo]ple moving in veh[icle]s are agents of Museveni who are working ways of

text: 2244 destroying LRA so they must all be killed’. It is noted that ‘Dominic’s squad’ is

text: 2245 recorded as on air during this communication.

text: On 31 March 2003, according to the intercept evidence, Joseph Kony gave instructions

text: 2246 in relation to civilians. The recorded intercept was played to D-0032 in court. The

text: witness identified Joseph Kony as the speaker and stated that Joseph Kony was ordering

text: a commander to shoot the people of Oroko, and to kill more than eight hundred people,

text: on account of them being ‘useless’ and that, if left alive, they would be working for

text: 2247 President Museveni. This is also the content of the message according to a transcript

text: 2248 of the audio-recorded intercept. The message is noted in the ISO logbook as stating

text: that ‘civilians hate LRA and those who do[] not want to join LRA in the bush are enemies

text: 2249 and must all be executed’. The corresponding UPDF logbook corroborates the content

text: 2250 of the instruction given by Joseph Kony, and identifies Ocan Bunia as the recipient.

text: 2240 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0064. 2241 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0064. 2242 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0105. 2243 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0026. The Chamber notes that while the entries in corresponding UPDF logbooks do not mention this specific detail, they do record the conversation between Joseph Kony and the person not affiliated with the LRA (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3522-23; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6247-48). 2244 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0026. 2245 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0024. 2246 See section IV.B.3.ii.a above. 2247 D-0032: T-201, p. 16, lines 5-24. 2248 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0286-0165, at 0196-97. 2249 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0067. 2250 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3545.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 381/1077 4 February 2021

text: During this communication, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as on air in the ISO and UPDF

text: logbooks.

text: According to the ISO logbook, on 4 April 2003 Dominic Ongwen reported to Vincent

text: Otti that people in Lagile raise alarm when they see the LRA, and ‘jointly gang’ against

text: LRA moving in the area. Vincent Otti responded that ‘Dominic should move there

text: and sweep off any living being seen in that area’. Joseph Kony stated that LRA units

text: should move to Lagile for that operation, killing anybody in that location. Joseph Kony also said that the people of Lagile ‘have been a problem’, and that Vincent Otti

text: should organise an operation quickly. On 5 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen reported

text: that he attacked Lagile IDP camp. On 28 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as reporting to Joseph Kony that ‘all p[eo]ple shifted f[ro]m Lagile’, while others were

text: in Awere. Joseph Kony responded this was ‘very good’ and instructed Dominic

text: Ongwen to continue checking Lagile to find if any civilian still remained there and

text: ‘should just destroy’. The attack on Lagile IDP camp in Awere sub-county is

text: discussed further below.

text: On 16 April 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as stating that ammunition

text: he had brought should be given out to all units in Uganda ‘purposely for killing civilians’

text: 2251 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0066; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3544. 2252 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0079. The relevant page of the logbook is poorly legible, but the Kampala copy of the logbook is legible and assists in understanding the content. See UGA-OTP-0065-0143, at 0242. See also section IV.B.3.i.b.vi. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3552. The Chamber notes that the Soroti UPDF logbook records Lapanyikwara as complaining about the civilians in Lagile (UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6259), which the Chamber deems to be an error in light of the ISO and Gulu UPDF logbooks, and in light of P-0379’s testimony in relation to the involvement of Dominic Ongwen in the attack. 2253 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0079. 2254 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0079. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3399, at 3552; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6259. 2255 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0079. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3399, at 3552-53. 2256 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0083; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3558. See also para. 1160 below. 2257 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0161. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0531. 2258 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0161. The Chamber notes that while the UPDF Gulu logbook does not contain this specific instruction from Joseph Kony to Dominic Ongwen, it does also include the report from Dominic Ongwen to Joseph Kony that the Lagile area is empty (see UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0531). 2259 See para. 1160 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 382/1077 4 February 2021

text: since these were the people who were ‘very dangerous to LRA’. Dominic Ongwen is

text: recorded as on air.

text: On 27 April 2003, Joseph Kony is reported as stating that ‘of all tribes in Uganda only

text: the Acholi are very useless tribe’, that ‘only those [who] are in the bush with LRA who

text: are real and good Acholi’, and that ‘LRA should concentrate and if possible finish (wipe)

text: out all Acholi’.

text: On 5 May 2003, Vincent Otti is recorded as reporting to Joseph Kony that ‘his major

text: objectives now is to step [sic] serious operations in such [a way] that the entire northern Uganda will all cry’, and that he was deploying ‘according to Joseph Kony[’s] instruction

text: such that all parts of Acholi, Lango, Madi are covered and all camps, schools, t/centres

text: and towns are attacked by LRA’. The logbook then records Joseph Kony being ‘very

text: impressed about Otti’s plans’ and saying that ‘Otti should do exactly as he stated’.

text: On 7 May 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded as stating that he wanted the LRA to ‘cover

text: the entire northern Uganda purposely for waging serious atrocities for the community to

text: blame the gov’t that they are not doing enough to keep them’. It is noted that ‘c/s 89

text: (Dominic unit)’ is recorded as being on air during this communication.

text: On 9 May 2003, the ISO logbook recorded Joseph Kony stating that ‘if LRA come across

text: any bicycle cyclists they should capture and cut off their lips’.

text: 2260 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0124. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0490. 2261 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0124. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0490. 2262 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0157. The Chamber notes that while the UPDF Gulu logbook does not record this specific statement by Joseph Kony, it records him as talking about killing Acholi (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0529). In light of the detail contained in the ISO logbook entry, the Chamber considers it appropriate in the current context to rely on this record. 2263 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0185. The Chamber considers that even though the corresponding UPDF logbook entries do not seem to contain this specific detail, they clearly overall record the same content of the communication, and that in any event the ISO logbook entry is sufficiently reliable. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0560-62; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6309- 10. 2264 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0185. 2265 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0191. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242- 6212, at 6315. While this entry does not reflect the exact same wording, it also records Kony as directing for ‘heavy atrocities on civilians’ to be started. 2266 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0190. 2267 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0151. While the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain this exact language, they do mention Kony talking about cutting the lips of civilians/bicycle riders in an

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 383/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 7 June 2003, Lapanyikwara is recorded in logbook evidence as reporting an attack on

text: Opit conducted by Dominic Ongwen. Dominic Ongwen is indicated as on air during

text: the radio communication. According to the logbook, Joseph Kony then responded that

text: ‘Dominic should have burnt all civilians houses because they are wors[e] than UPDF’.

text: On 9 August 2003, Vincent Otti is recorded in the ISO logbook as reporting that civilians in Lango were ‘pledging money for LRA killed’, and stated that therefore all civilians in

text: Lango areas were enemies and should be dealt with severely. Vincent Otti also said on radio that ‘any person found with bows and arrows should be shot with his arrows on

text: all his body to stand like a po[r]cupine’.

text: According to the ISO logbook, on 2 September 2003, in a radio communication including

text: Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Charles Tabuley, and others, Vincent Otti announced that ‘very soon he will start killing civilians seriously and the blood will flow

text: into rivers and such river will be call[ed] “R. BLOOD”’.

text: In an intercepted communication of 10 October 2003, Vincent Otti reported to Joseph

text: Kony that he had sent soldiers to attack Pajule trading centre, and Joseph Kony responded

text: by instructing Vincent Otti to make civilians his main target, because they were the ones

text: making the UPDF fight the LRA. As discussed below, there is also evidence to the

text: exchange with Ocan Bunia. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0455, at 0574; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6321. The Chamber further notes that the handwriting on this page of the ISO logbook was identified to be that of P-0059 (see P-0059: T-36, p. 31, line 19 – p. 33, line 17; P-0303 Statement, UGA- OTP-0258-0723-R01, at para. 37(e)). 2268 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0228. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0664-65; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6395. 2269 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0226, 0229. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0254-0455, at 0664; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6394. In fact, the Chamber notes that the Gulu UPDF logbook attributes the report of the attack to Dominic Ongwen himself, but considers this discrepancy in the logbook evidence to be immaterial. 2270 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0229. The Chamber notes that while the UPDF Soroti logbook does not include this specific remark by Joseph Kony, it also records the report by Lapanyikwara and Ocan Bunia on the attack at Opit, including the details of what was taken (see UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6395). 2271 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0257. 2272 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0257. The Chamber notes that while the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not seem to contain this specific statement by Vincent Otti, they do also record exchanges in which Joseph Kony instructs for ‘gun man or arrow men’ to be killed and civilian houses to be burned (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0823-24) and Tabuley states operating ‘to kill Teso people for holding guns and arrows against LRA’ (see UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6088). 2273 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0349; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0888. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6108. 2274 See section IV.B.3.ii.c above. The content of this exchange is established by reference to the testimonies of P-0138: T-120, p. 65, line 25 – p. 66, line 21, and to the ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547. Despite an issue with his testimony, discussed above para. 707, P-0003’s evidence is also corroborative on this

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 384/1077 4 February 2021 effect that Dominic Ongwen stated, on the ground during the attack on Pajule IDP camp,

text: that ‘all the people from Pajule were going to be killed because they were supporting the

text: 2275 government’.

text: On 25 October 2003, according to the ISO logbook, when giving instructions for fighting

text: Arrow groups, Joseph Kony stated that the LRA should ‘kill all of them including the

text: civ[ilians] they get that they should just shoot whoever tries to escape’, and that ‘even

text: 2276 mothers with kids should not be spared’. He specified that ‘even if LRA kills few

text: 2277 Arrow grps but kill many civ its okay’.

text: On 11 November 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded in an ISO logbook as stating that LRA

text: soldiers should kill Lango, Acholi and Teso civilians because they made the UPDF

text: 2278 follow the LRA.

text: Certain intercepted communications from the period 22-24 November 2003 were

text: 2279 discussed during the trial in detail. Among these is an exchange between Buk

text: Abudema and Joseph Kony wherein the former stressed that the LRA needed to kill

text: civilians because they were supporting President Museveni, to which the latter responds

text: by saying that civilians were many and that no matter how many they killed, they would

text: 2280 not finish all the civilians.

text: On 23 December 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded as stating that ‘Acholi should truly be

text: killed and if possible wiped off totally b[ecau]se instead of running to the bush to join

text: 2281 hands with LRA so that Museveni is toppled, they go to Museveni’.

text: point (P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 4, line 16). The Chamber notes that this intercepted communication is also discussed as part of the evidence relevant for the findings in relation to the attack on Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003, see section IV.C.6.iv below. 2275 See para. 1274 below. 2276 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0612. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0229, at 0286; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6172. 2277 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0613. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0229, at 0286; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6172. 2278 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0038. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP- 0242-6018, at 6194; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2264-67. 2279 See section IV.B.3.ii.e above. 2280 P-0003 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0224-R01, at 0251-54; P-0016 Tape UGA- OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0128, at 0129-32; P-0059 Tape UGA-OTP-0037-0314 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0342-R01, at 0369-72; P-0003: T-43, p. 48, line 22 – p. 51, line 20; P-0016: T-33, p. 51, line 13 – p. 52, line 23; P-0059: T-37, p. 29, line 17 – p. 31, line 11. See also section IV.B.3.ii.e above. 2281 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0147. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP- 0254-2284, at 2460-61.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 385/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 23 January 2004, an ISO logbook reports Joseph Kony as stating that ‘killing of

text: civilians from infant to old age must start seriously. That civilians are the ones who put

text: 2282 pressure on the Govt to fight LRA because LRA are the ones who make them suffer’.

text: On 23 February 2004, during an intercepted communication during which Dominic

text: 2283 Ongwen was indicated as on air, Joseph Kony is recorded as instructing ‘all units in

text: Uganda to attack and kill civilians as Odyambo has done because it’s the same civilian

text: 2284 which Museveni recruit to fight LRA. Therefore they should all be finished.’

text: On 24 February 2004, an ISO logbook records Joseph Kony as stating that ‘all [people]

text: should know that those who support Museveni will all be killed by LRA. He added that

text: as long as Museveni is still the president, LRA will continue fighting and killing

text: 2285 [people].’ Dominic Ongwen is recorded as on air during this intercepted radio

text: 2286 communication.

text: On 25 February 2004, according to the ISO logbook, based on a report that at ‘Lira Palwo’

text: some civilians were trying to assist an LRA soldier pretending to defect, Joseph Kony

text: stated that ‘p[eo]ple in Lira Palwo are very bad p[eo]ple and Onen should organise and

text: kill them seriously’, and that ‘all Acholi should get finished b[ecau]se they are useless

text: 2287 2288 tribe’. Dominic Ongwen is noted as on air during this exchange. It is noted that on

text: 2289 19 March 2004, an LRA attack on Lira Palwo IDP camp in fact took place.

text: On 26 February 2004, the ISO logbook records a particular incident of an intruder joining

text: the frequency urging the LRA to ‘think about the [people]’ and referring to a ‘peaceful

text: 2282 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0016. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4208-09. 2283 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0094. 2284 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0096. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7383; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2501. The Chamber also notes in this context that P-0339 identified his handwriting in the UPDF Soroti logbook for the entry on 23 February 2004 at 09:45 (see P-0339: T-135, p. 12, lines 14-17; the logbook indicated here is a re-scan of the logbook shown to the witness, see UGA-OTP-0197-1866, at 1982). While P-0339 did not identify his handwriting on this exact page, the handwriting does appear to be the same. It is noted that a few days before, LRA soldiers under command of Odhiambo had attacked Barlonyo IDP camp, see paras 1164, 1166 below. 2285 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0098. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4252; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2506. 2286 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0097. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4252. 2287 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0101. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254- 2284, at 2513. 2288 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0101. 2289 See para. 1168 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 386/1077 4 February 2021

text: solution to end the conflict’. According to the logbook, ‘[a]ll LRA [commanders] on

text: the net blamed that voice seriously’ and ‘Otti said under all means LRA will remove M7

text: [Museveni] and LRA will kill all useless civilians who are siding with the govt’. On

text: the same day, Vincent Otti also ordered that all LRA, ‘wherever they are’ must kill people

text: 2292 2293

text: ‘in camps’. Dominic Ongwen is recorded as being on air for this communication.

text: On 31 May 2004, according to the ISO logbook, Vincent Otti, referring to the attack on

text: Lukodi some days previously, stated that Tulu ‘should carry forward b[ecau]se civ[ilians]

text: are their first enemy’. Buk Abudema ‘also encouraged Tulu to increase on killing

text: civilians’. Tulu replied stating that ‘that is what their god has promised them to

text: do’. It is noted that Dominic Ongwen was on air for this communication, during which

text: he reported that the same day he had ‘hit a veh[icle] carrying UPDF soldiers and

text: civilians’.

text: On 17 June 2004, Buk Abudema is recorded as stating, during a conversation with Dominic Ongwen, that ‘civilians are the worst enemy to them and should all be killed

text: b[ecau]se they are easily changed to become soldiers’.

text: A UPDF logbook records Joseph Kony, on 7 July 2004, as stating that ‘all people who

text: are living in the camps will die due to the difficulties they are facing but that is not enough,

text: he is encouraging his comdrs to help these people die more [because] they are the very

text: people who are supporting govt to fight against LRA’.

text: 2290 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0104. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7389. 2291 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0104. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7389; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2517-18. 2292 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0103. 2293 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0102. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7388. 2294 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. See also Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0104-05. This communication is also discussed below as relevant for the Chamber’s findings in relation to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp on or about 19 May 2004. 2295 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. See also Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0104-05. 2296 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. 2297 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3063-64. 2298 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0040. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3091. 2299 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0355-56. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding ISO and UPDF logbooks. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 387/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Prosecution also refers in this context to a radio message sent out by Dominic

text: Ongwen on 1 August 2004. However, because there are material discrepancies as to

text: the interpretation of the message in the testimonies of the two witnesses with whom it

text: was discussed, the Chamber cannot draw any conclusions relevant for its findings.

text: According to the ISO logbook, on 1 August 2004, in a radio communication during which,

text: inter alia, Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Buk Abudema and Dominic Ongwen were on air, Labongo stated that the ‘rate of ambushes and attack will be at its highest peak to show

text: civilians that since they support Museveni […] they should be destroyed all’.

text: The same ISO logbook also records, under the date of 29 September 2004, a message by

text: Dominic Ongwen in which he complained about the UPDF and civilians calling on the LRA to come out of the bush if they did not want to ‘get finished’, and stated that he did

text: not want to hear such ‘foolish talks’ and that he would ‘organise more atrocities’.

text: communication (compare, in particular, UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0355 (Abudema and Kony talking about escape of Acaye Ecomog) with ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0089-90 (Abudema and Kony talking about escape of Acaye Ecomog) and UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3129 (Abudema and Kony talking about escape of Acaye Ecomog)). Of particular note is that none of these logbooks appear to contain the specific report of Abudema which, according to the UPDF Lira logbook, led to this statement by Kony. Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by UPDF (Lira). 2300 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 191. 2301 P-0016: T-33, p. 26, line 15 – p. 27, line 5 (testifying that Dominic Ongwen was stating that he has dispersed people to ‘find their own way’, and that there was no hidden meaning to this expression); P-0059: T-37, p. 32, line 24 – p. 35, line 7 (testifying that in line with his understanding, Dominic Ongwen was assembling his people and distributing them ‘to do operation as these people wanted’). It may further be noted that none of the two witnesses provided an interpretation of the message relevant for the present discussion. See also section IV.B.3.ii.q above. 2302 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0156. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3168; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0044. 2303 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0299. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0298 (Otti coming briefly on air but closing down because on move) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3833, at 4001 (Otti coming briefly on air but closing down because on move) and UPDF Logbook, UGA-OTP-0255-0451, at 0630 (Otti coming briefly on air but closing down because on move)); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0298 (Dominic Ongwen reporting ambushes on 13 and 21 September 2004) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0254-3833, at 4002-03 (Dominic Ongwen reporting ambushes on 13 and 21 September 2004) and UPDF Logbook, UGA-OTP-0255-0451, at 0630-31 (Dominic Ongwen reporting ambush on 17 September 2004, but at same location and with same items taken)). While the UPDF Logbook, UGA-OTP-0255-0451, at 0631 also records Dominic Ongwen as talking about what he heard on radio Mega FM, it does not contain the same expressions as recorded in the ISO logbook. However, given the context involved, the Chamber is satisfied that it can rely on the wording as reported by ISO.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 388/1077 4 February 2021

text: On the basis of the above analysis, the Chamber understands that the LRA narrative and perception of the civilian population as the enemy was based on the perception of the civilians’ cooperation with the Government of Uganda, rather than including an ethnic dimension as such. Most of the evidence refers to civilians as such, or frames the discussion in geographic terms (i.e. Northern Uganda). When ethnic designators are used, references to Acholi people are most frequent, but this derives primarily from the fact that the LRA had been operating in Acholi areas for the longest time; in a similar logic, when Iteso or Langi are referred to in the evidence, this is done in the specific context of operations in geographical areas of Northern Uganda predominately inhabited by either of these groups.

text: In this regard, the Chamber observes that, according to the ISO logbook, on 26 February 2004 the issue of ethnicity was discussed on LRA radio. Reference was made to the tribal 2304 conflict between the Acholi and the Langi which had sparked off. Joseph Kony reacted by blaming the Acholi, Langi and ‘Itesots’ as being ‘foolish’ and stated that ‘in the bush’, i.e. in the LRA, Langi and ‘Itesots’ commanders are ‘united without trible [i.e. tribal] conflicts among themselves’, and adding that ‘LRA have moved in all the Acholi, Lango and Teso regions committing atrocities everywhere they reach but still they are 2305 one in the bush’. Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti are further recorded as instructing that ‘true Acholi, Langi and Itesots are only those ones who are in the bush with LRA’ 2306 and that ‘all those at home must all be killed’. This clearly indicates that, indeed, the decisive factor was the perceived lack of support for the LRA on the part of the civilian population, rather than their ethnicity. It is noted that Dominic Ongwen is recorded as 2307 having been on air during this communication. The finding of the Chamber that Dominic Ongwen both knew of the LRA’s attitude towards civilians in Northern Uganda and himself shared that attitude is based on the

text: 2304 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0103. The Chamber notes that the word ‘tribal’ is consistently misspelled as ‘trible’ in this entry of the logbook, but is clear from context. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4255; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7389; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2515. 2305 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0103. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7389. 2306 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0103. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242- 7309, at 7389. 2307 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0102. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4255; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7388.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 389/1077 4 February 2021 evidence cited above, which indicates that Dominic Ongwen regularly, and at times actively, participated in interactions, in particular of the LRA’s radio communication network, during which intentions to harm civilians on account of their perceived association with the Government of Uganda were discussed. In addition, the Chamber finds support for this conclusion in its findings in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s 2308 involvement in the four attacks relevant to the charges.

text: The Chamber also notes in this context that the records of intercepted radio communications, as outlined in detail above, establish a clear awareness on the part of the correspondents of the distinction between civilians and combatants. The records regularly refer to ‘civilians’, ‘innocent civilians’, to people living in camps, or specifically distinguish between civilians and UDPF soldiers. Indeed, the references in the intercepted radio communications for example to women, children, elderly, or population in the IDP camps clearly indicate an intention to attack civilians.

text: 2308 See sections IV.C.6, IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 390/1077 4 February 2021

text: Armed conflict and the LRA’s attack on civilians

text: Throughout the period of the charges, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, the LRA regularly fought the armed forces of the Government of Uganda and associated

text: local armed units in Northern Uganda. Dominic Ongwen knew of this fact.

text: The Chamber has already provided in the introduction to this judgment a brief historical

text: background to the conflict, and the major events leading up to the period relevant to the

text: 2310 charges.

text: As set out above, shortly before 1 July 2002, as a result of Operation Iron Fist, a

text: considerable number of LRA units, including Sinia brigade and specifically the Oka

text: 2311 battalion, crossed the border from Sudan and entered back into Uganda. P-0205

text: testified that in June 2002, Gilva, Sinia and Stockree brigades, as well as Control Altar,

text: 2312 entered Uganda under the overall leadership of Vincent Otti. As found above, at the

text: time Dominic Ongwen was battalion commander in the Oka battalion of Sinia

text: 2313 brigade.

text: The Ugandan People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), which is the national military of

text: 2314 Uganda, was the principal military opponent of the LRA.

text: In addition, the LRA also fought local armed groups which were under the command of

text: 2315 the UPDF and funded by the Government of Uganda. Joseph Balikudembe, a UPDF

text: officer, explained that local defence units (LDUs) were under UPDF ‘leadership

text: guidance to make sure that they locally helped the UPDF fill the gap, especially in the

text: 2316 protection of the IDP camps and maybe securing of routes’. They were recruited from

text: 2317 a particular sub-county or village, and their purpose was to protect their own people.

text: 2318 They were armed and given military training. John Lubwama, who was commander

text: 2309 Para. 142 above. 2310 See section I.A above. 2311 See section I.A above. 2312 P-0205: T-47, p. 17, line 25 – p. 18, line 5. 2313 See paras 1013-1015 above. 2314 Agreed Facts, A9. 2315 In light of the evidence, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to the combined force of the UPDF and the associated LDUs as government forces. See also Agreed Facts, A11. 2316 P-0359: T-110, p. 16, lines 7-18. 2317 P-0359: T-110, p. 17, lines 11-21. 2318 P-0359: T-110, p. 16, lines 21-25, p. 17, lines 21-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 391/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2319 of the UPDF battalion based at Pajule during the relevant period, testified that he had

text: 2320 LDU soldiers under his command. The LDU were considered militia, but were

text: 2321 integrated into the UPDF structure. P-0059 stated that LDUs were ‘part of the army’;

text: 2322 they were locally recruited and armed by the UPDF. D-0065 stated that the LDUs

text: belonged to the government and were generally paid monthly salaries and given flour

text: 2323 each week. P-0047 indicated that like the UPDF, the LDUs were paid by the army

text: 2324 and were subject to the same code of conduct as the UPDF. P-0218 agreed that the

text: LDUs were made up of local men and youth who were trained and paid by the

text: 2325 government.

text: The evidence also demonstrates that ‘Amuka’ and ‘Arrow Boys’ were LDUs under

text: UPDF command. P-0070 testified that the LRA’s adversaries included Amuka and the

text: 2326 Arrow Boys, which were locally recruited armed militia and also known as LDUs. P-

text: 2327 0070 stated that the Amuka operated in Langi and the Arrow Boys operated in Teso.

text: P-0138 explained that ‘Arrow groups’ were composed of Teso and Lira youths and were

text: established and trained by the government so that they would fight the LRA and ‘flush

text: 2328 out the LRA from Teso’. He specified that despite their name, Arrow groups were

text: 2329 2330 armed with guns. Several witnesses have testified to having been part of LDU or

text: 2331 Arrow Boys, at the relevant time, or otherwise testified about these groups in line with

text: 2332 the Chamber’s findings.

text: It is not disputed that the LRA engaged in regular fighting with the government forces

text: during the period relevant to the charges. Evidence which establishes this fact is

text: 2319 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 12-13. 2320 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 50-51. 2321 P-0047: T-115, p. 6, line 3 – p. 7, line 15. 2322 P-0059: T-38, p. 46, line 2 – p. 47, line 1. 2323 D-0065: T-211, p. 8, lines 13-15, p. 9, lines 11-16, p. 11, lines 6-14. 2324 P-0047: T-115, p. 9, line 10 – p. 10, line 10. 2325 P-0218: T-90, p. 51, lines 9-13. 2326 P-0070: T-106, p. 21, line 16 – p. 22, line 4. 2327 P-0070: T-106, p. 21, lines 16-17. 2328 P-0138: T-120, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 2. 2329 P-0138: T-120, p. 21, lines 2-3. 2330 D-0065: T-211, p. 7, line 2 – p. 14, line 5; D-0066: T-214, p. 5, line 9 – p. 9, line 15; D-0072: T-212, p. 6, line 13 – p. 12, line 3. 2331 D-0125: T-242, p. 6, line 8 – p. 10, line 22; D-0138: T-246, p. 8, line 4 – p. 14, line 5; D-0140: T-206, p. 17, line 16 – p. 20, line 15. 2332 D-0122: T-237, p. 8, line 19 – p. 9, line 24; D-0123: T-238, p. 10, line 10 – p. 12, line 2; D-0124: T-238, p. 16, line 17 – p. 23, line 1. Some witnesses also testified about the Amuka, see D-0083: T-217, p. 45, line 13 – p. 47, line 8; D-0113: T-221-CONF, p. 13, line 18 – p. 23, line 18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 392/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2333 discussed across this judgment. An uninterrupted timeline of hostilities between the LRA and the government forces is also discernible from the records of intercepted communication in general. Witnesses have equally referred to numerous instances of fighting with the government forces, outside of the specific contexts already discussed in 2334 this judgment.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence advanced the argument that the armed conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government and associated forces should be 2335 2336 considered international. This question, which is a legal one, is disposed of below.

text: At this juncture the Chamber notes that there is evidence that the LRA obtained supplies 2337 and training in Sudan. There is, however, no indication, at least as concerns the relevant period, that the Government of Sudan in any way intervened in the conduct of LRA operations in Northern Uganda.

text: As to its conclusion that Dominic Ongwen knew of the above facts, the Chamber considers that it is the only reasonable conclusion based on the position of Dominic 2338 Ongwen within the LRA, as discussed above.

text: Throughout the period of the charges, in Northern Uganda, the LRA killed, injured and enslaved a large number of civilians in numerous attacks on individual civilians, IDP camps and other civilian locations. It also abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual slaves and so-called ‘wives’, and as domestic servants a large number of civilians. Dominic

text: Ongwen knew of these facts.

text: Under the requirements of the law, in particular of

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber is mandated to verify that a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: can be established. Given the

text: volume and degree of specificity of the evidence in the case, this task can be undertaken by establishing to a great degree of detail the timeline of individual acts of violence undertaken by LRA soldiers against civilians. It is to be emphasised at the same time that

text: 2333 See paras 1156-1171, sections IV.C.6, IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below. 2334 See, for example, P-0070: T-106, p. 17, lines 2-6; P-0309: T-61, p. 14, line 7 – p. 16, line 1, p. 22, line 23 – p. 24, line 1, p. 28, line 15 – p. 30, line 21; T-62, p. 38, lines 17-18, p. 53, line 19 – p. 56, line 11, p. 58, line 24 – p. 59, line 15, p. 66, lines 22-25; P-0406: T-154, p. 15, lines 10-16; D-0068: T-222, p. 38, lines 5-12. 2335 Defence Closing Brief, para. 305. 2336 See section V.A.2.ii below. 2337 See para. 876 above. 2338 See section IV.C.3 above. 2339 Para. 143 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 393/1077 4 February 2021 the individual acts of violence are not as such material to the charges, but are taken into

text: account as evidence to demonstrate a course of conduct.

text: This is, of course, with the exception of the four attacks which underlie a great number

text: of charges in the case. These attacks at Pajule in October 2003, at Odek in April 2004, at

text: 2340 Lukodi in May 2004, and at Abok in June 2004, – and the acts of killing, injury and

text: enslavement of civilians carried out by the LRA in their contexts – are also relevant to

text: the present determination. Similarly, the Chamber takes into account the findings below

text: in relation to the acts of sexual and gender based violence committed by members of the

text: LRA, including Dominic Ongwen against civilians in Northern Uganda, who were

text: abducted, enslaved and used as sexual slaves and so-called ‘wives’, and as domestic

text: 2341 servants.

text: The Chamber notes that according to the evidence assessed above, LRA soldiers attacked

text: 2342 Mucwini and killed civilians there in late July 2002.

text: Several witnesses testified about an attack on Patongo in which Dominic Ongwen

text: 2343 participated as commander of Oka Battalion. Witnesses testified that military

text: 2344 barracks were attacked, that some goods were looted and some civilians abducted. An

text: ISO logbook entry dated 1 July 2002 records Charles Tabuley reporting the attack on

text: 2345 Patongo in the morning of that day. It is noted in particular that the report contains

text: information on the capturing of two UPDF soldiers and one policeman, who was released

text: 2346 some time after. P-0205 stated that two policemen and a UPDF soldier were captured

text: 2347 during the attack on Patongo, and that the policemen were later released. The

text: Chamber considers that the small discrepancy in relation to whether two soldiers and one

text: policeman, or one soldier and two policemen, were captured, is immaterial; to the

text: 2340 See sections IV.C.6, IV.C.7, IV.C.8, IV.C.9 below. 2341 See sections IV.C.10, IV.C.11 below. 2342 See paras 994-998 above. 2343 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 20, lines 18-21; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, lines 21 – p. 20, line 12; P-0231: T-122, p. 39, lines 2-6, p. 40, lines 9-23. See also P-0309: T-61, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 17. 2344 P-0205: T-47, p. 20, lines 1-3; P-0231: T-122, p. 39, lines 2-6, p. 40, lines 9-23. 2345 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0246. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0249-51; Report, UGA-OTP-0010-0006, at 0057; P-0340: T-102, p. 11, line 25 – p. 12, line 1. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 2346 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0194, at 0246-48. See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063- 0194, at 0249-50, 0254, 0266-67. 2347 P-0205: T-47, p. 20, lines 2-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 394/1077 4 February 2021 contrary, given the similarity in the evidence, the Chamber is of the view that the same

text: event is being described, and that the attack in Patongo occurred on 1 July 2002.

text: On 4 April 2003, LRA soldiers attacked Lagile IDP camp in Awere sub-county.

text: According to both the ISO and UPDF logbooks, Dominic Ongwen reported to Joseph

text: Kony after the attack, stating that he had burnt some houses in the camp, killed a number

text: 2349 2350

text: of civilians, and abducted others. P-0379, an insider, testified about this attack. He stated that Dominic Ongwen called a standby and announced that they were ‘going to

text: work on the civilians of Awere so that they know that even us, we have guns that can

text: shoot’. P-0379 stated that Dominic Ongwen’s instruction was: ‘When you reach there,

text: do not leave anything. Anything that is living, don’t leave alive because the people there

text: do not want us. They want us to die here in the bush.’ P-0379 went on to describe the

text: attack, stating that there was a group that went to the barracks, and another that went to

text: the centre, and that the former was repelled from the barracks and joined the latter at the

text: centre. He stated that some shops were broken into at the centre, there was a lot of

text: gunfire and Kalalang was injured, after which the attackers retreated. According to

text: the witness, about 8-12 civilians were captured and were later killed during the retreat

text: from the camp, on the specific order of Dominic Ongwen.

text: 2348 The date of the attack is established by the UPDF logbook, where Dominic Ongwen is recorded reporting the attack on 5 April 2003, stating that it took place ‘y/day’ (UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3558). See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0083. The Chamber notes that while this entry is hardly legible, the corresponding entry in the Kampala logbook assists in understanding the content (see UGA-OTP- 0065-0143, at 0246). Further, the Chamber takes note that the UPDF Soroti logbook records the report on the attack as having been made by Lapanyikwara (see UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6260), but considers this to be less reliable in light of the way in which the message is recorded in both ISO and UPDF (Gulu) logbooks. The evidence concerning the discussion among Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti in advance of this attack is discussed above, see para. 1119. 2349 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0083 (giving the number of civilians killed as ‘over twenty’); UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3558. The Chamber notes that the Soroti UPDF logbook records this report as coming from Lapanyikwara (UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6260), which the Chamber deems to be an error in light of the ISO and Gulu UPDF logbooks, and in light of P-0379’s testimony in relation to the involvement of Dominic Ongwen. 2350 It is noted that P-0379 referred to the attack as the attack in ‘Awere’, which may be either a reference to the sub-county or the town/place. In either case, the context indicates that P-0379 referred to the same attack as the one reported on the LRA radio and recorded in the logbooks. 2351 P-0379: T-57, p. 9, lines 3-20. 2352 P-0379: T-57, p. 9, lines 6-8. 2353 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 9, line 22 – p. 10, line 3. 2354 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 10, lines 4-8. The Chamber notes that Kalalang’s injury is also mentioned in Dominic Ongwen’s report on the attack (ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0083). 2355 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 10, lines 5-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 395/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to witness evidence, on 23 June 2003, the LRA abducted by force a large

text: number of girls from the Lwala Girls School. The ISO logbook provides

text: corroboration for this testimony, as it records discussion of the distribution of the

text: 2357 2358

text: abducted girls on 22 July 2003, and again on 27 July 2003.

text: P-0406 described an attack on Abalanga in Soroti, where the LRA clashed with

text: government soldiers, but also abducted people, and looted food. He stated that during

text: the attack, civilian houses were shot at and set on fire, and that some people were locked

text: in the houses before they were set on fire.

text: P-0309 described in detail an occasion in Labworomor, when LRA soldiers disguised

text: themselves as members of the UPDF and entered the locality before being recognised

text: and engaged by the UPDF. P-0309 testified that the LRA failed to overrun the

text: barracks, but managed to loot food items in the civilian camp. According to this

text: testimony, some civilians were abducted to carry away the looted items. P-0309 stated that it was Dominic Ongwen’s idea to disguise as UPDF soldiers, and gave details of the

text: 2364 2365

text: instructions given by Dominic Ongwen. P-0372 provided very similar testimony.

text: Full and detailed corroboration of this testimony is found in the ISO logbook, which also

text: makes it possible to date the attack at 23 November 2003.

text: 2356 P-0015, who testified to have been abducted from the school, estimated that initially, more than 100 girls were abducted, but stated that many were released and that afterwards, about 30 girls remained, P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at paras 10-29; P-0015 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0254-R01, at paras 8-9. also stated that she was abducted from the school, . Other witnesses have also referred to the abduction at the school, see P-0070: T-106-CONF, p. 6, line 6 – p. 12, line 17; P-0144: T-91-CONF, p. 68, line 16 – p. 69, line 9; D-0125: T-242, p. 8, lines 12-21. 2357 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0324. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain entries for the communication at 14:00 (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0786-88; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6074). 2358 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0330. The corresponding UPDF logbooks do not contain entries for the communication at 13:00 (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0796-98) or overall less detailed entries for that day (see UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6080). 2359 P-0406: T-154, p. 28, line 18 – p. 29, line 3. 2360 P-0406: T-154, p. 28, line 25 – p. 29, line 7. 2361 P-0309: T-61, p. 17, line 18 – p. 18, line 22. 2362 P-0309: T-61, p. 19, lines 1-25. 2363 P-0309: T-61, p. 19, lines 24-25. 2364 P-0309: T-61, p. 17, line 23 – p. 18, line 1, p. 19, lines 12-13. 2365 P-0372: T-148, p. 34, line 24 – p. 37, line 22. P-0372 also stated that about 40 younger abductees were not released but remained with the LRA, P-0372: T-148, p. 38, lines 4-9. 2366 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0066-0002-R01, at 0087. The date of the attack is based on its being reported on 25 November 2003 as having taken place ‘last Sunday’. See section IV.B.3.ii.f above. See also UPDF Logbook

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 396/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to the evidence, in February 2004, LRA soldiers under the command of

text: Odhiambo attacked IDP camps at Abia and Barlonyo, killing civilians and burning

text: houses. P-0070 recalled that LRA soldiers under the command of Odhiambo attacked

text: Abia, Barlonyo and Lira Palwo when coming back from Teso, following Charles

text: Tabuley’s death and Joseph Kony’s order that ‘nothing should be left alive’. Witness

text: Aldo Odoch stated that he participated in both attacks as an LRA soldier, and noted the

text: high number of killings.

text: Some details of the attack at Abia are found in the ISO logbook, which records Odhiambo reporting a fight with the UPDF in ‘Apiya’, and stating that he ‘set the whole barracks

text: and camp ablaze[] and killed all the p[eo]ple on sight’. A police report establishes 31

text: killings, injuries, abductions, the looting of food and other property and the burning of

text: houses. The ISO logbook records Joseph Kony as being overjoyed at Odhiambo’s

text: report of the attack on Abia, while in a communication of 12 February 2004, Joseph Kony is recorded as stating that ‘the attack Odyambo launched in Abia camp recently

text: where very many p[eo]ple were killed should be the tactics all LRA units should

text: adopt’. P-0233 testified that the attack on Abia was ordered by Odhiambo, who gave

text: the instruction that nothing should be left alive.

text: The attack at Barlonyo is demonstrated by the evidence provided by D-0032 and

text: 2375 2376

text: Hillary Daniel Lagen, as well as by an ISO logbook entry, and a preliminary police

text: (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0403-04; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2360-61; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7315. 2367 P-0070: T-106, p. 22, line 9 – p. 23, line 4. See also p. 21, lines 11-15. 2368 P-0096 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0228-1938-R01, at 1970-71, lines 1082-120. 2369 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0047. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4227; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7364. 2370 Report, UGA-OTP-0025-0069, at 0072-74. At the time of submission of the document by the Prosecution, the Defence pointed out that there was ‘limited reliability because some parts are too faint to be read’; see Confidential Annex A to Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”, ICC- 02/04-01/15-701-Conf-AnxA, p. 131. The item registered under the same ERN in fact contains several handwritten portions, which may not be entirely legible. Be that as it may, the item also contains a typed selfcontained three page report, which is entirely readable and is the part relied upon by the Chamber. 2371 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0047. See section IV.B.3.ii.g above. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4227; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7364. 2372 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0069. See section IV.B.3.ii.h above. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7369. 2373 P-0233: T-111, p. 34, line 17 – p. 35, line 1. 2374 D-0032: T-201, p. 15, lines 6-18. 2375 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0729-R01, at 0734-35, lines 151-225. 2376 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0093. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4249-50; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7380-81; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2497.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 397/1077 4 February 2021 report, which reported that 121 bodies were exhumed, while noting that some bodies had

text: 2377 been buried elsewhere or left unburied, and that 332 huts were burnt in the IDP camp.

text: In addition, P-0054 testified that he heard about the attack from the other soldiers as well

text: 2378 as on radio, including about the fact that houses were burnt and people killed.

text: On 6 March 2004, Dominic Ongwen was intercepted on radio reporting that he had

text: 2379 ‘recently’ attacked Alero camp.

text: On 19 March 2004, LRA soldiers under the command of Odhiambo and Dominic

text: Ongwen attacked Lira Palwo. According to the ISO logbook, Odhiambo reported that he

text: 2380 set the UPDF barracks and ‘the camp’ ablaze, and that only a few houses survived.

text: P-0264 testified that soldiers belonging to the Sinia brigade’s Oka battalion abducted and

text: killed six or seven civilians in Apala so that they would not report on the LRA presence

text: 2381 to the government forces. P-0264 testified that this happened at the time that Dominic

text: 2382 Ongwen was Sinia commander, but before the Odek attack in April 2004.

text: As recorded in the ISO logbook, Dominic Ongwen reported that, on or shortly before 11 August 2004, he ambushed people on the ‘Awach road’ killing a motorcycle (bodaboda)

text: 2383 driver and removing all items from the vehicle.

text: Finally, in relation to its conclusion that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA engaged

text: in numerous attacks on civilians during which it killed or injured them, the Chamber deems it to be the only reasonable conclusion based on Dominic Ongwen’s own

text: 2377 Police Report, UGA-OTP-0015-0158, at 0160. At the time of submission of the document by the Prosecution, the Defence argued that it ‘is not relevant and has no probative value’; see Confidential Annex A to Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”, ICC-02/04-01/15-701-Conf- AnxA, p. 128. The relevance of the item is clear from the analysis in the present section. As to its probative value, the Chamber notes that the document is an official report prepared by the Ugandan Police following an investigative visit to the location of the attack five days after it had taken place. As such, the Chamber attributes to the report probative value, in the context of the other evidence relied upon by the Chamber as concerns the attack on Barlonyo, with which the report is compatible. 2378 P-0054: T-93, p. 14, line 13 – p. 15, line 2. 2379 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0128. See section IV.B.3.ii.i above. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4272; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7405. 2380 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0165. See section IV.B.3.ii.j above. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7417. 2381 P-0264: T-65, p. 26, lines 5-25. 2382 P-0264: T-65, p. 27, lines 1-7. 2383 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0181. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3833, at 3863; UPDF Logbook, UGA-OTP-0255-0451, at 0467; Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0040.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 398/1077 4 February 2021 involvement in the acts, as discussed above in this section, and based on his position

text: within the organisation, as laid out above.

text: Attack on Pajule IDP camp

text: i. Pajule IDP camp

text: Pajule and Lapul IDP camps were situated in Aruu County, Pader district. The two camps were across from each other, Pajule on the east side of the Lira-Kitgum road and Lapul on the west. They were commonly referred to as ‘Pajule IDP camp’. At the time of

text: the attack, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 people lived in the camp.

text: In October 2003, Pajule village was located in Pajule sub-county, Aruu County, Pader

text: 2386 2387

text: District, Uganda. Nearby, Pajule and Lapul IDP camps had existed since 1996.

text: Many residents moved to the camps on the orders of the government, which were given

text: in response to the LRA’s activities in the region. Pajule IDP camp was located on the

text: east side of the Lira-Kitgum road and Lapul IDP camp on the west side of the road.

text: Another road, towards Pader, branched off from the Lira-Kitgum road within the

text: camp.

text: Although the two camps were registered as separate camps by the Ugandan

text: government, the World Food Programme, which appears to be the main aid agency

text: 2392 2393

text: providing food for the camp, treated Pajule and Lapul camps as one IDP camp,

text: 2384 See section IV.C.3 above. 2385 Para. 144 above. 2386 Agreed Facts, A1. 2387 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 8. See P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 7 (stating that many people started moving to the location of the current Lapul camp in 1997, and further explaining that most people moved back home in 2000, although he remained, and that the current Lapul IDP camp came into existence in 2002). 2388 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 9 (testifying that he moved to the Lapul side of the camp because the LRA were looting and abducting people and the government directed people to move to the camp); P-0009: T-81, p. 7, line 16 – p. 8, line 6 (stating that the government came up with the instruction that since the LRA was abducting people from the villages, people were to leave their homes and come to the camps where they would be protected by the government); D-0076: T-219, p. 5, line 19 – p. 6, line 1 (stating that he moved to the Pajule camp because the government instructed people to leave the villages and move to the camps; according to the witness, if people stayed in the village then the government would assume you were a rebel supporter). 2389 D-0081: T-220, p. 12, lines 14-17, p. 13, lines 5-8, p. 14, lines 5-15; D-0076: T-219, p. 6, line 19 – p. 7, line 3. See P-0084’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0139-0178; P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA- OTP-0027-0198; P-0081’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at 0050. 2390 See P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198. 2391 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 7. 2392 See P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 33-34. See also P-0249: T-79, p. 19, lines 15-16. 2393 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 7 (for food distribution purposes, the World Food Programme treated both camps as one camp, Pajule-Lapul IDP camp); P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 399/1077 4 February 2021

text: and the evidence shows that the LRA also attacked the camp as one entity. The

text: witnesses have also commonly referred to both camps jointly as Pajule IDP camp.

text: Thus, the Chamber jointly refers to the two camps as Pajule IDP camp unless otherwise

text: specified.

text: The evidence indicates that an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 people lived within the entirety

text: of Pajule IDP camp in October 2003.

text: There was a military barracks on the Lapul side of the camp. The evidence shows that

text: the barracks was a small distance away and separated from the civilian dwellings.

text: Each soldier also had his own hut within the barracks grounds and some soldiers’ families

text: slept inside the barracks. The evidence also demonstrates that there was a police

text: R01, at para. 8 (administratively Pajule and Lapul are separate IDP camps; however the World Food Programme treats them as a single camp). 2394 See section IV.C.6.iii, the Chamber’s below discussion of the attack on Pajule IDP camp. The evidence indicates that prior to the attack on 10 October 2003, the LRA had attacked Pajule IDP camp several times, the most recent time being in January 2003. See P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 16-24; P- 0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 12; P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 11, P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 8. 2395 See P-0081: T-118, p. 27, lines 6-7; P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 33. 2396 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 66 (testifying that he believed there were over 15,000 people at Pajule in October 2003); P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 55 together with Handwritten report, UGA-OTP-0147-0239, at 0239 (indicating that in November 2003 the Lapul side of the camp had a population of 14,155); P-0009: T-81, p. 78, line 22 – p. 79, line 6 (stating that there were three to four thousand people living in the camp); P-0008 lists of Pajule/Lapul residents, UGA-OTP-0137-0058, at 0058-9 (listing 17,432 residents on the Pajule side of the camp and 13,710 residents on the Lapul side as of November 2003). The Chamber notes that the document is stamped and signed by Okema John Brown (P-0008), as camp commandant of the Pajule IDP camp. In his testimony, Okema John Brown stated that he compiled the list from information provided to him by the block leaders of the Pajule side and from the camp commandant of the Lapul side (UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, para. 60). The Chamber considers this list to be an authentic record created by P-0008 on 30 November 2003. 2397 P-0006: T-140, p. 43, lines 17-21 (stating that the military barracks was initially on the Pajule side of the camp but then was moved to the Lapul side); P-0081: T-118, p. 28, lines 3-12 (the military barracks was located on the western side of the Lira-Kitgum road, the Lapul side of the IDP camp). See P-0084’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0139-0178; P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198. 2398 P-0006: T-140, p. 44, lines 21-24 (stating that the military barracks was perhaps 500 metres from the civilian dwellings); D-0076: T-219, p. 7, lines 16-19, p. 23, line 22 – p. 24, line 3 (stating that the barracks and the camp were ‘very close’ and the distance from the camp to the barracks was approximately 100 metres or about the length of the Pajule primary football field); P-0081: T-118, p. 29, lines 4-9 (estimating that the distance between the military barracks and civilian dwellings ‘could be about a hundred metres’). See P-0047 Statement, UGA- OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 42; P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198 (the sketch of Pajule IDP drawn by John Lubwama shows that the barracks is on the west side of the camp in the Lapul area and that the Pajule Mission is near to the barracks). 2399 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 54 (John Lubwama could not remember the number of huts in the barracks in October 2003).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 400/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2400 2401 station at the camp. There was also a trading centre and a Catholic mission at

text: 2402 Pajule IDP camp.

text: ii. LRA commanders, including Dominic Ongwen, planned and prepared for the attack

text: a. Meeting of LRA units and their commanders

text: Several days before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Vincent Otti summoned a number of LRA units to join him. Around that time, Dominic Ongwen and his group of fighters

text: joined Vincent Otti.

text: A useful introduction is provided by P-0372, who testified that in 2003 after a time in

text: Teso, his group, commanded by Vincent Otti, returned to Acholi land and met with

text: 2404 Joseph Kony at a place called Tim Pa Lukok. The commanders who met with Joseph

text: 2405 Kony were Vincent Otti and Raska Lukwiya. After about two days at Tim Pa Lukok,

text: the group turned south and after some time met with Dominic Ongwen and his group,

text: 2406 somewhere in Pader. Shortly thereafter, LRA fighters were selected to attack Pajule

text: 2407 IDP camp.

text: According to the evidence, Vincent Otti had ordered other units to join him to go and

text: attack Pajule. P-0144 testified that Vincent Otti, who was in LRA headquarters, had

text: summoned the Trinkle brigade to come and support the group ‘to go and collect food

text: 2408 from Pajule’. The Chamber notes that in the witness evidence, ‘LRA headquarters’ is

text: synonymous with Control Altar, which indeed was the unit commanded by Vincent

text: 2400 P-0006: T-140, p. 49, line 11 – p. 50, line 3 (testifying that there was a police station on the Pajule side of the road that separated the two camps); D-0076: T-219, p. 9, lines 7-9 (stating that there was a police force based in the camp). 2401 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 7 (stating that Pajule trading centre was part of both IDP camps); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 43 (testifying that Pajule trading centre lay between Pajule and Lapul camps, on both the east and west of the road). See P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198. 2402 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 34 (stating that Pajule Catholic mission was located ‘near the displaced Lapul people within Pajule IDP camp’); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 24, 42, together with P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198 (indicating that Pajule Catholic Mission was on the Lapul side of the camp). See P-0084’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0139- 0178. 2403 Para. 145 above. 2404 P-0372: T-148, p. 13, line 13 – p. 14, line 25. 2405 P-0372: T-148, p. 15, lines 3-4. 2406 P-0372: T-148, p. 15, line 24 – p. 16, line 14. 2407 P-0372: T-148, p. 16, lines 15-19. 2408 P-0144: T-91, p. 19, lines 10-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 401/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2409 Otti. P-0209, who was a captain in Trinkle brigade at the time, provided very similar

text: testimony, stating that Trinkle brigade was operating around the Latanya hills when the

text: brigade commander, which at the time was Charles Kapere, assembled the soldiers and

text: 2410 told them that they were being summoned by Vincent Otti.

text: D-0032 testified that he overheard some messages in relation to the attack on Pajule IDP

text: 2411 camp on the LRA radio communication system. He stated that around 7 October 2003,

text: Vincent Otti ‘gave orders to other people to go and join him in a place known as

text: 2412 Wangduku’. He testified that those who were summoned by Vincent Otti included

text: Raska Lukwiya, Charles Tabuley, Tolbert Nyeko Yadin, Opio Makas and Opiro

text: 2413 Livingstone, who was together with Opiro Anaka.

text: D-0032 was asked by the Presiding Judge if the name of Dominic Ongwen was

text: mentioned among the people being summoned by Vincent Otti, and testified that ‘[l]ater

text: on’, when Vincent Otti was mentioning the names, Joseph Kony asked about Dominic

text: 2414 Ongwen, and Vincent Otti responded that Dominic Ongwen was also with him. D-

text: 0032’s evidence indicates that Vincent Otti reported Dominic Ongwen’s presence ‘when

text: he was referring to the commanders who had joined him’, and therefore that this was

text: 2415 before the attack itself, further corroboration of the evidence that Dominic Ongwen

text: was with Vincent Otti at the time of the Pajule IDP camp attack.

text: Indeed, there is evidence indicating that Dominic Ongwen had joined Vincent Otti and

text: was moving with him from sometime after 20 September 2003, when an ISO logbook

text: recorded Vincent Otti as summoning a number of LRA commanders to join him,

text: 2416 including Bogi and Dominic Ongwen. That Dominic Ongwen was moving with or in

text: 2409 See section IV.C.1 above. 2410 P-0209: T-160, p. 11, line 20 – p. 12, line 15. 2411 See D-0032: T-200, p. 18, line 22 – p. 19, line 4. 2412 D-0032: T-200, p. 20, lines 16-21. 2413 D-0032: T-200, p. 21, lines 4-19. 2414 D-0032: T-200, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 3. 2415 D-0032: T-200, p. 23, lines 5-9. 2416 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0431. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries, with the UPDF Achol Pii logbook not recording any particular information for this communication time (see UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6139-40). However, these entries clearly concern the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0431 (Abudema coordinating with Isaya Loum to meet, with the latter wanting to meet later) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0998 (Abudema coordinating with Isaya Loum to meet, with the latter wanting to meet later) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2022-23 (Abudema coordinating with Ayoli to meet, with the latter wanting to meet later; to be noted here is that the ISO logbook, while recording this

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 402/1077 4 February 2021 close proximity of Vincent Otti is also corroborated by a 30 September 2003 entry in the

text: same logbook, indicating that Joseph Kony issued an order for the LRA to move to Teso,

text: with the exception of the groups of Vincent Otti and Opiro Livingstone, and specifically adding that ‘Dominic should remain behind with Otti b[ecau]se he has good plans which

text: can help Otti’.

text: Several witnesses provided testimony, fully compatible with the above logbook evidence,

text: to the effect that Dominic Ongwen was with Vincent Otti at the time. In particular, P-

text: 0070 testified that at the time of the Pajule attack Sinia brigade was ‘moving together’

text: with Control Altar and that this explained his prior testimony to the effect that Dominic

text: Ongwen was in Control Altar at the time. P-0209 also testified that Dominic Ongwen

text: was with Vincent Otti in Control Altar at the time. Further, P-0144 and P-0045

text: testified that at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp Dominic Ongwen was ‘in

text: Control Altar at the headquarters’.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0209 did not know why Dominic Ongwen was in Control Altar

text: and stated that it is possible to go there as a prisoner or to be transferred. Asked by

text: exchange to involve Isaya Lowum, indicates for the individuals on air ‘Isaya Lowum/Ayoli’)). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that the entries in the UPDF logbooks are overall less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook and that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 2417 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0501. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly reflect the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0498 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, without sending anything on items taken) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 1036 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, stating he could not take anything due to bushy grass) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2067 (Otti reporting on contact with UPDF the previous day, stating he could not take anything due to grass being very tall); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0499 (Kony stating that ‘highest tactics/styles of guerrilla war fare are surprise attacks and ambushes’) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1036 (Kony advising Otti that ‘highest tactic of guerrila’ should be ‘surprise attack and ambush and planting mines’) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA- OTP-0254-1991, at 2067 (Kony informing Otti that ‘highest tactics of gorrilas is to surprise’); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0501 (Kony wanting all LRA to move to Teso) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1038 (Kony ordering Otti to inform all LRA units to immediately advance to Soroti) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2069 (Kony ordering that all LRA groups in Uganda move to Teso)). The UPDF Achol Pii logbook does not include an entry for this communication time (see UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6149-50). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that the entries in the UPDF logbooks are overall less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook and that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. It is noted that Joseph Kony ordered Opiro Livingstone and his group to head for Sudan. 2418 P-0070: T-106, p. 34, lines 4-19. 2419 P-0209: T-160, p. 15, lines 6-8. 2420 P-0144: T-91, p. 26, lines 12-14; P-0045: T-104, p. 67, lines 2-4. 2421 P-0209: T-160, p. 15, lines 9-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 403/1077 4 February 2021 the Presiding Judge about whether it was possible to determine which possibility was the correct one, P-0209 observed that he saw that Dominic Ongwen was not ‘being 2422 mistreated or taken badly’. Very similarly, P-0144 mentioned tentatively that ‘it was a kind of detention or an imprisonment’, but immediately added that he did not 2423 understand the reasons for this arrangement. Later in the discussion, however, P-0144 reasoned that he thought that at the time of the Pajule attack Dominic Ongwen was no 2424 2425 longer in detention. Contrary to the Defence submission, P-0045’s evidence on the reason why Dominic Ongwen was in Control Altar was entirely hypothetical, and she did 2426 not testify that Dominic Ongwen was in LRA prison at the time. In any case, the Chamber refers to its conclusions above that the brief arrest of Dominic Ongwen by Vincent Otti took place in April 2003 and that it did not affect Dominic Ongwen’s 2427 position and authority in the organisation for any significant period of time.

text: The Chamber also refers to its analysis above in relation to the argument of the Defence that at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp Dominic Ongwen was injured and in 2428 sickbay. In particular, the Chamber recalls its finding that at least from December 2002, i.e. nine months before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen exercised his authority as commander. This is entirely compatible with the evidence that in 2003, including at the time of the Pajule attack, Dominic Ongwen still suffered from some 2429 physical limitations as a result of the injury.

text: The Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0231, who stated that Dominic Ongwen was 2430 ‘not involved’ in the Pajule attack. However, as P-0231 testified that he was around 2431 Soroti with Lapaicho when the attack on Pajule IDP camp took place, he might not have been in a position to know Dominic Ongwen’s actions at the time, and in the context of the attack. Also, his testimony on this discrete issue stands in contrast to evidence provided by witnesses who, instead, personally observed the relevant facts and testified

text: 2422 P-0209: T-160, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 4. 2423 P-0144: T-91, p. 26, lines 14-16. 2424 See P-0144: T-91, p. 27, lines 11-14. According to the witness, this was the case ‘because if you were in detention they would not give you the task to go and carry out an operation’. 2425 Defence Closing Brief, para. 322, footnote 521. 2426 P-0045: T-104, p. 67, lines 5-2; T-105, p. 25, line 24 – p. 26, line 20. 2427 See section IV.C.3 above. See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 308, 322, 336. 2428 See section IV.C.3 above. See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 313-314, 316-321, 330-331, 336. 2429 See D-0092: T-208, p. 63, lines 16-24. 2430 P-0231: T-123, p. 65, lines 6-9. 2431 P-0231: T-123, p. 65, line 19 – p. 66, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 404/1077 4 February 2021 convincingly and in detail as noted throughout this section. In this context, the Chamber does not accept the testimony of P-0231 that Dominic Ongwen was not involved in the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: Finally in this context, the Chamber specifies that the evidence indicates that Dominic Ongwen was not moving with Vincent Otti’s unit as an individual, but had a Sinia unit under him. This is the explicit testimony of P-0070, referred to above. In addition, as discussed below, Sinia members P-0309 and P-0330 as well as Dominic Ongwen’s socalled ‘wife’ P-0101 testified to being present with Dominic Ongwen and his group at 2432 the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp. P-0309 in particular named several individuals who went for the attack on Pajule IDP camp, who are otherwise well attested 2433 in the evidence as Dominic Ongwen’s subordinates in Sinia. P-0330 also named 2434 individual Sinia members who participated in the attack.

text: In this context, the Chamber notes the testimony of P-0379 who had previously been 2435 2436 abducted by the LRA, was in captivity for eight months in Sinia’s Oka battalion, 2437 and had escaped and returned to Pajule IDP camp around August 2003. During the attack on 10 October 2003, while trying to hide from the LRA, he saw an LRA fighter whom he recognised as Okello Tango, a member of Oka Battalion whom P-0379 had 2438 known while still in the bush. The Chamber recalls its finding that at the time of the 2439 Pajule IDP camp attack, Dominic Ongwen was commander of Oka battalion. The presence of an Oka battalion fighter in the camp corroborates the evidence that Dominic Ongwen’s subordinates were present in the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack.

text: Logbook evidence indicates that the commanders summoned by Vincent Otti gathered on or around 5 October 2003. A Soroti UPDF logbook records an intercepted communication on 5 October 2003 between 13:00 and 14:00, wherein Vincent Otti informed Joseph Kony that he has joined with ‘Abudema’s grps’, while Okot Odhiambo, Ayoli, Dominic Ongwen and Michael reported to Charles Tabuley that they had reached

text: 2432 See paras 1214, 1356, 1367 below. 2433 P-0309: T-60, p. 53, lines 16-21. 2434 See para. 1211 below. 2435 P-0379: T-56-CONF, p. 7, lines 8-9; T-58, p. 23, line 21 – p. 24, line 7, p. 53, lines 7-9. 2436 P-0379: T-58, p. 53, lines 7-12. 2437 P-0379: T-57, p. 20, line 4 – p. 21, line 12. 2438 P-0379: T-57, p. 22, line 14 – p. 24, line 7. 2439 See section IV.C.3 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 405/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2440 the RV with Vincent Otti. At 16:00, the same logbook noted: ‘While Otii V., Michael,

text: Odyambo/Angola, Abudema and Dominic they are in the same RV together but they

text: 2441 have camped separately with some distance among them’.

text: On 7 October 2003 between 8:00 and 9:00, according to the Soroti UPDF logbook,

text: Vincent Otti informed Joseph Kony that he had divided the commanders, and that Angola

text: was moving with ‘Bogi Coach’, Dominic Ongwen was moving with him (i.e. Vincent

text: Otti), and that Buk Abudema had separated from him and left for Teso following Charles

text: 2442 Tabuley, who was ‘combined with’ Ocan Bunia. On the same day at 11:00, the

text: logbook records Joseph Kony asking Vincent Otti whether ‘Mama Dominic’ was accompanying him, and Vincent Otti responding that ‘Mama Dominic’ was with him and

text: that he (Vincent Otti) was moving together with Dominic Ongwen, Raska Lukwiya and

text: 2443 Caesar Acellam. The Chamber notes specifically that this latter information as logged

text: by the UPDF is similar to the radio conversation described by D-0032 and discussed

text: above, wherein Joseph Kony asked Vincent Otti about the whereabouts of Dominic

text: 2444 Ongwen, and Vincent Otti confirmed that Dominic Ongwen was with him.

text: A meeting took place the day before the attack at a location east of Pajule IDP camp, including Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen and other

text: LRA commanders. Several hundred LRA members were present nearby.

text: A number of witnesses have testified about a meeting, or ‘RV’, taking place the day

text: before the attack at a location east of Pajule IDP camp. The witnesses belonged to various

text: groups of the LRA and offered testimony on the basis of personal observation from

text: 2440 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2097. The Chamber notes that the corresponding ISO and UPDF logbooks are either significantly less detailed (see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0529- 31; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6156) or do not include any entry for this communication time at all (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1051-55). Bearing this in mind, including its discussion on the general reliability of logbooks, as well as noting in particular that the UPDF Achol Pii logbook does also make reference to Abudema joining Otti, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by UPDF (Soroti). 2441 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2097. The Chamber notes that the corresponding ISO and UPDF logbooks are either significantly less detailed (see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0529- 31) or do not include any entry for this communication time at all (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 1051-55; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6156). Bearing this in mind, including its discussion on the general reliability of logbooks, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by UPDF (Soroti). 2442 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2102. See also UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP- 0242-6018, at 6157; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1057. 2443 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2104. 2444 D-0032: T-200, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 3. It is noted that D-0032 testified that Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti referred to Dominic Ongwen as ‘Wanyama’ during the conversation. 2445 Para. 146 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 406/1077 4 February 2021 diverse vantage points. For this reason, the Chamber finds it natural that there is no perfect overlap in the evidence. Instead, it is to be expected that witnesses put emphasis on the facts which took place in their proximity or facts which they were better able to understand and contextualise. Still, in relation to the crucial findings of the Chamber, the witnesses are in agreement. The main area of divergence is the names of LRA commanders, who, according to each witness, attended the meeting with Vincent Otti. This divergence is at least in part explained by the witnesses’ emphasis on persons who they knew better. Given that none of the witnesses who testified before the Chamber about the planning of the attack on the Pajule IDP camp were present at the meeting, the Chamber also does not attribute importance to the fact that certain persons, including Dominic Ongwen, are not mentioned by any particular witness as attending the meeting. Indeed, it is entirely plausible that the witness simply did not see the person in question, even if they knew that person. Having said that, the Chamber does address in the following paragraphs those discrepancies in the witness evidence which are of a nature that, if unexplored and unresolved, could affect the Chamber’s findings.

text: According to P-0144, following the summons by Vincent Otti, an RV took place about 2446 10 kilometres east of Pajule. P-0144 stated that this was a large gathering and 2447 estimated the number of people in attendance at over 500. P-0144 testified that 2448 Vincent Otti was ‘the overall commander who was leading the operation’. In addition, according to the witness, the other ‘most senior commanders’ present were Raska 2449 Lukwiya and Okot Odhiambo. Still further, P-0144 mentioned that there were several 2450 ‘junior’ commanders present, including Bogi and Dominic Ongwen.

text: P-0209 testified that Trinkle brigade went to meet with Vincent Otti after being 2451 summoned by him, but was unable to describe the location of the meeting. He too 2452 estimated the distance from Pajule at about 10 kilometres. P-0209 testified that the 2453 Trinkle brigade arrived at the location of the meeting at around 16:00. There, P-0209

text: 2446 P-0144: T-91, p. 20, lines 1-5. 2447 P-0144: T-91, p. 20, lines 9-11. 2448 P-0144: T-91, p. 20, lines 12-14. 2449 P-0144: T-91, p. 20, lines 14-16. 2450 P-0144: T-91, p. 20, lines 15-24. 2451 P-0209: T-160, p. 12, line 22 – p. 13, line 4. 2452 P-0209: T-160, p. 13, lines 5-9. 2453 P-0209: T-160, p. 13, lines 10-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 407/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2454 saw members of Trinkle and Sinia brigades, as well as of Control Altar. Among the

text: commanders, P-0209 saw Vincent Otti, Charles Kapere, Dominic Ongwen, Opoka and

text: 2455 Raska Lukwiya. He also confirmed that Bogi, Caesar Acellam, Acel Calo Apar and

text: 2456 Buk were present.

text: The Defence put to P-0209 the contents of an intercepted radio communication

text: suggesting that Charles Kapere was in Teso on 9 October 2003, and of another intercept

text: indicating that on 10 October 2003 Joseph Kony gave Charles Kapere instructions in

text: relation to an upcoming meeting between the two, to which P-0209 responded by stating

text: that he was personally involved with Charles Kapere in the preparations for the attack in

text: 2457 Pajule. The Chamber accepts the detailed testimony of P-0209, and in fact notes that

text: the records of intercepted radio communications do not contradict it. The 9 October 2003

text: intercept does not record an LRA report on the location of Charles Kapere, but rather Vincent Otti reporting that ‘gov[ernmen]t keeps singing on the radio that Kapere and

text: 2458 Onen are moving with Tabuley to kill p[eo]ple in Teso’. In turn, the 10 October 2003

text: entry records Joseph Kony stating that Charles Kapere, who was preparing to move and

text: 2454 P-0209: T-160, p. 13, lines 16-19. See also P-0209: T-161, p. 37, lines 7-9. 2455 P-0209: T-160, p. 13, lines 20-25. 2456 P-0209: T-160, p. 14, lines 6-20. 2457 P-0209: T-161, p. 48, line 11 – p. 49, line 8. See also ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0242-0780, at 0781; ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0242-0775, at 0777. As explained above (see section IV.B.3.i.b.vi above), both faxed copies originate from the ISO Gulu logbook, which has also been submitted as evidence, see UGA-OTP-0232- 0234, at 0543, 0549. 2458 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0543. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254- 1991, at 2112. While this logbook entry attributes the statement not to Otti, but rather to Kony, in an exchange with Otti and Tabuley, the Chamber considers this not to affect the information regarding them reportedly hearing on radio that Kapere and Onen Kamdule were moving with Tabuley in Teso.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 408/1077 4 February 2021

text: meet him should move ‘with the battery’, without providing any indication of Charles

text: Kapere’s location.

text: P-0209 stated that once Trinkle brigade arrived at the location of the meeting with

text: Vincent Otti, the latter summoned the high-ranking officers. From Trinkle brigade,

text: brigade commander Charles Kapere went. P-0209 testified that according to what

text: Charles Kapere told his subordinates, the meeting with Vincent Otti included Buk, Raska

text: Lukwiya, Dominic Ongwen, and Opoka. P-0209 also stated that according to what

text: 2459 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0549. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio communication (compare, in particular, ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0549 (c/s 9A (part of Odhiambo’s squad) reporting ambush of dyna between Puranga and Rackoko, taking 9 radios, 5 walk men, 2 accumulators) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1072 (c/s 9A under command of Okullu reporting ambush of pick-up on Lira-Kitgum road between Puranga Rac-Koko, taking same items plus 36,000 UG shs) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2120 (Okurut reporting ambush of pick-up on Lira-Kitgum road between Puranga and Rackoko, taking same items plus 36,000 UG shs) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6160 (Okure reporting ambush of dyna pick-up on Lira-Kitgum road between Puranga and Rach-Koko, taking same items plus 36,000 UG shs). Of particular note is that the UPDF Achol Pii logbook also indicates Kony as instructing that the two batteries be kept for him. Bearing the above in mind, and noting at the same time that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 2460 It may be noted that a 7 October 2003 entry in the same ISO logbook, which records Vincent Otti as reporting that he was ‘still waiting for Onen Kamdulu […], then imm[ediately] he will organise Kapere to start his journey to Sudan’, provides a specific indication that at the time, Charles Kapere was with Vincent Otti; see UGA-OTP- 0232-0234, at 0535. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0534 (Tabuley reporting location as Acuna and coordinating with Lagulu and Lamola to meet) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1058 (Tabuley sending location as Acuna railway station, telling Lagulu to meet him there) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2101- 03 (Tabuley coordinating with Lagulu to meet at Acuna); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0535 (Kony and Otti talking about reported complaints against Museveni for taking presidential jet to bring daughter to Germany for delivery) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1057 (Kony and Otti talking about reported complaints against Museveni for taking daughter, with a lot of money, abroad for treatment) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2103 (Kony and Otti talking about reported complaints against Museveni for taking presidential jet to take daughter outside country to deliver); compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0536 (Otti telling Kony about failed attack against UPDF) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1058 (Otti telling Kony about failed attack against UPDF) and UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2103 (Otti telling Kony about failed attack against UPDF)). The UPDF Achol Pii logbook contains an overall much more succinct entry for this communication time (see UGA-OTP-0242- 6018, at 6157). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that the entries in the UPDF logbooks are overall slightly less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook and that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 2461 P-0209: T-160, p. 21, lines 7-8. 2462 P-0209: T-160, p. 21, line 9. P-0209 explained that he did not himself go to the meeting because he was ‘not yet a high-ranking officer’ and ‘did not qualify to go there’; T-160, p. 21, lines 18-20. 2463 P-0209: T-160, p. 21, lines 10-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 409/1077 4 February 2021

text: Charles Kapere told them, at the meeting Vincent Otti assigned roles to each commander 2464 present.

text: In relation to the presence of Buk Abudema, the Chamber notes that when the Defence read to the witness a government report dated 10 October 2003 which recorded Buk 2465 Abudema as reporting an attack at Adilang, P-0209 maintained his testimony. Moreover, the Chamber notes that P-0138 testified that while Buk Abudema did not attend the commanders’ meeting, he was present afterwards when the soldiers selected 2466 for the Pajule attack were addressed. However, neither of these two nor any other witness who testified about the attack on Pajule IDP camp attributed to Buk Abudema any action or role. In addition, as noted above, on 7 October 2003, Vincent Otti reported to Joseph Kony Buk Abudema’s departure for Teso. Accordingly, the Chamber makes no finding in relation to Buk Abudema’s involvement at this point.

text: Turning to further witnesses who described the meeting of LRA commanders on the day before the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp, the Chamber notes the testimony of P-0309, 2467 who was Dominic Ongwen’s escort and part of his household. He described the leadup to the attack on Pajule IDP camp. He stated that LRA soldiers from different groups 2468 met in a place called Wanduku under the leadership of Vincent Otti. P-0309 testified that Pajule was attacked by ‘many groups that came together’, specifically mentioning 2469 that ‘Dominic’s group’ was also involved. P-0309 understandably testified that he could not name all of the commanders involved because they were new to him, but was able to mention, in addition to Vincent Otti and Dominic Ongwen, also Raska 2470 Lukwiya.

text: P-0309 testified that the commanders, including Dominic Ongwen and Vincent Otti, 2471 gathered together, and when they came back they gave the orders. Notably, P-0309 testified that he took Dominic Ongwen’s stool for sitting to Vincent Otti’s ‘home’, where

text: 2464 P-0209: T-160, p. 21, lines 21-24. 2465 P-0209: T-160, p. 38, line 24 – p. 39, line 25. See also ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0242-0775, at 0777. 2466 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, lines 12-20, p. 38, lines 9-14. 2467 See section IV.B.2.ii.b.xvi above. 2468 P-0309: T-60, p. 41, lines 16-23. 2469 P-0309: T-60, p. 42, line 23 – p. 43, line 1. 2470 P-0309: T-60, p. 43, lines 2-5. 2471 P-0309: T-60, p. 45, lines 2-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 410/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2472 the meeting took place. He confirmed that he saw those present at the meeting from

text: 2473 a distance of approximately 20-30 metres. He testified that the meeting took place

text: 2474 when it was getting dark, at around 17:00, and that it lasted for over 30 minutes.

text: P-0138 stated that at the time of the Pajule attack, Vincent Otti was with Raska Lukwiya,

text: Nyeko Tolbert Yadin, Sam Kolo, Okot Odhiambo, Charles Tabuley and other

text: 2475 commanders. The Chamber notes that P-0138 was the only witness who placed

text: Charles Tabuley among the commanders present near Pajule IDP camp in advance of the

text: 2476 LRA attack. No witness attributed to him any action or role for the attack. There is

text: 2477 also evidence that at the time, Charles Tabuley was in Teso.

text: Asked specifically about the presence of Dominic Ongwen, P-0138 stated that at the time

text: Dominic Ongwen was not a brigade commander and that due to his lower rank he could

text: not sit together with the other commanders, but would only receive instructions from his

text: 2478 brigade commander. This testimony is emphasised by the Defence as contradicting

text: the Prosecution’s allegation that Dominic Ongwen participated in the planning of the

text: 2479 attack on Pajule IDP camp. However, the Chamber considers that the evidence of P-

text: 0138 on this specific point consists of supposition rather than his personal observation or

text: another identifiable source of knowledge and for this reason sets it aside, relying instead

text: on the evidence of witnesses who testified more reliably about Dominic Ongwen’s

text: presence, including P-0309 referred to just above.

text: According to P-0138, the meeting of the commanders started at around 13:00 at a place

text: 2480 where they had sat to rest because they had been moving. At 17:00, they started

text: selecting the people for the attack, which happened at the same place where the meeting

text: 2472 P-0309: T-60, p. 47, lines 5-11. 2473 P-0309: T-60, p. 47, lines 12-21. 2474 P-0309: T-60, p. 50, lines 3-7. 2475 P-0138: T-120, p. 35, lines 13-20. 2476 It is noted that D-0032 stated that Vincent Otti summoned also Charles Tabuley before the attack, see para. 1178 above. 2477 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2102. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 1056. The Chamber notes that while the ISO and UPDF Achol Pii logbooks do not contain this specific detail, they place Charles Tabuley in Teso at least the following day (8 October 2003). See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0537; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6158. 2478 P-0138: T-120, p. 36, lines 15-23. See also Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 90, lines 19-23. 2479 Defence Closing Brief, paras 333, 335; see also para. 337. 2480 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, lines 1-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 411/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2481 took place. This was also the location where those who did not go for the attack,

text: 2482 including P-0138, waited for the attackers to return.

text: Charles Lokwiya testified that at the gathering before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, the

text: commanders present were Vincent Otti, Nyeko Yadin, Lakati, Mzee Banya, Ocaya,

text: 2483 Opiru, Raska Lukwiya and others. Charles Lokwiya did not list Dominic Ongwen as

text: present, but in light of what is said at the outset of this section, the Chamber does not

text: consider this decisive, in light of the other detailed and contextualised witness evidence

text: placing Dominic Ongwen at the meeting. Charles Lokwiya confirmed that the gathering

text: 2484 took place in Wanduku. Charles Lokwiya also accepted the Prosecution’s suggestion

text: that different LRA units met up and that about 600 LRA fighters were present at the

text: 2485 RV.

text: The Chamber also notes the testimony of another low-ranking Sinia member who was

text: present, P-0330, who stated that there was a ‘standby between the leaders’, where there

text: 2486 were two groups: Vincent Otti’s group and Dominic Ongwen’s group. P-0330 gave

text: 2487 the location of the standby as the foothill of Latanya. The leaders met, but P-0330

text: 2488 observed that the escorts were too far off to know what was discussed. However, P-

text: 2489 0330 stated that he could see the leaders. According to P-0330, the leaders present

text: were Dominic Ongwen, Okello Kalalang and Okello from Dominic Ongwen’s group,

text: 2490 and from the other group Vincent Otti and other people P-0330 could not recognise.

text: P-0330 testified that he prepared the chair for Dominic Ongwen for the meeting of the

text: 2491 leaders.

text: The Chamber notes that there are several discrepancies in P-0330’s description of the

text: meeting as compared to the witnesses cited above. Most importantly, however, as

text: opposed to the meeting described by the above witnesses, which took place the day

text: 2481 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, lines 8-10. 2482 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, lines 9-11. 2483 D-0134: T-240, p. 57, lines 1-9. 2484 D-0134: T-241, p. 10, lines 22-24. 2485 D-0134: T-241, p. 10, line 25 – p. 11, line 6. 2486 P-0330: T-51, p. 74, lines 1-3. 2487 P-0330: T-55, p. 29, lines 12-13. 2488 P-0330: T-51, p. 74, lines 3-5. See also T-55, p. 22, lines 6-17. 2489 P-0330: T-51, p. 74, lines 8-24. 2490 P-0330: T-51, p. 74, line 25 – p. 75, line 3. 2491 P-0330: T-51, p. 78, lines 5-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 412/1077 4 February 2021 before the attack, P-0330 testified that the leaders talked ‘for a day’ and on the second 2492 day they selected the standby. Therefore, P-0330 is, on the face of his evidence, describing another previous meeting, involving Dominic Ongwen’s and Vincent Otti’s groups. Considering that P-0330 is the only witness who discussed this additional meeting, the Chamber will not delve into it further, but it is noted that for this meeting to have taken place is not incompatible with the evidence on record, in particular with the evidence in relation to when Dominic Ongwen joined Vincent Otti.

text: Finally, P-0084 participated in the UPDF military fact-finding 2493 mission following the attack on Pajule IDP camp. He stated that prior to the attack, 2494 the UPDF was aware of ‘the concentration east of Pajule of the LRA’, thereby corroborating the insider evidence.

text: b. Selection and briefing of the attackers

text: After the meeting, on the eve of the attack, the LRA soldiers were selected from the Control Altar, as well as Trinkle and Sinia brigades. Raska Lukwiya was designated as the overall commander for the attack. The attackers were briefed about the attack and instructed to attack the UPDF at the barracks, as well as civilian areas of the camp in order to loot radio equipment, food and other items. The attackers were also told to

text: abduct civilians.

text: A number of witnesses provided evidence on the preparation for the attack on Pajule IDP camp once the commanders’ meeting ended and the decision to attack was made known to the LRA members present at large. The Chamber notes that the evidence of the various witnesses is generally compatible, but that on occasion, as above, the evidence of witnesses is limited to what they could observe from their individual position. This particularly affects the evidence as to from which LRA units the attackers were selected.

text: P-0144 testified that the decision to organise the force for the attack on Pajule IDP camp 2496 came from Vincent Otti. Vincent Otti gave the instruction to Raska Lukwiya, who 2497 then selected the soldiers to go and carry out the operation. P-0144 testified Raska

text: 2492 P-0330: T-51, p. 75, lines 4-7. 2493 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 14-15. 2494 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 70. 2495 Para. 146 above. 2496 P-0144: T-91, p. 21, lines 21-23. See also p. 79, line 15 – p. 80, line 3. 2497 P-0144: T-91, p. 21, lines 23-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 413/1077 4 February 2021

text: Lukwiya also had ‘subordinate commanders as well who were instead commanding the

text: 2498 smaller groups that went and carried out the operation’.

text: P-0209 described in detail how the result of the commanders’ meeting reached his unit.

text: He testified that Charles Kapere was at the meeting for about two hours and that

text: immediately after he returned, he called the commanders under him, including Bogi, Sam

text: 2499 Opio, the IO and the witness. Charles Kapere informed those present that Vincent Otti

text: had told him that there was going to be an operation and that he wanted them to go and

text: 2500 attack the UPDF in Pajule. From Trinkle brigade, 75 fighters were organised for the

text: 2501 2502 attack. Other fighters were prepared from Control Altar as well as from Sinia.

text: According to P-0209 the instruction coming from Vincent Otti was to go to the barracks

text: where the UPDF were, to the mission ‘to take the radio equipment’ and to the centre ‘to

text: 2503 collect food, soap, salt and other items’. The plan was also to abduct civilians to carry

text: 2504 items and to increase the numbers of LRA soldiers. Similarly, P-0330 testified that

text: the LRA fighters had been instructed to abduct civilians, loot items and give it to the

text: 2505 civilians to carry.

text: P-0045 testified that before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, she was called to a standby

text: 2506 where Vincent Otti announced that there would be an attack on Pajule. She stated that

text: 2507 many people were present at the time.

text: P-0309 stated that after the meeting of the commanders, he heard Dominic Ongwen give

text: 2508 orders to Opio Korea to choose people from his group to go for an operation.

text: Subsequently, Opio Korea selected about 10 people from Dominic Ongwen’s home to

text: 2509 go for the attack. According to P-0309, people who were chosen were then addressed

text: 2498 P-0144: T-91, p. 79, line 25 – p. 80, line 3. 2499 P-0209: T-160, p. 22, lines 5-19. It is noted that during examination by the Defence, P-0209 also mentioned Okwang Olero, but it is unclear whether this is a further participant in the meeting, or whether Okwang Olero was the IO; P-0209: T-161, p. 42, lines 17-18. 2500 P-0209: T-160, p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 3. 2501 P-0209: T-160-CONF, p. 25, lines 6-25. 2502 P-0209: T-160-CONF, p. 27, lines 11-14. 2503 P-0209: T-160, p. 23, lines 7-14. 2504 P-0209: T-160, p. 24, lines 3-13. 2505 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 5, lines 19-20. 2506 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 90, lines 12-25. 2507 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 91, lines 4-5. 2508 P-0309: T-60, p. 45, lines 9-10, p. 50, line 19 – p. 51, line 3. 2509 P-0309: T-60, p. 51, lines 8-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 414/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2510 and told that they were going to Pajule. The group of soldiers addressed was well over

text: 2511 100 people.

text: P-0309 testified that no specific orders were given to him, and stated: ‘I knew by default

text: 2512 that since we were going to the barracks then we had to fight and win the battle’.

text: When P-0309’s previous statement to the effect that the instruction was to go to Pajule

text: centre, abduct people and loot food to eat was put to him, he responded: ‘What I can say

text: is that whenever we are prepared to go fight, all those activities are part of the fighting,

text: 2513 the part of the attack. I didn’t think it was necessary to outline them one by one.’

text: P-0330 stated that Dominic Ongwen’s deputy for the standby was Okello, and that among

text: 2514 the other people selected for the attack were Odoki and Bomek. On refreshing from

text: 2515 previous testimony, P-0330 also confirmed the presence of Oyo and Oyet. P-0330

text: 2516 stated that they were Sinia soldiers. As to Bomek, P-0330 stated that he was in Sinia

text: 2517 support. P-0330 testified that instructions were given to abduct civilians to carry

text: 2518 ‘luggage’.

text: P-0372 testified that when the meeting of the commanders took place, the foot soldiers

text: did not know what would happen, but realised in the evening that some soldiers had been

text: 2519 selected to go and attack Pajule. He testified that at the time that the soldiers were

text: selected, the commanders present were Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti and Raska

text: 2520 2521 Lukwiya. P-0372 specifically confirmed having seen Dominic Ongwen.

text: According to P-0372, there was no ‘major speech’ by a commander before the attack on

text: 2522 Pajule. However, he stated that when people were selected and put in a group to start

text: 2510 P-0309: T-60, p. 45, lines 10-12. 2511 P-0309: T-60, p. 48, lines 13-15. 2512 P-0309: T-60, p. 53, lines 3-6. 2513 P-0309: T-60, p. 56, line 15 – p. 57, line 22. 2514 P-0330: T-51, p. 75, lines 8-23. 2515 P-0330: T-51, p. 76, lines 5-12. 2516 P-0330: T-51, p. 76, lines 13-14. 2517 P-0330: T-51, p. 76, lines 18-21. 2518 P-0330: T-51, p. 79, lines 11-14. See also P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 5, lines 19-20. 2519 P-0372: T-148, p. 16, lines 15-19. 2520 P-0372: T-148, p. 16, lines 20-23. See also P-0372: T-149, p. 55, lines 9-18. 2521 P-0372: T-149, p. 67, lines 14-15. 2522 P-0372: T-148, p. 16, line 24 – p. 17, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 415/1077 4 February 2021 moving, Dominic Ongwen gave information that they were going to Pajule with his

text: 2523 group.

text: 2524 Charles Lokwiya also testified about the briefing Vincent Otti gave before departure.

text: The instructions that Charles Lokwiya could recall were to attack the barracks, collect

text: 2525 food and abduct people.

text: P-0101 testified that she was present during the selection of soldiers for the Pajule

text: 2526 attack. According to her testimony, Vincent Otti was doing the selection, and

text: 2527 Dominic Ongwen was a commander chosen to go to Pajule.

text: 2528 P-0138 stated that he did not personally go for the Pajule attack.

text: 2529 and Vincent Otti selected people for the attack at

text: 2530 about 19:00 at a place approximately a mile away from Pajule camp.

text: According to P-0138, after the plan for the attack was finalised, Nyeko Tolbert Yadin,

text: 2531 Raska Lukwiya and Ocitti Jimmy addressed the fighters. Asked about other LRA

text: commanders who were present at this occasion, P-0138 mentioned ‘Colonel Bogi’,

text: ‘several captains, among whom included Bosco’, ‘Lukwiya’, Buk Abudema, ‘Odhiambo,

text: 2532 who was coming from Trinkle’ and ‘Tabuley coming from Stockree’. Furthermore,

text: the witness’s testimony that Vincent Otti gave instructions to the soldiers necessarily

text: 2533 implies that Vincent Otti was present at the gathering too. In any case, the Chamber

text: considers P-0138’s testimony was not very clear as to the commanders present when the

text: attackers were first assembled and addressed. The witness also did not provide a clear

text: 2534 answer to the question whether Dominic Ongwen was present at this gathering.

text: 2523 P-0372: T-148, p. 17, lines 2-5. 2524 D-0134: T-240, p. 57, lines 15-17. 2525 D-0134: T-240, p. 57, lines 18-21. 2526 P-0101: T-13, p. 24, lines 21-24. 2527 P-0101: T-13, p. 24, line 25 – p. 25, line 1, p. 25, lines 10-14. See also p. 58, lines 18-22 (stating that Dominic Ongwen commanded and selected the soldiers that went to Pajule). 2528 P-0138: T-120, p. 32, lines 3-6. 2529 P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 32, lines 6-7. 2530 P-0138: T-120, p. 32, lines 7-9. The Chamber notes that P-0138’s estimate of the distance between the location of the selection and Pajule IDP camp is notably lower than that of other witnesses. However, considering that P- 0138 did not go to Pajule, the Chamber does not attribute value to this estimate. 2531 P-0138: T-120, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 1. 2532 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, lines 12-20. In relation to P-0138’s identification of Charles Tabuley as present, see para. 1197 above. 2533 P-0138: T-120, p. 38, lines 18-24. 2534 P-0138: T-120, p. 37, line 21 – p. 38, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 416/1077 4 February 2021

text: Consequently, even though the Chamber does not have doubts that P-0138 described facts that he personally observed, his evidence is not of assistance on details, including as concerns the presence of commanders.

text: P-0138 testified that Control Altar, as well as Stockree, Trinkle and Sinia brigades, 2535 provided soldiers for the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: 2536 P-0015, who was a ting ting in Vincent Otti’s household at the time, stated that on 9 October 2003 at 19:00 Vincent Otti sent people from Control Altar to attack Pajule IDP 2537 2538 camp. She said that ‘many people’ were sent, all from Control Altar.

text: She stated that she heard the orders that Vincent Otti gave, which were ‘that if they found huts they should burn them, to loot, and to abduct children of the age of 8 years and above, 2539 and to attack the barracks’. In addition, P-0015 stated that Vincent Otti told the group that ‘even if they found insects on the way that they should kill them, that all houses in 2540 Pajule should be burnt, that civilian people and UPDF should be killed’. P-0015’s evidence on the orders given to the attackers stands out from the evidence of other witnesses who testified about the same fact. The fact that other witnesses who were asked about the orders did not mention the explicit order to kill civilians prevents the Chamber from following P-0015 with respect to this specific issue. This, however, pertains exclusively to the issue of whether an explicit order of the kind described by P-0015 was issued in advance of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, and has, in the light of all the other evidence, no bearing on the Chamber’s finding that the LRA perceived as enemy the 2541 civilians living in Northern Uganda.

text: P-0015 also stated that she heard Vincent Otti make a telephone call to a commander at the UPDF barracks telling him that ‘he had sent his people who should reach there at 2542 about 8pm’. However, given that there is no other evidence attesting to this contact,

text: 2535 P-0138: T-120, p. 39, lines 14-18. 2536 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 61. 2537 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 87. 2538 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 88. 2539 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 87. 2540 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 87. 2541 See section IV.C.4 above. 2542 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 89.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 417/1077 4 February 2021 and in light of the fact that the issue is immaterial to the disposal of the charges in the present case, the Chamber does not make any findings in this regard.

text: As is evident from the above, each witness who testified before the Chamber about the preparations for the attack on Pajule IDP camp described what they could personally observe in the specific surroundings where they found themselves at the time. Only a few witnesses had reliable overall knowledge of the organisation of the LRA soldiers for the attack. But the testimonies referred to, taken together, establish that after the meeting, soldiers were selected from the attack from the various groups present at the location.

text: 2543 P-0144, an LRA fighter who participated in the attack, testified that two LRA groups went to lay ambushes along the way so that reinforcements from the Ugandan military would not interfere in the Pajule operation; another was meant to carry out the assault and attack the barracks; and the biggest group was sent to go and collect food items and 2544 abduct civilians. P-0144 stated that the purpose of the attack on the barracks was to weaken the government soldiers and to prevent them from attacking the LRA attackers 2545 who were looting food in the camp. P-0144 testified that the ‘major reason’ the LRA 2546 was in Pajule was to collect food. The witnesses agreed that Raska Lukwiya was 2547 designated as the overall commander on the ground.

text: Finally, the Chamber notes the evidence of P-0070, who testified that he was injured and in sickbay at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, but that he heard of the attack on ‘domestic radio’ and from those who were injured during the attack and were brought to 2548 the sickbay, including one , an LRA soldier in Control Altar. P-0070 testified that he was told that the attack on Pajule was undertaken by the combined forces of the 2549 Control Altar and the Sinia brigade. Further, P-0070 stated that he was told that the plan for the attack on Pajule had been to overrun the barracks and thereafter to abduct 2550 civilians and ‘burn down the entire place’. Even though P-0070 did not personally

text: 2543 P-0144: T-91, p. 29, lines 1-11. 2544 P-0144: T-91, p. 21, lines 6-20, p. 32, lines 6-7. 2545 P-0144: T-91, p. 34, line 18 – p. 35, line 3. 2546 P-0144: T-91, p. 34, line 18 – p. 35, line 1. 2547 P-0144: T-91, p. 22, lines 14-18; P-0209: T-160, p. 24, lines 17-18; D-0134: T-240, p. 58, lines 4-6; P-0101: T-13, p. 25, lines 15-21; P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 87. 2548 P-0070: T-106-CONF, p. 27, line 12 – p. 28, line 20. 2549 P-0070: T-106, p. 29, lines 7-10. 2550 P-0070: T-106, p. 29, lines 19-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 418/1077 4 February 2021 observe the facts, the Chamber sees value in his evidence as an element of 2551 corroboration.

text: c. The departure of the attackers

text: The same evening after the briefing, the attackers, including Dominic Ongwen, departed

text: for Pajule IDP camp. Vincent Otti remained behind.

text: Witnesses who were present provide consistent testimony, diverging only in inessential

text: detail such as the precise time of departure and arrival, that after the setup of the attacking

text: force, the attackers left for Pajule IDP camp on the evening of the day preceding the

text: attack, moved during the night, and arrived near Pajule in the early morning of the day

text: of the attack.

text: 2553 P-0144 testified that after the ‘standby’ was selected, they went straight to Pajule. P-

text: 0144, who himself went for the attack, testified that it was not very far, only 10 kilometres,

text: and that the attackers left at about 18:00, but did not go in a straight line and kept resting 2554 on the way.

text: P-0045 testified that the orders for the Pajule attack were given at around 20:00, after 2555 which the attackers moved until dawn.

text: P-0309 testified that when the attackers left Wanduku they moved to Pajule, which took 2556 about two to three hours. During examination by the Defence, P-0309 added that they

text: did not go directly to Pajule, but stopped along the way and stayed in the bushes for a 2557 2558 while. P-0309 testified that they arrived at Pajule ‘at the centre’ at about 4:00.

text: P-0372 testified that the attackers left for Pajule at around 21:00, and arrived there at

text: around 3:00 the next morning, after which they waited for dawn to commence the

text: 2551 This is not undermined by the fact that P-0070 – in clear contradiction with the other witnesses who were present for the organisation of the attack – stated that according to what he was told, overall commander of the operation was Bosco Bogi of Control Altar. See P-0070: T-106, p. 29, lines 11-16. 2552 Para. 146 above. 2553 P-0144: T-91, p. 28, line 23 – p. 29, line 1. 2554 P-0144: T-91, p. 29, lines 15-17. 2555 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 94, lines 20-21. 2556 P-0309: T-60, p. 54, lines 13-16. 2557 P-0309: T-63, p. 5, lines 11-16. 2558 P-0309: T-60, p. 57, lines 23-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 419/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2559 2560 attack. He estimated the distance at 12 miles. P-0372 also stated that it rained on

text: 2561 the way, but in the morning it was clear.

text: 2562 Charles Lokwiya stated that the attackers set off for Pajule at about 19:00 to 20:00.

text: P-0209, who himself did not go to the attack, testified that the attacking force departed

text: the meeting location at about 22:00, but added that he could not recall the time very

text: 2563 well.

text: Several witnesses who provided credible and detailed accounts of the attack on Pajule

text: IDP camp also stated that they personally saw Dominic Ongwen in the attacking force.

text: In particular, P-0144 specifically confirmed that he saw Dominic Ongwen in the group

text: 2564 that went to Pajule. P-0309 also testified that in the vicinity of Pajule, P-0309 saw

text: 2565 people separate into different groups and he himself joined Dominic Ongwen’s group.

text: 2566 P-0372 also testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen on the way.

text: Turning to Vincent Otti, the Chamber notes that several witnesses testified that he

text: 2567 remained behind. In the presence of this consistent evidence from multiple sources,

text: including P-0138 who stated that he remained behind with Vincent Otti, the Chamber

text: does not on this issue follow P-0045, who at some point indicated that Vincent Otti went

text: 2568 to the mission, or the statement of P-0006, a civilian resident of Pajule IDP camp,

text: who stated that shortly after she was abducted during the attack, she saw an old man for

text: whom she ‘thought that he looked like Otti Vincent’ and that she recognised him from

text: 2569 photographs at the camp.

text: 2559 P-0372: T-148, p. 19, lines 16-23. 2560 P-0372: T-149, p. 65, lines 7-10. 2561 P-0372: T-149, p. 65, lines 11-17. 2562 D-0134: T-240, p. 58, lines 10-12. 2563 P-0209: T-160, p. 29, lines 5-8. 2564 P-0144: T-91, p. 30, lines 7-8. 2565 P-0309: T-60, p. 54, lines 16-18. 2566 P-0372: T-148, p. 19, lines 19-21. 2567 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 95, lines 14-17; P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 32, lines 13-19; P-0209: T-160, p. 30, lines 6-9; P-0309: T-60, p. 53, lines 13-15. 2568 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 91, lines 23-25. 2569 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 33

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 420/1077 4 February 2021 iii. The LRA’s attack against the civilian population of Pajule IDP

text: camp

text: On 10 October 2003, LRA fighters, including Dominic Ongwen, attacked Pajule IDP

text: camp.

text: In the early morning of 10 October 2003, several hundreds of LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, entered through the Pajule side of the camp on the east, armed with an assortment of weapons, including SPG-9, AK-47s, a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft

text: gun, RPGs, a PKM machine gun as well as pangas/machetes and knives.

text: The LRA fighters were organised in several units, spreading throughout the camp. One group attacked the military barracks in the Lapul side of the camp, engaging with the Ugandan government forces. Another much smaller group went to the Catholic mission, from where it was repelled by government soldiers. Two small groups set up ambushes on the Pader and Kitgum roads, to prevent government military reinforcements from aiding the camp. A final large group of fighters went to attack the civilian camp. Amongst

text: this group of fighters was Raska Lukwiya, the operations commander of the attack.

text: Government soldiers within the camp fled in the face of the attacking force, while government soldiers in the barracks managed to hold the barracks under heavy fire from

text: the LRA.

text: The parties agree that on or about 10 October 2003, there was an attack on Pajule IDP

text: 2574 camp. The evidence shows that this attack occurred in the early morning of 10

text: 2575 October 2003, the day after Uhuru day, the Ugandan Independence day.

text: Regarding the number of fighters that attacked the camp, LRA fighter P-0144 testified

text: 2576 that between 400 and 500 of them went to Pajule IDP camp. This estimate is

text: compatible with the testimony of Charles Lokwiya, another LRA fighter, who stated that

text: 80 to 100 fighters went to the barracks but that the majority of the attackers went to the

text: 2577 centre. LRA fighter P-0372 estimated that there were at least 40 fighters from each

text: 2570 Para. 144 above. 2571 Para. 147 above. 2572 Para. 147 above. 2573 Para. 148 above. 2574 Agreed Facts, C1. 2575 P-0009: T-81, p. 11, line 25 – p. 12, line 2; P-0379: T-57, p. 21, lines 17-24; P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0137-0002-R01, at para. 14; P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 12. See enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1102 at section IV.B.3.ii.c above; P-0003 Tape 693 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132- 0105-R01, at 0133-36; P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 12, line 21; P-0138: T-120, p. 65, line 25 – p. 68, line 14; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2116-2117; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1070. 2576 P-0144: T-92, p. 43, lines 10-13. 2577 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 62, line 18 – p. 63, line 2, thus indicating that the 80 to 100 fighters mentioned were a minority of the fighters participating in the attack.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 421/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2578 group selected to go to attack Pajule and about three groups participating in the attack.

text: The Chamber considers this latter relatively lower estimate to still be compatible with

text: the other evidence and the conclusion that several hundred LRA fighters participated in

text: the attack on Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003.

text: This conclusion is further supported by the testimonies of government soldiers. UPDF

text: 2579 officer John Lubwama testified that about 400 LRA fighters attacked the camp. P-

text: 0084, an officer with the UPDF who observed the attack and participated in an

text: investigation the next day, testified that he believed that about 200 to 250 rebels came to

text: 2580 attack Pajule in October 2003.

text: The evidence also demonstrates that among the LRA fighters who participated in the

text: attack on Pajule IDP camp, there were also children younger than 15 years old. P-0144,

text: who participated in the fight at the government barracks, testified that the youngest LRA

text: 2581 fighters at the barracks could be about 13 or 14. Asked how he could tell their ages,

text: P-0144 also testified that he could ‘see’ their age, and that they were ‘still tender’ and

text: 2582 could have been 13, 14 or 15 years old. He also stated that he compared the soldiers

text: to himself, who was 17 years old and was older, by ‘many years’, than even the people

text: 2583 who abducted him.

text: This evidence is corroborated by the testimony of camp resident P-0249, who stated that

text: the rebels who abducted him and his wife were young, from 12 up to about 18 years

text: 2584 2585 old. P-0249 also testified that Rwot Oywak was abducted by an armed kadogo. P-

text: 2586 0249 testified that he believed that the kadogo was approximately 13 or 14 years old.

text: P-0249 testified that he could tell the soldiers’ ages by their sizes and estimating their

text: 2587 age accordingly.

text: 2578 P-0372: T-148, p. 18, lines 9-11; T-149, p. 67, lines 18-21. It is noted that the witness stressed that he was providing an estimate; P-0372: T-149, p. 67, lines 18-21. 2579 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 96. 2580 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 137. 2581 P-0144: T-91, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 7. 2582 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 13-14. 2583 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 15-19. 2584 P-0249: T-79, p. 11, line 23 – p. 12, line 11. 2585 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, lines 14-18, p. 23, lines 3-9. 2586 P-0249: T-79, p. 23, lines 3-6. 2587 P-0249: T-79, p. 12, lines 5-11. See also T-80, p. 3, line 10 – p. 5, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 422/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further, camp resident P-0006 testified that she was abducted and beaten by young LRA

text: fighters, she identified as kadogos around 14 years old. UPDF commander John

text: Lubwama testified that he could see that the average age of the rebels in the attack were

text: between 12 and 20 years old. He also stated specifically that he saw the bodies of the

text: LRA fighters killed during the attack and that their ages were between 12 and 20 years

text: old.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls the testimony of LRA fighter P-0379 who stated that

text: he saw a very young boy, who appeared to be a rebel, who was shot around the shoulders

text: and on his head and was dead and it appeared he had been holding bubble gum in his

text: hand but it fell next to him. While P-0379 does not explicitly estimate the age of the ‘very young boy’ that he saw, the description that he gave makes it plain that he spoke

text: of a child below the age of 15. The Chamber thus notes P-0379’s evidence as

text: corroborative of the other evidence in relation to the participation of children under 15

text: years old in the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003.

text: Credible and consistent evidence shows that the LRA forces attacking Pajule IDP camp

text: were heavily armed with weapons including an SPG-9, AK-47s, a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft

text: gun, RPGs, a PKM machine gun as well as pangas/machetes and knives. The evidence

text: 2588 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 11, 14; P-0006: T-140, p. 9, lines 1-11, p. 37, lines 15-20. 2589 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 108. 2590 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 109-110. 2591 P-0379: T-57, p. 26, lines 6-8, p. 27, lines 8-18. 2592 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 60, lines 19-25, p. 61, lines 10-16 (testifying that he was carrying a weapon called an SPG-9, an anti-tank weapon used mainly to shoot armoured vehicles); P-0144: T-91, p. 30, lines 15-18 (stating that the LRA had an SMG, a PKM machine gun, an RPG, a recoilless, an SPG-9, a 12.7 and a 60 millimetre mortar); P-0209: T-160, p. 29, lines 2-4 (stating that the LRA soldiers who participated in the Pajule attack from his group went with AK-47s, PKM, RPG and 12.7 gun); P-0309: T-60, p. 53, line 22 – p. 54, line 12 (testifying that LRA fighters, including himself, had weapons such as AK-47s; fighters also had mortars and RPGs as well as ‘big guns’ whose names the witness could not recall); P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 95, line 24 – p. 96, line 2 (stating that the LRA fighters went to the barracks with an LMG, a B-10, an SPG-9 and small arms); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 30, 97, 98 (testifying that the attackers were armed with hoes, pangas and 1.5 metres spears. The LRA attackers also used AK-47s, an SPG-9 and the 12.7 mm anti-aircraft gun. After the attack the government soldiers recovered from LRA an SPG-9 (a self-propelled, anti-armour gun) and cartridges from the 12.7 anti-aircraft gun near the military barracks as well as 11 Ak-47s); P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 20 (testifying that after the attack, the government forces recovered 13 submachine guns (SMGs) and an SPG-9 from the LRA fighters); P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 14 (Benson Ojok was abducted by an LRA fighter carrying an AK-47 and a bayonet knife); P-0067: T-125, p. 10, lines 3-6 (Dick Okot saw an RPG gun, and other smaller arms, foldable guns).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 423/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2593 shows that Dominic Ongwen was also armed at Pajule IDP camp during the attack.

text: 2594 P-0309 testified that Dominic Ongwen had a gun similar to an AK-47 gun.

text: UPDF soldier P-0084 testified that prior to the attack, the military had noticed LRA

text: commanders concentrating east of Pajule and were thus anticipating an attack somewhere

text: 2595 in the region. The military was monitoring about seven LRA groups and these groups

text: 2596 were moving towards Lanyatono village, which was about eight miles east of Pajule.

text: P-0084 testified that just before the attack there had already been threats by the LRA of

text: 2597 attacks on IDP camps, including on Pajule IDP camp. According to P-0084, the letter

text: 2598 warned the people to leave the camp or they would be attacked.

text: 2599 As planned, and as laid out in detail below, the LRA fighters split and went to

text: different areas in the camp: the barracks; the Catholic mission; the civilian camp,

text: including the trading centre; and also to set up ambushes of the incoming government

text: reinforcements on the Pader and Kitgum roads. The Chamber notes that some witnesses

text: did not mention certain groups referred to by other witnesses, in particular the groups

text: that went to the Catholic mission and to lay ambushes to prevent government

text: reinforcements from arriving. This is naturally explained by the different personal

text: knowledge of the witnesses, and does not raise doubt as to the reliability of the evidence

text: as a whole.

text: LRA fighter P-0144 testified that each of the different groups that went to the attack had

text: 2600 a different commander, Lieutenant Lalero for one of the ambushes, Bogi for the

text: 2601 barracks, and Dominic Ongwen for the centre. According to P-0144, Raska Lukwiya,

text: the operations commander for the entire attack, went to the centre with Dominic Ongwen

text: 2602 and the group Dominic Ongwen commanded. Raska Lukwiya’s role was to ‘go and

text: 2593 P-0309: T-60, p. 54, lines 4-8. 2594 P-0309: T-60, p. 54, lines 6-8. 2595 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 69-70. 2596 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 70. 2597 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 73, 76. In this regard, the witness testified about having seen a letter from the LRA, warning people to leave the camp or they would be attacked, that had been dropped at Pajule IDP camp about a week before the attack. 2598 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 76. 2599 See section IV.C.6.ii above. 2600 P-0144: T-91, p. 32, lines 6-7 (testifying that he could not remember the name of the commander of the second ambush). 2601 P-0144: T-92, p. 45, lines 14-23. 2602 P-0144: T-92, p. 45, lines 14-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 424/1077 4 February 2021 conduct abductions, supported by the commanders that he selected at the centre, and to

text: 2603 coordinate the other groups that are not together with him at that time’. P-0144

text: confirmed that Raska Lukwiya was personally present and oversaw the operations in the

text: 2604 centre.

text: According to P-0144, the attacking force initially moved in one group and then, when

text: the LRA fighters were close to Pajule IDP camp, they split into their respective groups.

text: The ambush group went first, then the group assaulting the barracks and lastly the third

text: 2605 group went to the trading centre to collect food and abduct people.

text: Similarly, LRA fighter Charles Lokwiya testified that as the LRA approached Pajule IDP

text: 2606 camp they split into three groups. He stated that Bogi led the groups going to the

text: 2607 2608 barracks, and the main group, led by Raska Lukwiya, went to the centre.

text: According to Charles Lokwiya, another group, led by Vincent Otti’s escort Onyee,

text: 2609 proceeded to the mission.

text: John Lubwama, the UPDF commander of the government forces stationed at the camp

text: at the time of the attack, testified that the LRA split into two groups near the health centre

text: and one group crossed the main road and advanced towards the barracks while another

text: 2610 group moved towards Pajule IDP camp.

text: John Lubwama testified that at the time of the attack there were a total of 150 government

text: 2611 soldiers under his command. The soldiers were mostly LDUs and the commanders,

text: 2612 UPDF. John Lubwama testified that 70 soldiers were deployed in the barracks and

text: 2613 about 80 were deployed around the camp. At the time of the attack on the camp, the

text: soldiers in the barracks slept in the trenches in order to be ready for fighting. The

text: 2603 P-0144: T-92, p. 45, line 24 – p. 46, line 6. 2604 P-0144: T-92, p. 46, lines 4-6. 2605 P-0144: T-91, p. 29, lines 15-25. 2606 D-0134: T-240, p. 58, line 25 – p. 59, line 4. 2607 D-0134: T-240, p. 59, lines 7-10. 2608 D-0134: T-240, p. 59, lines 7-11. 2609 D-0134: T-240, p. 59, line 14 – p. 60, line 12. 2610 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 95. 2611 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92; P-0047: T-115, p. 11, lines 13-15. 2612 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92. 2613 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 425/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber notes that while there was a police station in the camp there is no evidence that

text: the police engaged in any discernible way during the LRA attack on 10 October 2003.

text: The witnesses – LRA insiders, camp residents and government military officers – stated

text: that the shooting began in the early morning of 10 October 2003, generally testifying to

text: a range of times between 5:00 and 6:00. According to witness evidence, people had

text: been celebrating Uhuru Day – Ugandan Independence Day – the night before, and for

text: this reason some were still drunk and caught unaware by the attack.

text: Camp resident Terrence Otika became aware of the attack when he heard the sounds of

text: whistles being blown and ululations. He testified that he knew it was the ‘rebels’

text: attacking because they were blowing whistles and had girls with them making

text: ululations.

text: UPDF commander John Lubwama testified that he initially heard a gunshot from the

text: north by the road, close to the primary school near the military barracks. He testified

text: that two of his officers, who were about 100 meters from the main road, saw the rebels

text: coming from the north of their position, advancing in fighting formation. The two

text: soldiers fired at the rebels and the rebels started firing back. The soldiers then ran to

text: 2614 P-0144: T-91, p. 31, lines 6-8 (testifying that the attack began at about 5:00); P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0137-0002-R01, at para. 14 (stating that he first heard shooting between 5:00 and 6:00); P-0007 Statement, UGA- OTP-0147-0214-R01, at paras 10-11 (stating that he lived within the trading centre in the Lapul side of the IDP camp and first heard guns being fired at around 5:00 in the morning); P-0379: T-57, p. 21, lines 17-24 (testifying that he started hearing gunshots at around 5:00 and knew that this meant that the camp was being attacked); P- 0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 82 (testifying that he heard gunfire at about 5:30); D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 62, lines 2-7 (stating that the attack began at 6:00); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177- R01, at paras 25, 91 (testifying that the attack took place around 6:00 when he was awake inside his house listening to the BBC); P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 17-18 (stating that he woke up at around 6:00 the morning of 10 October 2003 to the sound of gunshots, he went outside and was sent back inside by an armed man who he assumed to be a government soldier, at that time he checked his watch and it said 6:00). See also D-0085: T-239, p. 18, line 23 – p. 19, line 1 (testifying that the LRA forces arrived in Pajule ‘around dawn, around 7:00, 7:30’). 2615 D-0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 2-6. See also P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 8-9; P-0249: T-79, p. 9, lines 18-22. 2616 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 11. 2617 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 13. The witness stated that this was, in his observation, the customary behaviour of the rebels during attacks. 2618 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92. See P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177- R01, at para. 49; P-0047’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0027-0198. In his sketch of Pajule IDP camp, the witness indicates the locations of the primary schools in Pajule with a ‘P.S’. The primary school he speaks of here is shown as being towards the north east of the military barracks. 2619 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92. 2620 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 426/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2621 the barracks and into the fighting trenches. John Lubwama testified that the

text: government forces took position in the trenches, armed with AK-47s, mortars and 82 mm

text: 2622 recoilless guns. John Lubwama testified that he called for reinforcement from the

text: th regular UPDF force, the 65 battalion, which was about seven kilometres south of the

text: 2623 camp.

text: 2624 According to John Lubwama, the attackers came from the east. Similarly, camp

text: 2625 resident Santo Oweka confirmed that the LRA came from the east or northeast. Camp

text: resident P-0006 also heard the noises signalling the beginning of the attack coming from

text: 2626 the eastern direction.

text: Other witnesses corroborate the above accounts. Okema Brown, a camp resident and

text: leader, testified that he first heard shooting from the direction of the barracks and then he

text: could hear shooting coming from all different directions, stating ‘the attack came from

text: 2627 all directions in the camp’. UPDF officer P-0084 testified that he was at the UPDF

text: divisional headquarters at Achol-Pii about 30 kilometres from Pajule and could hear

text: 2628 gunshots coming from the camp. P-0084 stated that after hearing the gunshots the

text: divisional headquarters received radio communication of the attack from Captain

text: 2629 Lubwama, commander of the military detachment at Pajule, thereby confirming the

text: latter’s testimony. P-0084 also testified that Captain Lubwama said that there was

text: 2630 fighting in the barracks and some LRA were in the trading centre.

text: 2631 P-0144 testified that about 100 LRA fighters went to the barracks. Charles Lokwiya

text: 2632 corroborates this account. This number is also compatible with the testimony of John

text: 2633 Lubwama, who stated that he saw about 150 rebels coming towards the barracks. The

text: 2621 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92. 2622 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 97. 2623 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 53. 2624 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 95. 2625 D-0081: T-221, p. 45, lines 20-22. 2626 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 9. 2627 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at paras 13-14. 2628 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 82. 2629 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 82. This testimony corroborates John Lubwama’s accounts of his reaction to the LRA’s attack. See para. 1250 above. 2630 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2631 P-0144: T-91, p. 32, lines 20-22. 2632 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 62, line 18 – p. 63, line 2 (testifying that 80 to 100 fighters went to the barracks). 2633 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 92.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 427/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber notes that LRA fighter P-0045’s estimate as to the number of fighters that went to attack the barracks was much lower (‘about 15 perhaps’), but does not consider this

text: estimate decisive in light of the consistent estimates of the other witnesses and in light of

text: P-0045’s clarification that, in any case, she was not including in her count all the LRA

text: 2634 fighters that actually went to the barracks.

text: 2635 The evidence shows that heavy fighting occurred at the barracks. According to P-

text: 0144, a group of LRA fighters, led by Bogi, went straight to the barracks and engaged

text: 2636 the government soldiers there. P-0144 testified that when the LRA started its attack

text: on the barracks at the upper side of the barracks some of the government soldiers there

text: 2637 fled in the southern direction. P-0144 stated that the LRA fighters initially overran

text: part of the barracks but were ultimately not able to overpower the soldiers stationed at

text: 2638 the barracks and so retreated in the direction of the trading centre. Several other

text: witnesses, specifically LRA fighters, offered testimony consistent with and corroborative

text: of this account. P-0045 stated that the government soldiers at the barracks initially

text: 2639 retreated before coming back and defeating the LRA. Charles Lokwiya testified that

text: the LRA fighters fought in the barracks and just as they were about to capture the

text: 2640 barracks, the government soldiers returned in numbers. Camp resident P-0081

text: testified that he heard bombs being fired towards the barracks and coming out of the

text: 2641 barracks.

text: Witnesses reported that there was also shooting in the civilian areas of the camp. LRA

text: fighter P-0330 provides testimony to the effect that LRA fighters engaged with

text: government soldiers, stating that there were soldiers guarding the centre and he fired his

text: 2642 gun at them. From his position in the military battalion headquarters, John Lubwama

text: could see and hear the group in the camp attacking there at the same time as the group

text: 2634 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 95, lines 7-13. 2635 P-0067: T-126, p. 5, lines 6-7 (testifying that the barracks was ‘where the heavy fighting was’); P-0372: T- 148, p. 20, line 25 – p. 21, line 2 (testifying that he was told by the people who went to the barracks the fighting at the barracks was ‘very fierce’). 2636 P-0144: T-91, p. 22, lines 1-4, p. 30, lines 21-23, p. 33, line 23 – p. 34, line 1. 2637 P-0144: T-91, p. 34, lines 7-17. 2638 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, line 23 – p. 34, line 6, p. 35, lines 21-24. See also P-0372: T-148, p. 21, lines 7-12 (like P-0144, P-0372 also testified that the persons who went to the barracks later came back and joined the ones who were in the camp who were taking foodstuff). 2639 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 91, lines 14-16; T-104-CONF, p. 6, lines 5-11, line 25 – p. 7, line 3. 2640 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 62, lines 8-11, p. 63, lines 3-8. 2641 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 18. 2642 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 7, lines 4-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 428/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2643 attacking the barracks. UPDF commander John Lubwama testified that some of the

text: government soldiers were present nearby to protect the camp, but they were overpowered

text: 2644 and withdrew, after which the attackers entered the camp.

text: Similarly, camp resident Dick Okot testified that there were government soldiers in the

text: 2645 outskirts of the camp and a few soldiers were within the camp. The witness testified

text: that there was a gun battle in the Pajule side of the camp and the UPDF soldiers retreated

text: to the barracks on the Lapul side of the camp and were no longer there on the Pajule

text: 2646 side. According to the witness, the LRA came and chased away the soldiers that were

text: in the camp and the soldiers that were in the outskirts of the camp and the soldiers ran to

text: 2647 the barracks. Dick Okot testified that the LRA fighters then entered the camp and

text: 2648 started breaking into people’s houses and into the shops. Likewise, P-0006 testified

text: that she knew the government soldiers in the camp had run away because she did not see

text: any government soldiers near the house when she and the other inhabitant were taken out

text: 2649 by LRA fighters and abducted.

text: 2650 Other witnesses’ testimonies are consistent with and corroborative of these accounts.

text: In this context, the Chamber notes the testimony of Okema Brown, who lived on the

text: Pajule side of the camp, testified that after the shooting began he and his children lay on

text: 2651 the floor of their hut. Okema Brown heard the rebels outside giving instructions ‘you

text: 2652 just abduct, maka maka’. Okema Brown testified that he also heard rebels giving

text: 2653 instructions to other rebels that ‘they should just shoot the drunkards’. Similarly,

text: Richard Otim testified that it was dawn and he was asleep, when he heard gunshots on

text: 2643 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 96. 2644 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 102. 2645 P-0067: T-126, p. 4, line 24 – p. 5, line 4. 2646 P-0067: T-125, p. 8, lines 7-10. 2647 P-0067: T-126, p. 5, lines 4-7. 2648 P-0067: T-125, p. 8, lines 7-12. 2649 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 18. 2650 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at paras 1, 12-13 (David Okwera testified that the LRA fighters ran away, leading to the abduction of the people. He also stated that towards the end of the attack, a government soldier kicked open the door and ran into his home. The soldier did not attack or hurt him and made no threatening statement or gestures and it seemed that he was just looking for safety). David Okwera’s testimony indicates that there were government soldiers within the camp trying to escape from the LRA; P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0147-0214-R01, at para. 12 (testifying that he heard gunshots go off on and off, and when the guns fell silent, he could hear the sounds of loud hitting on the doors of houses). 2651 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 14. 2652 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 14. 2653 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 429/1077 4 February 2021

text: the road from Pajule centre. Richard Otim realised that it could be LRA fighters

text: attacking so he woke up; afraid of being abducted, he tried to run. However he was

text: held back by his wife who was afraid that he would be shot by the bullets being fired

text: outside.

text: The very fact that LRA fighters were able to abduct so many civilians within Pajule IDP

text: camp is further proof that they were not being impeded by a military force that remained

text: in the centre.

text: The evidence indicates that several LRA fighters and UPDF soldiers were injured, and

text: some killed, in the exchange of fire that occurred at the barracks and within the camp.

text: Whereas the charges in relation to the Pajule IDP camp attack do not include the

text: destruction of property, the Chamber notes nonetheless that the evidence suggests that

text: the LRA did burn down a limited number of civilian huts within the camp.

text: UPDF commander John Lubwama testified that some of the rebels in the group tried to

text: go to the Catholic mission and into the Lapul civilian area but they were repelled by his

text: men. UPDF officer P-0084 testified that a nun at the Catholic mission told him that

text: the LRA fighters did not enter the mission but stopped at the fence and called out to the

text: 2654 D-0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 2-9. 2655 D-0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 11-15. 2656 D-0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 11-15. 2657 See paras 1326-1355 below. 2658 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 62, lines 9-11 (testifying that he was shot); P-0144: T-91, p. 35, lines 4-12 (testifying that Charles Lokwiya was injured in the attack at the barracks when his SPG-9 gun was shot and the fragment of the gun hit him on the stomach and on the mouth); P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 91, lines 14-18; P-0130 Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0272-R01, at para. 62 (many LRA fighters were injured during the fight at the barracks); P- 0372: T-148, p. 20, line 25 – p. 21, line 3, p. 24, lines 14-18 (testifying that LRA fighter Oringa was killed at the barracks); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 100, 111-112 (testifying that some of the rebels were killed among the huts near the military barracks. Ten rebels were killed by the military barracks and two government soldiers killed close to the barracks. One rebel was killed in the Pajule camp area as well as one government soldier who had been deployed around the camp to protect it.). 2659 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at paras 36, 46-49 (stating that when he went to his home to check the damage he saw that grass had been pulled from the thatched roof of his hut and was then told by his relative that after the arrival of the helicopter, the rebels said that they should burn the huts so that the smoke prevents the helicopter from seeing them; and testifying that on 11 October 2003, he counted, along with block leaders, 23 huts burnt on the Pajule sub-county side of the camp); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 102 (stating that 11 huts were burned in ‘Pajule IDP camp north east’ and that he saw the huts on fire); P- 0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 115 (testifying that his staff members counted 315 huts burnt in the camp); P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 18; P-0006: T-140, p. 11, lines 8-15 (testifying that she saw the smoke from burnt grass-thatched houses in the trading centre of both sides of Pajule IDP camp; she guessed that it was the rebels attacking the camp who set the houses on fire because government soldiers had never set houses on fire before). 2660 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 100-101.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 430/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2661 people within the mission to open the gate. According to P-0084, the mission housed

text: 2662 captured or rescued former female or child LRA abductees. P-0084 testified that the

text: 2663 mission was ‘less than 100-200 metres’ from the barracks.

text: LRA insider evidence is consistent with these accounts. P-0144 testified that a group of

text: about 10-11 fighters was supposed to go to the mission but did not manage to reach the

text: 2664 mission because the government soldiers were able to thwart their attack. This group

text: 2665 of fighters was commanded by Onyee, an LRA captain. P-0045 testified that the

text: group that went to attack the mission included a fighter called Onyee, one of Vincent

text: 2666 Otti’s escorts. In addition, P-0045 stated that she heard that ‘[n]othing happened at

text: 2667 the mission’, because the LRA fighters sent there encountered soldiers and ran back.

text: Regarding the groups of fighters who went to set up ambushes, P-0144 testified that

text: Lieutenant Lalero commanded the ambush group and they went to the Pader road to lay

text: 2668 an ambush for the government soldiers, a second ambush team who went to Kitgum

text: 2669 road. P-0309 testified that some fighters went to stage an ambush along the way to

text: 2670 take care of the government soldiers that would be coming from different directions.

text: Corroborating these accounts, camp leader Okema Brown testified that he was later told

text: by the commanding officer of the military barracks that the LRA had laid ambushes on

text: 2671 the roads outside the camp to prevent the army from coming inside. UPDF officer P-

text: 0084 testified that the LRA fighters ambushed a UPDF vehicle coming to reinforce the

text: camp with a landmine and anti-tank gun, about 3-5 kilometres from the trading centre on

text: 2672 the Pajule-Pader road. Although the LRA was successful in damaging a vehicle, they

text: 2661 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 103. 2662 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 103-104. 2663 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 105. 2664 P-0144: T-91, p. 25, lines 19-25. 2665 P-0144: T-91, p. 25, line 19 – p. 26, line 1. 2666 P-0045: T-104-CONF, p. 4, lines 6-10, p. 62, lines 21-23. 2667 P-0045: T-104-CONF, p. 9, line 23 – p. 10, line 1. 2668 P-0144: T-91, p. 22, lines 10-13. 2669 P-0144: T-91, p. 32, lines 6-7 (P-0144 did not recall the name of the commander of this group). 2670 P-0309: T-60, p. 54, lines 13-20. 2671 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 16. 2672 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 86.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 431/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2673 eventually retreated in the face of UPDF fire. P-0144 testified that he heard that

text: 2674 Lieutenant Lalero, who had commanded the ambush, died in the operation.

text: Dominic Ongwen led a group of attackers to fight at the barracks, before directing them

text: to attack the trading centre within the camp.

text: As discussed above, Dominic Ongwen participated in the planning of the attack on Pajule

text: IDP camp. He also personally went to the attack. Witnesses testified that they saw

text: Dominic Ongwen leave for the attack on Pajule along with the brigades that were going

text: 2676 on the attack. P-0144 also testified that after the attack, during the LRA retreat from

text: Pajule, he saw Dominic Ongwen among a group of fighters moving ahead to the RV

text: 2677 point.

text: The Chamber recalls that almost a hundred fighters alone attacked the barracks and even

text: more than a hundred attacked the trading centre, and that altogether several hundred

text: 2678 persons participated in the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp. Given the large number

text: of LRA fighters participating in the attack, it is not unusual that several witnesses testified

text: 2679 that they did not see Dominic Ongwen during the course of the attack. Additionally,

text: at the time of the gathering of various LRA units, the preparations for the attack and

text: during the attack itself, several officers more senior to Dominic Ongwen were present

text: and active. It is therefore understandable that even fighters within the same group might

text: not have noted and remembered each other’s presence.

text: As to where Dominic Ongwen went within the camp, some evidence suggests that

text: Dominic Ongwen was present at the barracks, for at least some portion of the attack.

text: 2673 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 87. 2674 P-0144: T-91, p. 47, lines 21-25. 2675 Para. 149 above. 2676 See section IV.C.6.ii.c, the Chamber’s discussion of the departure of the attackers. 2677 P-0144: T-91, p. 44, lines 11-19. See P-0144: T-91, p. 45, line 3 – p. 47, line 2; P-0144’s sketch of Pajule, UGA-OTP-0243-0504 (showed the path of withdrawal and indicating that during the withdrawal, Dominic Ongwen was positioned in the main group of fighters who went to the camp). 2678 See paras 1234, 1253 above. 2679 P-0330: T-51, p. 80, lines 3-7; T-52, p. 11, lines 11-13 (testifying that he did not see Dominic Ongwen in Pajule during the attack and went to the attack with a different commander); D-0085: T-239, p. 18, lines 4-6 (testifying, having been a low level attacker in Pajule to collect food, that she never met Dominic Ongwen); D- 0134: T-240, p. 65, lines 17-21, p. 66, lines 1-3 (testifying that he did not see Dominic Ongwen among the group that went to Pajule and did not see Dominic Ongwen at the RV after the attack). Regarding Charles Lokwiya’s testimony, the Chamber recalls that he was injured during the attack, arrived at the RV location later than the other fighters and was moved to sickbay.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 432/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA fighter P-0372 testified that Dominic Ongwen divided the fighting troops into

text: 2680 groups and led the group that went to attack the barracks at Pajule. P-0372 testified

text: 2681 that he saw Dominic Ongwen as he was going to the barracks. P-0372 testified that

text: he saw Dominic Ongwen walk with a limp as if he was shot in the leg but noted that ‘his

text: 2682 disability was not very serious, he would walk by himself.’ The witness stated that

text: although he did not see Raska Lukwiya in Pajule, he was not certain that Lukwiya was

text: not there as ‘people were many and besides that people went at night and so you wouldn’t

text: 2683 know everyone’.

text: LRA fighter P-0309 provided similar testimony, including more detail. He also stated

text: that Dominic Ongwen’s group went to the barracks, while another group went to the

text: 2684 trading centre of Pajule IDP camp. Importantly, P-0309 testified that Dominic

text: Ongwen went with a group of fighters straight to the barracks to engage with the soldiers

text: 2685 there and that he was himself part of these fighters. The witness further stated that a

text: group of LRA soldiers surrounded the government troops in the barracks and, led by

text: 2686 Dominic Ongwen, had an armed exchange with government soldiers. As also

text: discussed above, P-0309 testified that LRA fighters overpowered part but not the whole

text: 2687 of the government barracks. P-0309 explained that the government soldiers retreated

text: 2688 and then came back and defeated the LRA forces. He testified that his group, on

text: Dominic Ongwen’s orders, then left the barracks and went to the centre to join the LRA

text: 2689 group there. P-0309 testified in great detail about how he heard Dominic Ongwen

text: blow a whistle and indicate with his hand that LRA fighters should retreat from the

text: 2680 P-0372: T-148, p. 18, lines 15-23, p. 20, lines 5-6. The Chamber notes that P-0372 testified that Dominic Ongwen was ‘[t]he most senior person in charge of that attack’. However, in light of the detailed evidence otherwise available in relation to the commanders involved in the planning and execution of the attack, and in light of P-0372’s status as a low level fighter which gave him an inherently limited possibility to observe the relevant facts and make this assessment, the Chamber does not attribute any consequence to this particular assertion of P-0372. The Chamber also notes that given P-0372’s status at the time of the attack, it is likely that Dominic Ongwen was indeed the most senior person he observed. 2681 P-0372: T-148, p. 21, lines 13-14. 2682 P-0372: T-148, p. 22, lines 3-8. The Chamber has no reason to believe that P-0372 mistook any other commander for Dominic Ongwen in light of the precise physical description of Dominic Ongwen that he was able to provide. 2683 P-0372: T-148, p. 18, line 25 – p. 19, line 7. 2684 P-0309: T-63, p. 7, lines 19-25. 2685 P-0309: T-60, p. 52, lines 1-2, p. 54, lines 13-22; T-63, p. 9, lines 2-5. 2686 P-0309: T-60, p. 59, lines 19-25. 2687 P-0309: T-60, p. 59, line 23 – p. 60, line 2. 2688 P-0309: T-60, p. 60, lines 2-4. 2689 P-0309: T-60, p. 60, lines 3-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 433/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2690 barracks and move to the trading centre of Pajule IDP camp. P-0309 testified that the 2691 LRA forces spent between 40 to 50 minutes at the barracks.

text: The Chamber is persuaded by the details and context provided by P-0309 in his description of his participation under Dominic Ongwen in the attack on the UPDF barracks and the retreat therefrom towards the trading centre. Whereas there is contrary evidence, in particular from witnesses familiar with the planning of the attack, that Bogi 2692 was in charge of the group that attacked the barracks, the Chamber does not consider that this evidence contradicts P-0309, as he merely asserted that he participated in the attack in a group under the immediate orders of Dominic Ongwen. P-0309’s evidence, taking into consideration the expected limits of his knowledge, should not be interpreted as implying that no other LRA groups were participating in the attack under other commanders. In fact, considering that a hundred LRA fighters attacked the barracks, the participation of multiple senior officers on the ground was logical. The Chamber notes the testimony of Charles Lokwiya and P-0045 – two fighters who knew Dominic Ongwen and who went to attack the barracks in the course of the attack. Given the number of fighters, including senior officers, on the ground in the course of the Pajule attack, the Chamber also does not consider these witnesses’ accounts dipositive as such as to whether Dominic Ongwen, at the initial stages of the attack, in fact went to the barracks, as stated by P-0309 and P-0372.

text: In light of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen participated in the attack on the barracks for a portion of the attack, before withdrawing with the fighters under his command towards the trading centre.

text: The evidence is clear that Dominic Ongwen moved and led fighters to the trading centre to loot and abduct. P-0309 testified that the group commanded by Dominic Ongwen and acting on his orders, also went to the trading centre, after leaving the barracks, and joined 2693 another LRA group there in looting food, breaking into shops and abducting people.

text: 2690 P-0309: T-60, p. 60, line 14 – p. 61, line 1. See P-0309’s sketch of the Pajule IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP- 0258-0833-R01. 2691 P-0309: T-60, p. 60, lines 5-7; T-63, p. 8, line 23 – p. 9, line 1. 2692 See paras 1243, 1245, 1254 above. 2693 P-0309: T-60, p. 61, line 11 – p. 62, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 434/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0309 testified that his group of LRA fighters, including Dominic Ongwen, spent about

text: 2694 30 minutes at the trading centre.

text: Camp residents who experienced the attack also place Dominic Ongwen at the scene of

text: the attack. Rwot Oywak testified that he encountered Dominic Ongwen in the trading

text: 2695 centre. He stated that Dominic Ongwen had a gun in one hand, a stick in another, a

text: radio communication device and a number of soldiers with him and was walking with a

text: 2696 2697 limp. According to Rwot Oywak, Dominic Ongwen was firing his gun. He

text: testified that the escorts around Dominic Ongwen were addressing him as Lapwony

text: 2698 Dominic and reporting to him when they ‘brought’ persons. In relation to the

text: identification of Dominic Ongwen by Rwot Oywak, the Chamber recalls that, as

text: 2699 discussed above, Rwot Oywak had previously met Dominic Ongwen.

text: Rwot Oywak testified that he thought Raska Lukwiya also participated in the Pajule

text: 2700 attack; but he testified that he was taken to Dominic Ongwen during the attack. The

text: Defence noted that in his 2005 statement to the Prosecution, the witness mentioned that

text: 2701 Raska Lukwiya was firing his gun and that Dominic Ongwen was giving orders. The

text: witness confirmed this account and explained that from his observation of Dominic

text: 2702 Ongwen’s behaviour, he believed that Dominic Ongwen was in charge. Rwot Oywak

text: testified that Raska Lukwiya was present among the fighters around Dominic Ongwen at

text: 2703 the Pajule trading centre. The Chamber finds this explanation convincing.

text: Rwot Oywak testified that Dominic Ongwen was giving directions to his fighters,

text: ‘ordering them to go and abduct people, to go and take stuff, to burn things and to fire

text: 2694 P-0309: T-60, p. 65, lines 4-6; T-63, p. 9, lines 22-24. 2695 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 17-19, p. 26, lines 20-24, p. 28, line 6 – p. 29, line 9, line 23 – p. 31, line 20. See also P-0009’s sketch of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0241-0555; Annotated aerial map of Pajule IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0241-0556. 2696 P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 2-7, p. 18, line 16 – p. 19, line 3, p. 31, line 22 – 32, line 8. Rwot Oywak described the stick held by Dominic Ongwen as ‘long, but one could hold it in their hand’, and added that it was ‘already kind of shattered because they had been using it to beat a lot of people’; P-0009: T-81, p. 20, lines 2-9. 2697 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 17-19. 2698 P-0009: T-81, p. 19, lines 4-14. 2699 See para. 447 above. 2700 P-0009: T-82, p. 76, lines 5-16. 2701 P-0009: T-82, p. 76, lines 17-22. 2702 P-0009: T-82, p. 76, line 17 – p. 78, line 1. 2703 P-0009: T-83, p. 9, line 22 – p. 11, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 435/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2704 guns’. According to Rwot Oywak, Dominic Ongwen said that ‘all the people from

text: 2705 Pajule were going to be killed because they were supporting the government’.

text: Richard Otim corroborates Rwot Oywak’s account, testifying that he did not hear the

text: 2706 2707 name Dominic Ongwen in the bush, but when he returned from captivity, he was

text: at a social gathering with Rwot Oywak when Rwot Oywak began to discuss the October

text: 2003 attack on Pajule IDP camp and said that the group that attacked Pajule IDP camp

text: 2708 included Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti and Raska Lukwiya. According to the

text: witness, at that gathering, Rwot Oywak was talking about the attack on Pajule and

text: mentioning some of the commanders that Rwot Oywak knew were involved in the

text: 2709 attack.

text: Also consistent and corroborative of Rwot Oywak’s account is P-0249’s testimony that

text: Dominic Ongwen was in charge of the rebels who abducted him and his wife in the course

text: 2710 of the attack. P-0249 stated that LRA fighters who abducted them took him towards

text: 2711 the main road going to Lira. He testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen with a number

text: of soldiers standing along the way and the whole group continued to walk together on

text: 2712 the Lira road. P-0249 explained that he knew that these soldiers were under Dominic

text: Ongwen’s orders because he was the one who came with the rebels to the centre and was

text: 2713 in command of those rebels. P-0249 testified that the LRA fighters in Pajule centre

text: 2714 addressed Dominic Ongwen as Lapwony Odomi. According to P-0249, Dominic

text: Ongwen was wearing army fatigues, had a large stick in his hand, a cap on his head, some

text: 2715 sort of radio, and was also giving instructions to the fighters to loot and abduct.

text: 2704 P-0009: T-81, p. 22, lines 3-11. 2705 P-0009: T-81, p. 22, lines 12-15. 2706 See D-0076: T-219, p. 34, line 24 – p. 35, line 14 (testifying that he had never seen Dominic Ongwen and that he would not have recognised him as Dominic Ongwen had he seen him in the course of his time with the LRA). 2707 Richard Otim spent up to a week in captivity. D-0076: T-219, p. 21, lines 1-4. 2708 D-0076: T-219, p. 21, lines 5-15, p. 35, line 15 – p. 36, line 12. See also p. 21, lines 1-4, p. 35, lines 3-10. 2709 D-0076: T-219, p. 22, lines 5-10. 2710 P-0249: T-79, p. 12, lines 12-13, p. 14, lines 11-18, p. 14, line 25 – p. 15, line 3. 2711 P-0249: T-79, p. 13, lines 15-20. 2712 P-0249: T-79, p. 13, lines 15-21, p. 14, lines 2-7; T-80, p. 17, lines 4-25, p. 18, lines 15-20. See also P-0249’s sketch of the attack, UGA-OTP-0238-0795-R01 (marking where he first saw Dominic Ongwen as ‘A3’). 2713 P-0249: T-79, p. 14, line 25 – p. 15, line 3. 2714 P-0249: T-79, p. 42, lines 19-21. 2715 P-0249: T-79, p. 15, lines 4-13, lines 18-25, p. 16, lines 1-6, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 3; T-80, p. 21, line 21 – p. 22, line 1. See also T-79, p. 26, lines 1-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 436/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that this description of Dominic Ongwen, his behaviour and his soldiers’ response to him is similar to Rwot Oywak’s.

text: It is noted that P-0249 did not indicate that Dominic Ongwen walked with a limp, 2716 testifying that ‘you cannot be observing a soldier for a long time’. The Chamber finds it plausible that a person in P-0249’s situation, as a new abductee, did not concentrate on this detail and chose not to observe his abductors closely. Indeed, in light of the fact that any continuing impediment as a result of the injury did not prevent Dominic Ongwen from participating in the Pajule IDP camp attack, it may have easily been one that a civilian in the process of being abducted would not notice.

text: The Defence submits that Raska Lukwiya was the person ordering LRA fighters in the 2717 camp around using a stick, rather than Dominic Ongwen as stated by P-0249. In this context, they cite the testimony of P-0006 who testified that she saw Raska Lukwiya by the health centre, holding a walking stick, ordering LRA fighters around, and carrying a 2718 communication device. The Chamber first recalls its finding that P-0249 was clearheaded enough at the time of his abduction to have been fully aware of his experiences in Pajule IDP camp during the attack and to recall them accurately in his 2719 testimony before the Court. Second, the evidence shows that there were at least a 2720 hundred, possibly many more, LRA fighters within the camp, and it is entirely plausible that both P-0006 and P-0249 testified reliably, there is nothing inherently contradictory about their accounts. The Chamber notes that P-0249 separately identified 2721 Raska Lukwiya, as a different person from the one he identified as Dominic Ongwen. For these reasons, the Chamber does not follow the Defence’s argumentation and relies on the testimony of P-0249.

text: In addition to P-0309, discussed above, other insider witnesses stated that Dominic Ongwen participated in the LRA attack on the trading centre. According to P-0144,

text: 2716 P-0249: T-80, p. 23, line 14 – p. 24, line 24. 2717 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 328 (arguing that P-0249 was intoxicated the morning of the attack and that P-0006’s account that she saw Raska Lukwiya with a stick ordering people around should be given more weight). 2718 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 31-32. See also P-0006: T-140, p. 57, line 19 – p. 58, line 1. 2719 See paras 472-474 above. 2720 See paras 1234, 1235, 1253 above. 2721 See P-0249: T-80, p. 21, lines 14-17, p. 37, lines 3-8 (testifying that he saw Raska Lukwiya when the LRA stopped in the course of the retreat. He stated that he could not speak to whether Raska Lukwiya abducted people in Pajule IDP camp because he did not see him abduct people there).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 437/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dominic Ongwen was the commander of the attack at the trading centre, and went there

text: 2722 along with the overall operation commander Raska Lukwiya to loot and abduct. P-

text: 2723 0144 did not recall seeing Dominic Ongwen in the trading centre.

text: Consistent with P-0144’s account, P-0045 provides corroboration that Dominic Ongwen

text: 2724 went to the trading centre. P-0045 appeared to indicate that she did not see Dominic

text: 2725 Ongwen personally going to the centre. She confirmed however, that Dominic

text: Ongwen was initially in charge of the group going to the centre and that Raska Lukwiya

text: 2726 came afterward, saying that he was the big person. P-0045 explained that ‘[y]ou

text: 2727 cannot mention the smaller commander to lead the group’.

text: Further, as discussed below, P-0379 testified that he was told by several abductees that

text: they were abducted by Dominic Ongwen and his fighters within the camp and at trading

text: 2728 centre during the attack.

text: Camp resident Dick Okot testified that after leaving the camp, he was told by the LRA

text: fighter leading his group that Dominic Ongwen was the LRA commander in charge of

text: 2729 the fighters he saw in the camp. Dick Okot also testified that Dominic Ongwen’s

text: group was identified by the LRA fighter as the group coming from the road from

text: 2730 2731 Lapul. Dick Okot testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen.

text: In light of the consistent and mutually corroborative evidence of the witnesses, the

text: Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen was present at the

text: trading centre in a leadership role along with his soldiers whom, as discussed further

text: below, he ordered to loot and abduct.

text: The Chamber notes the testimony of witnesses who indicated that Dominic Ongwen did

text: not participate in the attack on Pajule IDP camp. P-0214, one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-

text: 2722 P-0144: T-91, p. 22, lines 10-23, p. 25, lines 3-17, p. 46, lines 3-14. 2723 P-0144: T-91, p. 38, line 8 – p. 40, line 4. 2724 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 92, lines 16-25, p. 94, lines 8-15. 2725 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 92, lines 20-25, p. 93, lines 20-22. 2726 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 94, lines 8-15; T-104-CONF, p. 4, lines 14-16. 2727 P-0045: T-103-CONF, p. 94, lines 8-15. 2728 P-0379: T-57, p. 25, lines 12-21; P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 31, line 7 – p. 32, line 3, p. 33, lines 10-24. 2729 P-0067: T-125, p. 10, line 7 – p. 11, line 1. 2730 P-0067: T-125, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 1. 2731 P-0067: T-125, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 438/1077 4 February 2021 called ‘wives’ testified that Dominic Ongwen did not participate in an attack on Pajule IDP camp because he was injured and in the sickbay at the time and was unable to walk 2732 far. It is noted that there is nothing in the testimony of P-0214 establishing a link between her evidence and the attack relevant to the charges, and that the witness only 2733 stated that she heard about an attack in Pajule, without giving any details. In this regard, the Chamber notes that P-0214 was asked about ‘an attack on Pajule’ without any 2734 further specifications. In the absence of any further details, and considering that the evidence available to the Chamber indicates that there were several attacks on Pajule IDP 2735 camp, it remains unclear whether in her testimony the witness was referring to the attack on Pajule IDP camp under consideration or any other attack conducted on other occasions on the same camp. In the presence of more specific evidence given by witnesses with personal knowledge, the Chamber does not rely on P-0214 on this 2736 issue.

text: Similarly, LRA insider P-0085 testified that some LRA fighters who had participated in the attack on Pajule IDP camp told him that Odomi was ‘present in that group’, but did not go to the battlefront himself because he had just returned from sickbay, so he did not 2737 go physically to fight in the front line. P-0085 testified that he did not know whether Dominic Ongwen had been given back his role or was still ‘being taken as a sick person’ 2738 after he was released from sickbay. Considering that the witness only received this information second-hand and that he conceded not knowing the details of Dominic Ongwen’s status at the time, and in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Dominic Ongwen was no longer in sickbay at the time of the October 2003 attack, had not been in

text: 2732 P-0214: T-15, p. 39, lines 1-8. 2733 See P-0214: T-15, p. 39, lines 1-4. 2734 P-0214: T-15, p. 39, line 1. 2735 See the assessment of P-0307’s testimony and the Chamber’s finding that the witness provided evidence with regard to another attack on Pajule. Section IV.B.2.ii.b.xv; para. 1173, n. 2394 above; P-0307 Statement, UGA- OTP-0266-0425-R01, at paras 32-44; P-0307: T-152, p. 70, lines 8-17; T-153, p. 33, lines 20-23. 2736 In this context, the Chamber notes its discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s position within the LRA and his presence in the sickbay. See paras 1017-1073 above. 2737 P-0085: T-158, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 5. The Chamber understands P-0085’s testimony to indicate that he was told that Dominic Ongwen was at the RV but did not participate in the attack. 2738 P-0085: T-159, p. 28, line 16 – p. 29, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 439/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2739 sickbay for some time and was actively participating in attacks, the Chamber puts no

text: 2740 weight on P-0085’s testimony in this regard.

text: While the Chamber finds LRA insiders D-0056 and D-0068 to have been generally

text: credible witnesses, the Chamber does not consider that the Pajule attack they described

text: 2741 is the attack at issue in these proceedings, as also argued by the Prosecution. While

text: 2742 some details of the attack that D-0056 discussed are similar to other witnesses, the

text: witness is alone among the credible witnesses to not recall that the day of the attack was

text: 2743 related to a significant occasion, as opposed to most other witnesses who remembered

text: that it was just after Uhuru Day. His testimony about important details of the attack

text: 2744 greatly diverges from other credible evidence. Thus, the Chamber cannot rely on the

text: evidence D-0056 provides about the Pajule IDP camp attack. Regarding D-0068, who

text: testified that Dominic Ongwen did not participate in the Pajule IDP camp attack, the

text: 2745 Chamber notes that he testified that the attack he referenced occurred in early 2003.

text: The Chamber notes that the evidence indicates that there was an LRA attack on Pajule

text: 2746 IDP camp in January 2003. In addition, the Chamber notes that D-0068 testified that

text: in the attack he mentioned Charles Tabuley and Buk Abudema exercised a commanding

text: role on the ground, a fact which does not correspond to the rest of the reliable

text: 2747 evidence.

text: At this juncture, the Chamber provides a more specific assessment of the available

text: evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence and looting perpetrated by LRA

text: fighters against civilians in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, as well as in its

text: immediate aftermath. As also emerges from the evidence analysed below, the victims

text: targeted by the LRA attackers were civilian residents of the camp.

text: 2739 See section IV.C.3, the Chamber discussion of the Dominic Ongwen’s role in the LRA. 2740 In this context, the Chamber notes its discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s position within the LRA and his presence in the sickbay. See paras 1017-1073 above. 2741 See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 236-237. 2742 See D-0056: T-228, p. 70, lines 11-16; T-229-CONF, p. 28, line 21 – p. 29, line 1; T-229, p. 29, lines 8-19 (stating that the LRA was not able to overrun the barracks, that there was a helicopter gunship, and that Rwot Oywak had come with the captured people). 2743 D-0056: T-228, p. 64, lines 14-22. 2744 D-0056: T-228, p. 68, line 20 – p. 69, line 2, p. 71, line 8 – p. 72, line 24; T-228-CONF, p. 69, line 16 – p. 70, line 6; T-229-CONF, p. 27, line 5 – p. 28, line 20. The witness also does not mention the large scale abduction of civilians during the attack. 2745 D-0068: T-223, p. 32, lines 8-12. See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 236-237. 2746 See para. 1173, n. 2394 above. 2747 D-0068: T-223, p. 30, lines 14-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 440/1077 4 February 2021

text: During the attack, LRA attackers, some of them led by Dominic Ongwen, broke into homes and shops and looted food and other property from them in Pajule IDP camp. There was widespread looting throughout the camp. The attackers raided the trading centre in the camp, broke into shops and took food items and supplies. Among the items looted by the LRA attackers were foodstuffs like beans, flour, salt, sugar, cooking oil, maize, sweets, biscuits, groundnuts, soda as well as household goods such as bedding,

text: clothing, a radio set, saucepans and items such as medicine, livestock and money.

text: Dominic Ongwen personally ordered LRA attackers to loot within the trading centre, ordering them to loot items from shops and homes within the camp. The LRA attackers

text: complied with this order.

text: Both LRA fighters and camp residents offered credible and consistent evidence to this

text: Chamber that LRA fighters looted Pajule IDP camp during the course of the 10 October

text: 2003 attack.

text: LRA attackers provided credible and mutually corroborative evidence that household

text: goods, particularly food, were looted from the camp. P-0045 testified that the group that

text: 2750 went to the centre went to collect food items from the civilians. The witness testified

text: 2751 to seeing the LRA coming back from the trading centre with food. D-0085 testified

text: 2752 that she saw LRA forces take foodstuff from Pajule IDP camp. She stated that LRA

text: 2753 attackers broke into shops in order to do so. D-0085 testified that the LRA also took 2754 food from the homes of civilians in the camp. P-0309 testified that LRA forces in the centre of Pajule IDP camp broke into people’s shops and homes and were looting items

text: from the homes of civilians, including such food items as beans, flour, maize, sugar and 2755 biscuits, among others.

text: P-0330 testified that he was in a group of attackers that ‘worked’ in the trading centre,

text: breaking into shops and looting items such as flour, beans, and money from Pajule IDP 2756 camp. P-0372 testified that the group of LRA fighters he was with collected items

text: 2748 Para. 150 above. 2749 Para. 150 above. 2750 P-0045: T-104-CONF, p. 4, line 24 – p. 5, line 3. 2751 P-0045: T-104, p. 10, lines 2-5. 2752 D-0085: T-239, p. 18, lines 15-18. 2753 D-0085: T-239, p. 33, lines 15-20. 2754 D-0085: T-239, p. 33, lines 21-25. 2755 P-0309: T-60, p. 62, lines 12-25, p. 65, lines 17-21. 2756 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 4, lines 8-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 441/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2757 from Pajule centre, mostly foodstuffs. P-0372 testified that he personally saw people

text: 2758 taking food from Pajule IDP camp.

text: The evidence provided by camp residents and the UPDF officers who observed the attack

text: is consistent with the LRA attackers’ accounts of the LRA looting in shops and homes

text: within the camp.

text: Camp resident P-0006 testified that the LRA rebels broke into the house she was in

text: during the attack and looted food items like maize, beans, salt, sugar and cooking oil

text: 2759 from the house. She testified that she saw the LRA take maize from the house she was

text: 2760 hiding in as well as cooking oil from a shop. P-0006 also stated that the items

text: abductees carried from Pajule included foodstuffs such as maize, beans, salt and

text: 2761 sugar. Rwot Oywak testified that abductees were carrying items like flour, chicken,

text: 2762 goats, which the LRA had found in the homes of the civilians. Santo Oweka testified

text: 2763 that the LRA looted a radio set, beddings and clothing from his house. Dick Okot

text: testified that a lot of things were looted from his home including foodstuff, money and

text: 2764 clothes. Items like soda, biscuits, clothes, and beans were taken from shops and

text: 2765 civilian homes. Dick Okot testified that LRA fighters picked up a sack of groundnuts

text: 2766 for him to carry. P-0081 testified that he learned after he came back from the bush

text: 2767 that LRA rebels had entered his home and taken things. P-0081 indicated that he had

text: 2768 a small store in the house and the LRA rebels took onions and small groceries. Benson

text: 2769 Ojok was given a crate of soda to carry on his head. He saw the LRA break into shops

text: 2770 and take other things like the soda he was made to carry. Santo Oweka testified that

text: 2771 he could hear that shops were being broken into during the attack.

text: 2757 P-0372: T-148, p. 20, lines 14-19. 2758 P-0372: T-148, p. 20, lines 20-21. 2759 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 12. 2760 P-0006: T-140, p. 11, lines 16-22; P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 13. 2761 P-0006: T-140, p. 12, lines 3-5, p. 40, lines 9-11. 2762 P-0009: T-81, p. 17, lines 11-19. 2763 D-0081: T-220, p. 25, lines 5-7. 2764 P-0067: T-125, p. 52, lines 2-4. 2765 P-0067: T-125, p. 23, lines 8-13. 2766 P-0067: T-125, p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 4; T-126, p. 9, lines 9-12. 2767 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 22. 2768 P-0081: T-118, p. 32, lines 5-11. 2769 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 2770 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 2771 D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 4-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 442/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to P-0249, Dominic Ongwen was in the centre of the camp and was using a

text: stick to point out and indicate where one of his fighters should go or what the fighter 2772 should do. P-0249 testified that Dominic Ongwen would tell fighters to go and loot a 2773 shop and use a stick to point to that shop and issue his instruction. P-0249 testified

text: that when Dominic Ongwen directed his fighters to go and loot, they followed his 2774 instruction, taking ‘lots of things’ and giving them to people to carry. P-0249 testified

text: that at Pajule trading centre, Dominic Ongwen indicated and issued instructions for

text: 2775 fighters to take things quickly so they could leave the camp. P-0249 testified that he

text: was close to Dominic Ongwen and could hear him issuing instructions, telling people 2776 ‘[h]urry up, go and take the things quickly, hurry up’.

text: P-0249 testified that Dominic Ongwen ordered the looting in Pajule to the soldiers he

text: was leading on the ground, explaining ‘[t]here was no other person other than Ongwen.

text: He is the one who came with the soldiers and he is the one who was issuing instructions

text: and giving orders to soldiers to go and take things and to take the food that was 2777 needed.’ While the evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen was one of several

text: commanders at Pajule – Raska Lukwiya was also present at the centre – P-0249’s

text: testimony here demonstrates that Dominic Ongwen was in control of the fighters he was 2778 leading and he ordered fighters subordinate to him to loot. Indeed, P-0330 testified 2779 that Dominic Ongwen stated that he should bring him a goat or a chicken from Pajule.

text: P-0249 testified that in response to Dominic Ongwen’s instructions, LRA attackers took 2780 salt, sugar, maize, beans, soap and anything that might be useful to them. P-0249

text: testified that he saw the LRA attackers take clothes that were in shops, and even 2781 saucepans from people’s houses. P-0249 testified that he personally witnessed LRA

text: fighters directly under Dominic Ongwen’s command, looting the shops along the Lira

text: 2782 road. P-0249 also testified that the LRA looted items from the shops in the Pajule

text: 2772 P-0249: T-79, p. 15, lines 18-25; T-80, p. 21, line 21 – p. 22, line 1. 2773 P-0249: T-79, p. 15, lines 24-25. 2774 P-0249: T-79, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 3. 2775 P-0249: T-79, p. 17, line 22 – p. 18, line 4. 2776 P-0249: T-79, p. 18, lines 5-8. 2777 P-0249: T-79, p. 20, lines 9-13. 2778 See also paras 1264-1287, the Chamber’s discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s role in the attack. 2779 P-0330: T-51, p. 78, lines 7-13. 2780 P-0249: T-79, p. 18, lines 9-13, p. 19, lines 14-15. 2781 P-0249: T-79, p. 18, lines 12-13. 2782 P-0249: T-79, p. 19, line 21 – p. 20, line 2; T-80, p. 10, line 14 – p. 11, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 443/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2783 trading centre and along the highway and from people’s homes. P-0249 testified that

text: the LRA looted merchandise from shops as well as personal things from people’s

text: 2784 houses. P-0249 testified that his own shop was looted as well as a number of other

text: 2785 shops in the market. P-0249 stated that although he did not see his shop looted by the

text: 2786 LRA, he knew that his shop was looted because after the attack it was left empty.

text: Similarly, P-0081 testified that when he was passing through the camp, there was looting

text: 2787 under way and he could hear rebels cutting the doors in the market place. P-0081

text: testified that the group of rebels he was with would open the doors of homes they passed

text: 2788 by and take any loot they found interesting. P-0379 observed that the gate going to

text: 2789 the market was broken and several shops within the market had been broken into.

text: 2790 Richard Otim testified that the LRA looted flour, beans and other items from shops.

text: Dick Okot testified that as he was leaving his home area with the LRA after being

text: abducted, he could see LRA soldiers taking some items from shops which were near the

text: 2791 market.

text: UPDF officer P-0084 testified that he was told by drug shop owners that the rebels took

text: 2792 medicine from their shops, both tablets and injections. Other traders in the trading

text: centre also told him that the rebels had taken some foodstuffs, clothing and other

text: 2793 household items.

text: UPDF commander John Lubwama testified that the LRA pillaged articles they found in

text: 2794 shops like foodstuffs, including sugar, clothing and also pillaged civilian homes.

text: Camp leader Omona Lokilamoi testified that the LC-1 chairpersons of each village within

text: the Palenga parish, which is one of the six parishes of Pajule Sub-County, compiled

text: records of households of their respective villages pillaged by the LRA during the attack

text: 2783 P-0249: T-79, p. 17, line 22 – p. 21, line 4. 2784 P-0249: T-79, p. 19, lines 4-10. 2785 P-0249: T-79, p. 19, lines 21-25. 2786 P-0249: T-79, p. 20, lines 14-23. 2787 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 25. 2788 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 25. 2789 P-0379: T-57, p. 26, lines 15-16. 2790 D-0076: T-219, p. 16, lines 10-14. 2791 P-0067: T-125, p. 15, lines 9-13. 2792 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 113. 2793 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 114. 2794 P-0047: T-114, p. 37, lines 15-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 444/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2795 on 10 October 2003. Such records provided by Omona Lokilamoi list over 650

text: 2796 households. Omona Lokilamoi testified that to the day of his statement he had not

text: been able to locate the lists of pillaged households in parishes of Pajule Sub-County other

text: than the Palenga parish, partly because they no longer had a permanent administration

text: 2797 office for fear of an attack on the IDP camp. The Chamber finds that Omona

text: Lokilamoi’s list corroborates the witnesses’ accounts in demonstrating that there was

text: widespread looting in Pajule IDP camp.

text: With the arrival of a government helicopter and reinforcement ground forces, LRA

text: attackers left the camp with abductees and looted goods.

text: The evidence shows that while fighting was still ongoing at the barracks, a military

text: helicopter arrived to reinforce the government soldiers. The helicopter’s arrival

text: precipitated the LRA’s departure from the camp. The helicopter pursued the retreating

text: fighters and their abductees through the bush. Additionally, reinforcements of

text: government soldiers arrived in the camp and started engaging with the LRA fighters.

text: P-0084 testified that the military helicopter was airborne within 25 minutes after the

text: 2799 report that Pajule was under attack. The helicopter went to the barracks and started

text: 2800 shooting at the rebels. P-0084 testified that an extended line of rebels faced the

text: 2801 military barracks. According to P-0084, the rebels became disorganised and started

text: 2802 running in disarray when the helicopter started firing. P-0084 testified that the LRA

text: rebels had to withdraw from the barracks because of the counter attack from the barracks

text: 2803 and the aerial attack from the helicopter.

text: UPDF commander P-0084 testified that subsequently the military helicopter flew over

text: 2804 the Pajule trading centre. According to the witness, the helicopter did not fire at

text: 2805 anything in the trading centre. P-0084 testified that there were rebels running with

text: 2795 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at paras 26-27. 2796 See P-0001’s lists of pillaged households compiled by the LC-1 chairpersons of the villages within the Palenga parish on 10 October 2003, UGA-OTP-0138-0168-R01. 2797 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 28. 2798 Para. 151 above. 2799 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2800 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2801 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2802 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2803 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 83. 2804 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84. 2805 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 445/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2806 loot as well as abductees who were forced to carry loot. He testified that

text: the UPDF soldiers previously posted at the outskirts of the camp

text: 2807 advancing towards the Pajule trading centre coming from the east. P-0084 testified

text: 2808 that he was communicating on the radio with the commander of these UPDF soldiers.

text: P-0084 also stated that the UPDF soldiers started engaging the enemy as they were

text: running away from the Pajule trading centre, and that the UPDF soldiers killed three

text: 2809 rebels there.

text: P-0084 testified that outside the trading centre, the helicopter fired at the retreating

text: 2810 rebels. When the rebels saw the helicopter firing they started running, some of the

text: 2811 rebels were firing at the helicopter. P-0084 testified that the four rebels firing at the

text: 2812 helicopter were killed.

text: P-0084 further stated that the helicopter then went towards the east, in the direction in

text: 2813 which the rebels were withdrawing. P-0084 said that he saw more than 300 civilians

text: who had been taken captive by the LRA from Pajule carrying looted items stolen from

text: 2814 Pajule towards Lanyatono. He testified that the helicopter did not fire at that point

text: because of the presence of the civilians; however the noise and sight of the helicopter

text: 2815 caused a number of abductees and rebels to run.

text: P-0084’s account of the movements and actions of the military helicopter is entirely

text: credible. Multiple witnesses corroborate this account from their different vantage points

text: 2816 during the attack.

text: 2806 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84. 2807 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84. 2808 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84. 2809 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 84. 2810 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 85. 2811 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 85. 2812 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 85. 2813 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 88. See also P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139- 0149-R01, at para. 70. 2814 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 88, 121. 2815 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 89. 2816 P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at paras 12, 53, 104; P-0047: T-115, p. 30, lines 13-17; P- 0330: T-51-CONF, p. 81, lines 23-24; T-52-CONF, p. 5, lines 3-4, p. 8, lines 9-13; T-52, p. 9, lines 1-3; P-0372: T-148, p. 23, lines 3-7; P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 22-24; P-0006: T-140, p. 53, lines 6-13, line 18 – p. 54, line 3; P-0045: T-104, p. 6, lines 22-24; T-104-CONF, p. 68, lines 15-17; P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at paras 25-26; D-0076: T-219, p. 12, lines 3-14, p. 17, lines 8-10, p. 18, lines 6-12; P-0309: T-60, p. 64, lines 18-23, p. 65, line 22 – p. 66, line 1; P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 13-16, p. 22, lines 20-25; P-0379: T-57, p. 24, lines 24-25, p. 25, lines 6-11, p. 29, lines 5-9; P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 446/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the face of the arrival of these reinforcements, LRA fighters left the camp. The

text: Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA spent one to two hours in the 2817 camp. The evidence indicates that LRA fighters did not leave in one group but rather

text: left in stages as they retreated back to the RV with the abductees and the looted goods.

text: Santo Oweka testified that he noticed that abductees arrived at the meeting place in

text: different groups: when he arrived there were already people there and people continued

text: 2818 to arrive at the RV location for another two hours.

text: In the course of the attack, LRA fighters killed at least four civilians, most of whom were abductees killed because they tried to escape or refused to carry looted goods. The civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp included: an unnamed woman killed by machete, Kinyera Benson Lacung, Pangarasio Onek and

text: unnamed abductee killed by the RV location.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that during the 10 October 2003 attack on

text: Pajule, LRA fighters specifically targeted civilians and killed them.

text: The evidence, presented above, shows that there were exchanges of gunfire between the

text: LRA and the government soldiers at the military barracks and within the camp. However,

text: it is clear that LRA fighters purposely targeted civilians in the course of the attack in

text: Pajule.

text: Camp resident Benson Ojok testified that he saw people in the camp being shot at by the

text: 2820 rebels. Benson Ojok saw four people, both males and females, lying injured outside

text: their houses; they had been shot at their doors and he did not see whether they were dead

text: 2821 or not. Benson Ojok testified that he saw about seven rebels shooting at unarmed

text: 2822 2823 civilians at random. Some of the civilians had fallen down and were crying.

text: at paras 16, 18-19; P-0067: T-125, p. 13, line 24 – p. 14, line 1, lines 13-20, p. 15, lines 3-5; T-126, p. 3, lines 1- 25; P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 29-31; P-0081: T-118, p. 11, lines 1-6; P-0130 Statement, UGA-OTP-0191-0272-R01, at para. 37; P-0249: T-79, p. 28, lines 1-5; D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 16- 18, p. 27, lines 15-20, line 25 – p. 28, line 5; D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at paras 17-18. See P- 0379’s sketch of Pajule, UGA-OTP-0266-0071 (denoting the direction from which the UPDF mobile unit entered the camp). 2817 P-0045: T-104-CONF, p. 7, lines 4-9; P-0209: T-160, p. 30, lines 19-24; P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147- 0214-R01, at paras 14-17; P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 16; P-0047 Statement, UGA- OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 26. 2818 D-0081: T-221, p. 50, line 21 – p. 51, line 5. 2819 Para. 152 above. 2820 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 20. 2821 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 20. 2822 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 21. 2823 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 447/1077 4 February 2021

text: Benson Ojok testified that he saw a man about thirty years old being shot down when he

text: 2824 attempted to escape. Benson Ojok testified that as the unarmed civilians were being

text: shot down, a commander, whom the witness identified as Gala Gala, appeared and told

text: 2825 the seven rebels that they were not sent to kill people but rather to get food. Benson

text: Ojok testified that when the civilians were being shot at, a group of government soldiers

text: that were some distance away in the direction of the mission started running towards the

text: 2826 LRA and their abductees. The LRA fighters then fled, dragging the abductees with

text: 2827 them, including Benson Ojok. Benson Ojok testified that the LRA fighters threatened

text: the abductees that they would be killed if they threw away the items they were

text: 2828 carrying. Benson Ojok testified that another group of government soldiers had

text: 2829 previously been chased away by the rebels towards the barracks.

text: UPDF officer P-0084 testified that he saw about five dead civilians in the camp, all of

text: whom had been shot; their gunshot wounds were in various places; one was on the side

text: 2830 of the head, one in the chest, one in the arm, in the legs and one in the stomach. P-

text: 0084 testified that there were both male and female civilians killed, mostly persons

text: 2831 between 10 and 18 years old; one of the victims was 26 years old.

text: Camp resident P-0006 stated that, outside the camp, she saw an older man beaten to death

text: 2832 by the LRA because he was not walking fast. In testimony consistent with P-0006’s,

text: Richard Otim testified that after he returned to the camp, he was told that after his release

text: 2833 the LRA began to kill abductees who were unable to walk. Okema Brown also

text: testified that he was told by returned abductees about persons killed for not being able to

text: 2834 walk anymore or for trying to escape.

text: 2824 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 21. 2825 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 23. 2826 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 24. 2827 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 24. 2828 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 24. 2829 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 24. 2830 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 108. 2831 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 108. 2832 P-0006: T-140-CONF, p. 16, lines 2-8. 2833 D-0076: T-219, p. 31, line 11 – p. 32, line 1. 2834 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 448/1077 4 February 2021

text: Below, the Chamber discusses the evidence presented in the proceedings of specific

text: individuals killed by the LRA throughout the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack.

text: Unnamed woman killed by machete: Camp resident Dick Okot testified that he saw

text: the body of a woman who appeared to have been killed by a machete, her neck was cut

text: 2835 and had a deep cut wound. Dick Okot testified that he saw the dead body of the

text: woman; the woman had three kids and her children were around her crying ‘[o]ur mother

text: 2836 has been killed’. The Chamber finds Dick Okot’s testimony here clear and credible.

text: The Chamber notes that LRA fighters attacked Pajule IDP camp with blade weapons in

text: 2837 addition to firearms, and, on the other hand, that there is no evidence, or even

text: suggestion, that government soldiers attacked any civilian with a machete in the course

text: of the attack. The necessary inference is that this woman was killed by the LRA.

text: Kinyera Benson Lacung: Omona Lokilamoi, a local government official testified that

text: while collecting information on the persons killed in the attack, he was told that Kinyera

text: Benson Lacung, who was his copy-typist, was beaten to death by the LRA because he

text: 2838 failed to carry the ‘load’ given to him. Residents of the camp described the killing of

text: Kinyera Benson Lacung in detail as follows: Terrance Otika testified that Lacung was

text: 2839 one of the people killed after being abducted. Terrance Otika saw the Lacung’s family

text: 2840 gathering to go to collect his body. Lacung’s family retrieved his body and he was

text: 2841 buried the day after the attack. Terrance Otika saw the body wrapped up and was told

text: 2842 by Lacung’s brother, Ben Okema, that Lacung had been shot in the back. Ben Okema

text: 2843 told Terrance Otika that he had collected the body from the road. Okema Brown

text: 2844 testified that he saw the dead body of the sub-county typist, Kinyera Lacung. Okema

text: Brown testified that he saw the body in Kinyera Lacung’s home after it had been carried

text: 2845 from the bush to his home. Okema Brown testified that the body was wrapped tight

text: 2835 P-0067: T-125, p. 18, lines 9-18; T-126, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 5. 2836 P-0067: T-125, p. 18, lines 9-18. 2837 See para. 1240 above. 2838 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 16. 2839 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 22. 2840 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 22. 2841 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 22. 2842 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 22. 2843 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 22. 2844 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 28. 2845 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 28.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 449/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2846 so he could not see the wounds. Okema Brown testified that he was told by Kinyera

text: Lacung’s relatives that his head had been beaten and that his body was found about one

text: 2847 kilometre away from the Pajule side of the camp where he had been killed. Okema

text: Brown testified that he was later told by returning abductees that Kinyera Lacung had

text: 2848 been killed by rebels because he could not carry the load that was given to him.

text: Okema Brown testified that the rebels used a club that they had brought with them to kill

text: 2849 2850 Kinyera Lacung. Other witnesses also mention the killing of Lacung.

text: The Chamber notes the testimony of Dick Okot, who stated that he saw Lacung killed by

text: 2851 the LRA. According to Dick Okot, Lacung worked at the sub-country chief’s

text: 2852 office. Dick Okot testified that in the course of the retreat from the Pajule IDP camp,

text: his group found people stopped and gathered around the place where Lacung was

text: 2853 killed. According to Dick Okot, Lacung was told, ‘you are a government worker, we

text: 2854 are not going to leave you, we will kill you’. Dick Okot testified that LRA fighter

text: Odongocalled his bodyguards and the bodyguards instructed Lacung to lie down and the

text: body guard picked a knife and fixed it on the barrel of a gun and then stabbed Lacung in

text: 2855 the mouth and he fell down and died. Dick Okot also testified that Lacung was stabbed

text: 2856 on his side of the abdomen. Dick Okot testified that he was not far away when Lacung

text: 2857 was stabbed and personally witnessed it. Dick Okot testified that after Lacung was

text: stabbed the LRA searched his pocket and took away his identity card and other personal

text: 2858 2859 effects. According to Dick Okot, Lacung was killed in Wangduku. Dick Okot

text: testified that he saw Vincent Otti and Dominic Ongwen talk and after they completed

text: 2860 their conversation, Lacung was killed. Dick Okot testified that Dominic Ongwen and

text: Vincent Otti stopped and observed Lacung’s body for a bit, but they did not say

text: 2846 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 28. 2847 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 28. 2848 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 29. 2849 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 29. 2850 P-0081: T-118, p. 11, line 19 – p. 12, line 12; P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 44. 2851 P-0067: T-125, p. 30, lines 1-11. 2852 P-0067: T-125, p. 30, lines 12-20. 2853 P-0067: T-125, p. 30, lines 21-24. 2854 P-0067: T-125, p. 30, lines 21-25. 2855 P-0067: T-125, p. 30, line 25 – p. 31, line 6. 2856 P-0067: T-125, p. 32, lines 19-22. 2857 P-0067: T-125, p. 31, lines 18-19. 2858 P-0067: T-125, p. 31, lines 20-22. 2859 P-0067: T-125, p. 32, lines 13-18. 2860 P-0067: T-125, p. 31, lines 7-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 450/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2861 anything. The Presiding Judge noted that in Dick Okot’s statement to the Prosecution, he did not mention any discussion between Vincent Otti, Dominic Ongwen and 2862 Odongo. Dick Okot testified that he did not hear the conversation nor does he recall 2863 who gave the order for the killing of Lacung. The Chamber notes that Dick Okot describes details of the attack and places himself on the location in a manner which convinces the Chamber that he witnessed the killing of the victim. However, in light of the other evidence indicating that Lacung was killed before the LRA reached the RV location, the Chamber is unconvinced by his evidence that Vincent Otti and Dominic Ongwen witnessed the killing and conversed about it. Given the details Dick Okot provides and its view of the general credibility of his account, the Chamber is convinced that Dick Okot witnessed the killing of Lacung. The Chamber considers that Dick Okot’s testimony corroborates the evidence that Lacung was killed by the LRA.

text: While noting that the witnesses differ in their testimony as to the exact manner of his death, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence proves that Kinyera Lacung was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the retreat from Pajule IDP camp.

text: Pangarasio Onek: Camp leader Okema Brown testified that on the day after the attack on the upper side about half a kilometre to the north of Pajule IDP camp he saw the dead 2864 body of businessman Pangarasio Onek. Okema Brown testified that the body and head were already swollen and the body was so bloody he could not tell where the blood 2865 came from. Okema Brown testified that Pangarasio Onek’s brother told them that before Okema Brown saw the body, the brother had turned it around and discovered that 2866 Pangarasio Onek was shot in the back.

text: Dick Okot testified that in the course of the retreat, he saw Pangarasio Onek, a trader 2867 between 30 and 40 years of age, among the abducted. Dick Okot testified that 2868 Pangarasio Onek was carrying about three or four basins full of beans. He asked LRA fighter Odongo for help because the load was heavy, making the request about three

text: 2861 P-0067: T-126, p. 16, line 23 – p. 17, line 6. 2862 P-0067: T-125, p. 33, lines 1-4. 2863 P-0067: T-125, p. 33, lines 4-13. 2864 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 27. 2865 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 27. 2866 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 27. 2867 P-0067: T-125, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 1, lines 14-23. 2868 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, lines 2-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 451/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2869 2870 different times. Odongo did not accept the request. Dick Okot testified that 2871 Pangarasio Onek would walk from a distance and then put the load down to rest. Dick

text: Okot described what happened next:

text: At that time a gunship was hovering about and firing small guns at the people. He was hurrying Pangarasio to move. Then at some point he stopped the people and said if Pangarasio didn’t want to carry the load, he was going to be killed. At that time he summoned his escort, a young boy of about 9 or 10, and he said, “If this person does not want to go ahead, shoot him.” And then he asked Pangarasio, “Are you sure you cannot manage?” And Onek said, “No, I cannot.” Then they unbound him, the rope that was used to tie him was cut using a knife, and they told him to sit down. And he was shot in the head, three bullets in the head. That was what I saw. And then we were told to continue moving and they said if anybody refuses to move, they wouldn’t waste time, they would be killed in a similar manner. And 2872 everyone else got on their feet to continue moving. That was what I witnessed.

text: Dick Okot testified that after Pangarasio Onek was killed, Odongo told his bodyguard to

text: search his body and the boy found money in Pangarasio Onek’s pocket and gave it to 2873 Odongo. Dick Okot testified that before Pangarasio Onek was killed, the group was

text: stopped and Vincent Otti arrived and spoke to Lapwony Odongo for about five minutes 2874 and then Lapwony Odongo returned to the group. Dick Okot testified that at the time

text: Pangarasio Onek was killed, Dominic Ongwen was a little behind the group they were 2875 in. Dick Okot indicated that Dominic Ongwen would still have been able to see 2876 everything that was happening. Given the location in which Pangarasio Onek was

text: killed, the Chamber is unconvinced that Vincent Otti, who was at the RV location, witnessed the killing. However, given the details he provided and the Chamber’s view of

text: the general credibility of Dick Okot’s account, the Chamber is convinced that Dick Okot

text: witnessed the killing of Pangarasio Onek.

text: 2877 Richard Otim stated that he saw two civilians killed in Pajule IDP camp. Richard

text: Otim testified that one of the persons was his neighbour and the other was a shop

text: 2869 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, lines 2-7. 2870 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, line 6. 2871 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, lines 7-8. 2872 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, lines 9-20. 2873 P-0067: T-125, p. 28, lines 2-6. 2874 P-0067: T-125, p. 29, lines 1-11. 2875 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, lines 21-24. 2876 P-0067: T-125, p. 27, line 24 – p. 28, line 1. 2877 D-0076: T-219, p. 16, line 15 – p. 17, line 2, p. 25, lines 2-5 (testifying that he saw two dead civilians in Pajule camp, but at the time, the government soldiers were exchanging fire with the rebels, so he could not tell who killed the two persons. Richard Otim testified that he did not observe the rebels randomly and deliberately shoot anyone,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 452/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2878 attendant in one of the shops in the centre named Pangaracio Onek. The Chamber

text: also notes that unlike the other two witnesses who suggest that Pangarasio Onek was

text: killed outside the camp, Richard Otim indicates that Pangarasio Onek was killed within

text: the camp. Still, the Chamber considers Richard Otim’s testimony to corroborate the

text: accounts that Pangarasio Onek was killed in the course of the attack.

text: The Chamber notes that witnesses also testified about the killing of ‘Apang Onek’. Given

text: the similarities in the names of the witnesses and the description of the circumstances of

text: the killing, the Chamber is of the view that these witnesses likely refer to Pangarasio

text: Onek. P-0249 testified that LRA soldiers killed a civilian, Apang, as abductees were

text: 2879 leaving the centre. Apang was killed in an area called Wang Kweyo, as the abductees

text: 2880 were going to the bush. According to P-0249, Apang was killed for refusing to carry

text: 2881 baggage from the centre. P-0249 testified that when he returned from the bush

text: 2882 Apang’s wife told him of Apang’s death. P-0249 testified that he was told that Apang

text: 2883 was drunk at the time and became aggressive with the LRA. Corroborating this

text: testimony, Terrance Otika testified that he heard that a man, Apang, was killed from the

text: 2884 Pajule side of the camp. In addition, Santo Oweka testified that Onek Apang was

text: 2885 killed during the course of the Pajule IDP camp attack. Importantly, Santo Oweka

text: 2886 appears to suggest that he refers to Pangarasio Onek when he referenced Apang.

text: In light of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Pangarasio Onek was killed by the LRA

text: in the course of their attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: Unnamed abductee killed by the RV location: Camp resident P-0006 testified that after leaving the RV location, when she was in Ocitti’s group heading towards Kitgum, she

text: the only people he saw dead were the two civilians ‘caught in the crossfire’). The Chamber notes that it understands Richard Otim’s testimony to indicate that he did not see who killed the civilians. 2878 D-0076: T-219, p. 30, lines 2-5, p. 31, lines 2-7. Despite the different spelling of the first name, the Chamber considers it self-evident that the witnesses refer to the same person. 2879 P-0249: T-79, p. 35, lines 20-25, p. 36, lines 8-11. 2880 P-0249: T-79, p. 36, lines 12-15. 2881 P-0249: T-79, p. 35, lines 20-25, p. 36, lines 16-20. 2882 P-0249: T-79, p. 36, lines 3-7. 2883 P-0249: T-79, p. 36, lines 12-20. 2884 P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 24. Terrance Otika heard of Apang’s death from the people who brought the news of Lacung’s death. 2885 D-0081: T-221, p. 47, lines 12-19. 2886 D-0081: T-221, p. 48, lines 1-3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 453/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2887 saw a dead person lying by the side of the road. P-0006 testified that the rebels she

text: was with told her that the man was an abductee who had tried to escape and that if they 2888 tried to escape they would be killed like him. P-0006 testified that the man was an

text: older man and was lying face down and looked as though he had been hit on the back of

text: 2889 the head. Benson Ojok also testified that as they were leaving the meeting place, about 2890 one mile away, he saw a dead body beside the road. Benson Ojok testified that the

text: man was wearing civilian clothes and it looked like he had been beaten, the back of his

text: 2891 head looked like it had been hit. Benson Ojok testified that there was a stick near the

text: 2892 man’s body and the dead man’s hands was tied with a rope behind his body. Benson

text: Ojok testified that he did not know who the man was, but believed that he was one of the

text: persons abducted from Pajule as he was unarmed, tied and was wearing civilian clothing 2893 and it looked like he had been killed recently. While neither witness knew the man,

text: the testimony is overwhelmingly similar in their description of the body. The Chamber

text: is convinced by Benson Ojok’s testimony that the deceased was one of the Pajule

text: abductees and the manner of his death as well as the fact that he was found just outside of the LRAs’ RV location demonstrates that he was killed by the LRA.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that at least four civilians were killed

text: by the LRA in the course of the 10 October 2003 attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: LRA fighters abducted hundreds of civilians from the camp and forced them to carry

text: looted items, including heavy loads, for long distances while retreating from the camp.

text: Dominic Ongwen ordered a subordinate to abduct civilians. The order was immediately executed. Dominic Ongwen also led a group of abductees and ordered abductees to carry

text: looted goods and instructed them not to drop items.

text: Some abductees were forced to carry injured LRA fighters. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. Some were tied to each other. Many of the abductees were forced to walk bare foot or not

text: 2887 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 50. See also para. 49. 2888 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 50. 2889 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 50. 2890 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 45. 2891 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 45. 2892 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 45. 2893 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 46. 2894 Para. 153 above. 2895 Para. 153 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 454/1077 4 February 2021 fully clothed through the bush for a long distance. LRA fighters beat abductees to make

text: them walk faster.

text: Among the persons abducted from Pajule IDP camp were Witness P-0006, her neighbour, her three relatives; Witness P-0081; Richard Otim; Witness P-0249; Witness P-0249’s wife; Benson Ojok; Dick Okot and his family members; Rwot Joseph Oywak; Charles Bongomin, Oryema Kadogo, Sunday Abalo, Charles Ayela, Concy Ayet; Ogen; Opira; Okumu; Santo Oweka; David Okwera; Francis Kitara; George; Ronald Labeja; Christopher; Celestino; Vincent Okot; Ocana; Charles Abonga; David Otti Moyo;

text: Christine; Paska; Oluge; Opira Bosco and Oryema.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that armed LRA fighters abducted civilians

text: from Pajule IDP camp and prevented their escape and forced them to work. The Chamber

text: recalls its above discussion of the killing of three abductees, Kinyera Benson Lacung, 2898 Pangarasio Onek and an unnamed abductee. The evidence also shows that the LRA

text: fighters mistreated the civilians they abducted from the camp.

text: The witnesses’ accounts of the LRA’s abduction and treatment of civilians are credible,

text: mutually corroborative and show that the LRA, including fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s direct command, forcibly abducted civilians in Pajule IDP camp and severely

text: 2899 mistreated them in accordance with the orders they had received.

text: P-0330 testified that the LRA abducted civilians from Pajule, tied them around the waist, 2900 put them together in a line and gave them looted items to carry. P-0330 testified to

text: abducting two civilians himself, a boy and a girl, and estimated that the boy he abducted 2901 was around 18 and the girl between 15 and 16 years old. P-0330 testified that the

text: abducted civilians from Pajule were made to carry looted items to the meeting point 2902 where the fighters met up with other members of the LRA. P-0330 also testified that

text: 2903 . The Chamber finds P-0330’s

text: testimony here specific and credible, noting that in

text: describing the abduction of the two persons.

text: 2896 Para. 153 above. 2897 Para. 154 above. 2898 See paras 1315-1324 above. 2899 See section IV.C.6.ii, the Chamber’s discussion of the planning of the attack. 2900 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 4, line 23 – p. 5, line 3. 2901 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 5, line 25 – p. 6, line 11. 2902 P-0330: T-52, p. 9, lines 2-14. 2903 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 12, line 17 – p. 13, line 4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 455/1077 4 February 2021

text: In line with P-0330’s testimony, other witnesses reported seeing abductees who were tied

text: 2904 up so that they could not escape. LRA fighter P-0372 explained that abductees were

text: guarded and some of the abductees were bound on their waists while others were walking

text: 2905 without being tied but under guard. Camp resident P-0081 credibly testified that the

text: LRA abducted all manner of people in the course of the attack, testifying:

text: Whatever they find you wearing, they would abduct you in it; even if you were wearing an underwear, even if you were bare chested, they would take you and mix 2906 up people. They abducted all categories of people.

text: Similarly, P-0309 testified that LRA fighters abducted civilians from the trading

text: 2907 centre. P-0309 credibly testified that Dominic Ongwen ordered him to abduct two

text: 2908 people from Pajule IDP camp and ask them to carry flour and beans. P-0309 testified

text: that he entered the civilian’s home and called them and they came out and carried the

text: 2909 items. P-0309 explained:

text: They were helpless, they did not refuse. When I called them they left and they were shaking with fear. They were trembling and they came and carried the luggage that I’d asked them to carry. […] Because they feared that I could – I could kill them 2910 or I could do worse things if they did not carry the things I asked them to carry.

text: In line with P-0309’s testimony, P-0249, a camp resident and abductee, testified that

text: Dominic Ongwen directed his fighters to go and loot, they followed his instruction,

text: 2911 taking ‘a lot of things’ and giving them to people to carry. P-0249 testified that while

text: still at Pajule trading centre, Dominic Ongwen told the abductees not to drop their

text: 2912 luggage. P-0249 testified that as they were walking, Dominic Ongwen would move

text: 2913 and walk anywhere within the group. Consistent with the other accounts, P-0372 also

text: 2914 testified that some of the abductees were given loot to carry. Similarly, D-0085

text: 2904 P-0249: T-79, p. 13, lines 10-14; P-0067: T-125, p. 37, lines 5-12; D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 29. 2905 P-0372: T-148, p. 24, lines 7-11. 2906 P-0081: T-118, p. 27, lines 15-18. See also D-0076: T-219, p. 29, lines 9-21 (Richard Otim testified that the persons were abducted in the condition they were found in, so some people were half dressed). 2907 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 1-2. 2908 P-0309: T-60, p. 62, lines 5-10, p. 63, lines 3-5. 2909 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 3-6. 2910 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 8-13. 2911 P-0249: T-79, p. 15, lines 4-13, lines 18-25, p. 18, line 24 – p. 19, line 3; T-80, p. 21, line 21 – p. 22, line 1. See para. 1344 below, the Chamber’s further discussion of P-0249’s testimony. 2912 P-0249: T-79, p. 42, lines 13-18. 2913 P-0249: T-79, p. 31, line 24 – p. 32, line 5. 2914 P-0372: T-148, p. 24, lines 12-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 456/1077 4 February 2021 testified that the LRA forced civilians to carry the food the LRA had taken from the

text: 2915 camp. Additionally, P-0138 stated that he saw the civilians that had been abducted,

text: 2916 including children. P-0138 testified that the abductees were brought back to the RV

text: location in different battalions, staying with the group that abducted them and carrying

text: 2917 the goods looted by that group. P-0015 also stated that when the attackers returned

text: from Pajule, they ‘brought back little boys and girls and big men who were carrying the

text: 2918 luggage of things they had taken from Pajule’.

text: Camp resident Dick Okot testified that abductees were also carrying items including

text: 2919 merchandise like soda and biscuits, taken from shops. Dick Okot also saw an abductee

text: 2920 carrying clothes and one person was carrying about four gallons of beans.

text: In addition to carrying looted items, P-0138 explained that injured LRA fighters coming

text: 2921 back from the attack were carried back to the RV location by civilian abductees. P-

text: 0015 testified that she saw male abductees from Pajule IDP camp carrying an injured

text: 2922 LRA fighter on a stretcher made of logs and polythene paper. P-0144 testified that the

text: group that went to collect food items in the camp abducted civilians to carry looted items

text: 2923 or injured LRA fighters and some to be recruited into the ranks. P-0144 testified that

text: 2924 Raska Lukwiya was carried by civilians.

text: Further elaborating on the use of threats by LRA to abduct civilians and force them to

text: work, witnesses also testified about the environment of fear in which the LRA abducted

text: civilians. D-0085 testified that the LRA was carrying guns as they forced civilians to

text: 2925 carry the looted food. P-0330 testified that the two civilians he abducted to carry

text: 2926 looted items could not refuse to do as he instructed because he had a gun. P-0144

text: 2927 testified that no civilian could reject being abducted by a person wielding a gun. The

text: 2915 D-0085: T-239, p. 34, lines 1-6. 2916 P-0138: T-120, p. 41, lines 14-16. 2917 P-0138: T-120, p. 43, line 20 – p. 44, line 2. 2918 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 92. 2919 P-0067: T-125, p. 23, lines 5-10. 2920 P-0067: T-125, p. 23, lines 8-11. 2921 P-0138: T-120, p. 44, lines 11-15. 2922 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 92. 2923 P-0144: T-91, p. 40, line 12 – p. 41, line 25. 2924 P-0144: T-91, p. 41, lines 21-23. 2925 D-0085: T-239, p. 34, lines 4-6. 2926 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 7, lines 1-3. See para. 1328 above. 2927 P-0144: T-91, p. 41, lines 1-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 457/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber recalls its finding that several hundred LRA fighters attacked Pajule IDP camp

text: 2928 armed with an assortment of weapons, including guns.

text: UPDF commander Joseph Balikudembe testified that his troops were amongst the ones

text: who pursued the LRA some days after the attack on Pajule IDP camp and managed to

text: 2929 2930 rescue some abductees. He testified that these abductees were ‘exhausted’. Some

text: had swollen legs from moving barefoot and some of their feet were swollen because they

text: 2931 were not used to walking for such distances. Joseph Balikudembe assessed their

text: condition as ‘totally emaciated and exhausted because they were not used to that kind of

text: 2932 treatment’.

text: P-0249 testified that the LRA fighters instructed the abductees that anyone who threw

text: 2933 their load would be killed. P-0249 attested to a difficult journey walking to the RV

text: location; he stated that the abductees, including himself, were ‘manhandled’, kicked and

text: 2934 beaten. P-0249 stated that when the group entered the bush, the fighters ‘were beating

text: 2935 people seriously’. According to P-0249, the LRA fighters used their hands, sticks,

text: 2936 guns to beat people, sometimes they just kicked people. P-0249 testified that the LRA

text: fighters beat people for various reasons:

text: They would beat people every time, every single time we were moving they would keep beating people. Sometimes they would beat you because they say you are not walking fast, at another moment why you let part of your luggage fall down. For flimsy reasons they would still beat you up. Sometimes when the commanders were passing, and the escorts were also moving them, as they are passing by they would kick you. You wouldn’t even know they are passing by because you’d be burdened 2937 by your load. But these people would really do anything on you.

text: P-0249 testified that Dominic Ongwen was present during the times all the beating was

text: 2938 occurring; however the witness did not see him beating anyone.

text: 2928 See para. 1240 above. 2929 P-0359: T-109, p. 56, lines 2-14, lines 22-24, p. 58, lines 16-18. 2930 P-0359: T-109, p. 58, lines 19-23. 2931 P-0359: T-109, p. 56, lines 17-19, p. 58, lines 21-22. 2932 P-0359: T-109, p. 58, lines 22-23. 2933 P-0249: T-79, p. 35, lines 20-22. 2934 P-0249: T-79, p. 13, line 22 – p. 14, line 1, p. 28, lines 18-22. 2935 P-0249: T-79, p. 33, lines 7-9. 2936 P-0249: T-79, p. 33, line 25 – p. 34, line 8. 2937 P-0249: T-79, p. 34, lines 9-17. 2938 P-0249: T-79, p. 35, lines 10-15, p. 37, lines 13-18. See para. 1344 below, the Chamber’s further discussion of P-0249’s testimony.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 458/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA insider Santo Oweka testified that the LRA fighters were moving the abductees ‘in

text: 2939 a haste’ and beating them to get them to hurry. Consistent and corroborative of this

text: and other evidence of beatings discussed above, P-0379 testified that civilian Okony was

text: 2940 also abducted from Pajule IDP camp and escaped after about a week. P-0379 testified

text: 2941 that Okony said he was beaten. P-0379 testified that Okony stayed in Kitgum hospital

text: 2942 for a long time because he was vomiting blood.

text: The Chamber heard a number of accounts of the abduction of specific civilians in the

text: course of the LRA attack on Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003, which are discussed

text: below. As with the above discussion, the below is evidence of the abduction of camp

text: residents and their mistreatment by LRA fighters.

text: P-0006, her neighbour, her three relatives and other abductees: P-0006, sixteen years

text: old at the time of the attack, had been asleep in her neighbour’s house in the Lapul side

text: of the camp when she heard ululations and gunshots coming from the eastern

text: 2943 direction. She stated that she knew she had nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, so

text: 2944 she stayed in bed in the house. She testified that the LRA kicked in the door of the

text: house, whereupon seven armed young LRA fighters, whom she referred to as ‘kadogos’,

text: 2945 entered the house. P-0006 testified that the fighters commanded her and another

text: 2946 woman who lived in the house as well to carry items the fighters took from the house.

text: 2947 P-0006 testified that she was made to carry maize and cooking oil. At the time, she

text: 2948 was wearing a dress and no shoes. P-0006 testified that the LRA fighters told her to

text: run towards the barrack and a ‘boy’ LRA fighter of approximately 14 years old and

text: 2949 carrying a gun, beat her twice on her back with a stick. P-0006 testified that after

text: 2950 being beaten, she began to run as instructed. P-0006 testified that other abductees

text: 2939 D-0081: T-220, p. 27, lines 1-5. 2940 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 34, lines 18-22. 2941 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 34, lines 18-21. 2942 P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 34, lines 18-23. 2943 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 7-9. 2944 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 10. 2945 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 11; P-0006: T-140-CONF, p. 37, lines 15-20. 2946 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 12-13. See also P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144- 0072-R01, at para. 10. 2947 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 13. 2948 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 13. 2949 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 14; P-0006: T-140, p. 9, lines 1-11. 2950 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 459/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2951 were beaten as well, on their backs, necks and buttocks. P-0006 testified that the stick

text: used to beat people were big pieces of wood the size of walking sticks used by the elderly

text: 2952 and had been taken from civilian houses. P-0006 testified that she was forced to carry

text: ‘extremely heavy’ items away from the camp, ‘maybe two and a half basins full of

text: 2953 goods’. Other abductees were also forced to carry heavy loads, things that had been

text: 2954 taken from shops. P-0006 testified that she saw the other abductees struggling to carry

text: the load, stating ‘[i]t appears the luggage was also heavy for them the way I would

text: 2955 see’. P-0006 testified that despite the fact that the LRA rebels were beating abductees

text: to make them walk faster, the abductees could only walk slowly because of the heavy

text: 2956 items they were carrying. P-0006 testified that the other woman abducted with her

text: 2957 was also made to carry luggage but was released the day after the attack. In addition,

text: P-0006 testified that were abducted

text: 2958 during the attack. P-0006 testified that

text: 2959 . P-0006 testified

text: that

text: 2960 . P-0006 testified that she was integrated into the LRA until her escape on

text: 2961 28 April 2004. She was taken by an LRA commander to his place and forced to

text: 2962 become the so-called ‘wife’ of the commander. P-0006 testified that she was raped

text: 2963 and became pregnant in the bush. The Chamber finds P-0006’s account of her and

text: other civilians’ experience during their abduction credible, specific, full of details and

text: internally consistent. It is also consistent with the evidence of other witnesses’ abductions

text: and the abductions of other civilians in Pajule IDP camp.

text: 2951 P-0006: T-140, p. 9, lines 12-23, p. 10, lines 15-18. 2952 P-0006: T-140, p. 10, lines 5-11. 2953 P-0006: T-140, p. 11, lines 16-24. 2954 P-0006: T-140, p. 12, lines 3-5. 2955 P-0006: T-140, p. 12, line 23 – p. 13, line 3. 2956 P-0006: T-140, p. 13, lines 4-12. 2957 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 15. 2958 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 15. 2959 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 15. 2960 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 15; P-0006: T-140-CONF, p. 16, line 23 – p. 17, line 9. 2961 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 60. 2962 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 37, 56-57. 2963 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 56.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 460/1077 4 February 2021

text: 2964 P-0081: Camp resident P-0081 lived on the Lapul side of the camp. After being

text: woken up by the sound of gunshots, P-0081 went outside his home where he saw an

text: 2965 armed man who told him to return inside. After a short time, the same armed man

text: 2966 knocked on P-0081’s door and ordered him back outside. P-0081 testified that when

text: 2967 he came out this man told him to remove his shirt, which he did. P-0081 testified that

text: he was taken to an injured person who had been brought some distance behind his

text: 2968 house. According to P-0081, two other civilians were already carrying the injured

text: 2969 person. P-0081 testified that the three abductees were tied to each other with a rope

text: 2970 and made to carry the injured person whom P-0081 identified as ‘Lapwony Lukwiya’.

text: According to P-0081, Lukwiya was shot in the head and the side and was one of the

text: 2971 people who had been carrying and operating the SPG-9 used during the attack. P-

text: 0081 testified that he moved out of the camp with the group, consisting of about eight to

text: 2972 ten rebels and led by Okot, Lukwiya’s escort. P-0081 testified that he saw several

text: 2973 rebels behind the house, coming to see the injured Lukwiya. P-0081 testified that

text: Okot lead the group to the Wanduku primary school which was about six to seven miles

text: 2974 from the camp and there they met more people, including Lukwiya’s wife. P-0081

text: testified that a group of rebels including Lukwiya’s wife arrived after him at Wangduku

text: 2975 School with a large group of other abductees. P-0081 testified that he, other abductees

text: 2976 and LRA fighters then moved to the RV location. P-0081 testified that he carried

text: 2977 Lukwiya for a week before Lukwiya was taken to a sickbay. P-0081 testified that he

text: 2978 was integrated into LRA until he escaped in April 2004. Given the name, Lapwony

text: Lukwiya, and the witness’s mention of an SPG-9, the Chamber is certain that P-0081

text: testified that he was forced to carry LRA fighter Charles Lokwiya. Charles Lokwiya

text: testified before the Chamber about his injury, stating that the SPG-9 he was carrying was

text: 2964 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 8; P-0081: T-118, p. 33, lines 2-4. 2965 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 17-18. 2966 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 18. 2967 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 18-19. 2968 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 18. 2969 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 18. 2970 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 19-20. 2971 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 20. 2972 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 21. 2973 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 23. 2974 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 27-28. 2975 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 34-35; P-0081: T-118, p. 35, line 17 – p. 36, line 1. 2976 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 36. 2977 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 20. 2978 P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at paras 64, 104.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 461/1077 4 February 2021 shot and the barrel exploded and the shattered pieces of the barrel came and injured

text: 2979 him. P-0144 corroborates this account that Lokwiya was injured in the attack at the

text: barracks when his SPG-9 gun was shot and the fragment of the gun hit him on the

text: 2980 stomach and on the mouth.

text: Charles Lokwiya testified that after he was injured, he was left behind and his ‘wife’

text: came and carried him from the camp up until the time when she found people to help

text: 2981 carry him. Charles Lokwiya testified that only his ‘wife’ dragged him from the

text: 2982 barracks.

text: 2984 The Chamber

text: finds these witnesses’ testimonies credible and mutually corroborative. In light of the

text: details P-0081 knew of Charles Lokwiya, the Chamber is convinced that P-0081 was

text: abducted by the LRA and forced to carry Charles Lokwiya – likely from the RV onwards;

text: however, the Chamber is of the view that his testimony about carrying Lokwiya from the

text: camp is not reliable.

text: Richard Otim: Richard Otim testified that LRA rebels forced the door of his home open

text: 2985 and he was forcibly captured and brought out and tied with a rope at the waist. Richard

text: Otim testified that it was around 4:00; he had just woken up and was barefoot and only

text: 2986 2987 wearing shorts. Richard Otim testified that the LRA fighters had guns. Richard

text: Otim testified that from the RV location he helped to carry Charles Lokwiya and Acel

text: 2988 Calo Apar along with other abductees. Richard Otim testified that the soldiers were

text: 2989 on stretchers and the abductees carried the stretchers on their shoulders. In the course

text: of the LRA’s trek in the bush, Richard Otim’s feet and shoulders were injured, as he

text: 2979 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 63, lines 5-8; T-241-CONF, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 2. 2980 P-0144: T-91, p. 35, lines 4-15. 2981 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 63, lines 9-21; T-241-CONF, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 7. 2982 D-0134: T-241-CONF, p. 14, lines 3-7. 2983 2984 2985 D-0076: T-219, p. 11, lines 16-18, p. 26, line 17 – p. 27, line 1, p. 37, lines 8-19. 2986 D-0076: T-219, p. 27, lines 2-13. 2987 D-0076: T-219, p. 27, line 24 – p. 28, line 4. 2988 D-0076: T-219, p. 13, lines 11-12, p. 19, line 10 – p. 20, line 3. 2989 D-0076: T-219, p. 13, lines 12-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 462/1077 4 February 2021 feared that he was no longer able to perform the tasks the LRA had assigned to him and

text: 2990 would be killed, he managed to escape from the LRA. Richard Otim testified that he

text: 2991 stayed with the LRA from about four days to a week before managing to escape. The

text: Chamber considers Richard Otim’s testimony credible, detailed and specific.

text: P-0249 and his wife: At the time of the attack, P-0249 was a trader within the Pajule

text: 2992 trading centre. According to P-0249, the gunshots carried on until they reached his

text: 2993 doorstep and LRA fighters began to kick his door and fired a bullet into his house. P-

text: 0249 testified that his wife opened the door of the house and they came out of the

text: 2994 house. P-0249 stated that he and his wife were bound around the waist with ropes that

text: 2995 were normally used for tying cattle. P-0249 testified that the LRA fighters tied his

text: 2996 waist together with another person; however other people were bound differently. The

text: Chamber recalls the above determination that P-0249’s identification of Dominic

text: 2997 Ongwen in the trading centre was credible and reliable. P-0249 credibly testified that

text: 2998 Dominic Ongwen was in charge of the rebels who abducted him and his wife. P-0249

text: testified that he was given about two or more basins of beans to carry, which the LRA

text: 2999 poured into a sack and put on his head and he carried as they walked. P-0249 testified

text: 3000 that until the LRA arrived at the RV location, he was carrying food. After they left

text: 3001 the RV, the witness carried a stretcher with an injured LRA soldier. P-0249 testified

text: 3002 that he still has scars on his shoulders from carrying the injured LRA soldier.

text: According to P-0249, the injured soldier was very heavy and he carried him with another

text: 3003 person. P-0249 testified that abductees could not escape because they were being

text: 3004 ‘protected’ by the rebels. P-0249 explained that the abductees did not have the

text: 2990 D-0076: T-219, p. 13, line 18 – p. 15, line 19, p. 22, line 11 – p. 23, line 1. 2991 D-0076: T-219, p. 13, line 18 – p. 15, line 18, p. 21, lines 1-4, p. 22, line 11 – p. 23, line 1. 2992 P-0249: T-79-CONF, p. 9, lines 1-5. 2993 P-0249: T-79, p. 10, lines 16-19. 2994 P-0249: T-79, p. 10, lines 20-21. 2995 P-0249: T-79, p. 10, lines 20-22. 2996 P-0249: T-79, p. 31, lines 14-18. 2997 See paras 1276-1279 above, the Chamber’s discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s role in the attack. 2998 P-0249: T-79, p. 12, lines 12-13, p. 14, lines 11-18. 2999 P-0249: T-79, p. 22, line 14 – p. 23, line 2. 3000 P-0249: T-79, p. 47, lines 19-22. 3001 P-0249: T-79, p. 47, line 19 – p. 48, line 1. 3002 P-0249: T-79, p. 47, line 19 – p. 48, line 1, p. 53, line 11 – p. 54, line 5. See photographs of P-0249’s injuries: UGA-OTP-0238-0804; UGA-OTP-0238-0805. 3003 P-0249: T-79, p. 48, line 16 – p. 50, line 1. 3004 P-0249: T-79, p. 28, lines 10-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 463/1077 4 February 2021 freedom to move anywhere, ‘[y]ou were like a prisoner, and every now and then you will

text: 3005 be guarded’. Abductees were unbound so that they could carry items and then bound

text: 3006 behind their backs at night. P-0249 testified that after the rebels separated in groups

text: 3007 and moved in different directions; he moved with Dominic Ongwen’s group. After

text: about two weeks of being with the LRA, P-0249 was no longer able to walk further, LRA

text: 3008 fighters beat him until he was unconscious and left him. The witness managed to drag

text: 3009 himself for nine days trying to get home. The Chamber considers P-0249’s testimony

text: to be credible. It was detailed, contextualised, specific and corroborated by other

text: witnesses’ similar accounts of their experiences during their abduction.

text: Benson Ojok and other abductees: Benson Ojok, then a 15 year old boy, was staying

text: at a house in the Pajule side of the camp, with two other boys, around 16 and 17 years

text: old, when he woke up to the sound of the kicking of doors, plastic whistles and

text: 3010 gunshots. The two other boys in the house escaped and Benson Ojok was alone when

text: a rebel knocked on the door and said that anyone inside the house should come out or

text: 3011 they would be shot. The LRA fighter pushed open the door and Benson Ojok fell

text: 3012 because he had been standing behind it. According to Benson Ojok, the LRA fighter

text: 3013 was about 19 years old, and carried an AK-47 and a bayonet knife. Benson Ojok

text: testified that the LRA fighter grabbed him, took his shirt off and used the shirt to tie

text: 3014 Benson Ojok’s hands together. Then the LRA fighter took Benson Ojok to another

text: house in the trading centre and abducted a man and three boys; two of the boys were

text: 3015 about ten and nine years old and one was even younger. The abductees were tied

text: 3016 together around their waist and their hands were freed. Their shirts were removed and

text: 3017 if they had been wearing good footwear, it was removed from them. Benson Ojok

text: saw other people who had just been abducted in the camp, including boys about 15 years

text: 3005 P-0249: T-79, p. 28, lines 13-17. 3006 P-0249: T-79, p. 52, lines 18-25. 3007 P-0249: T-79, p. 41, lines 17-23, p. 43, line 18 – p. 44, line 7. 3008 P-0249: T-79, p. 67, lines 6-23, p. 72, line 17 – p. 73, line 19. 3009 P-0249: T-79, p. 72, line 17 – p. 74, line 12, p. 77, lines 3-6; T-79-CONF, p. 74, lines 12-16. 3010 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at paras 8-13. 3011 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 13. 3012 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 13. 3013 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 14. 3014 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 3015 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 3016 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 3017 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 464/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3018 old and below and girls about ten and 11 years and older. The youngest abducted boy

text: 3019 Benson Ojok saw was about nine years old. In his estimation, the oldest male abductee

text: 3020 was around 35 years old and the oldest female abductee about 30 years old. Benson

text: Ojok testified that he saw his friend Ocaya as well as a teacher from his school among

text: 3021 3022 the abductees. Benson Ojok was given a crate of soda to carry on his head. Benson

text: Ojok testified that the LRA fighters threatened the abductees that they would be killed if

text: 3023 they threw away the items they were carrying. Benson Ojok was integrated into the

text: 3024 LRA before he eventually escaped. The Chamber finds Benson Ojok’s testimony

text: about his abduction credible and reliable. It was detailed, specific and rich with the details

text: that showed that he spoke of his personal experiences.

text: Dick Okot and his family members: Dick Okot, who lived in the Pajule trading centre,

text: testified that the LRA fighters broke down his door, entered into his house and brought

text: 3025 him out along with his wife, his brother, his sister and her children. Dick Okot testified

text: 3026 that one of his neighbours was also brought out. Dick Okot testified that the door to

text: his house was a steel door so it was not easy to break; the LRA attackers used an axe to

text: 3027 break down the wall and bring down the door. Two armed LRA fighters entered the

text: 3028 house and ordered the inhabitants out and told them to sit down. According to Dick

text: Okot, when he came outside, he saw around 14 LRA fighters, a mixture of men and

text: 3029 women, out in front of the shops and spread around the house and buildings there.

text: Dick Okot testified that when he was taken out of the house, LRA fighters tied his arms

text: behind his back with a rope and his brother’s arms were also tied and they were ordered

text: 3030 to start moving. Dick Okot testified that he was bare foot and only wearing underwear

text: 3031 and had a light vest over his chest. Dick Okot testified that among his abductors was

text: 3018 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 19. 3019 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 19. 3020 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 19. 3021 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 19. 3022 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 18. 3023 P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 24. 3024 See P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 61. 3025 P-0067: T-125, p. 8, lines 13-21. 3026 P-0067: T-125, p. 12, lines 6-9. 3027 P-0067: T-125, p. 8, lines 19-25. 3028 P-0067: T-125, p. 9, lines 4-12. 3029 P-0067: T-125, p. 9, line 20 – p. 10, line 1. 3030 P-0067: T-125, p. 11, line 21 – p. 12, line 2. 3031 P-0067: T-125, p. 12, lines 3-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 465/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3032 a commander named Lapwony Odongo from the Trinkle brigade. Dick Okot testified

text: that there were children among the group of civilians and that the LRA commander

text: Odongo told the abductees that ‘[w]e will show you that it is not good to stay in the camp.

text: We will take you guys, we will take the older people. But the children, we will burn them

text: 3033 inside the house’. Dick Okot testified that Odongo sent his bodyguards to go and

text: collect fire but then the helicopter gunship arrived and he ordered the adults in the group

text: 3034 to get up and move. Dick Okot testified that after the helicopter arrived, the LRA

text: 3035 fighters and their adult abductees started moving away from the camp. Dick Okot

text: testified that his hands were tied when he left the camp with his abductors but he was

text: unbound when the LRA came across a woman who was carrying a sack of groundnuts

text: 3036 and LRA fighters picked up the sack for him to carry. Dick Okot testified that his

text: brother Okello David, his wife Grace Aringo and Janet Acan were abducted and in his

text: 3037 group as he left Pajule IDP camp. Dick Okot testified that he stayed with the LRA for

text: 3038 about three weeks to a month before he escaped. Dick Okot testified that he was to be

text: 3039 tied when sleeping at night. The Chamber recalls its assessment of Dick Okot’s

text: credibility and notes that in this account of his abduction, the witness was clear, internally

text: consistent, detailed and specific. His testimony was also corroborated in part by Okema

text: Brown, the camp commandant of the Pajule side of the camp, who testified that Dick

text: Okot was one of the returned abductees that he spoke with about the persons who

text: 3040 commanded the attack.

text: Rwot Joseph Oywak: Rwot Oywak testified that he heard gunshots the morning of the

text: 3041 attack, as well as people screaming and crying. According to Rwot Oywak, armed

text: 3042 LRA fighters kicked down the door of his house and ordered him to leave the house.

text: Rwot Oywak testified that he was kicked and hit with the butt of a gun and pushed out

text: 3032 P-0067: T-125, p. 11, lines 9-16. It is noted that P-0067 testified that Odongo himself mentioned that he was under the Trinkle battalion. 3033 P-0067: T-125, p. 12, lines 6-11. 3034 P-0067: T-125, p. 12, lines 12-17. 3035 P-0067: T-125, p. 13, line 24 – p. 14, line 1. 3036 P-0067: T-125, p. 14, lines 2-4, p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 2; T-126, p. 9, lines 9-12. 3037 P-0067: T-125, p. 23, lines 20-25. 3038 P-0067: T-125, p. 43, line 21 – p. 44, line 17. 3039 P-0067: T-125, p. 37, lines 5-12. 3040 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 20. 3041 P-0009: T-81, p. 11, line 25 – p. 12, line 3. 3042 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 3-8, p. 16, line 17 – p. 17, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 466/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3043 of the house. Rwot Oywak stated that he started walking and joined the people,

text: 3044 including his neighbour, who had been abducted. Rwot Oywak testified that there

text: were men, women and children among the abductees, from the ages of 12 to 50, some of

text: 3045 whom were carrying items LRA looted from civilians. Rwot Oywak testified that

text: once the group was on the main road, LRA fighters gave him a heavy sack of rice to carry

text: 3046 and he was hit and told to move with the people. Rwot Oywak insisted that any

text: statement that he did not in fact carry luggage is not correct, explaining further ‘[i]t could

text: be he’s saying the correct thing because you carry luggage and then you pass on to

text: another person as you’re moving. Along the way, you carry for some time and then you

text: pass it on to another person. So he could have seen because I did not carry right from

text: 3047 Pajule up to Latanya’. The Chamber recalls its conclusion above that Rwot Oywak

text: 3048 credibly identified Dominic Ongwen as being at the trading centre in Pajule. Rwot

text: Oywak also testified that Dominic Ongwen hit and kicked him and ordered him to sit

text: 3049 3050 down. When the group started walking, Dominic Ongwen was kicking him and

text: 3051 other people. Rwot Oywak stated that as they moved along, whoever was unable to

text: 3052 walk was left behind and the LRA continued to add people as they moved along. Rwot

text: Oywak testified to walking six to eight miles from Pajule before eventually reaching the

text: 3053 RV location. As is discussed further below, Rwot Oywak was released along with

text: 3054 other abductees the day after the attack.

text: Multiple witnesses testified about Rwot Oywak’s abduction and his treatment by the

text: LRA. P-0249 largely corroborates his account. Camp resident P-0249 indicated that

text: 3055 Rwot Oywak was abducted by Dominic Ongwen’s group. P-0249 testified that ‘Rwot

text: 3056 Oywak’ was abducted by an armed ‘kadogo’. According to P-0249, the fighter had

text: taken Rwot Oywak’s shirt off and brought him to meet with the others while the group

text: 3043 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 7-8. 3044 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 10-13. 3045 P-0009: T-81, p. 17, lines 10-19. 3046 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 13-15, p. 17, lines 3-9; T-82, p. 78, lines 2-16. 3047 P-0009: T-82, p. 78, line 17 – p. 79, line 3. 3048 See paras 1272-1273 above. 3049 P-0009: T-81, p. 12, lines 18-20, p. 19, lines 15-20; T-82, p. 80, line 18 – p. 81, line 9. 3050 P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 1-2. 3051 P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 1-3, p. 19, lines 15-21. 3052 P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 8-10. 3053 P-0009: T-81, p. 13, lines 21-23, p. 22, lines 20-25. 3054 See para. 1366 below. 3055 P-0249: T-79, p. 44, lines 14-19. 3056 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, lines 14-18, p. 23, lines 3-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 467/1077 4 February 2021

text: was branching off to go into the bushes from the camp. P-0249 testified that he

text: believed the kadogo had found Rwot Oywak in his house and brought him to his

text: commander. P-0249 testified that a soldier asked the kadogo if he knew who he had

text: abducted and told the boy to give Rwot Oywak his shirt back and not to touch or beat

text: him or give him luggage to carry. P-0249 testified that the group continued on and

text: Rwot Oywak was the only person among the abductees who was not carrying anything,

text: while everyone else had heavy loads on their heads. P-0249 testified that no harm was

text: done to Rwot Oywak, that he ‘appeared to be free while, while he was there’ and it was

text: ‘possible for him to do anything’. P-0249 testified that he did not see Rwot Oywak

text: speaking with Dominic Ongwen along the route of retreat from Pajule camp but P-0249

text: saw Dominic Ongwen sit together with Rwot Oywak at the gathering with all the other

text: commanders. Camp resident P-0006 testified that Rwot Oywak was among the

text: persons abducted from Pajule by the LRA fighters and that she saw him outside the camp

text: at a stream when the group stopped briefly. P-0006 testified that when she saw him,

text: he had all his clothes on and he had been given rice to carry. P-0006 and P-0249, who

text: both testified to seeing Rwot Oywak at an early point in his abduction, corroborate his

text: account that he was abducted and initially treated like the other abductees. The Chamber

text: does not consider it dispositive that P-0249 did not also testify to seeing Rwot Oywak carry a bag of rice. Other witnesses also testify as to the LRA’s treatment of Rwot Oywak

text: in the course of the attack.

text: 3057 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, lines 15-20. 3058 P-0249: T-79, p. 22, lines 5-10. 3059 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, lines 15-22, p. 22, lines 11-15; T-80, p. 33, lines 1-20. 3060 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, lines 23-25. 3061 P-0249: T-79, p. 21, line 25 – p. 22, line 1; T-80, p. 34, lines 7-13, p. 36, lines 15-21. 3062 P-0249: T-80, p. 33, lines 21-25. 3063 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 35. 3064 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 35. 3065 D-0076: T-219, p. 18, line 22 – p. 19, line 6, p. 39, line 4 – p. 40, line 2 (testifying that Joseph Oywak was the only person not given anything to carry. From Richard Otim’s observation, Rwot Oywak was relaxed and did not look like he was in fear or under threat. He did not see Rwot Oywak being beaten during the gathering where the abductees were addressed by Vincent Otti); P-0081 Statement, UGA-OTP-0070-0029-R01, at para. 43; P-0081: T-118, p. 40, line 16 – p. 41, line 16 (testifying that he knew Rwot Oywak from home and saw him at the RV point; Rwot Oywak was wearing his shirt and a watch and was wearing shoes unlike the other abductees. Before Vincent Otti addressed the abductees, P-0081 saw Rwot Oywak shaking hands with Vincent Otti and they both looked happy and were laughing and even hugged); D-0081: T-220, p. 30, lines 10-21 (testifying that during the walk to the meeting place, Rwot Oywak was conversing and laughing with LRA commander Raska Lukwiya. Rwot Oywak looked different than the rest of the abductees because they did not remove his clothes and he was not carrying any luggage); P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 127, 130 (testifying that Joseph Oywak told him that when the rebels discovered that he was one of the abductees, he was separated from the others and treated differently from the other abductees. P-0084 was also told by other abductees that Rwot Oywak

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 468/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber is satisfied that this evidence demonstrates that Rwot Oywak was abducted by force and initially treated harshly by the LRA. In this context, the Chamber notes the 10 October 2003 communication in which Vincent Otti reports on the attack on Pajule to Joseph Kony, and states that ‘he instructed soldiers to target all the big pple in Pajule 3066 including Oywak and the priests’. P-0085 also testified that Vincent Otti reported Rwot Oywak’s abduction to Joseph Kony after the operation and the people had 3067 returned. However, neither P-0006 nor P-0249 corroborates his account that he was beaten by Dominic Ongwen. In the Chamber’s view, given Rwot Oywak’s position and fame in the community, had he been beaten by Dominic Ongwen in a public setting, other witnesses who testified in these proceedings would have mentioned it. P-0249, who testified to also being abducted by Dominic Ongwen’s group and noted Rwot Oywak’s abduction by that same group, should certainly have observed or heard about the beating had it occurred in that manner. Rather, the evidence indicates that P-0249’s above account is credible and reliable in that after being recognised as the Rwot, LRA fighters no longer mistreated Rwot Oywak.

text: Charles Bongomin, Oryema Kadogo, Sunday Abalo, Charles Ayela: testified that , Charles Bongomin, was captured by the LRA during the attack on Pajule 3068 IDP camp and held captive for about a month. testified that 3069 he was abducted by Dominic Ongwen. testified that when the LRA fighters and their abductees left Pajule, they joined a bigger 3070 convoy under Vincent Otti’s leadership. testified that Oryema Kadogo was 3071 also abducted by the LRA. testified that Oryema Kadogo 3072 was in Dominic Ongwen’s group as an abductee. testified that Oryema Kadogo when he was walking with the LRA, his feet were swollen and he was beaten and left for dead, until he was found by the government soldiers pursuing the 3073 LRA, who took him to the hospital. testified that Oryema Kadogo remains

text: was not treated like other captive but was able to move freely with the rebel commanders and had meetings with them that the abductees could not hear). 3066 See para. 1375, discussing ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547-48. 3067 P-0085: T-158, p. 41, lines 10-12. 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 469/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3074 disabled to this day. In addition, testified that Sunday Abalo 3075 was in Dominic Ongwen’s convoy. According to , Sunday Abalo 3076 stayed in the bush and escaped in 2004. testified that Charles Ayela was also 3077 abducted by the LRA. testified that Charles Ayela was in 3078 Dominic Ongwen’s group. testified that Charles Ayela in the movement from the camp, he encountered Patrick Acire, an LRA abductee who had been 3079 taken after and was in Odhiambo’s group. testified that Charles Ayela 3080 had to carry an injured person during the retreat from the camp. testified that when Patrick Acire escaped, had met Charles Ayela in the bush, but that there was nothing he could do to help Charles Ayela because he was in a different 3081 group. While recounts the accounts , the Chamber considers this hearsay testimony to be sound evidence corroborative of the other reliable evidence that Dominic Ongwen and his fighters abducted civilians from the trading centre of the camp and forced them to work for the LRA.

text: Concy Ayet and other abductees: testified that his , Ayet Concy, was abducted from Pajule as was a boy name Ogen and two men, Opira and 3082 Okumu. testified that after seeing his sister among the abductees Dominic Ongwen agreed to help him ensure that she was released; when could not find 3083 his sister Dominic Ongwen told him that he supposed she had already been released. The Chamber considers his account here credible and further proof that the LRA abducted civilians from Pajule IDP camp.

text: Santo Oweka: Santo Oweka testified that about an hour after he first heard gunshots in 3084 the camp, LRA fighters kicked open his door and broke into his house. The LRA 3085 fighters pulled him out of his hut. Santo Oweka testified that when he came out, he

text: 3074 3075 3076 3077 See also P-0249: T-79-CONF, p. 23, line 22 – p. 24, line 5; D-0081: T-221, p. 46, line 14 – p. 47, line 11. 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 1-4, p. 25, lines 1-4; T-221, p. 44, lines 8-18. 3085 D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 6-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 470/1077 4 February 2021 saw so many abductees outside and some gun-wielding people who were giving items to

text: 3086 the abductees to carry. Santo Oweka testified that he was initially given a box of soap

text: 3087 to carry, and then later he was made to carry an injured person, Odong Murefu. Santo

text: 3088 Oweka stayed in the LRA for about five months. The Chamber considers Santo

text: Oweka’s account of his abduction credible and reliable. P-0249 also corroborates this

text: 3089 account.

text: David Okwera: David Okwera lived just east of the Pajule market on the Pajule side of

text: 3090 the camp. David Okwera testified that a rebel came into his house and took him to the

text: 3091 market where there were many LRA fighters and many abductees. David Okwera

text: 3092 stated that the LRA gave him three basins of rice to carry. David Okwera testified that

text: 3093 the abductees walked through the bush with the LRA in front and behind. He stated

text: that this formation was so the LRA could protect people from ambushes and pursuing

text: 3094 3095 forces. David Okwera stated that he escaped from the LRA after about six weeks.

text: Other abductees: Camp residents provided relevant, credible and mutually

text: corroborative accounts of other residents abducted by the LRA. Omona Lokilamoi, a

text: Pajule local government official, testified that Francis Kitara and George, both officials

text: 3096 of Pajule camp were abducted during the attack. Both Francis Kitara and George were

text: 3097 with the rebels for about two months before escaping. According to P-0084, the LRA

text: abducted Ronald Labeja, a student of Kitgum High School named Christopher, Celestino,

text: 3098 Vincent Okot and Ocana, among others. All but Ocana returned to the camp a few

text: 3099 days after the attack; Ocana was with the rebels for about one month. P-0249 testified

text: that his wife was abducted as was Charles Abonga, David Otti Moyo, Christine and a

text: 3086 D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 7-9. 3087 D-0081: T-220, p. 24, lines 10-12; T-221, p. 46, lines 1-10. 3088 D-0081: T-220, p. 34, lines 11-13. 3089 P-0249: T-79-CONF, p. 40, lines 12-18. 3090 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 2. 3091 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 13. 3092 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 13. 3093 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 16. 3094 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at para. 16. 3095 D-0077 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0316, at paras 27, 37. 3096 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 19. 3097 P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 19. 3098 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 122. 3099 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 122.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 471/1077 4 February 2021

text: number of other people. Santo Oweka testified that after he returned from the bush,

text: he learnt that the LRA abducted a woman called Paska, a teacher named Oluge, Opira

text: Bosco as well as David Otti, Oryema and Ayela, who were all abducted from Pajule IDP

text: camp and stayed with the LRA for some time before returning back home.

text: Estimates of the number of persons abducted by the LRA attackers from Pajule IDP camp

text: on 10 October 2003 range from 100 to 1,210. Pajule camp commandant Brown

text: explained that it was difficult to ascertain the exact numbers of how many persons were

text: abducted from the camp because it was assumed that some of the people thought to be

text: missing had simply run away to relatives outside the camp and people returning reported

text: 3103 3104

text: to various places. Noting in particular the testimonies of Rwot Oywak and UPDF

text: soldier P-0084 – who both observed the abductees taken from Pajule IDP camp – the

text: Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA abducted hundreds of civilians

text: from Pajule IDP camp.

text: Abductees carried the looted items to a meeting place where the LRA met after the attackers left Pajule IDP camp. At this meeting point, the LRA collected the looted goods.

text: 3100 P-0249: T-79-CONF, p. 23, line 22 – p. 24, line 5. See also D-0081: T-221, p. 46, line 14 – p. 47, line 11 (regarding the abduction of David Otti). 3101 D-0081: T-221, p. 46, line 14 – p. 47, line 11. 3102 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 15-17; T-63, p. 11, lines 4-7 (testifying that he saw that there were well over 100 people abducted from Pajule IDP camp); D-0081: T-221, p. 46, lines 14-16 (testifying that the LRA abducted hundreds of people from Pajule IDP camp); P-0138: T-120, p. 33, lines 14-15 (testifying that about 300 persons were abducted from Pajule IDP camp); P-0372: T-148, p. 22, line 23 – p. 23, line 2 (testifying that he estimated that over 300 civilians were abducted from Pajule, children, men and women); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0027-0177-R01, at para. 119 (testifying that nearly 300 people were abducted); P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0139-0149-R01, at para. 88; P-0144: T-91, p. 48, lines 3-8 (estimating that 400 civilians were captured from Pajule); P-0009: T-81, p. 14, line 11, p. 23, lines 6-9, p. 79, lines 14-21; P-0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147- 0214-R01, at para. 40 (testifying that based on the information he received from people returning from the bush and from information from Rwot Oywak, he estimated that around 700 persons were abducted from Pajule IDP camp in total); D-0076: T-219, p. 29, lines 9-12 (estimating that up to 700 persons were abducted from Pajule IDP camp); P-0001 Statement, UGA-OTP-0138-0002-R01, at para. 23 (testifying that according to lists collected by the 86 LC-1 chairpersons of Pajule IDP camp between 10 October 2003 and 25 October 2003, there were ‘a combined figure of 1,210 thought to be abducted. Then the next day 500 returned leaving 710 thought to be abducted. Some came back and some remain[ed] missing’). See also 18 September 2004 Letter requesting funds th for joint prayers for peace in memory of LRA attack on Pajule/Lapul IDP camp on the 10 October 2003, UGA- OTP-0138-0284-R01; 27 October 2004 Pajule/Lapule Sub-Counties 10 October 2003, Commemoration Speech, UGA-OTP-0138-0291-R01; Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1110; P-0016: T-33, p. 54, lines 18-22 (in the 13-14 October 2003 intercepted radio recording, Otti states that ‘200 to 300 people’ were gathered from Pajule). 3103 P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 50. 3104 P-0009: T-81, p. 14, line 11, p. 23, lines 6-9 (testifying that he estimated that there were about 400 to 500 abductees at the meeting place where the various LRA groups that had conducted the attack re-converged). 3105 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 88 (testifying that he saw at least more than 300 abducted civilians in the group leaving the camp after the attack).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 472/1077 4 February 2021

text: Looted items were distributed within the LRA, including within Dominic Ongwen’s

text: group.

text: The evidence shows that abducted civilians took the items they were carrying to the

text: 3107 LRA’s chosen destination. P-0138 testified that after the attack at the meeting point

text: 3108 he saw the food that was pillaged from Pajule IDP camp. Charles Lokwiya testified

text: that when he arrived back at the meeting point, he saw food that had been taken from the

text: 3109 centre of Pajule IDP camp. Similarly, P-0015 testified that she was present when LRA

text: soldiers returned from the attack on Pajule and they came back with items such as sweets,

text: 3110 biscuits, cooking oil and clothes. P-0081 testified that at the RV location, he saw

text: people carrying items, these items would have been taken out of their homes or from the

text: 3111 shops. P-0101, one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’, corroborated these

text: accounts, confirming that she saw Dominic Ongwen return from the attack in Pajule with

text: 3112 luggage.

text: Rwot Oywak also testified that at the gathering place, the LRA collected all the food

text: 3113 items from the abductees. P-0330 testified that once the LRA was back at the meeting

text: point, the looted items were distributed amongst the LRA, including to Dominic

text: 3114 Ongwen’s group. P-0330 testified that Opige, a commander in Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 3115 group, was among the people distributing the looted items.

text: At the meeting point, Vincent Otti and other commanders addressed the abductees. Vincent Otti told abductees that the LRA reproached the civilians for settling in IDP camps set up by the government, and that there was a punitive nature to the LRA’s attack on the camp. Dominic Ongwen also spoke to a group of abductees, telling them that

text: 3106 Para. 155 above. 3107 P-0330: T-52, p. 9, line 20 – p. 10, line 1 (testifying that the civilians were told to put down their items and most were released); P-0047 Statement, UGA-OTP-0027-0177-R01, at para. 124 (stating that returned abductees told him that they were released after they brought loot to the places where the LRA wanted them to bring the loot, in Lira district and Soroti); P-0138: T-120, p. 45, lines 10-22 (stating that abductees arrived at the RV location carrying food that had been pillaged from the camp); P-0209: T-160, p. 31, line 22 – p. 32, line 14 (testifying that the LRA fighters who went to Pajule IDP camp came back with civilians who were carrying items on their heads). 3108 P-0138: T-120, p. 41, lines 10-16. 3109 D-0134: T-240-CONF, p. 63, line 17 – p. 64, line 1. 3110 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 92. 3111 P-0081: T-118, p. 34, line 16 – p. 35, line 3. 3112 P-0101: T-13, p. 26, lines 6-13. 3113 P-0009: T-81, p. 24, lines 12-14. 3114 P-0330: T-52, p. 10, lines 5-8. 3115 P-0330: T-52, p. 10, lines 9-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 473/1077 4 February 2021 anyone who escaped or dropped looted goods would be killed and that abductees would

text: be trained as soldiers.

text: The evidence shows that at the RV location, Vincent Otti and other commanders spoke

text: 3117 to abductees before ordering the release of some. In this context, the Chamber notes

text: a police report dated 13 October 2003 concerning the LRA’s attack on Pajule IDP

text: 3118 camp. The report states:

text: On […] 11.10.2003 during day time at Pajule T/C in Aruu city, Pader District (.) 504 former abductees reportedly released by rebels, returned (.) They included Rwot Joseph Oywak the Acholi Traditional Chief of Koyo Lalogi […] who was abducted on 10.10.2003 with several others (.) The former captives were reported to have said that they were addressed by Maj. Gen Otti Vincent, Brig. Tolbert Nyeko Yadi, Brig. Kolo and Lt. Col. Opiru before their released […] that the rebel commanders said their aim to attack Pajule T/C was to discipline the people in the area and that the release was not because of pressure from UPDF but because they th were innocent civilians (.) the October 10 attack was reported to have been commanded by Lokwiya Raska who is said to be the LRA’s deputy army 3119 commander […].

text: Rwot Oywak testified that Vincent Otti introduced his soldiers, including Dominic

text: 3120 Ongwen, Acel Calo Apar, and Raska Lukwiya. Rwot Oywak testified that Dominic

text: 3121 Ongwen was the person who took abductees from Pajule. Rwot Oywak also testified

text: that after arriving at the RV location, Dominic Ongwen went and spoke with Vincent

text: 3122 Otti. John Lubwama stated that Rwot Oywak did not mention that he saw Dominic

text: Ongwen at the RV location when he was debriefed on the attack; John Lubwama noted

text: 3123 that he could not remember the other names mentioned by Rwot Oywak. Given the

text: 3124 discussions of Rwot Oywak’s testimony in relation to Dominic Ongwen, as well as

text: the testimonies of P-0144, P-0249 and Dick Okot that they saw Dominic Ongwen at the

text: 3116 Para. 156 above. 3117 P-0009: T-81, p. 14, line 4 – p. 16, line 5; D-0076: T-219, p. 19, lines 7-9; P-0144: T-91, p. 48, line 25 – p. 49, line 4; P-0249: T-79, p. 37, line 25 – p. 40, line 6. See UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6160-61 (On 10 October 2003 at 13:00, Otti is recorded as stating to Kony that ‘he is going to release the civilians who were abducted to carry food stuffs charged if he finishes talking to them as Kony agreed […]’). 3118 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0335. P-0126 authenticated the report. See P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01, at para. 68. P-0126 stated that he signed the report and the information contained within it was derived from human intelligence sources. See P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264- 0002-R01, at para. 68. The Chamber is satisfied that the report reflects information known by the Ugandan police in relation to the 10 October 2003 Pajule IDP camp attack. 3119 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0335. 3120 P-0009: T-81, p. 15, lines 9-11. 3121 P-0009: T-81, p. 16, lines 1-3. 3122 P-0009: T-81, p. 14, lines 2-3. 3123 P-0047: T-115, p. 39, lines 10-12; P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at paras 128, 131. 3124 See paras 1272-1274 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 474/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3125 RV after the attack, John Lubwama’s testimony does not undermine the Chamber’s view that Rwot Oywak is credible in this aspect of his testimony. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen was present at the RV location after the attack.

text: According to Rwot Oywak, Vincent Otti addressed the gathered abductees and said:

text: You, the people of Pajule, you thought that we would not come to you, haven’t we come? Haven’t we come? We are going to kill all of you […]. We are fighting to 3126 overthrow the government, but at the moment you are supporting the UPDF.

text: The Chamber notes also that P-0084 corroborates Rwot Oywak’s account, stating that after the attack, Rwot Oywak told him that Vincent Otti said that Pajule was attacked because:

text: First, the people of Pajule were not supporting the rebels but were accusing and reporting them to the government troops so that the rebels wanted to show them their power that the people are not protected and the rebels can do anything. Secondly, because the people were allowing their children to be recruited as LDUs. Thirdly, that the rebels did not want the peace talks, as earlier on they had been meeting in peace talks, because the government troops were fighting them. Fourthly, they thought that the people should leave the camps and go back to their 3127 homes.

text: P-0138 testified that Vincent Otti spoke with Rwot Oywak about the strength of the LRA 3128 and that the UPDF was not able to properly protect the camps. Santo Oweka also testified about the address, and specifically that Vincent Otti stated that ‘he was happy to meet the people and he was telling the people that people should leave the camps, people should not stay in the camps. The reason why they went to Pajule was not to go and fight and attack the civilians or cause any harm to the civilians, they went there to fight with 3129 their enemies, who were the UPDF soldiers’. Santo Oweka stated that Vincent Otti

text: continued that the civilians would be caught in the crossfire if they stayed in the camps, that the LRA had been telling civilians to leave the camps but that the civilians did not 3130 heed the LRA’s words and getting hurt ‘is the result of the defiance’.

text: 3125 P-0144: T-91, p. 48, lines 1-2; P-0249: T-79, p. 37, line 25 – p. 38, line 6; P-0067: T-125, p. 33, lines 21-25. 3126 P-0009: T-81, p. 14, lines 4-6, lines 19-20; see also p. 24, lines 12-25. 3127 P-0084 Statement, UGA-OTP-0139-0149-R01, at para. 127. 3128 P-0138: T-120, p. 45, line 25 – p. 46, line 8. 3129 D-0081: T-220, p. 28, lines 17-22. 3130 D-0081: T-220, p. 28, line 23 – p. 29, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 475/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dick Okot stated that Vincent Otti said that the LRA did not want people to stay in the

text: 3131 camp and that they should stay in their homes. He testified also that an old man asked

text: 3132 Vincent Otti why the rebels did not return home. According to Dick Okot, Vincent

text: Otti responded that the LRA was in the process of overthrowing the Ugandan government

text: 3133 and could therefore not come back home. Dick Okot testified that Vincent Otti also

text: 3134 said that if the civilians continued to stay in the camps, the LRA would kill them.

text: The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimony regarding Vincent Otti’s speech is

text: substantively similar. Each witness testifies that Vincent Otti indicated that the LRA

text: reproached the civilians for settling in IDP camps set up by the government, and that

text: 3135 there was a punitive nature to the LRA’s attack on the camp.

text: P-0249 testified that Dominic Ongwen also addressed abductees saying anyone who tried

text: to escape or dropped looted goods would be killed and that the abductees would be

text: 3136 trained to be soldiers. The Chamber finds P-0249’s account credible and notes that P-

text: 0249 testified that he moved with Dominic Ongwen’s group for several weeks. Thus

text: while it is unclear whether Dominic Ongwen spoke to the entire group of abductees taken

text: 3137 from Pajule, the Chamber is satisfied that Dominic Ongwen at least spoke to the group

text: of abductees in his custody.

text: After the fighters returned from the camp, some abductees remained in the LRA and

text: were distributed to various units, including among Dominic Ongwen’s group.

text: In the course of the retreat, some abductees managed to escape or were rescued, either

text: during the course of the retreat with the arrival of the helicopter or in the weeks and

text: 3139 months after their abduction. Older abductees were released the day after the attack,

text: 3131 P-0067: T-125, p. 34, lines 14-25. 3132 P-0067: T-125, p. 38, lines 2-7. 3133 P-0067: T-125, p. 38, lines 8-12. 3134 P-0067: T-125, p. 38, lines 11-21. 3135 See sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.6.ii.a above, the Chamber’s discussion of the LRA’s objectives and policies and of the preparation for the attack on Pajule IDP camp. 3136 P-0249: T-79, p. 39, line 23 – p. 40, line 6. 3137 See P-0144: T-91, p. 48, line 25 – p. 49, line 4 (indicating that Vincent Otti alone spoke in the large gathering of abductees). 3138 Para. 157 above. 3139 P-0101: T-13, p. 26, lines 19-22 (testifying that when after the Pajule attack, a government helicopter came and shot at people, some civilians managed to escape); P-0008 Statement, UGA-OTP-0137-0002-R01, at para. 21 (stating that abductees, who managed to escape when the helicopter came, came back to camp on their own); P- 0007 Statement, UGA-OTP-0147-0214-R01, at para. 20 (testifying that his neighbour Masimino Oyat had been

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 476/1077 4 February 2021 along with Rwot Oywak, and younger abductees were retained and continued with the

text: LRA.

text: Witnesses report that the civilians that continued with the LRA were distributed into the

text: households of LRA commanders. Abductees were also distributed to Dominic

text: Ongwen. P-0309 testified that some civilians were distributed to Dominic Ongwen’s

text: household. P-0144’s testimony is consistent with P-0309; he stated that the abductees

text: were distributed to the various units, including those of Dominic Ongwen, Bogi and

text: Raska Lukwiya. P-0144 testified that there were girls and women among the

text: abductees distributed within the LRA, including the abductees distributed to Dominic

text: Ongwen. P-0101, one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’, confirmed that she

text: saw Dominic Ongwen return from the attack in Pajule with seven civilians he had

text: abducted from Pajule, this included four young girls and three men.

text: P-0006 testified that younger girls were taken to the commanders’ ‘wives’ to act as

text: babysitters, called ting-tings and older girls were given as ‘wives’ to the commanders.

text: abducted by the LRA to carry sodas and returned the day of the attack saying that he had escaped when the government helicopter hovered over the escaping LRA and abductees). 3140 P-0372: T-148, p. 23, lines 12-14 (testifying that at the rendezvous point, mature abductees were released while the younger abductees were retained), p. 54, lines 1-6 (testifying that the young boys abducted from Pajule remained with the LRA and moved along with them while the older ones were released); P-0006 Statement, UGA- OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 36, 45-47 (stating that at the LRA’s meeting place she heard Rwot Oywak say to Vincent Otti that small children, women with children and old men and women could not work as soldiers for the LRA and he would take them back with him. Vincent Otti responded that the mothers with children and old persons would be released but the children would stay and be later released as they were needed to carry items looted from the camp. She heard Vincent Otti instruct his soldiers to count the people who would be released and the figure they came up with was about 160. The people released included mothers with children, small children, older people and Joseph Oywak. The rest of the people continued with the LRA); P-0101: T-13, p. 27, lines 3-18 (testifying the LRA released the elderly, weak, mothers, and those who could not walk, persons who were healthy and young were kept and moved on with the LRA); P-0144: T-91, p. 49, line 12 – p. 50, line 2 (testifying that Vincent Otti ordered that the older people should be released and the younger persons remain); P-0309: T-60, p. 68, lines 11-25, p. 69, lines 14-17 (testifying that some adults were released and returned to the camp with Joseph Oywak); P-0061 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0043-R01, at para. 40 (testifying that Rwot Oywak and some other people were released, including older people, very young children and some women); D-0076: T-219, p. 12, line 17 – p. 13, line 7 (testifying that the LRA and their abductees reached a gathering place where they were addressed by a man who introduced himself as Vincent Otti. Vincent Otti told Joseph Oywak that he would like him to take the elderly, weak and very young children back home. The LRA sorted the abductees; older, disabled or very young people were released with Rwot Oywak. Richard Otim and other abductees continued with the LRA). 3141 P-0309: T-60, p. 70, lines 12-14 (stating that the civilians who were not released remained behind and were distributed to the various homes of the commanders); P-0372: T-148, p. 54, lines 16-17 (testifying that some abducted boys were distributed to other brigades); P-0209: T-160, p. 34, lines 2-16 (testifying that six civilians abducted from Pajule were sent to Trinkle to be soldiers). 3142 P-0309: T-60, p. 70, lines 20-22. 3143 P-0144: T-91, p. 51, line 3 – p. 53, line 16, p. 55, line 16 – p. 56, line 3. 3144 P-0144: T-91, p. 66, line 15 – p. 67, line 7. 3145 P-0101: T-13, p. 26, lines 9-13. 3146 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at paras 38-39.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 477/1077 4 February 2021

text: Similarly, P-0372 testified that some girls abducted from Pajule were distributed to

text: 3147 become ‘wives’.

text: Witnesses reported that there were children younger than 15 years old among the

text: abductees that remained with the LRA. P-0144 testified that younger abductees, from 11

text: 3148 to about 15 to 17 years old, were taken in as newly recruited members of the LRA. P-

text: 3149 0006 testified that the youngest abductees she saw were about twelve years old.

text: Richard Otim testified that the youngest civilian abductee from Pajule that he saw kept

text: 3150 by the LRA was between 12 and 13. P-0138 testified that he saw young people

text: between the ages of 10 and 17 years old among the boys and girls abducted from Pajule

text: 3151 who stayed behind. P-0138 stated that he could identify the ages of the abducted

text: because he was able to identify when somebody was a child and some of them stayed

text: 3152 with his group and he spoke to them and asked questions to determine their ages. P-

text: 0330 offered testimony consistent with these accounts, testifying that a 12 or 13 year old

text: 3153 girl was one of the abductees not released by the LRA.

text: iv. Report of the attack to Joseph Kony

text: Vincent Otti, the overall commander for the attack, communicated the results of the

text: attack to Joseph Kony on the LRA radio communication system.

text: The Defence argues that the ‘[Government of Uganda] failed to give the Prosecution ISO

text: 3155 tape 694/G, which allegedly contains the intercept audio file from 10 October 2003’.

text: According to the Defence, this audio file would confirm that Dominic Ongwen did not

text: command the group which attacked Pajule trading centre and serves as corroborating

text: 3156 evidence of his injury and state of punishment at the time of the attack. Indeed, the

text: Chamber notes that while Tape 693 and Tape 695 are in the record, there is no Tape

text: 3157 694. However, the contents of Tape 694 can be gleaned from the relevant entries in

text: 3147 P-0372: T-148, p. 57, lines 13-16. 3148 P-0144: T-91, p. 49, line 12 – p. 50, line 2. 3149 P-0006 Statement, UGA-OTP-0144-0072-R01, at para. 47. 3150 D-0076: T-219, p. 34, lines 6-11. 3151 P-0138: T-120, p. 34, lines 8-12. 3152 P-0138: T-120, p. 47, lines 5-15. 3153 P-0330: T-52, p. 11, lines 1-3. 3154 Para. 158 above. 3155 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 315. 3156 Defence Closing Brief, para. 315. 3157 See sections IV.B.3.ii.c and IV.B.3.ii.d below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 478/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3158 3159 the ISO logbook, discussed as relevant also below. These logbooks suggests that the intercept evidence from 10 October 2003, discussed below, in which LRA commanders report on and discuss the Pajule attack, appear to have been recorded, in 3160 parts, on Tapes 693 and 694. The logbooks do not confirm the Defence’s allegations and are consistent with the Chamber’s findings, discussed in detail above, about Dominic Ongwen’s role in the LRA’s attack on Pajule IDP camp. Indeed the existence of this Tape

text: 693, and its contents, as well as of the relevant ISO logbook entries concerning also Tape 694, makes the lack of Tape 694 somewhat irrelevant.

text: A record of an intercepted radio communication – from Tape 693 – involving Vincent Otti and Joseph Kony and others speaking in the morning of 10 October 2003 of the Pajule IDP camp attack was discussed during these proceedings. In the communication, Joseph Kony castigates civilians, saying that ‘civilians are very bad people’ because they 3161 are the ones requesting for the army and they are the ones joining the ‘home guard’. Vincent Otti describes an attack, saying:

text: [t]here are people who went to homes, there are also people who went to the homes and civilians and there are also people who went everywhere else, were there over […] the way I have organised it if it is done like that, then it is good. Because I have planned that, going for the army will be hard so the bullets should start and go and loot, go to the centre, burn houses more than that of [Atiak] even all civilian 3162 homes should be burnt, anything that is found should be done over.

text: Vincent Otti and Joseph Kony then discuss the arrival and activity of an army aircraft at 3163 the scene of the attack. The Chamber notes that the transcripts of the radio communication do not expressly mention Pajule IDP camp, however given the day of the communication and the descriptions Vincent Otti provides, it is clear to the Chamber that

text: 3158 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547-51. 3159 See paras 1374-1381 below. 3160 See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547-48 which refers to the communication at 8:00-8:35 to have been recorded on side B of Tape 693 and side A of Tape 694. 3161 See the Chamber’s discussion of enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1102 at section IV.B.3.ii.c above; P-0003 Tape 693 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0105-R01, at 0134; P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 4, line 21; P-0138: T-120, p. 65, line 25 – p. 68, line 14. 3162 See P-0003 Tape 693 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0105-R01, at 0134; P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 12, line 21. P-0003 explained that he understood the ‘people’ referenced by Otti to refer to the LRA. P-0003: T-43, p. 8, lines 9-17. 3163 See P-0003 Tape 693 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0105-R01, at 0135-36; P-0003: T-43, p. 3, line 17 – p. 12, line 21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 479/1077 4 February 2021 the commanders spoke of the Pajule IDP camp attack. This is further proven by the records of the communications in the logbooks prepared by ISO and UPDF officers. The Chamber notes the Defence argument that there exist ‘extreme inconsistencies’ in 3164 the various logbooks. The Defence mischaracterises the contents of these logbooks. While they do not contain all of the same details or language, such differences can be expected of material made by interceptors working in different locations and taking contemporaneous records of radio communications. The Chamber is satisfied that the logbooks, discussed in detail below, contain contemporaneous written records of the radio communications, offer descriptions in line with the radio recording as described above, and connect the attack discussed therein to the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: The following entry appears in a Soroti UPDF logbook entry for 10 October 2003, at 8:00: Otii V. has info. Kony that he has deployed his […] GRPs to go and attack a certain UPDF position and the centre and the mission and Otti V. also said he has instructed Raska who is the o/rall opn. Comdr to deploy as follows:  Dominic’s/Bwona they shd attack the mission to loot drugs and other properties. Koch-C Bogi shd attac the brrks of UPDF and then Kuma-Kech shd attack the 3165 centre and burn all the civilians houses. The ISO logbook for 10 October 2003 at 8:00 to 8:35 noted the same conversation. It reports Vincent Otti telling Joseph Kony that he sent a ‘big force to attack Pajule trading centre under the com[man]d of Lukwiya Raska’, adding that they have not yet come 3166 back. The logbook records Joseph Kony as intervening by stating that ‘Otti’s main target would have been civilians b[ecau]se they are the ones making UPDF to continue 3167 following the LRA’. Vincent Otti is then recorded as explaining the setup of the attack to Joseph Kony:

text: 3164 Defence Closing Brief, para. 315. The Defence also asserts that none of the logbooks list Dominic Ongwen as going to Pajule trading center, that more than half of the logbooks do not mention Dominic Ongwen, and that D-0134 corroborates that other commanders went to the Catholic mission, the barracks and the trading centre. In this context, the Chamber notes its above detailed discussion about its findings as to Dominic Ongwen’s participation in the attack. 3165 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2117. 3166 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547. 3167 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 480/1077 4 February 2021

text: Otti told Kony that he deployed in all strategic points. That he send Onyee to go and attack the mission, Bogi to attack the barracks and Ociti Jimmy and Bwona [?] to attack the camps and he instructed them to burn all the houses there. Otti also said he deployed all types of support weapons for that attack and move so to target at mambas and gunships in case they are seen. […] Otti said he instructed soldiers 3168 to target all the big pple in Pajule including Oywak and the priests’

text: 3169 The same logbook entry records that Joseph Kony’s ‘felt so happy with Otti’s plan’.

text: Further, the same message was also logged by the UPDF in Achol Pii. The logbook for

text: 10 October 2003 at 8:00 notes that Vincent Otti has informed Joseph Kony that he has

text: made a ‘very strong deployment’ in ‘various positions’ under the commands of ‘Raska

text: Lukwiya, […], Dominic and Kapere’ to move and attack the mission, IDP camp, trading

text: 3170 centre and the UPDF barracks, and deploy ambushes ‘in all routes’. The logbook also records Vincent Otti as stating that he ‘briefed the comdrs to burn all civs’ houses in the

text: 3171 places’.

text: P-0138 identifies this radio communication as recording the exchange between Vincent

text: 3172 Otti and Joseph Kony following the Pajule attack and discussing the attack. P-0138

text: testified that and the LRA did not discuss the

text: 3173 attack on the radio before the day of the attack. P-0138 testified that the morning after

text: the attack was planned, he heard Vincent Otti tell Joseph Kony that he had prepared

text: 3174 soldiers to go for the attack.

text: Another intercepted radio recording contains an audio recording of Joseph Kony, Vincent

text: 3175 Otti and others speaking on 13 October 2003, several days after the attack on Pajule

text: IDP camp. In the intercepted communication, Vincent Otti and Joseph Kony discuss the

text: 3168 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0547-48. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0725, at 1070 (the UPDF Logbook (Gulu) records the following: ‘Otti informed Kony to have deployed many LRA rebels under the command of Brig. Lukwiya Raska to attack all positions in Pajule. He claimed that he heard some bombardment at 0600 hrs where by he is expecting a good result fm Lukwiya Raska.’). 3169 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0548. 3170 UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6159. In this context, the Chamber notes that the logbook also records Raska Lukwiya reporting to Otti later in the same day that he had looted a B10 weapon and had many abductees whom he had ‘abducted this morning’ and that ‘he is moving separately with Dominic, Kapere and Ongyer’. UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6159-60. 3171 UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6159. 3172 P-0138: T-120, p. 54, line 8 – p. 65, line 24. 3173 P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 48, lines 10-14, p. 49, lines 6-12. 3174 P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 48, lines 13-16. 3175 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1110. See the Chamber’s discussion on enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0247-1110, at section IV.B.3.ii.d above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 481/1077 4 February 2021

text: Pajule attack, the reaction of the government military forces and continue to discuss the 3176 presence and activity of an army aircraft during the attack. Joseph Kony laughs in 3177 response to Vincent Otti’s reference of killings. Logbooks, prepared by UPDF and ISO officers, contain contemporaneous written record of the radio communication.

text: The following entry of this conversation appears in a ISO logbook entry for 13 October 2003, at 11:00:

text: Kony asked Otti whether Oywak was among those pple they abducted. Otti said Oywak was among them. He said he talked to about 200-300 people who were abducted from Pajule and even show them the weapons they captured from UPDF. That when the gunships came they shot at it using PKM and other support weapons and this forced the gunships to fly very high in the sky. That civilians truly witness the strength of the LRA and also the weakness of the gunships. That they told him that for them they use to believe that the gunships was so terrible of LRA but now 3178 they have seen with their eyes that gunships are first nothing to LRA.

text: 3179 UPDF logbook entries in Gulu contain a similar description of the same conversation.

text: P-0138 testified that after the attack, he heard Vincent Otti give a report on the attack to Joseph Kony in which he discussed the Pajule attack, stating that approximately 200 to 3180 300 people had been abducted and a B-10 gun captured.

text: D-0032 testified that the day after the attack he heard Vincent Otti giving a report on the military radio in which he stated that many civilians had been abducted in Pajule and 3181 some killed and houses burned and that Joseph Kony laughed in response. While the communication discussed above takes place several days after the attack, the Chamber is of the view that the witness described and corroborated the account heard in the intercepted radio communication.

text: 3176 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1110; P-0003 Tape 695 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0243- R01, at 0265, 0267; P-0003: T-43, p. 12, line 22 – p. 17, line 25; P-0138: T-120, p. 54, line 8 – p. 65, line 24; P- 0016: T-33, p. 53, line 13 – p. 55, line 10. 3177 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0247-1110; P-0003 Tape 695 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0243- R01, at 0265. 3178 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0562. 3179 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0229, at 0237. 3180 P-0138: T-120, p. 49, lines 19-24. 3181 D-0032: T-201, p. 29, line 19 – p. 30, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 482/1077 4 February 2021

text: Attack on Odek IDP camp

text: i. Odek IDP camp

text: Odek IDP camp was situated in Odek sub-county, Omoro County, Gulu district and at

text: the time of the attack between 2000 and 3000 people lived in the camp.

text: Odek is located in Odek sub-county, Omoro County, in the Gulu district of Uganda.

text: In April 2004, the Odek IDP camp was located around Odek village, having been created

text: in mid-2003 to protect civilians from frequent LRA attacks in the area. The evidence

text: indicates that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 residents in the camp at the time of

text: the April 2004 attack.

text: The Odek IDP camp received food from another IDP camp nearby at Awere, some

text: humanitarian assistance from NGOs, in addition to subsistence farming undertaken by

text: the residents. The Chamber refers to its earlier discussion of the LRA’s policy to

text: specifically target IDP camps to, amongst other things, obtain provisions. In this

text: context, the Chamber notes LDU soldier Julius Nyeko’s testimony that prior to the attack, food distribution had just taken place and he thought that ‘[the LRA] were also aware

text: 3182 Para. 159 above. 3183 Agreed Facts, A3. 3184 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 11; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 13-15, 21. 3185 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 16 (Mario Ottober, the Camp Leader at the time of the attack, did not remember the exact number of the camp residents at the time but estimated that there were about 2000 people residing in the Odek IDP camp); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 15 (Zakeo Odora, one of the camp’s leaders, testified that there were about 3000 people living in the camp at the time of the attack). See also P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0438 (P-0301’s Incident Report listed the population of the camp at 2,600 persons); Mario Ottober provided two Odek Camp notebooks which listed the populations within the camp as over 6000 persons. UGA-OTP-0267-0180-R01 at 0181; UGA-OTP- 0267-0182-R01, at 0183. Both of these notebooks are marked with the date ‘13/5/2005’. Mario Ottober indicated that these notations on the population of the camp were actually taken from January and February 2004. P-0274 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0174-R01, at paras 17, 22. Given the inconsistency between the date written on the notebooks and Mario Ottober’s statement, as well as the fact that the witnesses, including Mario Ottober in an earlier statement, testified that the population of the camp was much less at the time of the attack, the Chamber places more weight on the testimony of the witnesses heard in these proceedings. This discrepancy does not undermine the Chamber’s general view on Mario Ottober’scredibility. 3186 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 13 (the residents of Odek IDP camp were receiving food from nearby Awere IDP camp); P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 19, 22 (the camp residents received food aid distributed once or twice a month depending on the amount of food rations and they also collected food from Awere camp); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at paras 17-18 (local people dug for food and NGOs distributed food to the camp). 3187 See section IV.C.4 above, the Chamber’s discussion of the LRA’s policy.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 483/1077 4 February 2021 that food was being distributed monthly, and they also wanted to come and collect these

text: 3188 food items from the civilians. So that’s what [the LRA] did’.

text: There was a government military barracks comprised of grass thatched huts and located

text: in the north-western area of the camp along the Gulu-Moroto road, just a few hundred

text: 3189 meters from the civilian IDP camp. The Chamber noted the location of the barracks

text: at the time of the Odek IDP camp attack during their site visit to the location of the former

text: 3190 Odek IDP camp.

text: ii. Joseph Kony’s order to attack Odek IDP camp

text: Shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp, Joseph Kony ordered that the people of Odek be attacked, to punish their perceived failure to support the LRA. Dominic Ongwen

text: knew of Joseph Kony’s order before the attack.

text: The Chamber heard consistent evidence from former LRA members to the effect that

text: shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp Joseph Kony ordered that Odek IDP camp

text: be attacked. P-0410 testified that he was present at a gathering in Sudan sometime after

text: the death of Tabuley, where Joseph Kony addressed LRA members, telling them that ‘[p]eople should come back to Uganda knowing that we were coming for work’, and that

text: ‘the first place that should be attacked and used as an example, so that the people of

text: Uganda can be aware that they [i.e., the LRA] have started working, was attacking

text: 3192 Odek’. Joseph Kony stated that Odek was ‘their home’ and for that reason should be

text: 3193 used as an example, because the people there did not like the rebels. Still according

text: 3188 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 1-8. See P-0252: T-87, p. 34, lines 9-15 (food had been distributed to the camp three days before the attack, so when the LRA arrived the food was still there). 3189 See P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 15 (government soldiers were stationed at a barracks situated in the north-west part of the camp. The barracks was composed of grass thatched huts); P-0218 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0238-0731-R01; P-0274 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0244- 3388-R01; P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0264: T-64, p. 56, lines 15-18 (the army quarters were to the west of the camp); P-0406: T-155, p. 47, line 25 – p. 48, line 3 (the barracks was close to the civilian camp); D-0066: T-214, p. 15, lines 12-18 (the IDP camp was about 200 metres away from the government barracks). 3190 See Annex to the Registration into the Record of the Case of the Site Visit Report pursuant to Trial Chamber Decision ICC-02/04-01/15-1211 of 27 March 2018, 27 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1292-Anx, paras 16-17. 3191 Para. 160 above. 3192 P-0410: T-151, p. 27, line 18 – p. 28, line 21. 3193 P-0410: T-151, p. 28, lines 22-23, p. 29, lines 15-18. P-0410 stated that ‘their home’ was a reference to the fact that Odek is Joseph Kony’s birthplace.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 484/1077 4 February 2021 to P-0410, Joseph Kony ‘gave the commanders an order to start operation’, and as soon 3194 as they came back to Uganda, they went and attacked Odek.

text: Similarly, D-0032 testified that he heard Joseph Kony talking on radio, telling commanders: ‘My people are also stubborn’, referring to the people of Odek, and saying 3195 that they needed to be punished someday. According to D-0032, this message was 3196 transmitted on radio a short time before the attack on Odek. As D-0032’s testimony is based on his personal recollection of a specific radio communication, the Chamber accepts his evidence as truthful, even though the communication does not appear to have been recorded by the agencies that were intercepting radio communications at the time.

text: P-0410 did not state that Dominic Ongwen was present for the gathering with Joseph Kony in Sudan. Similarly, D-0032’s testimony does not provide a basis to conclude that the message was received by Dominic Ongwen at the time.

text: However, P-0142’s testimony indicates that by the time that concrete plans for the attack were being made, Joseph Kony’s order had indeed already reached the ground. In particular, according to P-0142’s testimony, Okwer told him, before the attack, that 3197 Joseph Kony had issued an order that Odek should be attacked. As discussed below, Okwer is one of the commanders consistently referred to by witnesses as having been involved in the Odek attack, including in its planning together with Dominic Ongwen. In light of Dominic Ongwen’s role in the preparation of the attack on Odek IDP camp, as discussed below, the Chamber finds that the necessary inference is that Dominic Ongwen also knew of Joseph Kony’s order.

text: In this context, the Chamber notes the argument by the Defence that Dominic Ongwen did not receive an order to send soldiers to attack Odek, but that such an order from 3198 Joseph Kony was addressed directly to Ben Acellam. However, this submission is based on evidence merely stating that, on 30 April 2004, Ben Acellam was communicating on radio before Dominic Ongwen. From this, the Defence concludes that

text: 3194 P-0410: T-151, p. 28, line 24 – p. 29, line 1. 3195 D-0032: T-200, p. 23, lines 13-23. It is noted that D-0032 specified that he heard Joseph Kony talk to the commanders in general and that he did not hear Joseph Kony issue instructions to a specific person. 3196 D-0032: T-200, p. 25, lines 2-6. 3197 P-0142: T-71, p. 4, line 3 – p. 5, line 11. 3198 Defence Closing Brief, para. 376.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 485/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3199 Ben Acellam ‘was given the order to attack Odek, not Ongwen’. The Chamber finds

text: that this argument is purely speculative, not confirmed by any other evidence, and therefore unfounded.

text: In any case, the Chamber also emphasises that the significance of any order by Joseph Kony specifically for the attack on the Odek IDP camp is limited. As discussed above, there is evidence that in early 2004, in the period before the Odek attack, Joseph Kony, on several occasions, called upon the LRA commanders to engage in attacks against 3200 civilians in Northern Uganda, including specifically against IDP camps. At times, 3201 Joseph Kony ordered that a specific location be targeted. But the majority of his 3202 orders to commanders during this period were more general. By the terms of those orders, it fell upon the commanders to determine the specific times and locations of 3203 attacks. For this reason, and considering the relevant charges as brought by the Prosecution in this regard, it is not decisive for the determination of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: criminal responsibility to establish conclusively that the attack on Odek took place pursuant to a specific order by Joseph Kony.

text: iii. Dominic Ongwen’s order to attack Odek IDP camp

text: Dominic Ongwen decided that LRA soldiers under his command would attack Odek IDP camp. He coordinated with subordinate commanders and appointed them to lead the attack on the ground. Dominic Ongwen ordered the fighters to attack the camp in two groups, one focused on the military barracks in the camp and the other focused on the civilian areas. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and also instructed them to loot food and abduct civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers for the attack, and participated in a ritual and prayer before they set out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including civilians, to loot and to

text: abduct civilians.

text: Several insider witnesses were present when the plan to attack Odek was announced, at a gathering, to LRA members. Their testimonies elucidate the orders given to the attackers by Dominic Ongwen and the other commanders. The testimonies also indicate

text: 3199 See P-0125: T-136, p. 26, line 19 – p. 30, line 10. 3200 See section IV.C.4 above. 3201 See paras 1118, 1119, 1136 above. 3202 See section IV.C.4 above. 3203 See also para. 872 above. 3204 Para. 161 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 486/1077 4 February 2021 that Dominic Ongwen was the person who decided that the attack would take place and

text: set in motion the preparations.

text: In particular, P-0410 stated that there was a gathering (‘RV’) where the groups from

text: 3205 different places met and ‘the commanders’ gave the order to go to Odek. The

text: Chamber refers to its analysis of P-0410’s credibility, and in particular to its conclusion

text: that P-0410’s testimony that Vincent Otti and Buk Abudema were present for the Odek

text: attack is not reliable, but that the issue does not have a general impact on the reliability

text: 3206 of the evidence of P-0410.

text: In any case, in relation to Dominic Ongwen, the evidence of P-0410 is detailed and

text: specific. P-0410 stated that he got to know Dominic Ongwen at the assembly, when he

text: 3207 introduced himself. P-0410 testified that he heard Dominic Ongwen say that there would be an operation in Odek, and that the intention was ‘to exterminate everything,

text: 3208 everything in Odek’. P-0410 stated that other commanders also spoke, saying that

text: ‘nothing should be left alive’, that ‘[e]verything should be exterminated, even ants, even

text: flies’, and that ‘[a]nything alive, anything you see in front of you that is alive should be

text: 3209 shot and killed’. P-0410 also testified that Dominic Ongwen explained where people

text: were going to go, how the attack was going to be done, and ordered to bring food from

text: 3210 the camp.

text: This corresponds to the testimony of P-0205, who stated that after crossing the Aswa

text: 3211 River, Dominic Ongwen planned the attack on Odek. P-0205 stated that he was

text: present when Dominic Ongwen addressed the soldiers who were to go to Odek, and that

text: 3205 P-0410: T-151, p. 30, lines 10-22; T-152, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 16, p. 35, lines 2-10. P-0410 also stated specifically that the LRA soldiers did not cross the Aswa River on the day of the attack; P-0410: T-152, p. 35, lines 11-15. P-0410 also testified that he had difficulty pinpointing the direction of Odek from the gathering place: ‘It’s difficult to point because at that time we were in the bush and it would be very difficult to even point the direction of your home. You will keep meandering while walking and you will not know which direction it was. It was difficult for me to point out which direction Odek was when we were at the riverbanks because the rebels do not move in a straight kind of movement. They can walk for about one or two hours, and you will not know the direction of your home. They don’t move in a straight movement. So at that time it was difficult for me to point out the direction of Odek. Whenever you’re moving, you keep on meandering. Sometimes you move ahead and then move backwards, and all that will confuse. You will not know how you have arrived in a certain place. So it’s difficult for me to point out.’ P-0410: T-152, p. 33, lines 4-16. 3206 See section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxiii above. 3207 P-0410: T-151, p. 33, line 22 – p. 34, line 8. 3208 P-0410: T-151, p. 34, lines 12-17. 3209 P-0410: T-151, p. 34, lines 17-21. 3210 P-0410: T-151, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 18. 3211 P-0205: T-47, p. 41, line 25 – p. 42, line 4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 487/1077 4 February 2021 he heard Dominic Ongwen issue the order to ‘go and destroy Odek completely’ and to

text: 3212 ‘only leave bare ground’. P-0205 also testified that Dominic Ongwen asked to abduct

text: ‘good girls’ and boys, and said that those who were not fit to be in the army should be

text: 3213 killed instead. P-0205 stated that he remained behind and did not go to Odek for the

text: 3214 attack,

text: 3215 . The Chamber does not deem it necessary for the present

text: purposes to resolve this discrepancy in the evidence. Due to P-0205’s in Court testimony,

text: the manner of recounting the events, as well as the corroboration by other witnesses, the

text: Chamber finds that it is without bearing on the reliability of P-0205’s evidence as to the

text: preparations for the attack.

text: Further corroboration of the fact that Dominic Ongwen ordered the attack on Odek IDP

text: camp is provided by P-0054, who stated that ‘when people were at a place called

text: 3216 Orapwoyo, Ongwen instructed people to go and collect food from Odek’. P-0054

text: specified that ‘[a]t that time there was a big problem of hunger so he invited Kalalang

text: and other commanding officers and instructed them that since we do not have food people

text: 3217 should go to Odek’. While P-0054 initially stated that he did not remember any further

text: order by Dominic Ongwen, he did confirm as truthful his prior testimony to the effect

text: 3218 that Dominic Ongwen also ordered to ‘attack the civilians’. P-0054 stated that he was

text: 3219 present when Dominic Ongwen gave this instruction.

text: Still further, P-0264 testified that there was an ‘RV’ before the Odek attack, attended by

text: 3220 soldiers from all three battalions of Sinia, as well as from Sinia headquarters. P-0264

text: 3221 stated that the RV took place the day before the attack. He stated that the LRA came

text: 3212 P-0205: T-47, p. 43, lines 12-21. P-0205 stated that the gathering took place after crossing the river in the Lalage area, P-0205: T-50-CONF, p. 41, line 15 – p. 42, line 3. See also UGA-OTP-0233-1386, a sketch produced by P-0205 during his interview with the Prosecution. 3213 P-0205: T-47, p. 44, lines 3-9. See also T-50, p. 45, lines 3 – p. 46, line 1. The Chamber accepts P-0205’s statement that his prior statement to the Prosecution was incomplete in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s order in respect of civilians because he had forgotten at the time. 3214 P-0205: T-47, p. 44, lines 10-13. 3215 3216 P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 8-11; T-94, p. 19, lines 17-23. 3217 P-0054: T-93, p. 16, lines 6-12. 3218 P-0054: T-93, p. 18, line 23 – p. 19, line 8. 3219 P-0054: T-93, p. 16, lines 19-23. 3220 P-0264: T-64, p. 38, lines 11-21. 3221 P-0264: T-64, p. 41, lines 6-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 488/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3222 from the east, but was not able to name the location where the RV took place. P-0264

text: 3223 saw Dominic Ongwen at the RV and stated that Ben Acellam, his immediate

text: commander, returned from the planning meeting of the commanders and informed his

text: 3224 escorts and security, including P-0264, of the plan. P-0264 stated that they were told

text: that there was going to be an operation involving looting food, warned that there would

text: be government soldiers present, and told that if they found a weapon they should recover

text: 3225 it. Asked whether anything was said about civilians, P-0264 stated that all the

text: commanders, ‘even Dominic Ongwen’, said that people who can be recruited into the

text: LRA should be abducted, and also that civilians should be abducted to carry the looted

text: 3226 food.

text: Two other witnesses offer testimony based on personal observation that confirms P-

text: 0264’s testimony that there was a planning meeting of the commanders before the wider

text: announcement of the plan to attack Odek. First, P-0142 stated that he heard a gathering

text: of Dominic Ongwen and the commanders who were designated for the attack, during

text: 3227 which Dominic Ongwen gave the order to ‘attack the soldiers’ and ‘loot food’. The

text: Chamber notes that P-0142 explained that whereas he himself did not participate in the

text: 3228 discussion, he was at a distance where he could hear what was being discussed. P-

text: 3229 0142 stated that the briefing took place ‘around Omel Kuru, in an area called Kanu’.

text: Second, P-0330 testified that he saw the commanders ‘huddled together’ before the attack

text: 3230 3231 on Odek. Besides Dominic Ongwen, there were Okello, Kalalang and Bomek. P-

text: 0330 stated that he heard them say that they should ‘select a standby’, and that Kalalang

text: 3232 would be in charge of this. P-0330 stated that at this point they were on the Gulu side

text: 3233 of the Aswa River.

text: 3222 P-0264: T-66, p. 58, lines 2-17. See also p. 58, line 24 – p. 59, line 8. 3223 P-0264: T-64, p. 39, line 23 – p. 40, line 1. 3224 P-0264: T-64, p. 41, line 17 – p. 42, line 2. 3225 P-0264: T-64, p. 41, lines 12-15. 3226 P-0264: T-64, p. 44, lines 4-15. 3227 P-0142: T-70, p. 26, line 18 – p. 28, line 7, p. 30, line 21 – p. 31, line 2, p. 36, lines 7-9. 3228 P-0142: T-70, p. 28, lines 3-7. 3229 P-0142: T-70, p. 28, line 24 – p. 29, line 3. 3230 P-0330: T-52, p. 13, lines 19-24. 3231 P-0330: T-52, p. 13, line 25 – p. 14, line 3. 3232 P-0330: T-52, p. 14, lines 7-12. 3233 P-0330: T-52, p. 16, lines 14-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 489/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to the evidence, after the initial announcement of the attack, there was a selection of fighters who were to participate. This selection is described by P-0410, who stated that after the RV finished, people returned to their respective groups, and each 3234 individual commander selected soldiers to go for the attack. P-0410 referred to two groups of people being selected, one to go to the barracks and the other to go to the 3235 camp.

text: Similarly, P-0314 stated that soldiers were selected from various households and told that 3236 they were going to ‘collect food items’. According to the witness the selected soldiers, 3237 at that point in time, had not been told yet where exactly they would be going. As discussed above, however, other witnesses testified to the effect that there had already been an announcement that Odek would be the target prior to the selection of the soldiers. The Chamber is of the view that this discrepancy in the evidence could be explained by the fact that, for any reason, P-0314 may not have been present at the previous announcement. In any case, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that fighters were selected and told that they were to ‘collect food’.

text: P-0340 similarly testified that he heard that there was a ‘standby’, even though he did not 3238 know at the time what that meant. Late in the evening, his commander Mukwaya, 3239 among others, started selecting people. The witness asked Mukwaya where they were 3240 going, and Mukwaya replied that they were going to collect food. P-0340’s testimony, given from his personal viewpoint, fits into the narrative established by the relevant witness testimonies altogether.

text: Another credible personal account of this process was provided by P-0352. The witness, who and participated in the Odek attack, stated that before 3241 the attack, they were staying in ‘an isolated area in Gulu’. She stated that there was a 3242 gathering of soldiers at Dominic Ongwen’s. Then she heard the soldiers whistling and

text: 3234 P-0410: T-151, p. 36, lines 19-23. 3235 P-0410: T-151, p. 36, line 24 – p. 37, line 1. 3236 P-0314: T-75, p. 3, lines 1-16. 3237 P-0314: T-75, p. 3, lines 7-10. 3238 P-0340: T-102, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 1. 3239 P-0340: T-102, p. 27, lines 2-3. 3240 P-0340: T-102, p. 27, lines 6-8. 3241 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 109. 3242 P-0352 Statement. UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 109.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 490/1077 4 February 2021 came and told her to leave the things she usually carried because she was going

text: 3243 3244 on a trip. Soldiers and people from the houses of different leaders gathered.

text: There is also consistent evidence of a ritual and prayer, which followed the selection of

text: soldiers. P-0410 testified that all soldiers who were going to the barracks were smeared

text: 3245 3246 with oil, and told to go bare-chested. There was also a prayer. P-0309 stated that

text: as the soldiers were gathered, Dominic Ongwen led a short prayer and sprinkled water

text: 3247 mixed with oil on the soldiers as a ‘blessing for [them] to go to fight’. P-0309 gave

text: 3248 the location of this gathering as ‘in the bushes in Loyo Ajonga’. Asked about when it

text: took place in relation to the attack itself, P-0309 stated that they moved for about three

text: 3249 or four hours before reaching Odek. P-0314 also testified that there was a prayer and

text: 3250 that the soldiers were ‘sprinkled […] with some kind of water’. P-0264 also

text: 3251 mentioned that soldiers were anointed before setting off for Odek.

text: At this time, Dominic Ongwen addressed the soldiers and gave further instructions. P-

text: 0410 stated that Dominic Ongwen and ‘all of them’ were there, encouraging people and

text: telling them to be bold, and that if they followed instructions, nothing would happen to

text: 3252 them. Asked specifically about what Dominic Ongwen said or did on this occasion,

text: P-0410 stated that Dominic Ongwen gave instructions to go to the battlefield and not

text: backtrack, to not fire the gun before instructions are given, as well as to ‘be merciless’,

text: 3253 to ‘exterminate everything’, and to come back with foodstuffs. Similarly, P-0309

text: testified that Dominic Ongwen told the soldiers that they were going to ‘work’, which P-

text: 3254 0309 understood as fighting. P-0372 testified that before the Odek attack, Dominic

text: Ongwen spoke to the soldiers selected for the attack and said that he was going to attack

text: 3243 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 109. 3244 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 109. 3245 P-0410: T-151, p. 37, lines 2-16. 3246 P-0410: T-151, p. 37, lines 8-9. 3247 P-0309: T-60, p. 74, lines 17-23. 3248 P-0309: T-60, p. 75, lines 7-21. 3249 P-0309: T-60, p. 75, lines 22-24. 3250 P-0314: T-76, p. 57, lines 3-8. 3251 P-0264: T-64, p. 44, line 24 – p. 45, line 8. 3252 P-0410: T-151, p. 37, lines 18-23. 3253 P-0410: T-151, p. 38, line 8 – p. 39, line 3. 3254 P-0309: T-60, p. 74, line 24 – p. 75, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 491/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3255 and to loot Odek. According to P-0372, Dominic Ongwen also spoke about the 3256 division of soldiers into two groups, one to go to the camp, another to the barracks. P-0406 testified that he heard Dominic Ongwen address the soldiers before the Odek attack, and that the order Dominic Ongwen gave was that ‘people from 18 under should be abducted, food should be taken, and the camp should be burned and the barracks 3257 should be attacked’. P-0406 specified that Dominic Ongwen addressed the soldiers at 3258 approximately 10:00 or 11:00 hours on the day of the attack. As to the location, P- 0406 stated that this happened after crossing the Aswa River leaving Pader and entering 3259 into Gulu, adding that he did not know the more specific location. P-0314 similarly said that Dominic Ongwen addressed the selected people on the day of the attack before 3260 they set off, telling them to ‘abduct some children’ and ‘bring food items’.

text: As can be seen above, every witness described in their own words the location of the above events. Some witnesses understandably stated that they were not able to tell the precise location, because they were unfamiliar with the area or due to the LRA’s practice of meandering movement, while others gave more or less precise geographical references. Considering that the gathering took place in the bush, which is confirmed by all witnesses, the Chamber finds their inability to provide a precise description of the location natural and expected. Bearing this in mind, the Chamber deems the witness evidence on this point compatible, and finds, taking into account the various geographical references given by the witnesses, that the gathering took place at a location in the bush, west of the Aswa River and northwest of Odek, at a distance of several walking hours. Accordingly, the argument of the Defence to the effect that the evidence of witnesses called by the Prosecution is inconsistent as to the location of the RV prior to the Odek attack is 3261 rejected. In this regard, the Chamber recalls that it rejects as unreliable all direction- 3262 finding evidence.

text: 3255 P-0372: T-148, p. 40, line 11 – p. 42, line 6. Asked where the standby and selection for the Odek attack took place, P-0372 responded: ‘[w]e were moving here and about. I – it’s a place which is called Alim, if I have not forgotten. It was in the bush’; P-0372: T-149, p. 73, lines 8-11. 3256 P-0372: T-148, p. 42, lines 7-11. 3257 P-0406: T-154, p. 42, line 23 – p. 43, line 19. 3258 P-0406: T-154, p. 44, lines 5-9. 3259 P-0406: T-155, p. 42, lines 5-11. 3260 P-0314: T-75, p. 3, line 25 – p. 4, line 12. 3261 Defence Closing Brief, paras 353-364. 3262 See section IV.B.3.iii above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 492/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber has paid particular attention to the content of the instruction given by Dominic Ongwen to the soldiers. Again, in the view of the Chamber, the fact that the witnesses expressed in their own terms their recollection is natural and expected. They described or emphasised different specific orders. Nonetheless, and contrary to the 3263 Defence’s argument, the Chamber does not find that witnesses contradict each other on the point or that their evidence is otherwise inconsistent. The Chamber considers that the evidence before it justifies and necessitates the finding that Dominic Ongwen, as well as other commanders, ordered LRA fighters to target everyone they find at Odek, including civilians. This is plainly the content of the testimony of P-0205 and P-0410, who stated, respectively, that the order was to ‘destroy Odek’ and to ‘exterminate everything’, and who are corroborated by P-0054. Furthermore, there is consistent evidence from multiple witnesses that the orders included looting food and abducting civilians. At the same time, the Chamber makes reference to P-0340’s elaboration on what it meant, in that particular context, to ‘collect food’: They don’t tell you there is going to be a fight. But when you ask, they will tell you we are going to collect food. Now, going to collect food, you do not know if you will go and they will give you or you go line up in a queue and you collect the food. When you go there, you have to fight, you have to shoot at them, and they shoot at you because they are the people who protect that food. So when we reached there, other people went to the barracks and other people went to the camp. That is what 3264 collecting food means. The conclusion that the purpose of the Odek attack, as designed by Dominic Ongwen, was indeed to target civilians is further supported by the fact that, as stated by several witnesses, the attackers were split into two groups – one which headed to the UPDF barracks, and another which went directly into the civilian camp.

text: iv. Departure of attackers for Odek

text: Afterwards, the LRA fighters left for Odek. The LRA fighters who went to attack Odek IDP camp were subordinate to Dominic Ongwen. They included fighters belonging to Sinia brigade, as well as two fighters from the Gilva brigade. The subordinate

text: 3263 Defence Closing Brief, paras 365-370. 3264 P-0340: T-103, p. 49, lines 8-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 493/1077 4 February 2021 commanders Dominic Ongwen sent to attack Odek IDP camp included Ben Acellam,

text: Okwer and Kalalang.

text: After the events described above, the soldiers left for Odek. The consistent testimony

text: of P-0264, P-0340 and P-0410 is that the soldiers walked during the day before stopping

text: briefly in the afternoon at a location nearby Odek. P-0314 testified that they did not

text: cross the Aswa River on the way from the RV to Odek. P-0410 testified that two

text: civilians on their way to their gardens were abducted and questioned about the number

text: of soldiers at the barracks of the camp. P-0314 testified that as the attackers were

text: approaching the barracks of Odek camp, Abongomek addressed the soldiers, dividing

text: people into two groups, one to attack the barracks, and the other to attack the camp.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA soldiers who attacked Odek IDP camp on 29 April

text: 2004 were subordinate to Dominic Ongwen. Former LRA members P-0142, P-0352, P-

text: 0205, P-0372, P-0264 and P-0314, all part of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade at the

text: time of the attack on Odek IDP camp, testified that the fighters sent to the camp were

text: part of the Sinia brigade and under Dominic Ongwen’s command.

text: 3265 Para. 161 above. 3266 P-0410: T-151, p. 37, line 17; P-0309: T-60, p. 74, lines 17-23. 3267 P-0264: T-66, p. 63, lines 1-22 (stating that the attackers waited for the sun to settle down before they went for the attack); P-0340: T-102, p. 27, lines 9-12; P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 1-3. P-0352 also stated that the attackers arrived at Odek in the evening; P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 114; T-68, p. 10, line 25 – p. 11, line 5. P-0054 testified that the attackers left the point where instructions were given at about 14:00-15:00 hours and arrived at Odek at around 19:00; P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 8-12; T-94, p. 21, lines 6-8. In the assessment of the Chamber, this is not a significant discrepancy in estimating the time, in particular because the chain of events is otherwise well established. 3268 P-0314: T-76, p. 61, line 25 – p. 62, line 1. 3269 P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 4-7. P-0410’s testimony is corroborated by the testimony of P-0340; P-0340: T- 102, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 13. See also P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 18; T-90, p. 61, lines 11-21. 3270 P-0314: T-75, p. 6, lines 5-9. P-0314 explained that the same person is also referred to as Labongo, P-0314: T-75, p. 16, line 22 – p. 17, line 1. 3271 P-0142: T-70, p. 16, lines 6-8, p. 17, lines 3-10 (P-0142 had the rank of a second lieutenant in the Sinia brigade); P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 25, 55, 108 (P-0352 participated in the attack on Odek IDP camp and was part of Sinia brigade); P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 9, lines 18-22, p. 36, line 13 – p. 37, line 6; P-0372: T-148, p. 14, lines 18-21, p. 30, lines 14-19; T-149, p. 2, line 23 – p. 5, line 10 (while not technically assigned to Sinia, P-0372 was staying with Sinia and was under Dominic Ongwen’s command at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp); P-0264: T-64, p. 33, lines 1-2, p. 37, lines 1-19 (P-0264 was in the Sinia brigade under Dominic Ongwen); P-0314: T-74, p. 23, lines 15-19 (P-0314 was a fighter in Sinia under Dominic Ongwen). 3272 P-0142: T-70, p. 25, lines 5-10, p. 28, lines 16-23 (the soldiers who attacked Odek IDP camp came from the Sinia brigade, a mixture of fighters from the three Oka, Terwanga and Siba battalions); P-0142: T-71, p. 3, lines 18-23 (Dominic Ongwen was the brigade commander of Sinia at the time of the attack); P-0352 Statement, UGA- OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 63, 109 (while the LRA was staying in an isolated area in the Gulu area, P-0352 observed LRA fighters gathered at Dominic Ongwen’s residence. She then saw fighters whistling and was told by , one of Dominic Ongwen’s direct subordinates, that she was going on a trip. Fighters and people from the households of different LRA leaders in Sinia gathered together and started moving to attack Odek); P-0205:

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 494/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0142 testified that two fighters from the Gilva brigade participated in the attack.

text: Apart from these Gilva fighters, the Chamber is of the view that no credible evidence

text: indicates that other LRA groups participated in the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: The charges contain the allegation that Okwonga Alero commanded, together with

text: Dominic Ongwen and others, the Odek attack. However, in light of the Chamber’s

text: findings in relation to the credibility of P-0245, this allegation is not established by the

text: evidence.

text: T-47, p. 41, line 25 – p. 43, line 19; T-50-CONF, p. 28, lines 8-11 (some of the fighters that participated in the Odek IDP camp were from the Terwanga battalion of Sinia brigade. About six fighters and four officers were sent to join the attacking force from that battalion); P-0372: T-148, p. 42, lines 14-19 (part of the Sinia brigade went to attack Odek IDP camp); P-0264: T-64, p. 65, lines 2-4 (Dominic Ongwen was the overall commander in charge of the LRA fighters P-0264 saw come back from the Odek attack); P-0314: T-74, p. 61, lines 16-20; T-75, p. 2, line 24 – p. 3, line 24 (Dominic Ongwen sent the LRA fighters that went to attack Odek IDP camp. Otto Signaller selected P-0314 among six fighters from his household. Some other fighters were selected from Kalalang’s household. Kalalang was Dominic Ongwen’s 2IC). See also P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 35 (a former abductee told P’Oyoo Lakoch that Dominic Ongwen’s group was operating in the Odek area at the time of the attack); P-0231: T-122, p. 68, line 13 – p. 69, line 4 (along with others in a gathering P-0231 was told by Joseph Kony that in 2004 the Sinia brigade attacked Odek, shot at fighters, killed many people and actually overran the barracks. At the time P-0231 was told about this Odek attack, Dominic Ongwen was the brigade commander of Sinia brigade); P-0085: T-158, p. 42, line 8 – p. 43, line 9; T-159, p. 29, line 21 – p. 30, line 2 (soon after the attack, P-0085 heard over Mega radio that Odek had been attacked by Odomi’s group. The radio reported that Odomi’s group had attack the barracks, seized weapons and burned down the barracks and houses. A week and a few days later, he and his group met Dominic Ongwen in an area known as Te Atoo Opin and he asked Dominic Ongwen about the attack on Odek. P-0085 testified that he did not recall seeing any other commander with Dominic Ongwen. P-0085 testified that Dominic Ongwen stated that he had sent his people and they attacked the barracks, burned houses and took guns); P-0205’s annotated Acholi Sub-Region Planning Map, UGA-OTP-0233-1386. 3273 P-0142: T-72, p. 67, lines 5-7 (Ojara Abin and Abonga Won Dano, two fighters from the Gilva brigade participated in the attack on Odek IDP camp). 3274 In this regard, the Chamber notes P-0410’s testimony that ‘most groups’ participated and all the senior commanders went. See P-0410: T-151, p. 30, lines 15-21, p. 41, lines 5-11, p. 42, lines 1-11. The Chamber notes its assessment of P-0410’s testimony above. The Chamber also notes that P-0410 is the only witness to testify to the presence of these other commanders and groups. In the Chamber’s view, the witness’s testimony is not reliable in this regard. See also P-0252: T-89, p. 20, lines 13-19 (According to P-0252, who was abducted from Odek, during the retreat, there were no senior commanders from any other group apart from Dominic Ongwen’s. He testified that apart from fighters from Dominic Ongwen’s group, he saw no other group coming from Odek). The Chamber considers it reasonable that P-0252 would not have noticed the two solitary fighters from Gilva. However, the Chamber expects that the witness would have noticed had there been other large contingents of fighters. 3275 Para. 27 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p. 77). 3276 See section IV.B.2.ii.a.xi above. It is noted that in the Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief, P-0245 was the only witness cited for the proposition that Okwonga Alero participated and that the attack on Odek was a joint attack between Sinia and Trinkle brigades. See Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, paras 334, 336, 339. Similarly in the Prosecution’s Closing Brief, P-0245 is given as the sole basis for allegations of Okwonga Alero’s involvement in the Odek attack. See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 197, 287. It is also noted that P-0142 and P-0406, whose evidence indicates that they knew Okwonga Alero, were asked about his involvement in the Odek attack, and did not confirm it. See P-0142: T-72, p. 66, line 13 – p. 67, line 4; P-0406: T-155, p. 52, lines 11-19. See also P-0309: T-63, p. 16, lines 24-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 495/1077 4 February 2021

text: As to the command of the attack on the ground, consistent and mutually corroborating

text: testimony shows that the subordinate commanders Dominic Ongwen sent to attack Odek

text: 3277 3278 3279 IDP camp included Ben Acellam, Okwer and Kalalang.

text: v. Dominic Ongwen’s on-ground participation in the attack

text: Dominic Ongwen moved with the attackers in the direction of Odek IDP camp. He did

text: not enter Odek IDP camp with the fighters sent to attack.

text: It is alleged in the charges that Dominic Ongwen ‘commanded and coordinated the attack

text: 3281 on the ground’ in Odek IDP camp. The Prosecution alleges that Dominic Ongwen

text: 3282 personally led the attack on the ground, accompanied by senior Sinia brigade officers.

text: The Defence contends that the Prosecution has failed to present evidence which

text: demonstrates that Dominic Ongwen, inter alia, led LRA personnel in the attack on Odek

text: 3283 IDP camp. The Defence further suggests that Dominic Ongwen could not have

text: 3284 walked the distance to Odek because he had been injured.

text: The Chamber notes that the evidence in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s injury does not

text: indicate that he would have been physically incapable of walking to Odek IDP camp

text: 3285 attack. The Chamber heard varying testimony about Dominic Ongwen’s participation

text: in the attack, particularly from witnesses P-0054, P-0142, P-0205, P-0264, P-0309, P-

text: 0314, P-0330, P-0340, P-0352, P-0406 and P-0410. Below, the Chamber discusses each

text: witness’s account. These witnesses were fighters in Sinia brigade who participated in the

text: attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber notes its above individualised assessments of

text: these witnesses’ testimonies. At issue for the Chamber is the reliability of this aspect of

text: the witnesses’ testimony. As a general matter, the Chamber recalls that not relying on a

text: 3277 P-0142: T-70, p. 25, lines 19-22; P-0205: T-47, p. 43, line 22 – p. 44, line 2; P-0264: T-64, p. 47, lines 10-18. 3278 P-0142: T-70, p. 25, lines 19-22; P-0205: T-47, p. 43, line 22 – p. 44, line 2; P-0264: T-64, p. 72, lines 2-8; ; P-0410: T-151, p. 41, lines 5-14. The witnesses refer to ‘Okwer’, ‘Okwe’, or ‘Okwee’. Given the overwhelming similarity in the names, and that the transcripts of the proceedings show a phonetic spelling of the name, the Chamber is of the view that they spoke of the same person, Okwer. 3279 P-0205: T-47, p. 43, line 22 – p. 44, line 2; P-0372: T-148, p. 44, line 22 – p. 45, line 20; P-0264: T-64, p. 38, line 25 – p. 39, line 5. 3280 Para. 162 above. 3281 Para. 29 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p. 78. 3282 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 256, 258-265. 3283 Defence Closing Brief, paras 338, 359-363. 3284 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 91, lines 8-11. 3285 See paras 1020-1079 above, the Chamber’s discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s position within the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 496/1077 4 February 2021 witness’s testimony in this regard does not necessarily undermine other aspects of the witness’s testimony.

text: P-0054 testified that Dominic Ongwen commanded a group of LRA fighters into the 3286 centre of Odek IDP camp during the attack. P-0054 testified that a recruit, , accompanied him to Odek and went to the centre to loot food with Dominic Ongwen’s group of attackers while P-0054 himself went to attack the barracks with other 3287 fighters and did not go to the centre. The source of P-0054’s information about Dominic Ongwen’s movements is not clear. It is significant to the Chamber that the witness does not testify to seeing Dominic Ongwen within the camp himself. P-0054 also testified to seeing Dominic Ongwen in the group as they were retreating from Odek IDP 3288 camp.

text: 3289 P-0340, , testified that he was part of the group that went to attack the camp centre and Dominic Ongwen was not in the group that went to the camp centre; P-0340 did not know if Dominic Ongwen split and went to 3290 the barracks. P-0340 testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen among the fighters during the LRA’s movement to Odek, stating, ‘he was together with us while we were walking there. Sometimes would walk behind, sometimes would be ahead, sometimes would just 3291 be in the middle’. The Chamber notes that P-0340 does not testify to seeing Dominic Ongwen within Odek IDP camp during the attack.

text: P-0309 testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen in the group moving to go to Odek IDP camp and that ‘[w]hen we were entering Odek camp, I did not look to see where he was, I – I ran, when we reached closer, we ran and split into smaller groups. I was among 3292 those who ran to the centre. At that point I did not know where he was’. P-0309 stated that he did not see Dominic Ongwen in the centre of the camp and did not look to see where Dominic Ongwen was as the fighters were entering Odek; he next saw Dominic Ongwen after he and the other attacking forces had left Odek IDP camp and were

text: 3286 P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 21-22, p. 19, line 24 – p. 20, line 2, p. 53, lines 13-21. 3287 P-0054: T-93-CONF, p. 24, line 10-15, p. 26, lines 9-11; T-93, p. 19, lines 13-14, p. 53, line 24 – p. 54, line 6; T-94, p. 23, lines 1-3. 3288 P-0054: T-93, p. 16, lines 1-3; T-94, p. 24, lines 6-23. 3289 3290 P-0340: T-102, p. 34, line 21 – p. 35, line 12; T-103, p. 49, line 20 – p. 50, line 10. 3291 P-0340: T-102, p. 28, line 21 – p. 29, line 3; T-103, p. 47, line 24 – p. 48, line 1. 3292 P-0309: T-60, p. 77, line 1 – p. 78, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 497/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3293 retreating back into the bush. P-0309 also did not see Dominic Ongwen within Odek

text: 3294 IDP camp during the attack.

text: P-0410 testified that all the top commanders went to attack Odek IDP camp, including

text: Dominic Ongwen; he believed Dominic Ongwen was at the attack because all the top

text: 3295 commanders went there. However, P-0410 indicated that he did not see Vincent Otti

text: 3296 or Dominic Ongwen in the camp during the attack. P-0410 testified that he actually

text: saw Dominic Ongwen in the pre-attack ceremony and did not see him again until after

text: 3297 the returning fighters gathered after the attack. Given that P-0410 did not see Dominic

text: Ongwen in the camp, and merely speculates that he would have been there, the Chamber

text: does not put any weight on this aspect of his testimony.

text: P-0264 testified that while Dominic Ongwen moved with the group that went to attack

text: the camp but did not enter the camp, Dominic Ongwen stayed about a football pitch and

text: 3298 a half span outside of the camp while the other attackers went into the camp.

text: P-0142, a Sinia fighter who himself did not participate in the Odek attack but stayed in

text: the RV location, testified that Dominic Ongwen remained with the rest of the group while

text: 3299 the fighters left to attack Odek. According to P-0142, the LRA left behind at the preattack gathering point, including Dominic Ongwen, stayed in their position for a whole

text: 3300 day until the next day when the fighters returned from the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: P-0142 testified that he was not personally with Dominic Ongwen during this period as

text: Dominic Ongwen was a ‘big commander’ and P-0142, a low level fighter could not be

text: 3301 close to him. P-0142 testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen at the pre-attack

text: 3302 meeting; he did not report actually seeing Dominic Ongwen again until after the

text: 3293 P-0309: T-60, p. 77, line 24 – p. 78, line 2; T-63, p. 23, line 11 – p. 24, line 16. 3294 P-0309: T-60, p. 80, lines 15-19. 3295 P-0410: T-151, p. 41, lines 5-11, p. 42, lines 15-20; T-152, p. 37, line 14 – p. 38, line 3. 3296 See P-0410: T-151, p. 41, lines 5-11; T-152, p. 37, line 14 – p. 38, line 3. 3297 P-0410: T-151, p. 41, lines 5-11, p. 42, lines 1-20, p. 51, lines 18-25; T-152, p. 37, line 14 – p. 38, line 3, p. 40, lines 12-15. 3298 P-0264: T-64, p. 46, line 8 – p. 47, line 8. 3299 P-0142: T-70, p. 28, lines 16-20, p. 29, lines 2-3, lines 16-19, p. 40, lines 13-24. 3300 P-0142: T-70, p. 29, lines 16-22. 3301 P-0142: T-70, p. 29, line 23 – p. 30, line 1. 3302 See section IV.C.7.iii above, the Chamber’s discussion of the order to attack Odek IDP camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 498/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3303 attack. P-0142 testified that after the attack, the commanders returned and gave

text: 3304 Dominic Ongwen a report at the RV location.

text: According to P-0205, Dominic Ongwen did not participate in the Odek IDP camp

text: 3305 attack. P-0205 testified that he heard Dominic Ongwen give orders to the attackers

text: and then returned to his position; he did not report interacting or observing Dominic

text: 3306 Ongwen until the fighters returned from the attack.

text: P-0314 stated that Dominic Ongwen stayed behind at the meeting place and did not go

text: 3307 to Odek IDP camp personally. P-0314 testified that Dominic Ongwen remained

text: 3308 behind at the RV location when the attacking group moved on to Odek. P-0314, who

text: participated in the attack, next saw Dominic Ongwen after the attack when the returning

text: 3309 attackers met him to brief him. When asked about other commanders participating in

text: the attack, P-0314 stated that he could not see people who were in the group ahead of

text: 3310 him.

text: The Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0406 who participated in the attack and stated

text: that after Dominic Ongwen ordered his fighters to attack Odek IDP camp, P-0406 went

text: 3311 to attack the camp. While he testified that he and Dominic Ongwen ‘were in one

text: formation’ when Dominic Ongwen gave orders to attack the camp, P-0406 explained that

text: he did not see Dominic Ongwen again until the next day when the attackers returned

text: 3312 from the operation in Odek.

text: 3313 Similarly, P-0330 testified that Dominic Ongwen did not go to the Odek attack.

text: Additionally, P-0352 testified that she did not remember seeing Dominic Ongwen during

text: 3303 See P-0142: T-70, p. 29, line 23 – p. 30, line 1. 3304 P-0142: T-70, p. 30, lines 2-6, p. 39, line 4 – p. 40, line 4. 3305 P-0205: T-50, p. 28, lines 6-7. 3306 P-0205: T-47, p. 43, line 7 – p. 45, line 14. 3307 P-0314: T-75, p. 9, lines 1-7; T-76, p. 56, lines 19-22. 3308 P-0314: T-75, p. 9, lines 4-7. 3309 P-0314: T-75, p. 13, lines 13-17, p. 17, lines 2-18. 3310 P-0314: T-76, p. 56, lines 10-14. 3311 P-0406: T-154, p. 43, lines 1-8. 3312 P-0406: T-154, p. 44, line 24 – p. 45, line 5. 3313 P-0330: T-55, p. 38, lines 6-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 499/1077 4 February 2021 the attack on Odek IDP camp, stating that there were many people and she could not see 3314 the ‘soldiers who were leading the way’.

text: In this context, the Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0085, who credibly testified about an encounter with Dominic Ongwen during which Dominic Ongwen informed P-0085 that he had sent his people to attack Odek, indicating that Dominic Ongwen had 3315 not gone himself. The Chamber considers that P-0085’s testimony corroborates the accounts of witnesses who testified that Dominic Ongwen did not follow the attacking force into Odek himself.

text: Upon considering the evidence of the above witnesses, the Chamber is not satisfied that the evidence proves that Dominic Ongwen entered Odek IDP camp as part of the attacking force, commanding and/or coordinating the LRA fighters. The Chamber considers it significant that although certain witnesses testified to seeing Dominic Ongwen outside of the camp before the attack, none of them testified that they actually saw him within the camp during the attack. While the chaos of an attack on an IDP camp can justify fighters, especially low ranking fighters, not knowing the exact location of the other fighters or commanders, the Chamber is of the view that, had Dominic Ongwen actually participated in the attack, at least one of the witnesses would have seen him within the camp.

text: Noting that the witnesses who testified that Dominic Ongwen stayed behind at the RV location were not in fact staying with him and largely testified to observing him at the pre-attack meeting and after the attackers returned from the camp, the Chamber is convinced that the evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen moved with the attacking group towards the camp but did not actually enter the camp to attack.

text: 3314 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 110; P-0352: T-68, p. 11, line 20 – p. 12, line 3. 3315 P-0085: T-158, p. 42, line 17 – p. 43, line 9. See paras 1484, 1639-1640 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 500/1077 4 February 2021 vi. The LRA’s attack against the civilian population of Odek IDP camp

text: On 29 April 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen, and acting on his orders,

text: attacked Odek IDP camp.

text: In the late afternoon the day of the attack, Odek IDP camp residents gathered and a government soldier warned them to be vigilant as the LRA were believed to be operating

text: in the area.

text: As the residents and several government soldiers were dispersing from that gathering in the early evening, at least 30 LRA attackers, including children under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and, with an assortment of arms including AK guns, a mortar and an RPG, a PK and a ‘B-10’ gun, attacked Odek IDP camp from the

text: northern side of the camp.

text: Witnesses residing at Odek camp at the time of the attack provided credible, consistent

text: and overlapping testimony that in the mid to late afternoon of 29 April 2004, government

text: soldiers gathered camp residents for a meeting in the camp centre and warned them that

text: LRA forces were present in the area.

text: In light of the testimonies of Mario Ottober, the elected Camp Leader, Joseph

text: Balikudembe, a UPDF officer and Julius Nyeko, an LDU officer who served at Odek

text: IDP camp, the Chamber is of the view that there were at least 20 to at most 60 government

text: soldiers stationed at the camp at the time of the attack.

text: 3316 Para. 159 above. 3317 Para. 163 above. 3318 Para. 163 above. 3319 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 17-18; T-90, p. 61, line 11 – p. 66, line 10 (stating that around 16:30-17:30, UPDF soldiers gathered camp residents at the centre of the camp under a mango tree. A government soldier, Second Lieutenant Odong, warned camp residents of the presence of LRA fighters in the area, as they had been sighted by civilians earlier in the day); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 22 (stating that around 14:00, the UPDF called a meeting by the mango tree in the market. The UPDF commander told the civilians that rebels were present in the area and cautioned against civilians going to visit their gardens); P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 25 (testifying that around 15:00, LDU soldiers gathered the people of the camp for a meeting in the market place of the camp). See P-0218: T-90, p. 62, line 20-24; P-0269: T-86, p. 24, line 18 – p. 25, line 1 (stating that the reason a meeting was held was so that people in the camp could be aware that a visitor could be part of rebel activity. They were requested to report any visitor and advised that this person may need to be arrested so that the camp is not attacked). 3320 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 20 (stating that according to Mario Ottober, there were about 20-30 government soldiers stationed at the camp before the attack); P-0359: T-110, p. 43, lines 8-10 (testifying there were about 40 UPDF soldiers and around 20 LDUs stationed in Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack); D-0066: T-214, p. 13, lines 5-25, p. 14, lines 7-18, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 7 (stating there were 38 LDUs stationed in Odek, commanded by an UPDF soldier. A mobile force of UPDF soldiers passed through the camp a day before the attack). See P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 15 (according to P’Oyoo Lakoch, a local resident, there were about 40 soldiers protecting Odek IDP camp, about 15 UPDF soldiers and 25 from the LDU. A mobile force of UPDF soldiers arrived at Odek IDP camp a short time before the attack on 29 April 2004). The Chamber notes that all these witnesses estimated the number of soldiers they believed was stationed at the camp at the time of the attack.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 501/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also recalls the credible testimony of local teacher P’Oyoo Lakoch that

text: during the afternoon meeting, government soldiers informed residents that a number of

text: government soldiers had left the camp to attempt to ambush the LRA and only about 11

text: soldiers remained at the camp, with three of them stationed at the barracks.

text: Regarding the number of LRA fighters that attacked Odek IDP camp, the Chamber is

text: convinced by the testimony offered by several LRA fighters who actively participated in

text: the attack and were in a position to know roughly how large a force was sent to attack

text: Odek IDP camp. P-0309 testified that there were 30-40 LRA fighters gathered when

text: Dominic Ongwen told them they were going to ‘work’ in Odek. P-0330 did not recall

text: the number of soldiers selected to attack Odek but estimated that the largest number was

text: probably between 30 and 35 fighters. P-0406 testified that there were 40-50 LRA

text: fighters selected to go attack Odek IDP camp. P-0314 testified that about 60-80

text: fighters were selected to carry out the operations in Odek IDP camp. In light of these

text: witnesses’ testimony, the Chamber considers that at least 30 LRA fighters went to

text: attack Odek IDP camp.

text: Witnesses provided credible, consistent and overlapping testimony that there were

text: children younger than 15 years old among the LRA forces that attacked Odek IDP camp

text: on 29 April 2004. P-0314 testified that the youngest fighters participating in the attack

text: would have been between 13 and 14 years old. Similarly, P-0410 testified that among

text: the persons that went to attack Odek IDP camp were persons as young as 13 years old.

text: 3321 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 19; P-0218: T-90, p. 64, lines 7-15. 3322 The Chamber notes that local teacher P-0218 testified that as many as 400 troops attacked Odek IDP camp. See P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 31. As noted above, the Chamber considers that LRA fighters who participated in the attack themselves were better positioned to know approximately how many fighters were sent than residents who were attempting to survive in the midst of an attack and also did not have an overview of what was happening in other areas of the camp. The Chamber notes also that, given the time that elapsed and the context of the attack, the LRA fighters are only able to provide an approximation of the number of forces sent to attack the camp. 3323 P-0309: T-60, p. 75, lines 4-6. 3324 P-0330: T-52, p. 16, lines 4-11. 3325 P-0406: T-155, p. 42, lines 12-15. 3326 P-0314: T-75, p. 5, lines 1-3. 3327 The Chamber also notes the corroborating evidence of the Incident Report of the Odek IDP camp attack created by P-0301 in 15 May 2004. According to this report, the LRA attacked Odek IDP camp with a force of 60 armed fighters. P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0438; P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0249-0423-R01, at paras 60 and 62. 3328 P-0314: T-75, p. 5, lines 9-14, p. 10, lines 8-14. See also P-0205: T-48, p. 36, line 25 – p. 37, line 11 (indicating that one LRA fighter who participated in the Odek IDP camp attack and came back carrying luggage obtained from Odek would have been 13 at the time of the Odek IDP camp attack). 3329 P-0410: T-151, p. 39, line 15 – p. 40, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 502/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0275 testified that during the attack, he saw children beating jerry cans, some of the

text: children looked younger than him. The Chamber recalls the finding that P-0275 was

text: under 15 years old at the time of the Odek IDP camp attack. In line with P-0275’s

text: testimony, P-0054 testified that children, ranging from 10-13 years old as well as older

text: children participated in the Odek IDP camp attack. P-0269 testified that the youngest

text: persons she saw amongst the female contingent of the LRA forces in the camp could

text: have been around 13 years old. In light of the evidence, the Chamber is satisfied that

text: children under the age of 15 participated in the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Credible and consistent evidence demonstrates that the LRA forces attacked Odek IDP

text: camp with various weapons, including guns and heavy weaponry such AK guns, a mortar

text: and an RPG, a PK and a ‘B-10’ gun.

text: Witnesses in these proceedings, both LRA insiders and residents of the camp, agree that the LRA’s attack on Odek IDP camp began in the early evening of 29 April 2004,

text: generally testifying to a range of time between 17:00 and 18:00. The evidence shows

text: 3330 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 25. 3331 See the Chamber’s discussion of P-0275’s testimony in section IV.B.2.iv.c.v. 3332 P-0054: T-93, p. 29, lines 7-8. 3333 P-0269: T-85, p. 40, lines 5-7. The Chamber notes that P-0269 was abducted by LRA fighters and had the opportunity to observe the LRA forces in close proximity. 3334 P-0264: T-64, p. 67, line 15 – p. 68, line 12 (stating that heavy weapons were used by the LRA fighters in Odek IDP camp, including a PK, an RPG, a mortar and a B-10. P-0264 explained to the Chamber, ‘a PK is a gun that uses a chain. The bullets are in a chain, a long chain, some of them up to 200, others 250, others 100’, a ‘B10 is a heavy weapon and it can also be put on a stand, but you can also use it without a stand’, an RPG ‘also uses a stand, but it’s not too big. Depends on the bullets. others have longer bullets, others have short bullets’); P-0340: T-102, p. 37, lines 8-15 (the LRA used several weapons at Odek IDP camp including a small gun called a Logos, a chain gun called a PK, and a big gun called a ‘B-10’); P-0314: T-75, p. 5, lines 4-8, lines 15-16 (the fighters going to Odek IDP camp were armed with heavy weapons like a ‘B-10’ and another gun with very big bullets and bullets in a chain as well as AK-47 guns and a PK. P-0314 stated that he was also armed with a gun during the attack); P-0309: T-60, p. 77, lines 8-12, lines 15-16 (stating that the LRA went to Odek IDP camp with weapons, including ‘AK’ guns and some bombs. P-0309 was carrying an ‘AK’); P-0330: T-52, p. 15, line 22 – p. 16, line 3 (stating that he LRA took twelve smaller handguns and PKs to the Odek attack. P-0330 was also armed with a gun for the attack); P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 120-121 (testifying that the LRA attacks the camp with ‘normal small guns’ as well as ‘a big gun that needed two people to carry it. It was like a bomb’. There were also two medium sized guns, one taken to the barracks and the other to the camp. P-0352 believed that these guns were called a ‘PK’). 3335 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 16 (stating that the LRA attacked Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 22-23 (testifying that the rebels attacked Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004, beginning the attack around 17:00); P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244- 3375-R01, at para. 24 (on 29 April 2004, after the children had come back from school, the LRA attacked Odek IDP camp); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (stating that the attack began around 17:00 on 29 April 2004); P-0269: T-85, p. 34, line 19 – p. 35, line 3 (stating that the attack began around 17:00 on 29 April 2004); P-0264: T-66, p. 64, lines 7-11 (testifying that the attack on Odek took place approximately 17:00 – 18:00); P-0309: T-60, p. 78, lines 23-25 (stating that the attack on Odek IDP camp started around 17:00 or 18:00). See also P-0314: T-75, p. 10, lines 21-22 (the LRA fighters arrived at Odek around 17:30 and 18:00).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 503/1077 4 February 2021 that the attack began as civilians were returning to their various homes after the meeting

text: 3336 with the government soldiers. Other camp residents were at their homes. As camp

text: resident Helen Opoka Acan described, she was sitting in her home with her husband and

text: 3337 children, ‘[w]e were just sitting there talking and laughing, enjoying ourselves […]’.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA forces entered Odek IDP camp from the northern side

text: 3338 of the camp.

text: The LRA fighters operated in two groups, pursuant to Dominic Ongwen’s orders. One group of fighters attacked the military barracks, situated about a few hundred meters from the camp, killed some soldiers there and burned the barracks down, overwhelming the soldiers at the barracks. The other group of fighters spread into the civilian area, including the trading centre, where they dispelled several government soldiers and proceeded to attack the civilian residents, shooting, beating, abducting and forcing them

text: to carry looted goods.

text: The Chamber is convinced by the testimony of Odek IDP camp residents and LRA

text: fighters who participated in the attack that as the LRA fighters entered the camp they

text: divided into two groups: one group heading to the camp to collect food and the other

text: 3340 group going to attack the soldiers in the barracks.

text: Witnesses testified that, as they moved on the camp, LRA fighters, particularly children,

text: would beat jerry cans together to scare government soldiers away and instil fear in the

text: 3341 soldiers and civilians. In line with these testimonies, P-0252 also testified that he later

text: learned after being abducted during the attack that the purpose of beating the cans was to

text: 3336 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 1-4; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 19-21; P-0218: T- 90, p. 71, lines 11-20 (the crowd dispersed after meeting between the government soldiers and the civilians but before the soldiers could return to the barracks, the LRA attacked the camp. At the time of the attack, a few government soldiers were in the barracks and others were just leaving the gathering with camp residents). 3337 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 18. 3338 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 31; P-0218: T-90, p. 9, line 24 – p. 10, line 2. 3339 Para. 164 above. 3340 P-0340: T-102, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 23; P-0218: T-90, p. 9, line 24 – p. 10, line 4; P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 14-19; P-0406: T-154, p. 42, lines 7-10; T-155, p. 43, lines 19-25; P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315- R01, at paras 114-115; P-0309: T-60, p. 77, line 24 – p. 78, line 2; P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 11-12. See P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 18, line 13 – p. 19, line 16. Although P-0330 testified that the LRA fighters attacked Odek in one group, the Chamber understands his testimony that there was a group of fighters going to the barracks and a small contingent of LRA fighters stationed to loot in the centre of the camp to conform with the testimony of other witnesses, as described. 3341 P-0275: T-124, p. 44, lines 3-23; P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 25; P-0252: T-87, p. 32, line 20 – p. 33, line 7; P-0410: T-151, p. 43, lines 5-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 504/1077 4 February 2021 confuse the government soldiers and civilians in the camp to give the impression that the

text: LRA group attacking the camp was very large.

text: The evidence shows that, along with banging jerry cans, the LRA forces were making

text: noise and ululating, creating alarm in the camp. As they moved on the camp, a whistle

text: was blown and the LRA fighters started shooting. P-0340, one of the LRA attackers, testified credibly that ‘nobody was supposed to retreat, nobody should return. Whoever

text: had tried to retreat would be beaten seriously. And we ran and attacked the place.’

text: The Chamber observes that the LRA fighters who participated in the attack on Odek IDP

text: camp and credibly testified in these proceeding were generally consistent in their

text: description of what occurred at the camp. Their accounts were also consistent with other

text: credible testimony, particularly that of witnesses who were residents of the camp at the

text: time. The witnesses recalled that the gunfire began at the barracks and then quickly

text: spread to the civilian camp.

text: P-0054, a fighter in Sinia brigade, was part of the group of LRA fighters who went to the

text: fight at the barracks. P-0054 testified that the fighting began from the barracks, which

text: was just by the roadside. Other witnesses corroborate P-0054’s account, testifying

text: that they first heard gunfire or saw the LRA fighters coming from the direction of the

text: barracks.

text: 3342 P-0252: T-87, p. 32, line 20 – p. 33, line 7. 3343 P-0340: T-102, p. 30, lines 8-14 (LRA fighters removed their shirts and tied them around their waist, and were blowing whistles and making noise); P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 119 (the first group of LRA soldiers started moving towards the barracks while making an alarm and ululating. They were shouting ‘catch them’ and ‘kill them’). 3344 P-0314: T-75, p. 10, line 23 – p. 11, line 3 (that as they approached the location, the LRA troops lined up and prepared and when they reached very close to the camp a whistle was blown and the LRA fighters started shooting); P-0340: T-102, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 24 (the LRA fighters were blowing the whistle, making noise and started firing). 3345 P-0340: T-102, p. 27, lines 24-25. 3346 P-0054: T-93, p. 19, lines 13-14, p. 53, line 24 – p. 54, line 6. 3347 P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 15-18. 3348 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 20, 31 (the group within the camp heard gunfire coming from the direction of the barracks); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (from his position sitting outside his home, he saw the rebels enter from the side of the barracks). See P-0252: T-87, p. 10, lines 18-21; T-89, p. 7, lines 12-14 (the gunshots started from the direction of Lakim and Odek primary school). P-0252’s testimony is corroborated by P-0218’s account that the LRA fighters came in from the direction of Lakim and entered the camp from the northern side, shooting their guns. See P-0218: T-90, p. 9, line 24 – p. 10, line 1; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 20; P-0218 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP- 0238-0731-R01.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 505/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence shows that LRA fighters conducted an assault on the government

text: barracks. P-0054 testified that an LRA fighter, Abongomek, fired a heavy weapon

text: and the shot landed on one of the huts in the barracks and burned that hut. The Chamber notes the Defence’s contention that Michael Oryem, who was called

text: Abongomek while in the LRA, did not participate in the Odek IDP camp attack and was

text: instead with Dominic Ongwen in an area near Lapak at the time. The Chamber recalls its discussion of this witness’s credibility above as well as its discussion of Dominic

text: Ongwen’s role in ordering the attack. Additionally other LRA fighters offered

text: testimony which generally corroborates P-0054’s account. Several of these witnesses

text: independently place Abongomek at the scene of the attack and describe his active

text: participation in it. Considering the above, the Chamber concludes that Abongomek

text: did indeed participate in the Odek IDP camp attack and fired a heavy weapon during the

text: fight at the barracks.

text: Witnesses reported that the government soldiers at the barracks were quickly defeated

text: and fled. In this context, the Chamber notes LDU soldier Julius Nyeko’s testimony

text: 3349 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 45, lines 14-19 (at the barracks, a battle ensured); D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 9-13 (the LRA attacked the barracks); P-0410: T-151, p. 30, lines 15-25 (LRA forces attacked the barracks of Odek IDP camp. There was a heavy fight between the LRA forces and the government soldiers in the camp); P-0309: T-60, p. 78, lines 6- 20 (LRA fighters went to the barracks and started exchanging fire with government troops); P-0264: T-64, p. 44, lines 16-22 (when the LRA forces arrived in Odek IDP camp, there were government soldiers within the camp and in the barracks. The government soldiers started firing guns. There were gunshots in the barracks and in the camp centre as well). 3350 P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 19-21; T-94, p. 22, lines 9-16 (P-0054 testified that the weapon was an RPG). 3351 Defence Closing Brief, paras 348-352. See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 266-273. 3352 See Chamber’s assessment of D-0075’s testimony at section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxxi above. 3353 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 120-121 (there was a big gun, a medium size gun, as well as normal small guns used at the barracks. The big gun was like a bomb, and required two people to carry it. The gun was fired before the first group reached the camp. The bomb hit the barracks and the LRA fighters dispersed and ran to the barracks); P-0314: T-75, p. 23, lines 13-19 (during the attack on the barracks Abongomek fired some bullets, from the big gun with chains, however the gun failed later on); P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 1 (a ‘support weapon’ called a ‘12’ was used in the course of the attack, fired by a commander known as Abongomek). While they do not each name the same gun, the Chamber is satisfied that P-0054, P-0314 and P-0406 describe Abongomek firing a heavy weapon and considers that this corroborates and is consistent with P-0054’s account. See also P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 120-121 (two medium size guns were taken to the attack, one to the barracks and the other to the camp. This medium size gun had chains that hung around the body of the person carrying it. P-0352 believed that the gun was called a PK). 3354 See also P-0330: T-52, p. 14, lines 19-22 (P-0330 testified that he went to Odek under the command of Bomek, Dominic Ongwen’s 2IC); P-0264: T-64, p. 72, lines 15-20 (Abongomek participated in the Odek IDP camp attack). 3355 P-0314: T-75, p. 11, lines 8-12 (when the LRA fighters started shooting, the government soldiers in the barracks were caught off guard and they started running and retreating); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264- 0242-R01, at para. 20 (after the rebels entered from the side of the barracks, they attacked and dislodged the government soldiers); P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 18, lines 13-14 (the LRA fighters went to the barracks, shot at the government soldiers and the government soldiers fled); P-0252: T-87, p. 11, lines 13-20 (after intense fighting in

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 506/1077 4 February 2021 that because there were so few government soldiers at the barracks, ‘they could not

text: sustain.’ Julius Nyeko testified that one of the soldiers in the barracks tried to fight

text: back because he had a child with him in the barracks and the LRA came and eventually

text: killed the soldier together with his child. LRA fighter P-0340 also testified that he saw the dead body of a soldier at the edge of the barracks; the soldier’s clothes had been

text: removed. An LRA fighter was also shot at the barracks in the exchange of fire

text: between the LRA and the government soldiers present at the barracks.

text: LRA fighters reported that they surged forward and overran the barracks, taking

text: ammunition and other supplies. Witnesses reported seeing government soldiers flee

text: from the area of the barracks. Witnesses also reported that the LRA fighters burned

text: down the barracks. In addition to the barracks, the evidence shows that the LRA also

text: burned some civilian huts within the camp.

text: the camp, the LRA chased the army out of the barracks. P-0252 heard someone say that the LRA had chased the soldiers out of the camp). 3356 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 9-11. 3357 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 9-13. The Chamber discusses the death of the soldier’s child further in its discussion of the killing and attempted killings committed by LRA fighters in Odek IDP camp. 3358 P-0340: T-102, p. 30, line 15 – p. 31, line 1. P-0340 testified that he knew the soldier was not an LRA fighter because his clothes would not have been removed if he was a fighter and typically the LRA removed uniforms from the bodies of soldiers. P-0340: T-102, p. 31, lines 6-12. 3359 P-0314: T-75, p. 11, lines 13-16 (LRA fighter Owiny was shot in the neck and the LRA fighters left him in order to advance). 3360 P-0314: T-75, p. 11, lines 8-20 (P-0314 entered the barracks and took ammunition); P-0352 Statement, UGA- OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 120 (after hitting the barracks, the first group of LRA fighters dispersed and ran to the barracks); P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 45, lines 18-20 (the LRA fighters found weapons that fleeing government soldiers had left behind and took them); P-0410: T-151, p. 32, lines 3-6 (after defeating the government soldiers, the LRA forces took things from the barracks, including the soldiers’ items, guns, ammunitions, uniforms and shoes). 3361 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122 (P-0352 saw government soldiers firing their guns while running in the other direction from the barracks); P-0054: T-94, p. 23, lines 18-25 (the government soldiers fled from the barracks). 3362 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 31; P-0218: T-90, p. 81, lines 15-19 (the barracks were burned down); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (the rebels burned the huts surrounding the barracks and he saw the barracks go up in flames as well as his own civilian hut that was close by the barracks); P-0340: T-102, p. 26, line 23 – p. 28, line 3, p. 30, lines 15-22 (LRA fighters set fire to the houses at the barracks). See P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29 (during the attack, he noticed that the barracks were on fire). See also P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0438 (P- 0301’s Incident Report states that the LRA overran and burnt down the ‘LDU “Charlie” BN detach in Odek’). 3363 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (testifying that the rebels burned the huts surrounding the barracks and Zakeo Odora saw the barracks go up in flames as well as his own civilian hut that was close by the barracks); P-0406: T-154, p. 46, line 23 – p. 47, line 4; T-154-CONF, p. 47, lines 5-10 (stating that he saw houses burning in the camp. According to P-0406, LRA fighters would light a match and then set fire to houses. P-0406 set a house of fire, upon orders of his LRA commander). See also P-0352 Statement, UGA- OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 123 (stating that one house burned down with civilians inside); P-0330: T-52, p. 20, line 9 – p. 21, line 1 (P-0330 saw dead people in Odek, including people burned in their huts by LRA fighters).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 507/1077 4 February 2021

text: Contrary to the Defence’s suggestion during the examination of some witnesses, the

text: Chamber is satisfied that these huts were not set on fire by crossfire stemming from the

text: government forces. For instance, during the questioning of P-0340, Defence counsel

text: suggested that certain types of guns can ignite a fire and that this could have caused the

text: 3364 burning. However, in his responses P-0340 did not confirm that he knew whether the

text: 3365 government soldiers had such weapons and, after further questioning, explained that

text: 3366 he only saw the buildings on fire, not how they had been ignited. In any case, the

text: Chamber notes that destruction of property was not among the charges confirmed in

text: relation to the Odek IDP camp attack.

text: Witnesses, both LRA fighters and camp residents, reported that as the LRA fighters

text: attacked and overran the barracks, other LRA attackers spread into the camp, some firing

text: their weapons. P-0352, a member of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade, testified that she

text: 3367 was among the forces sent to the civilian area. She stated that by the time the group

text: going to the camp centre entered, the LRA fighters with guns had started shooting

text: 3368 towards the barracks. She and the other LRA forces going to the camp centre ran into

text: 3369 the camp, making ‘an alarm’. P-0309, also one of the Sinia fighters that attacked the

text: camp centre, testified that when LRA fighters in the centre heard gunshots start coming

text: from the barracks, they also started shooting at the government soldiers they found mixed

text: 3370 3371 with civilians in the centre. P-0309 testified that he too shot his gun.

text: 3372 P-0252, who was abducted during this attack, stated that LRA soldiers filled the camp.

text: P-0252 testified that after the rebels overran the barracks there was gunfire everywhere;

text: even while trying to apprehend the witness, P-0252’s LRA abductor kept firing his

text: 3373 gun. Similarly, P’Oyoo Lakoch, a local teacher at the time of the attack, saw the LRA

text: rebels from about 100 metres, moving through the camp, carrying guns, and shooting as

text: 3364 P-0340: T-103, p. 52, lines 4-5 and 12-16. 3365 P-0340: T-103, p. 52, lines 17-20. 3366 P-0340: T-103, p. 52, line 21 – p. 53, line 11. 3367 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 119-120. 3368 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 120. See P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 22 (stating that when the LRA attacked the camp centre, Zakeo Odora ran away towards the Odek River along with his wives and children). 3369 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 120. 3370 P-0309: T-60, p. 81, lines 3-21. 3371 P-0309: T-60, p. 81, lines 22-23. 3372 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, line 5. 3373 P-0252: T-89, p. 8, line 12 – p. 9, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 508/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3374 they went along; they advanced through the camp, shouting and firing at civilians, 3375 running around while firing their guns.

text: P-0264 offers testimony consistent with the other witnesses, stating that LRA forces were 3376 shooting towards the barracks and also shooting towards the camp. P-0264 described

text: the scene at the camp from the point of view of one of the LRA fighters entering the

text: camp centre:

text: Q. What happened […]?

text: A. […] there were soldiers among those people, so in order to enter and start abducting civilians in the presence of soldiers would be impossible. So we--we started shooting. I also personally shot my gun at the soldiers that were with the civilians.

text: Q. Did you shoot your gun at any civilians?

text: A. Not--no, not at Odek. At Odek I only shot at soldiers. I also shot in the houses, but that’s--well, that’s equal to shooting civilians because you’re firing in a civilian 3377 camp.

text: The Chamber finds the above witnesses’ accounts credible, consistent and mutually

text: corroborative.

text: LRA fighter P-0352 and camp resident P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that some civilians 3378 started running away as LRA fighters moved into the camp. P’Oyoo Lakoch reported

text: that many residents ran to their huts having previously been advised by the government 3379 soldiers to do so in the case of an attack. P’Oyoo Lakoch reported that because of the

text: continued gunfire, the civilians began to panic; some ran away, some ran into houses and 3380 the rebels advanced through the camp, shouting and firing at civilians.

text: 3374 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 21. 3375 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 20; P-0218: T-90, p. 72, lines 2-8. 3376 See P-0264: T-64, p. 57, lines 8-13. 3377 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 12-21. The Chamber notes that the witness later recalled that he personally shot and killed a civilian at the camp centre while shooting at the soldiers. P-0264: T-64, p. 55, line 10 – p. 56, line 8. 3378 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 20. 3379 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 21; P-0218: T-90, p. 63, line 25 – p. 64, line 6, p. 70, lines 14-20. 3380 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 20-21; P-0218: T-90, p. 70, lines 11-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 509/1077 4 February 2021

text: Camp resident Hellen Adong corroborates these accounts, reporting that after hearing

text: gunshots, people started running and she and her children ran into their house. Hellen

text: Adong stated that at some point a bullet entered the house but missed her and her children

text: because they were all lying down on the ground.

text: The evidence indicates that there was some exchange of gunfire between the LRA

text: fighters and government soldiers at the barracks and at the camp centre. The Chamber

text: notes the above discussion of the fighting at the barracks. Within the camp centre, the

text: government soldiers also shot back at the LRA fighters shooting at them. As P-0340 stated ‘[w]hen they say fighting, that means the government soldiers shot back. They are

text: the ones who are being attacked and they should be the ones to defend. There was a

text: battle’.

text: However, witnesses credibly testified that the government soldiers within the camp, like

text: the government soldiers in the barracks, were quickly overwhelmed and fled.

text: The LRA forces within the camp proceeded to also loot goods and abduct civilians.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls P-0352’s testimony that before entering the camp,

text: she and the LRA forces being sent to the camp were told that they were to go into the

text: camp, enter houses and take food and clothes, if they came across a young person and

text: 3381 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 23. 3382 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 23. 3383 See the Chamber’s discussion of the fighting and deaths at the barracks in para. 1443 above. 3384 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 9-12, p. 81, lines 12-16; T-61, p. 4, lines 20-24 (P-0309’s group of LRA fighters found soldiers amongst the civilians and so they started shooting at the soldiers. The soldiers also shot back and then fled). See P-0264: T-64, p. 58, lines 19-25 (P-0264 indicated that an LRA soldier was killed in the camp). 3385 P-0340: T-103, p. 51, lines 13-17. 3386 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 29; T-90, p. 71, line 16 – p. 72, line 1 (testifying that there was not much fighting between the government soldiers and the LRA during the attack because the small numbers of government soldiers were overwhelmed and ran away. The government soldiers who were not in the barracks ran through the camp and headed towards Lango which was southwards of the camp. Some government soldiers ran together with some of the civilians fleeing the camp); P-0269: T-86, p. 25, lines 10-14 (there was an exchange of fire between LRA soldiers and the government soldiers. The government soldiers were defeated and went across the stream); P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 4-6, p. 57, line 4-18 (LRA forces continued going forward and fighting and defeated the government soldiers. P-0264 personally saw soldiers fleeing and entering into civilian houses). See also P-0142: T-70, p. 29, lines 10-15 (when the LRA fighters returned from Odek, they told the LRA who had stayed behind, including P-0142, that ‘[w]e attacked Odek, the government soldiers were chased away’). The Chamber finds P-0142’s testimony convincing because he heard it immediately after the LRA fighters returned to the rendezvous point from attacking Odek IDP camp. See D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 14-17 (testifying that there was a soldier running from the centre, he had his uniform on but had left his gun at the barracks, he started going towards the barracks and as he was approaching the barracks, he was shot and killed). 3387 The Chamber discusses the crimes committed by LRA fighters within Odek IDP camp in the sections below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 510/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3388 could scare the person without a gun, then they should abduct that person and if someone refused to come out of the house then they were to burn the house with the 3389 person inside. P-0352, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia attackers, testified that she 3390 saw LRA fighters beating civilians with the butts of their guns in the camp.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0054 testified about the actions of government soldiers in the 3391 centre of Odek IDP camp during the attack. However, given that he did not go to the centre himself and that he was participating in the attack on the barracks and was not in a position to have accurate information about what was occurring in the centre, the Chamber puts little weight on his testimony about the fighting in the centre of the camp.

text: Additionally, the Chamber notes that Julius Nyeko testified about the shooting between 3392 the additional government forces and the LRA. The Chamber recalls its assessment 3393 above of the credibility of the evidence provided by Julius Nyeko. The Chamber also recalls Julius Nyeko’s testimony that he fled from the attack and hid half a mile away. From the witness’s testimony, the Chamber is unable to ascertain exactly when during the attack he fled and hid away. However, on the face of the evidence given, the Chamber is of the view that he was not in the position to witness much of the actual attack during the events. The Chamber does not place credence on his account of the movement and actions of the mobile forces.

text: At this juncture, the Chamber provides a more specific assessment of the available evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence and looting perpetrated by LRA fighters against civilians in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp, as well as its immediate aftermath. As also emerges from the evidence analysed below, the victims targeted by the LRA attackers were civilian residents of the camp.

text: While in the camp, LRA attackers broke into homes and shops and looted food and other items from the camp, both from shops in the trading centre and from civilian homes,

text: 3388 P-0352 was among the unarmed LRA attackers who participated in the attack on the camp. See P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122. 3389 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 116. 3390 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 123. 3391 P-0054: T-93, p. 15, lines 21-23 (discussing the presence of government soldiers and mambas on the other side of the school). 3392 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, line 21 – p. 23, line 19, p. 24, lines 11-19 (testifying that the mobile forces on the other side of the river started firing on the camp and the mobile forces returning to the camp to come and save the camp were firing towards the camp as well). 3393 See the Chamber’s discussion of D-0066’s testimony in section IV.B.2.v.b.ii.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 511/1077 4 February 2021 including items such as beans, cooking oil, maize, flour, soda and other beverages, biscuits, sugar, salt, posho, soap, clothes, saucepans, bedding, shoes. The food aid which had been recently distributed to the camp was looted by the attackers. The LRA distributed the items looted from Odek IDP camp to the households of different commanders, including

text: Dominic Ongwen.

text: Chamber that LRA fighters looted Odek IDP camp during the course of the attack.

text: LRA fighters testified that they looted the camp, taking items such as soap, clothes, shoes,

text: money as well as food stuff including salt, beans, cooking oil, maize, flour, soda and

text: biscuits. In this context, the Chamber recalls P-0264’s testimony that after they

text: defeated the government soldiers, LRA attackers started taking things from the camp.

text: P-0264 testified that he was among the LRA forces that looted goods from Odek and

text: took them back into the bush. Similarly, P-0340 testified that there were many LRA

text: fighters who carried food from Odek, and that abductees were also made to carry

text: foodstuffs. According to P-0340, after the LRA re-converged while retreating from

text: Odek, he saw that some other LRA fighters came back with items.

text: In line with the testimony of the LRA fighters, camp residents provided credible, detailed,

text: specific and mutually corroborative evidence that the LRA looted goods, including food,

text: from the camp. Hellen Adong testified that after being abducted, as she was moving with

text: the LRA out of the camp, rebels entered the house of Thomas Anyayo Opio (Opiyo),

text: 3394 Para. 165 above. 3395 P-0372: T-148, p. 42, lines 7-11, line 20 – p. 43, line 3 (P-0372 was among the group that was going to collect food items in the camp centre. He saw LRA fighters enter the camp to loot goods); P-0340: T-102, p. 34, line 21 – p. 35, line 7 (P-0340 testified that he personally went into a civilian’s house in the middle of Odek IDP camp and found beans and flour, took it and started running with others to return from the camp); P-0410: T-151, p. 32, lines 7-8, p. 46, lines 15-18 (P-0410 observed that LRA fighters looted civilian property, including food stuff from the camp); P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122 (after entering the camp, LRA fighters without guns entered the houses and looted); P-0309: T-60, p. 82, line 14 – p. 83, line 1 (P-0309 saw LRA fighters loot items from civilians homes, including clothes, shoes, cooking oil and salt); P-0264: T-64, p. 61, lines 12-21 (the LRA looted items from the camp, including soap, salt, clothes and food); P-0142: T-70, p. 33, lines 17-19; T-71, p. 5, lines 16-19 (one of P-0142’s subordinates who had participated in the attack stated that the LRA took food from Odek. The majority of items looted from the camp were household items such as beans, groundnuts and biscuits); P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 22, lines 1-4, p. 23, line 3 – p. 24, line 10 (the LRA took items from shops, including flour and money. P-0330 handed over the money he took from Odek to his immediate superior, in line with instructions received from Okello that money taken from an attack should be handed in to superiors). The Chamber notes that it found P-0330’s account here credible. 3396 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 5-6. 3397 P-0264: T-64, p. 61, lines 19-25. 3398 P-0340: T-102, p. 35, lines 8-12. 3399 P-0340: T-102, p. 36, lines 9-10, line 25 – p. 37, line 3 (foodstuff such as beans, cooking oil and flour). 3400 P-0340: T-102, p. 29, lines 13-18 (items like soda and biscuits).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 512/1077 4 February 2021 who had been killed in the course of the attack, and LRA fighters took things from his

text: 3401 house. Similarly, P-0269 testified that during the retreat she saw armed LRA fighters

text: 3402 holding items, followed by residents of the camp also carrying items. She testified

text: that an LRA fighter took flour from her house and made her carry it and follow him as

text: 3403 the LRA retreated from the camp. Camp residents reported that the LRA fighters took

text: 3404 3405 items such as flour, maize, posho, beans, cooking oil, salt and soap from the camp.

text: Camp leader Mario Ottober testified that returned abductees said that they all carried

text: 3406 something during the LRA’s retreat.

text: The evidence shows that much of the goods taken from Odek IDP camp were taken from

text: civilian homes. Hellen Adong testified that she saw armed LRA fighters looting maize,

text: 3407 beans and flour from the houses near the barracks. The bag of maize she was forced

text: 3408 to carry was taken from the home of a civilian.

text: In testimony consistent with Hellen Adong’s description of the LRA’s behaviour, Helen

text: Opoka Acan testified that LRA fighters came into her house and started looting things,

text: 3409 taking everything they could find and leaving her with nothing. From her home, the

text: 3410 LRA attackers took flour, maize, beans, oil, clothes, saucepans, even the bedding.

text: Similarly, , an LRA fighter went into

text: a hut and returned with a 20 kilogram bag of maize flour, with ‘World Food Program’

text: 3411 written on the bag; the soldier gave the bag to Hilary Kilama to carry. P-0275 testified

text: that an LRA fighter took him and other abductees to a hut belonging to Aciga Ocaya, a

text: 3401 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 33. 3402 P-0269: T-85, p. 35, line 20 – p. 36, line 2. 3403 P-0269: T-85, p. 36, line 7 – p. 37, line 5. 3404 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 44. P-0325 testifies that posho is one of the staple foods of the local people and is made from maize flour. 3405 P-0269: T-85, p. 39, lines 7-10 (civilian abductees carried flour, maize, beans, cooking oil and some other items that were looted from shops, like salt and soap); P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 34 (P’Oyoo Lakoch was told by returned abductees food items, such as posho, beans, sugar, soya flour and cooking oil, were carried out of the camp); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 44 (the rebels stole lots of food from the camp, such as cooking oil, maize, beans, and posho. Almost all of the food that had been recently distributed in the camp at the time of the attack was taken by the rebels). 3406 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 82 (the returned abductees said that they carried food items like beans, salt, and maize among other things). 3407 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 28. 3408 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 30. 3409 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 23. 3410 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 23. 3411

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 513/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3412 local carpenter. P-0275 testified that the LRA fighter entered the hut and took a sack

text: of beans tied at the top, he then took a can of cooking oil with ‘USA’ written on it, as

text: 3413 well as a bag containing clothes and gave it to the abductees to carry.

text: LRA fighters corroborate the camp residents’ account. P-0309 testified that he saw LRA

text: 3414 fighters looting items from the homes of civilians during the attack. P-0309 testified

text: that he saw items like cooking oil, clothes and shoes carried out from the homes of

text: 3415 civilians. Similarly, P-0340 testified that he looted beans and flour from a civilian’s

text: 3416 house in the middle of the camp.

text: The Chamber notes P-0314’s testimony that he was told by the LRA fighters who went

text: to the camp that there were a lot of government soldiers there so they did not loot a lot

text: 3417 of food. The Chamber notes however that P-0314 did not go into the camp centre and

text: testified that he did not know what happened in the camp or what the LRA forces did

text: 3418 there, apart from looting food. Thus, given the ample evidence that indicated that

text: LRA fighters looted widely in Odek IDP camp, the Chamber does not rely on this aspect

text: of P-0314’s testimony. Indeed, the Chamber notes that P-0314 testified that during the

text: retreat from Odek, he saw food that had been looted from Odek IDP camp, including salt,

text: 3419 beans, flour, cooking oil, and other items such as soap.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA looted widely from the

text: homes of civilians.

text: The evidence also shows that LRA fighters looted from shops in Odek IDP camp. Zakeo

text: Odora testified that the day after the attack, he went to the trading centre and all the doors

text: 3420 of the shops had been broken and the rebels had stolen items like salt and sugar. Zakeo

text: 3421 Odora testified that he could see for himself that the shops were empty inside. P-0264

text: 3412 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 28.

text: 3413 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 28. 3414 P-0309: T-60, p. 82, lines 14-19. 3415 P-0309: T-60, p. 82, line 18 – p. 83, line 1. 3416 P-0340: T-102, p. 34, line 21 – p. 35, line 7. 3417 See P-0314: T-75, p. 12, lines 1-6. 3418 P-0314: T-75, p. 12, lines 10-12; T-76, p. 25, lines 1-8. 3419 P-0314: T-75, p. 12, lines 13-15, p. 13, lines 9-12. 3420 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at paras 44-45. 3421 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 44.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 514/1077 4 February 2021

text: testified LRA fighters took soap from shops in Odek. P-0252 testified that LRA

text: fighter Onen Kamdulu took some soda, biscuits, and other edibles from a grocery stop

text: by the roadside. P-0252 testified that LRA fighters forced the door of the shop open

text: with a bayonet and looted soda, biscuits, beverages, cooking oil and soap.

text: As camp leader Mario Ottober was in a position of authority in the camp and inspected

text: the camp the day after the attack, the Chamber relies on his testimony that although the

text: LRA wanted to break into the food store in the middle of the camp, they were

text: unsuccessful because the government soldiers arrived and the LRA fled. Mario

text: Ottober testified that he knows that the LRA did not break into the food store because he

text: inspected it the next day with the store keeper after the attack.

text: Although evidence is scant as to how and from whom the item was taken, the evidence indicates that, in line with Dominic Ongwen’s reporting to Joseph Kony, a diamond was

text: taken in the course of the LRA’s attack on Odek IDP camp. P-0264 testified that a

text: diamond was recovered from the camp by an LRA fighter Okeny Ginadyak.

text: 3422 P-0264: T-66, p. 64, lines 15-19. The Chamber notes that the witness testified that there was ‘no marketplace in Odek’. The witness testified that there were shops, not a market. The Chamber is of the view that the witness observed a number of shops in the camp and was expressing his personal view of the volume of what would constitute a market. This is not inconsistent with the testimony of others that there was a trading centre in Odek and shops which were looted by the LRA. 3423 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 13-15, p. 19, lines 9-14; T-89, p. 9, lines 6-8. 3424 P-0252: T-87, p. 19, lines 17-23. 3425 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 82-83. 3426 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 83. For this reason the Chamber does not on this specific point accept the testimony of P’Oyoo Lakoch, who stated that he saw the food store being raided by LRA fighters. P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 34; P-0218: T-90, p. 10, lines 25 – p. 11, line 3, p. 12, lines 6-14, p. 70, line 21 – p. 71, line 10. Noting that P’Oyoo Lakoch’s larger testimony was consistent and corroborated by the other evidence in this case, the Chamber’s non-reliance on P’Oyoo Lakoch’s testimony in this instance does not undermine the Chamber’s view of the general credibility of his accounts of what happened in Odek IDP camp. 3427 P-0264: T-64, p. 62, lines 1-5. The Chamber notes that the name of the LRA fighter P-0264 mentions is different from that mentioned by Dominic Ongwen in the radio communication in which he reported the looting of the item. The Chamber is of the view that this discrepancy does not undermine the consistency of P-0264’s testimony with Dominic Ongwen’s report.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 515/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence shows that LRA fighters returned to the other LRA fighters with the goods

text: 3428 looted from Odek IDP camp and the items were distributed to various households,

text: 3429 including Dominic Ongwen’s.

text: In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the LRA looted houses and shops in

text: the trading centre during the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack.

text: During the attack in the camp, a female LRA attacker raped , a civilian resident of the camp, with a comb and a stick used for cooking, while the victim’s husband was forced to watch. The rape was committed with such force that

text: started to bleed.

text: One camp resident testified about being raped by a female LRA fighter.

text: testified that an armed female LRA fighter, wearing an army outfit with camouflage

text: 3431 came into her house and found her sitting down in the hut. She described that the

text: woman pulled her up and took a comb that was typically used for hair care and tried to

text: 3432 stick in inside her vagina. The witness testified that the comb was very painful and

text: 3433 would not go in so the soldier removed it. She explained that the soldier then took a

text: 3434 ‘mingling stick’, used for cooking, and put that in ’s vagina. She

text: testified that the soldier put the stick all the way in until blood started to come out of her

text: 3435 3436 body. The witness testified that the soldier used a lot of force. The witness testified

text: 3437 that the soldier did not say anything during the attack nor did she. She described that

text: after the soldier was finished, she threw on the floor and stepped on

text: 3428 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 35 (P’Oyoo Lakoch was told by two returned abductees, Helen Ottober and Nighty Olanya, that the pillaged food was brought back to a bigger group of LRA fighters at a place called Lakim, which was about four kilometres away from Odek IDP camp); P-0142: T-71, p. 5, lines 20-22 (P-0142 saw the fighters who returned with looted items); P-0340: T-102, p. 35, lines 8-12 (there were many people carrying food taken from Odek); P-0205: T-47, p. 45, lines 10-18 (P-0205 testified that he saw the LRA fighters who went to attack Odek return to the rest of the Terwanga soldiers carrying food items taken from Odek). 3429 P-0314: T-75, p. 17, line 22 – p. 18, line 3 (when the fighters returned to the gathering place, some of the food items that were brought back were divided, while others were hidden. Dominic Ongwen’s 2IC, Kalalang, was the one who divided the food); P-0330: T-52, p. 25, lines 2-7 (all the items looted from Odek were distributed to various households, including to Dominic Ongwen and his deputy). 3430 Para. 166 above. 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 516/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3438 her chest as the fighter left the hut and ran off. The witness then had to remove the 3439 3440 stick herself. The witness testified that her husband saw what happened to her. She described that ‘the stick brought sickness as I have a wound inside of me…We could 3441 never live as husband and wife again but he did not leave me’.

text: 3442 The Chamber is convinced of the veracity of ’s testimony about her rape. Her

text: narrative was detailed, comprehensive and internally consistent. The Chamber is convinced that she described an event she actually experienced and that remains a

text: traumatic occurrence in her life. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that was raped by a female LRA attacker in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Under orders to shoot civilians in the chest and head to ensure that they died, LRA fighters fired their weapons at civilians during the attack. At least 52 civilians died as a result of the injuries sustained in the camp or in the course of the retreat, while at least ten were the victims of attempted killings. Many civilians were shot as they ran away from the LRA. Among the victims were elderly civilians, children, a pregnant woman as well as women carrying babies tied to their back. The bodies of the dead were scattered everywhere across the camp. Witness P-0264, an LRA fighter, was ordered to spray bullets inside civilian houses. He also shot a civilian man dead. LRA also fighters set at

text: least one hut on fire with civilians inside.

text: The LRA killed the following persons within the camp during their attack: Adoni Okullu, Agudu’s wife and her grandson, Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok, Catherine Amono, Okeny, Aldo Okello, Ayita Labanya, Charles Obur, Doris Apiyo, Jenaro Ongwen, Jimmy Ojok, Catherine Laker, Kevin Apiyo, Kerobina Acayo, Kejikiya Okec, Veronica Auma, Mary Acayo, Monica Aciro, Wilson Okoya, Okoya, Obangomoko, Pedwang Opio, Thomas Opiyo, Thomas Ojok, Valentino Okot, Walter Ojok, Atikcon, an unnamed camp resident, Mary Agudu, Doreen Ojok, DP, Acayo, Aboni, Witness P-0269’s mother-in-law

text: and her grandson, a girl found by the river.

text: LRA fighters also attempted to kill at least ten civilians. An LRA fighter fired shots through the door of a locked hut, killing the male inhabitant and wounding the female inhabitant in the neck. The LRA attempted to kill the following persons in the course of the attack: Santa Akello, Betty Atenyo, Christopher Moro, David Bua, Witness P-0252,

text: 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 Para. 167 above. 3444 Para. 168 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 517/1077 4 February 2021

text: Kengali and his wife, a man by a borassus palm tree, Okot LC’s mother and a woman

text: shot in the mouth.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that during the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp, LRA fighters specifically targeted civilians and killed them, as ordered by Dominic Ongwen. On some occasions, killings were not fully carried out because of independent circumstances.

text: The Chamber first discusses the evidence that LRA fighters purposefully killed or attempted to kill people within Odek IDP camp during the course of their 29 April 2004 attack on the camp, specifically targeting civilians. The Chamber then discusses the evidence of specific named individuals killed by the LRA or whom the LRA attempted to kill both within the camp in the course of the attack and outside of the camp during the LRA’s retreat from Odek IDP camp.

text: In the course of the proceedings, the Defence suggested that civilians killed during the 3446 course of the attack on Odek IDP camp were shot during ‘crossfire’. The Prosecution argues that LRA fighters were seen killing civilians within and outside of the camp and contends that ‘[w]hile it is entirely possible, even likely, that some civilians may have died in circumstances such as these, the overwhelming evidence establishes that the LRA 3447 intentionally killed at least 27 civilians’.

text: Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that the evidence proves that LRA fighters killed the victims during the attack. The evidence does not suggest that the civilians killed in Odek IDP camp were killed during crossfire between government forces and the LRA fighters. The Chamber understands the killing of civilians in crossfire to mean the death of civilians in an exchange of gunfire between government soldiers and LRA fighters in which it is not possible to ascertain which party actually shot the victim.

text: 3445 Para. 169 above. 3446 See P-0269: T-86, p. 25, lines 15-16. 3447 See Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 290-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 518/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA fighters P-0372, P-0264, P-0085, P-0233, LDU officer Julius Nyeko, and camp residents P-0269 and P’Oyoo Lakoch raised the possibility of the deaths of civilians by crossfire. The Chamber addresses each witness’s testimony in turn.

text: 3448 P-0372 testified that there were civilians ‘caught in the crossfire’. When questioned about whether this meant that civilians were ‘shot by accident or just that they were shot during the gun-fight’, P-0372 testified that ‘that was by accident, they were not targeted. You know, when there is exchange of gunfire and you are trying to flee, you can be a 3449 victim of a stray’. It is clear that the witness was speaking of what could happen in a general manner and in so far as he speaks specifically, the witness indicates that he was stating that civilians were not specifically targeted and not speaking of death by crossfire as the Chamber understands it. The Chamber notes that P-0372 does not testify to actually seeing a civilian struck by crossfire. The witness also does not indicate that such a ‘stray’ bullet would have come from being fired by government soldiers.

text: P-0264 also testified of ‘crossfire’, saying ‘[s]o civilians were also caught in the cross- 3450 fire’. The Chamber notes that in the context of P-0264’s mention of crossfire, he was describing a scenario in which LRA forces were shooting at houses with closed doors on the suspicion that they housed government soldiers, and in the process shot civilians as well as government soldiers. The Chamber recalls that P-0264 also stated:

text: Well, there’s – once you direct a barrel of a gun in a certain direction, the barrel of the gun is in that direction. I – my intention was to shoot at soldiers, but sometimes 3451 civilians get caught up in the cross-fire when you’re shooting at soldiers. P-0264 offered an example which illustrated what he was describing: when the LRA arrived at the camp, a group of soldiers were drinking in the camp and there was a person in civilian clothing among them, ‘[a]nd these people go up. When they got up to flee [the LRA attackers] immediately started shooting at them and the civilian was caught in the 3452 crossfire – the civilian was shot at the time’. This is not ‘crossfire’ as the Chamber understands it; this is LRA fighters shooting at civilians.

text: 3448 P-0372: T-148, p. 46, lines 5-14. 3449 P-0372: T-148, p. 46, line 22 – p. 47, line 1. 3450 P-0264: T-64, p. 52, line 25. 3451 P-0264: T-64, p. 56, lines 3-8. 3452 P-0264: T-66, p. 66, lines 4-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 519/1077 4 February 2021

text: When P-0264 spoke about ‘crossfire’, he was generally describing scenarios in which

text: LRA fighters shooting at government soldiers also shot civilians in the midst of the

text: soldiers. The initial gunfire within Odek IDP camp centre, as described by P-0264, was

text: not a scenario where government soldiers and LRA forces were on two sides of the camp

text: and civilians were ‘accidentally’ caught in the middle. Rather, it was one in which

text: civilians and government soldiers were on one side and the LRA fighters on the other.

text: And LRA fighters started to attack and shot indiscriminately, without care as to the lives

text: of the civilians present.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls the testimony of Sinia fighter P-0309, who testified

text: that his group found soldiers amongst the civilians and so they started shooting at the

text: 3453 3454 soldiers. P-0309 testified that the soldiers also shot back and fled. In P-0309’s

text: 3455 view he did not see anyone shooting directly at civilians, rather the LRA fighters shot

text: 3456 their ‘guns, aiming at the soldiers who were mixed up with the civilians’. P-0309

text: testified that he saw five of these civilians who were mixed up with the soldiers who were

text: 3457 being shot by the LRA, ‘[fall] down, they had blood over them’. P-0309 testified that

text: he did not know whether the civilians were alive or dead, but he ‘can confirm that they

text: 3458 were wounded’. This is further evidence that the LRA fighters failed to distinguish

text: between civilians and soldiers.

text: Both LRA fighters and camp residents reported that the LRA fighters shot

text: 3459 indiscriminately at civilians. LRA fighters also shot at government soldiers and

text: 3453 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 9-11. 3454 P-0309: T-60, p. 81, lines 12-16; T-61, p. 4, lines 20-24. 3455 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 12-14. 3456 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 15-17. 3457 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 18-20; T-61, p. 5, lines 3-6. 3458 P-0309: T-60, p. 79, lines 21-23. 3459 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 31 (stating that the fighters not at the barracks spread throughout the camp, killing civilians and looting); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (Zakeo Odora saw LRA fighters shooting at civilians. The rebels shot at anyone they saw, even opening the doors of huts and shooting the people inside); P-0218: T-90, p. 72, line 9 – p. 73, line 16; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0238-0720-R01, at para. 21 (P’Oyoo Lakoch heard heavy gunshots coming towards his location in the camp and believing that the government soldiers had been defeated, he fled the camp. As he fled with other civilians, the LRA was running towards them, so the civilians scattered and ran off. P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that when the rebels started shooting at the civilians, the civilians ran in different directions). The Chamber discusses the LRA fighters shooting civilians in greater depth below in its discussion of the killing and attempted killing of civilians by LRA fighters.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 520/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3460 civilians. P-0352 testified that she could see civilians and government soldiers crying 3461 and falling down when they were shot.

text: The Chamber recalls P-0085’s testimony that he was told by Dominic Ongwen that the civilians shot in Odek IDP camp were killed in the crossfire and also that Dominic 3462 Ongwen said he did not know what the civilians were actually doing. In addition to the ample evidence to the contrary, as discussed below, neither Dominic Ongwen nor P- 0085 were present at the Odek IDP camp attack. So while their conversation is evidence that Dominic Ongwen sent his fighters to attack Odek IDP camp, it is not reliable evidence of what actually occurred in the camp. In this context, the Chamber recalls its findings that Dominic Ongwen ordered armed LRA fighters to attack Odek IDP camp and to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians.

text: Similarly, P-0233 did not participate in the attack on Odek IDP camp; however, he was 3463 told about the attack by a fighter who did. P-0233 only testified that he was told that the LRA went to attack Odek, however he then speculated that ‘[y]ou know, when there is a battle […] if animals are fighting, the grass also suffers […] when soldiers are fighting, soldiers cannot – the bullets cannot bypass the civilians, so the civilians suffer 3464 like the grass that suffers under animals fighting’. In this context, P-0233 ventured that in Odek, civilians ‘will be killed. They will be caught in the crossfire during the 3465 battle’. Noting that P-0233 was not at the attack, his comments were general in nature and not tied to anything he stated he was told about the Odek attack, the Chamber does not put weight on his testimony. Regarding LDU officer Julius Nyeko’s indication of death of civilians by ‘crossfire’, the Chamber recalls its assessment of his credibility, particularly its view that his testimony was not clear as to what he witnessed or heard about during the attack, thus making it difficult for the Chamber to trust this aspect of his testimony. This is particularly true of Julius Nyeko’s testimony about the actions of the mobile forces during the attack. Julius

text: 3460 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122 (P-0352 could see LRA fighters shooting government soldiers and civilians in the camp). 3461 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 122. 3462 P-0085: T-158, p. 43, lines 10-15. See also T-159, p. 37, lines 14-24. 3463 P-0233: T-111, p. 45, lines 11-15. 3464 P-0233: T-111, p. 45, lines 18-24. 3465 P-0233: T-111, p. 45, line 25 – p. 46, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 521/1077 4 February 2021

text: Nyeko testified as though he was present in the camp and observed the mobile forces’ 3466 behaviour in the attack. Yet he also indicated that he fled the camp during the attack and hid at a position about half a mile away from the camp and could not see what was 3467 happening in the camp. The Chamber notes that while other witnesses testified about the return of the mobile forces or reinforcement of government soldiers at the end of the attack, none testified as Julius Nyeko appears to have done that the mobile forces were 3468 engaged in the early period of the attack and were firing at the camp.

text: Although Julius Nyeko testifies that ‘many people were saying a lot of people were shot 3469 from the shots that were coming from the school,’ the witness does not offer any particular detail to support this assertion. The Chamber also notes that no other witness testified along these lines. Indeed given the many witnesses that testified about the attack on Odek IDP camp, the Chamber is of the view that had there been widespread casualties from shots coming from government soldiers at the school, there would be further indication of this in the other available evidence. The Chamber also notes that Julius Nyeko did not testify that he personally witnessed any civilians being shot by the government soldiers. Nor does he testify that anyone told him of specific persons shot by government soldiers. Indeed of the 13 specific killings that the witness mentioned being 3470 told of after the attack, he described each of the victims as killed by the LRA.

text: Regarding P-0269, the witness testified that there was an exchange of gunfire between 3471 the LRA and the government soldiers in which some government soldiers were killed. When asked whether it would be ‘right to say that some civilians died in the crossfire’, the witness replied ‘[y]es that is correct because there was exchange of fire, the rebels 3472 did not come quietly in the camp’. The Chamber notes here that the witness’s testimony suggests that she believed that the LRA were at fault for the civilians killed.

text: 3466 D-0066: T-214, p. 26, line 14-17, p. 28, lines 1-10. 3467 D-0066: T-214, p. 23, lines 4-6, p. 24, lines 11-19. 3468 See the Chamber’s discussion of the course of the attack in para. 1552 below. See P-0264’s sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0256-0178 (indicating that the school is in the vicinity of the barracks, away from the camp centre). 3469 D-0066: T-214, p. 28, lines 13-14. See P-0264’s sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0256-0178. 3470 The soldier shot at the barracks along with his son, the soldier shot returning to the barracks, the woman shot in the camp and the nine men killed by the LRA in the bush. See D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 10-20, p. 23, line 25 – p. 24, line 4 and p. 25, line 15 – p. 26, line 13. 3471 P-0269: T-86, p. 25, lines 10-14. 3472 P-0269: T-86, p. 25, lines 15-18. From the context of her testimony, the witness here was discussing the initial phase of the attack when the government soldiers were defeated and fled.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 522/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further, P-0269 hid inside during the course of the attack and generally could not see

text: 3473 what was happening in the camp. The persons whom she did witness being killed, her

text: 3474 neighbours, were shot by LRA fighters. Based on the witness’s location in the course

text: of the attack, she did not witness what happened in the camp, and the source of her

text: testimony about ‘crossfire’ is not clear. The Chamber does not place any weight on this

text: aspect of her testimony.

text: As to her testimony about an exchange of gunfire between government soldiers and the

text: 3475 LRA fighters during her abduction, the Chamber recalls that P-0269 testified that the

text: 3476 group that abducted her was the last group of LRA fighters in the camp. In the Chamber’s understanding, by the time the government soldiers arrived at the camp and

text: engaged with the LRA fighters, most civilians had already fled and much of the LRA and

text: their abductees were out of the camp. The Chamber also notes that P-0269 did not testify

text: to seeing any civilian shot by government soldiers in the course of this exchange of

text: gunfire.

text: Lastly, P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that, as he was running away from the camp, he heard

text: 3477 the government soldiers in the vicinity of Odek primary school. P’Oyoo Lakoch

text: speculated that after hearing gunshots in the camp, these government soldiers returned

text: 3478 from the earlier attempt to ambush the LRA. He testified that the soldiers started

text: shooting at his group of camp residents because they thought they were rebels but stopped

text: 3479 shooting when they realised that the group was not firing back. P’Oyoo Lakoch

text: 3480 testified that the government soldiers then started shooting towards the camp. The

text: Chamber is of the view that P’Oyoo Lakoch’s testimony does not point to civilians being

text: shot by government soldiers in the crossfire. Rather, he indicated that government

text: 3473 P-0269: T-86, p. 25, lines 19-22 (because P-0269 had hid inside, she could not tell who had killed the people whose corpses she saw lying on the group throughout the camp). 3474 See P-0269: T-85, p. 37, lines 6-18. See also the Chamber’s discussion of the killing of Christopher Moro and David Bua in para. 1535 below. 3475 P-0269: T-85, p. 36, lines 7-25 (government soldiers shot and hit the soldier that abducted her and there was an exchange of gunfire between them). 3476 P-0269: T-85, p. 35, lines 12-19, p. 36, lines 7-20, p. 48, lines 14-16; T-86, p. 77, lines 14-19 (P-0269 was abducted by the last group of LRA fighters that was fighting in the camp about an hour after the LRA arrived at the camp). 3477 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 23. 3478 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 23. 3479 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 23. 3480 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 523/1077 4 February 2021 soldiers attempting to engage LRA fighters were responsive to information in their surroundings alerting them to the presence of civilians.

text: When questioned whether it was possible that the government soldiers could have shot some of the people in the camp, P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that given the kind of death and killing at the camp, it ‘must have been the LRA because they were opening the doors, 3481 when they open the door and they find you inside they will shoot you and kill you’. P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that it was possible that people were killed during the exchange 3482 of gunfire and bullets, but ‘there is no confirmation’. P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that there was no way he could investigate whether LRA bullets or government bullets killed people, however ‘actions such as shooting or firing inside the house, opening, breaking people’s doors and finding people and killing them, that makes me to conclude that these 3483 were LRA doing it’. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified however that indeed, not all the persons killed were shot inside their houses, ‘some were shot from outside when they were trying 3484 to run and escape’. However, P’Oyoo Lakoch does not indicate that he knew of anyone killed by a government soldier.

text: In all the evidence heard by the Chamber, not one witness testified of a specific incident where a civilian was shot by government soldiers or of a civilian actually killed in alleged crossfire. However, there is ample evidence that LRA fighters shot and killed civilians. 3485 As discussed below, many witnesses personally saw LRA fighters shoot civilians. 3486 LRA fighters shot indiscriminately into civilian homes. Further, in his reporting of the attack to Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen himself stated that ‘many’ or ‘all’ civilians 3487 were killed. Given the evidence considered by the Chamber, the Chamber considers it a necessary inference that LRA forces were the ones that killed the civilians in Odek

text: 3481 P-0218: T-90, p. 79, lines 15-23. 3482 P-0218: T-90, p. 79, lines 15-25. 3483 P-0218: T-90, p. 80, lines 11-19. 3484 P-0218: T-90, p. 80, lines 20-24. 3485 See also P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at paras 21, 22 (stating that the rebels were shooting directly at civilians, something the government soldiers did not do. Zakeo Odora saw LRA rebels shoot two civilians). 3486 P-0264: T-64, p. 52, lines 23-25 (stating that the LRA forces acted on an LRA commander’s order to shoot on any house with a closed door and began to shoot, some civilians were shot and some soldiers were shot); P- 0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (Zakeo Odora saw LRA fighters opening the doors of huts and shooting people inside). 3487 See the Chamber’s discussion on reporting of the attack in section IV.C.7.vii below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 524/1077 4 February 2021

text: IDP camp. The suggestion that civilians were killed in crossfire is speculation unsupported by the evidence heard in these proceedings.

text: Rather, the Chamber heard credible evidence that civilians were killed by the LRA during the attack. The evidence shows that LRA fighters deliberately targeted civilians.

text: LRA fighters testified that the LRA killed civilians in Odek IDP camp. As P-0330, a fighter in Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade who participated in the Odek IDP camp attack, stated, describing the scene during the attack: ‘[w]henever the Holys are carrying 3488 out an operation you can be sure of deaths, especially in civilian homes’. Although P- 0054 did not witness any killings himself, the Chamber considers his testimony that he heard that people had been killed in the Odek attack from some of the fighters that went 3489 there as well as from Radio Mega after the attacks as corroborative evidence of other eye-witnesses’ accounts that the LRA killed people in the Odek attack.

text: P-0264, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighter who participated in the Odek IDP camp 3490 attack, testified that he was armed with a gun and he fired it within the camp. According to P-0264, the LRA forces that went into the civilian centre of the camp were given the order to be ‘extremely cautious’, which to them meant to start shooting at 3491 houses. P-0264 testified that the LRA fighters thus started shooting at every house, ‘any house that we came across there was a barrage of bullets into that house and I 3492 personally also did that’. P-0264 testified that after he shot one house, he could hear 3493 people crying in the house, he testified that the voice he heard was an adult. When asked whether he shot his gun at a civilian, P-0264 stated that he shot ‘in the houses, but that’s – well, that’s equal to shooting civilians because you’re firing in a civilian 3494 camp’.

text: As discussed above, P-0264 testified that he shot and killed a civilian because the man 3495 was among government soldiers. P-0264 also testified that he saw about 10 dead

text: 3488 P-0330: T-52, p. 19, lines 20-23. 3489 P-0054: T-93, p. 20, lines 15-23. 3490 P-0264: T-64, p. 53, lines 2-5. 3491 P-0264: T-64, p. 53, line 13 – p. 54, line 1. According to P-0264, government soldiers entered civilian houses and thus the LRA fired into houses. 3492 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 1-3. 3493 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 3-4, p. 58, lines 4-14. 3494 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 18-21. 3495 P-0264: T-64, p. 55, line 10 – p. 56, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 525/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3496 civilians in the Odek IDP camp, a mixture of men, women and children. P-0264 indicated that these civilians were killed by LRA fighters, stating that some had bullets 3497 in their chests and heads. P-0264 testified that:

text: [T]he way LRA soldiers are trained, we are told that in order to shoot somebody sufficiently you have to shoot the person in [the head or the chest] so that the person does not survive. So I know that anybody who shoots at somebody either shoots on the head or on the chest for maximum effect. And that’s why those people were 3498 shot in the head and the chest.

text: The Chamber finds P-0264’s account of the behaviour of LRA soldiers within the civilian area of the camp detailed, comprehensive and consistent. The Chamber finds the witness credible and finds that the civilian shot by P-0264 was at least a victim of an attempted killing. The Chamber also considers that P-0264 offers credible evidence of the manner in which LRA fighters generally shot at civilians. The Chamber also notes the testimony of Sinia attacker P-0352 who testified that she saw civilians being shot by the LRA in 3499 the course of the attack. This, in addition to the ample evidence discussed in detail below of the many persons killed by LRA fighters in the camp, corroborates P-0264’s account of the LRA’s shooting of civilians in the camp.

text: P-0406, a fighter in Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade, testified that during the attack, he 3500 saw the dead bodies of three civilians who had been clubbed in the head. P-0406 3501 testified that the club was left by the dead bodies. Similarly, P-0330 testified that he 3502 saw civilians killed by ‘seasoned’ LRA fighters in Odek IDP camp. P-0330 testified

text: that the civilians were killed by being beaten on the back of their heads while having 3503 their arms tied behind their back. Additionally, P-0330 testified that he saw a civilian 3504 stabbed by an LRA fighter he called Lapwony Oyo. The Chamber considers that these witnesses’ accounts are consistent and mutually corroborative of the fact that LRA

text: fighters targeted civilians and beat or stabbed them to death in Odek IDP camp.

text: 3496 P-0264: T-64, p. 60, lines 3-6. 3497 P-0264: T-64, p. 60, lines 7-14. 3498 P-0264: T-64, p. 60, lines 17-21. 3499 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 123. 3500 P-0406: T-154, p. 47, lines 18-23. 3501 P-0406: T-154, p. 47, lines 24-25. 3502 P-0330: T-52, p. 25, lines 14-25. 3503 P-0330: T-52, p. 26, lines 19-21. 3504 P-0330: T-52, p. 20, lines 5-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 526/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also notes that there is no evidence, or even suggestion, that government soldiers, who were the only other armed forces active in Odek IDP camp during the attack, beat any civilian during the attack. Indeed, although the government soldiers fired shots for a short period of time during the attack as described above, they were described as fleeing from the LRA.

text: Further, the evidence shows that at least some civilians were burnt in their homes. The Chamber notes that the evidence does not indicate that there was a widespread burning of the civilian area of Odek IDP camp comparable to the burning that occurred in the 3505 Lukodi and Abok IDP camp attacks. However, the evidence indicates that at least 3506 some civilian homes were burned down. In that context, the Chamber recalls P-0352’s 3507 testimony that she saw one house being burned with civilians inside. P-0330 corroborates this account, testifying that he saw dead people in Odek, including people 3508 burned in their huts by LRA fighters. P-0406’s testimony corroborates the other 3509 witnesses’ accounts that civilian’s homes were set on fire.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA set at least one house on fire with civilians inside and the person(s) inside that home was (were) at least the victim(s) of an attempted killing by the LRA.

text: The Chamber notes camp resident P’Oyoo Lakoch’s and LDU Officer Julius Nyeko’s testimony that the people whose dead bodies they observed in the camp after the attack 3510 mostly died of gunshot wounds. The Chamber notes that these witnesses testified to what they observed and the evidence indicates that these witnesses could not have 3511 observed all the persons killed in the camp. Given the credible evidence that the LRA did indeed kill people by other means than gunshot, the amount of people killed in the

text: 3505 The Chamber notes that the huts that comprised the barracks were completely burned down by the LRA. 3506 See P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 20 (the rebels burned the huts surrounding the barracks). 3507 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 123. 3508 P-0330: T-52, p. 20, line 9 – p. 21, line 1. 3509 P-0406: T-154, p. 46, lines 23-25; T-154-CONF, p. 47, lines 1-10 (P-0406 saw houses burning in the camp. LRA fighters would light a match and then set fire to houses. P-0406 personally set a house on fire, under orders of an LRA commander). 3510 P-0218: T-90, p. 12, lines 18-21; D-0066: T-214, p. 25, lines 9-17, p. 26, lines 9-13. 3511 Residents started removing the dead early in the morning. See P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 36, 74, 76 (according to Camp Leader Mario Ottober, camp residents started removing the bodies of their relatives for burial before the sunrise, as they were afraid the bodies would start decaying. Most people were buried at a place near the camp but some people took the bodies of their relatives to other places).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 527/1077 4 February 2021 attack, the quick burial of the deceased, often in disparate places, the Chamber concludes that these witnesses’ testimony is not inconsistent with the Chamber’s finding that some

text: persons were killed or the LRA attempted to kill people by other means than gunshots.

text: Camp residents and LDU officer Julius Nyeko corroborate the LRA fighters’ accounts

text: that the LRA targeted civilian residents.

text: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that the LRA fighters were the ones shooting at the camp

text: 3512 inhabitants. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that there were children among the civilians

text: 3513 killed in the attack, all of whom had been shot. Witnesses testified that the day after

text: 3514 the attack, they saw corpses all over the camp, and people were collecting the bodies.

text: LDU soldier Julius Nyeko stated that the day after the attack, government soldiers went

text: 3515 around with the civilian leaders to see ‘what happened to whom’. Julius Nyeko

text: explained:

text: [W]e returned and came and found so many dead bodies and then some injured people. Well, you know some people never fled, they closed themselves – locked themselves in their houses […] some of them were killed in their houses and you 3516 just find them, the dead bodies in there.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA targeted civilians for killing or attempted killing.

text: Below, the Chamber discusses the evidence of specific individuals killed or attempted to

text: be killed by the LRA in the camp during the attack.

text: Adoni Okullu: P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that just after dawn the day after the attack, he

text: saw the body of his 80 years old uncle, ‘Adonia Okullu’, laying outside Adoni Okullu’s

text: 3517 home. P’Oyoo Lakoch described the wounds he observed, ‘[h]e was shot in the chest

text: from the back, and the bullet came out from the front, from his chest, and he fell on his

text: 3512 P-0218: T-90, p. 13, lines 12-14. 3513 P-0218: T-90, p. 12, line 23 – p. 13, line 11. 3514 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 37 (the morning after the attack, Helen Opoka Acan saw many corpses, of children and adults, stating, ‘you could see corpses everywhere and people were collecting them’); P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 25 (P’Oyoo Lakoch heard people wailing and crying and as he entered the camp the morning after the attack, there were dead bodies everywhere. Men, women and children of all ages were all killed); P-0269: T-85, p. 50, lines 12-18 (when P-0269 returned to the camp after her release from the LRA, she found so many dead bodies littering the camp, as well as the other bodies along the way); P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29 (when P-0275 was being abducted by LRA fighters, he saw many dead people around). 3515 D-0066: T-214, p. 23, lines 20-21. 3516 D-0066: T-214, p. 24, lines 22-25, p. 25, lines 7-8. 3517 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 26.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 528/1077 4 February 2021

text: belly’. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he personally buried his uncle next to the

text: river. The Chamber finds P’Oyoo Lakoch’s testimony credible. It is also consistent

text: with other credible evidence. Former Odek IDP Camp Leader, Mario Ottober, confirms

text: this evidence. He testified that ‘Okullu Adonibejege’, an old person, was shot at his

text: house in the trading centre. Mario Ottober stated that he heard about the killing from

text: Adoni Okullu’s relatives. Further, Helen Opoka Acan, a former Odek IDP camp

text: resident, testified that the morning after the attack, she saw several corpses of people who

text: 3523 3524

text: had died during the attack, including the body of ‘Okullu Adoni’. Similarly, ISO

text: Officer P-0301’s, post-attack incident report lists ‘Adonyi Bajedo Okullu’ as one of the

text: persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of

text: 3518 P-0218: T-90, p. 78, line 25 – p. 79, line 3; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 26, 42. 3519 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42; P-0218: T-90, p. 16, lines 12-18, p. 78, lines 21- 24. 3520 The Chamber notes that the witnesses refer to Adoni Okullu by different first names – Adonyi Bajedo, Adonibejege, Adoni, and Adonia. Given the overwhelming similarities in this first name and the fact that they all refer to the last name of Okullu, the Chamber is of the view that the evidence all refer to the same person, Okullu Adoni. The Chamber is of the view that the evidence provided by these witnesses in relation to Adoni Okullu’s death is consistent and credible and mutually corroborative. 3521 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 61. 3522 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 61. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP- 0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393, at number 8. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 61 (Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary in which ‘Okullu Adonibejege’ is listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack and testified that he wrote the names of camp residents who were injured and killed during the attack in this personal diary in the aftermath of the attack). The Chamber recalls that the Defence contends that Mario Ottober’s 2004 Diary pages are not official but rather personal records not created in the normal course of business. Defence Response to Prosecution Application under Rule 68(2)(b), para. 179. See also First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), at paras 76-77. The Chamber does not consider it necessary to determine whether Mario Ottober’s diary pages are or are not business records. The diary pages have evidentiary value as contemporaneous records the witness made of what he witnessed and was told about the persons injured and deceased as a result of the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack. The witness provided the pages to the Prosecution, authenticated his writings and explained the contents, adding details that contextualised the entries. See P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46-75. The Chamber is convinced by his evidence and is of the view that the 2004 Diary entries are an authentic, contemporaneous account of the deceased persons Mario Ottober saw or and was informed about in the aftermath of the 29 April 2004 IDP camp attack. Thus, Mario Ottober’s diary pages provide a contemporaneous record of the death of Adoni Okullu in the attack on Odek IDP camp. 3523 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3524 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3525 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Adoni Okullu is number 7 on the list of the deceased. The Chamber notes that P-0301 lists Adonyi Bajedo Okullu on his list of deceased. The Chamber notes that this report was introduced into evidence in its First Decision on Prosecution Applications under Rule 68(2)(b), at p. 110. P-0301 discussed this incident report in his statement, testifying that the report was based on his interviews with the survivors of the attack, including the camp leaders and the relatives of the deceased or abducted (UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, para. 60). The Chamber considers the document to be the authentic incident report created by P-0301 in May 2004 reporting on the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 529/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3526 the totality of the evidence, the Chamber considers that Adoni Okullu was shot and

text: killed by the LRA during the Odek IDP camp attack.

text: Agudu’s wife and her grandson: Former Odek IDP camp block leader Zakeo Odora

text: testified that after the attack, he and other camp residents, as well as people from another

text: nearby IDP camp, dug graves to bury some of the persons killed during the LRA’s attack

text: 3527 on the camp. These persons were buried on land Zakeo Odora and his family donated

text: 3528 to serve as a grave site. Among the persons buried on that land are a woman Zakeo

text: Odora referred to as the ‘wife of Agudu’ and her grandson, buried in separate graves

text: 3529 beside each other. Zakeo Odora testified that they were both killed in the course of

text: 3530 the LRA’s attack on the camp. Zakeo Odora testified that Agudu’s wife was found

text: 3531 with her grandson wrapped around her back. She had been shot in the breast and the

text: 3532 bullet had passed through her and also killed her grandson. Zakeo Odora testified the

text: 3533 boy was around four years old. The Chamber finds Zakeo Odora’s testimony as to

text: 3534 these deaths detailed, compelling and credible. In light of the totality of the evidence,

text: the Chamber finds that LRA fighters shot and killed Agudu’s wife and her grandson

text: during the Odek IDP camp attack.

text: Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok: Mario Ottober testified that after the attack, he

text: was informed by the relatives of Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok that they were killed

text: 3535 during the 29 April 2004 Odek attack. Helen Opoka Acan also testified that Betty

text: 3536 Adong died the day after the attack. Helen Opoka Acan testified that she saw Betty

text: 3537 Adong that day when she was still alive. Helen Opoka Acan stated that when she saw

text: 3526 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3527 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at paras 30-31. 3528 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 30. 3529 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3530 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3531 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3532 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3533 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3534 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3535 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 63. Mario Ottober provided his 2004 Diary in which Betty Adong and Ajok are listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack thus providing a contemporaneous record of their death. Betty Adong is listed at number 12 and Ajok at number 13. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 63. In his diary recording her death, P-0274 writes ‘Ajok D/O Adong Betty’. See P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Given his testimony, the Chamber understands the notation ‘D/O’ to mean ‘daughter of’. 3536 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 47. 3537 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 47.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 530/1077 4 February 2021

text: Betty Adong ‘she was alive but she could not go anywhere and was in her house […] she

text: 3538 was lying in the house alone’. She was later told that Betty Adong had died that

text: 3539 day. Further corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ajok D/O Adong Betty’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA

text: 3540 3541 attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber

text: finds that Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok were killed by the LRA as a result of the

text: Odek IDP camp attack.

text: Catherine Amono: Hellen Adong testified that while she was abducted and walking with

text: LRA fighters in the course of the attack, she saw the dead body of a woman with a baby

text: 3542 3543 on her back. She testified that the baby was still alive. Hellen Adong did not recall

text: 3544 the name of the woman. Hellen Adong’s testimony is completed and further explained

text: by the statements of Mario Ottober, Hellen Adong’s husband, to whom Hellen Adong

text: provided further details immediately after the attack. Mario Ottober stated that he was

text: told by his wife that as she was passing by with the rebels who had abducted her, she saw

text: the body of Catherine Amono and was told by the rebels that she would end up like

text: 3545 Catherine Amono if she is stubborn. Mario Ottober stated that Catherine Amono was

text: shot whilst she had a child tied to her back and ‘fell with the child at the back’, however

text: 3546 the child survived. In light of the overlapping accounts of Hellen Adong and Mario

text: Ottober, it is clear that the two witnesses spoke of the same victim, Catherine Amono.

text: Also corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ariono Catherine’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek

text: 3538 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 47. 3539 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 47. 3540 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Betty Adong is number 4 on the list of the deceased. The Chamber is of the view that in line with Mario Ottober notations, P-0301’s notation of ‘D/O’ refers to ‘daughter of’ and is an indication that Ajok was the daughter of Adong Betty. 3541 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3542 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 34. 3543 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 34. 3544 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 34. 3545 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 58. 3546 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 58. Further, in his 2004 diary entry listing the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, Mario Ottober included ‘Amono Catherine’, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Catherine Amono is listed as number 6. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 58.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 531/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3547 3548 IDP camp. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that

text: Catherine Amono was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: Okeny, the government soldier’s son: Several witnesses testified about the death of the

text: government soldier’s son in the course of the LRA’s attack on Abok IDP camp. Zakeo

text: Odora testified that a government soldier, Paleo Lapii, and his son Okeny died during the

text: 3549 attack. Zakeo Odora testified that their bodies were taken away from Odek IDP camp

text: 3550 to be buried at Acet IDP camp. Mario Ottober corroborates Zakeo Odora’s account,

text: testifying that an LDU soldier called Lapii was killed at the barracks along with his child

text: 3551 who was with him. Similarly, P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that after the attack the body of

text: an LDU soldier was found lying by the barracks alongside that of his four year old son,

text: 3552 who had also been shot dead. LDU soldier Julius Nyeko provided further detail.

text: According to Julius Nyeko, during the LRA’s attack on the government barracks, one of

text: the soldiers in the barracks tried to fight back because he had a child in the barracks and

text: 3553 the LRA came and eventually killed the soldier together with his child. In light of the

text: credible and consistent testimony of the witnesses, the Chamber considers that Okeny,

text: the government soldier’s son, was shot and killed by the LRA during the Odek IDP camp

text: attack.

text: Aldo Okello and shooting of Santa Akello: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that in the

text: 3554 aftermath of the attack, he spoke to Santa Akello and her husband, Aldo Okello.

text: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he was told by Santa Akello that during the attack when the

text: 3555 gunfire intensified, she and her husband, Aldo Okello, locked themselves in their hut.

text: LRA fighters attempted to open the door and, when they failed, they fired their guns

text: 3547 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Catherine Amono is number 18 on the list of the deceased. The Chamber notes the slight difference in the last name and considers it a minor misspelling. 3548 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3549 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 38. Given the similarity in the details of the killing, the Chamber is of the view that this is the same deaths referenced by D-0066 in para. 1443. 3550 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 38. 3551 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 39, 74. 3552 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 28. The Chamber notes that P’Oyoo Lakoch calls the soldier ‘Albriko Lapir’ while Mario Ottober references ‘Lapii’ and Zakeo Odora, ‘Paleo Lapii’. Given the overwhelming similarities in their descriptions of the manner and scenario in which the soldier was killed, the Chamber is of the view that they are speaking of the same soldier whose young child was killed in the attack. 3553 D-0066: T-214, p. 22, lines 9-19. 3554 P-0218: T-90, p. 11, line 14 – p. 12, line 5 3555 P-0218: T-90, p. 11, lines 14-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 532/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3556 inside the house and both Santa Akello and Aldo Okello were shot. One of the LRA’s

text: 3557 bullets hit Aldo Okello in the mouth and another hit Santa Akello in the neck. P’Oyoo

text: Lakoch testified that Aldo Okello died in Lacor hospital on 3 May 2004, a few days after

text: 3558 the attack, as a result of the injury from the bullet. P’Oyoo Lakoch appears to have

text: spoken to Aldo Okello before he died and testified that when he spoke to him Aldo Okello

text: 3559 was seriously injured; he had injuries in his mouth from being hit by a bullet. P’Oyoo

text: 3560 Lakoch testified that he personally buried Aldo Okello. Santa Akello was treated for

text: 3561 her injury and survived. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that she still has scars from the

text: 3562 injury.

text: Other evidence corroborates P’Oyoo Lakoch’s account, Mario Ottober testified that

text: Santa Akello told him that Aldo Okello was shot in the mouth and his tongue was cut off

text: 3563 by the bullet. Mario Ottober also testified that Santa Akello was shot on the back of

text: 3564 her neck and the injury healed. Similarly, Hellen Adong, a former camp resident who

text: is married to Camp Leader Mario Ottober, corroborates the accounts that Santa Akello

text: was shot. However, unlike Mario Ottober and P’Oyoo Lakoch, who testified that Santa

text: Akello was shot in the neck, Hellen Adong testified that Santa Akello was hit by a bullet

text: 3565 in her abdomen during the attack. She testified that the bullet remained in her stomach

text: 3566 until it was removed at the hospital and Santa Akello survived. The Chamber does

text: not find the discrepancy between Mario Ottober and Hellen Adong’s account dispositive.

text: Both witnesses testified independently, along with P’Oyoo Lakoch, that Santa Akello

text: was shot during the attack and recovered. The Chamber puts more weight on the

text: testimony of P’Oyoo Lakoch and Mario Ottober who both testified of speaking to Santa

text: Akello. Further corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists

text: ‘Okello Aldo’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek

text: 3556 P-0218: T-90, p. 11, line 14 – p. 12, line 5. 3557 P-0218: T-90, p. 12, lines 3-4; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 30. 3558 P-0218: T-90, p. 12, lines 3-5; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 30, 42. 3559 P-0218: T-90, p. 12, lines 1-5; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 30. 3560 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42. 3561 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 30. 3562 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 30. 3563 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 64. 3564 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 50. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary also lists Aldo Okello among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack providing a contemporaneous record of Aldo Okello’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 64. Aldo Okello is number 14 on Mario Ottober’s list. 3565 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 60. 3566 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 60.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 533/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3567 IDP camp. The Incident Report lists ‘Akello Santa’ as one of the persons injured

text: during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp and still hospitalised in Lacor

text: 3568 hospital as of May 2004. In light of the consistent and credible evidence, the Chamber

text: finds that LRA fighters killed Aldo Okello and attempted to kill Santa Akello in the

text: course of the Odek IDP camp attack by shooting her.

text: Ayita Labanya: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that after the attack he saw the dead body of

text: 3569 3570 Ayita Labanya. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that Ayita Labanya was shot in the back.

text: 3571 According to P’Oyoo Lakoch, Ayita Labanya was an elderly man in his 70s. The

text: Chamber finds P’Oyoo Lakoch’s account credible. In light of the totality of the

text: 3572 evidence, the Chamber finds that Ayita Labanya was shot and killed by LRA fighters

text: in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Charles Obur: Mario Ottober testified that the day after the attack, he saw the body of

text: Charles Obur, a trainee Catechist, who was killed in the course of the attack on Odek IDP

text: 3573 camp. Charles Obur was shot in the chest, one of his arms was broken and he had

text: 3574 fallen on one side. Additionally, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Obur Charles’ as one

text: 3575 of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. This

text: evidence provides corroboration of Mario Ottober’s accounts of Charles Obur’s death.

text: 3576 In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Charles Obur was killed

text: by LRA fighters during the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Doris Apiyo: Zakeo Odora testified that as he was returning to the camp the morning

text: after the attack, he was told by his neighbour that Doris Apiyo, his nephew Ojok’s wife,

text: 3567 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Aldo Okello is number 21 on the list of the deceased. 3568 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0440. 3569 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3570 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3571 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3572 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3573 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 26, 37, 68. 3574 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 37. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary lists ‘Obur’ among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack thus providing a contemporaneous record of Charles Obur’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Charles Obur is number 18 on the list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 71. 3575 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Charles Obur is number 9 on the list of the deceased. 3576 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 534/1077 4 February 2021

text: had been shot dead. Zakeo Odora testified that he went and saw Doris Apiyo’s body,

text: she was lying face down on the ground, shot in the back of the head. Zakeo Odora

text: testified that as she lay there dead, her baby boy, Opira, was still tied to her back, ‘crying

text: so loud’. Zakeo Odora testified that he removed Opira from his mother’s back and

text: wrapped him in a blanket. Zakeo Odora testified that Doris Apiyo was 22 years old

text: 3581 3582

text: at the time of her death, the mother of two young children. Doris Apiyo was buried

text: on Zakeo Odora’s land. In his annotated sketch of the Odek IDP camp, Zakeo Odora

text: indicated the spot where he discovered Doris Apiyo’s body. Zakeo Odora found Doris Apiyo’s body in Block C of the camp, in the thick of the civilian camp, far away from

text: the government barracks and in some distance from the trading centre. Mario Ottober

text: corroborates Zakeo Odora’s account, testifying that Doris Apiyo’s relatives informed

text: him that she was shot and killed in the attack. Further corroborating the witnesses’

text: accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Dorris Apiyo’ as one of the persons killed

text: during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the totality of the

text: evidence, the Chamber concludes that Doris Apiyo was shot and killed by LRA

text: fighters during the 29 April 2004 Odek attack.

text: Jenaro Ongwen: Several witnesses testified that Jenaro Ongwen was shot and killed in

text: the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp. Helen Opoka Acan testified that Jenaro

text: Ongwen’s corpse was found behind her house. Helen Opoka Acan testified of the

text: behaviour of rebel fighters near her house, stating that they ‘filled up the place’ with

text: 3577 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28. 3578 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28. 3579 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28 (Opira was no more than one year old at the time of the attack). 3580 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28. 3581 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28. 3582 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 28. 3583 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3584 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 28. 3585 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 65. Mario Ottober’s diary also list ‘Apio Dorish’ among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack thus providing a contemporaneous record of Doris Apiyo’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Doris Apiyo is number 15 on this list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 65. Given the overwhelming similarities in the name and Mario Ottober’s testimony, the Chamber is of the view that Mario Ottober’s list refers to Doris Apiyo. 3586 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Doris Apiyo is number 16 on the list of the deceased. 3587 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3588 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 37-38.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 535/1077 4 February 2021

text: ‘gunshots everywhere’. She testified of LRA fighters entering her home, carrying

text: 3590 3591

text: guns, shouting ‘“Cut! Shoot”!’ She testified that ‘[t]hey came to kill’. The

text: Chamber notes that Helen Opoka Acan did not testify that any group other than LRA

text: fighters fired guns near her home. Hellen Adong testified that she saw the body of a

text: man called Ongwen just outside of his house. In testimony consistent with others, P-

text: 0269 stated that on her way returning from captivity the day after the attack, she saw the

text: body of an elderly man, Mzee (Mr) Ongwen, as it was being taken to be buried.

text: Similarly, Mario Ottober testified that although he did not personally see the body, he

text: was told by Jenaro Ongwen’s relatives that he was shot. The Chamber considers that

text: the witnesses’ accounts are consistent and mutually corroborative. Further corroborating

text: the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ongwen Jenaro’ as one of the

text: the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Jenaro Ongwen was shot and

text: killed by LRA fighters.

text: Jimmy Ojok: Mario Ottober testified that the relatives of Jimmy Ojok informed him that

text: Jimmy Ojok was killed during the 29 April 2004 Odek attack. Corroborating Mario Ottober’s evidence, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ojok Jimmy’ as one of the persons

text: killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the totality

text: 3589 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 20. 3590 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 22. 3591 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 22. 3592 See P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01. While Helen Opoka Acan testified that government soldiers ran after the rebels after the attack, she testified that she could identify them as government soldiers because she could hear their gumboots and they spoke a different language. P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241- 0168-R01, at para. 34. 3593 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 34. 3594 P-0269: T-85, p. 50, line 23 – p. 51, line 8. 3595 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 57. Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary which lists Jenaro Ongwen among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack thus providing a contemporaneous record of Jenaro Ongwen’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Jenaro Ongwen is number 4 on the list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 57. 3596 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Jenaro Ongwen is number 4 on the list of the deceased. 3597 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3598 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 63. In his 2004 diary entry listing of the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack, Mario Ottober lists Jimmy Ojok as one of the victims thus providing a contemporaneous record of Jimmy Ojok’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Jimmy Ojok is number 11 on the list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244- 3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 63. 3599 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Jimmy Ojok is number 15 on the list of the deceased.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 536/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3600 of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Jimmy Ojok was killed by LRA fighters in

text: the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Catherine Laker: Helen Opoka Acan testified that she saw the corpse of ‘Katherine

text: 3601 Laker’ the morning after the attack. Helen Opoka Acan testified that Catherine Laker

text: 3602 was shot with a child tied behind her back but the child survived. In light of the totality

text: 3603 of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that Catherine Laker was killed by LRA

text: fighters.

text: Kevin Apiyo: Mario Ottober testified that he was informed by Apiyo Kevin’s relatives

text: 3604 that the victim was shot during the Odek IDP camp attack. The Chamber notes that

text: P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Apiyo’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April

text: 3605 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber considers that this evidence is

text: consistent with Mario Ottober’s account of Kevin Apiyo’s death. The Chamber considers

text: that the evidence of Kevin Apiyo’s death in the course of the attack is credible. In light

text: 3606 of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters shot and

text: killed Apiyo Kevin during the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Kerobina Acayo: Mario Ottober testified that Kerobina Acayo’s husband told him that

text: 3607 she was killed inside her house. Mario Ottober testified that Kerobina Acayo stayed

text: 3608 near the food store for school children in the camp. Zakeo Odora corroborates Mario

text: Ottober’s account of Kerobina Acayo’s death, stating that Kerobina Acayo was one of

text: 3609 the persons buried on his land. Corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s

text: Incident Report lists ‘Acayo Kerobina’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April

text: 3600 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3601 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3602 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 39. 3603 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3604 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 66. 3605 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Apiyo is number 20 on the list of the deceased. The Chamber notes that there is no further name listed. 3606 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3607 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 62. 3608 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 62. Mario Ottober’s diary from 2004 corroborates his account; he listed ‘Acayo Kerobina’ among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of Kerobina Acayo’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP- 0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Kerobina Acayo is listed as number 9 on the list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 62. 3609 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 537/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3610 3611

text: 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the totality of the evidence, the

text: Chamber finds that LRA fighters shot and killed Kerobina Acayo in her home during the

text: 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Kejikiya Okec and Veronica Auma: Mario Ottober testified that ‘Okec Kejikiya’

text: was a retired prison officer who was killed in his house along with his wife Veronica

text: Auma. Mario Ottober testified that while he did not see their bodies, he was told by the couple’s son, Victor Okumu that ‘they were killed in a terrible way’ and that Kejikiya

text: Okec’s male organs had been cut off. Other witnesses provided testimonies that were

text: consistent with and corroborative of Mario Ottober’s account. Zakeo Odora testified that

text: the day after the attack, he went to Odek trading centre and saw the bodies of a retired

text: prison warden, ‘Okech Kicikia’, and his wife. Zakeo Odora testified that both of the

text: deceased were in their 70’s. Zakeo Odora testified that both had gunshot wounds on

text: their bodies. He further testified that he saw their two bodies lying in front of their

text: small shop. In his annotated sketch of the Odek IDP camp, Zakeo Odora indicated the

text: spot, in Block C of the camp, where he saw the two bodies. Similarly, camp resident

text: Hellen Adong testified that the day after the attack, she saw the bodies of an old man,

text: ‘Kijikiya Okec’ and his wife Veronica inside their house near the door. Hellen Adong

text: testified that she did not know how they died but they looked dead and there was blood

text: beside them. Helen Opoka Acan also testified that ‘Kirikiya Oketch’ and Veronica

text: 3610 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Kerobina Acayo is number 8 on the list of the deceased. 3611 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3612 The Chamber notes the variance in the names by which the witnesses refer to the deceased. Given the overwhelming similarities in the names, as well as their descriptions of their deaths, the Chamber is convinced that the witnesses’ testimony relate to the same two persons, whom the Chamber refers to as Kejikiya Okec and Veronica Auma. 3613 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 56. 3614 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 56. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary entry lists ‘Okec Kejekia’ and ‘Auma Vironika’ among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack thus providing a contemporaneous record of the deaths. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244- 3393. They are listed as number 2 and 3 on this list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 56. 3615 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 37. Zakeo Odora did not recall the name of the woman. 3616 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 37. 3617 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 37. 3618 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 37. 3619 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 37. 3620 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 32. 3621 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 538/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3622 were husband and wife and that she saw their bodies the day after the attack. P’Oyoo 3623 Lakoch testified that an elderly couple was shot dead inside their home, ‘Kichikiya 3624 Okech’ was shot in the chest, along with his wife, Saluma.

text: The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ accounts are generally consistent with and corroborative of one another. While there are some discrepancies, such as whether the bodies lay inside or outside the deceased’s house the morning after the attack, the Chamber considers these discrepancies to be minor, particularly given the passage of time since the attack and the fact that the witnesses observed the bodies the morning after the attack at a period when the local population were preparing the dead bodies found for burial. The Chamber considers the witnesses’ account of the death of the two deceased credible. Further corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Okech Kelekia’ and ‘Auma Veronica’ as two of the persons killed during the 29 April 3625 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber is convinced by Mario Ottober’s testimony as to the victims’ manner of death. The Chamber notes that there is no evidence, or suggestion that government soldiers, the only other armed group inside the camp, killed civilians in their homes. There is further no evidence that government soldiers tortured civilians or desecrated their bodies. The evidence is clear that it was LRA fighters who targeted these civilians. In light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters shot and killed Kejikiya Okec and Veronica Auma in the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Mary Acayo: ISO officer P-0301’s post attack Incident Report lists ‘Mary Acayo Obonyo’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP 3626 camp. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that after the attack, the body of 68 years old Mary 3627 Obonyo was found dead beside her hut in the camp. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that 3628 Mary Obonyo was shot in the back. Similarly, Mario Ottober testified that he saw the dead body of Mary Acayo, a traditional birth attendant, who was shot in the chest and

text: 3622 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3623 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 26. 3624 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 26. 3625 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0438. Kejikiya Okech is number 1 on the list of the deceased and Veronica Auma is number 2 on the list of the deceased. 3626 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Mary Acayo Obonyo is number 10 on the list of the deceased. 3627 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3628 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 539/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3629 killed in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber notes that P’Oyoo

text: Lakoch refers to Mary Obonyo while Mario Ottober refers to Mary Acayo. Given the

text: reference to ‘Mary Acayo Obonyo’ in P-0301’s Incident Report, the Chamber is of the

text: view that both witnesses refer to the same person, whom the Chamber refers to as Mary

text: Acayo. The Chamber also notes the divergence in the witnesses’ description on the

text: location of her wound. Both witnesses appear to have seen the dead body of Mary Acayo.

text: In light of this divergence in their testimony, the Chamber is only satisfied that Mary

text: Acayo was shot and killed in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp and makes no

text: finding as to whether she was shot in the back or the chest. In this context, the Chamber

text: also notes that Helen Opoka Acan testified that she saw the corpse of Mary Acayo the

text: 3630 morning after the attack. Helen Opoka Acan testified that Mary Acayo was shot with

text: 3631 a child tied behind her back but the child survived. The Chamber considers that this

text: testimony is consistent with the other witnesses’ account that Mary Acayo died in the

text: 3632 attack. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Mary Acayo was

text: killed by LRA fighters in the course of the Odek IDP camp attack.

text: Monica Aciro: While running away towards the Odek River, trying to hide from the

text: LRA, Zakeo Odora saw LRA fighters shoot a heavily pregnant civilian named Monica

text: 3633 3634 Aciro. Monica Aciro was around 26 years old. Zakeo Odora testified that he saw

text: 3635 the LRA shoot Monica Aciro in the legs as she fled the camp. Zakeo Odora heard

text: Monica Aciro shouting for help, but he and his family could ‘only keep running for our

text: 3636 lives’. Zakeo Odora testified that the next day, Monica Aciro’s husband took her to

text: 3637 the Odek Health Centre, but she died from her injuries. Zakeo Odora testified that the

text: 3638 baby she was pregnant with died as well. In his annotated sketch of the Odek IDP

text: camp, Zakeo Odora indicated the spot, in Block C of the camp, where the LRA shot

text: 3629 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 37. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary corroborates his testimony; he listed ‘Acayo Mary’ as one of the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of her death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Mary Acayo is number 17 on the list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 67. 3630 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3631 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 39. 3632 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3633 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24. 3634 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24. 3635 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24. 3636 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24. 3637 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24. 3638 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 540/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3639 Monica Aciro. The Chamber notes that this spot was in the middle of the civilian

text: homes in the camp. The Chamber finds Zakeo Odora’s description of Monica Aciro’s

text: death detailed and credible. It is consistent with other accounts of the LRA’s behaviour

text: in the camp. In light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters killed

text: a heavily pregnant woman named Monica Aciro by shooting her during their attack on

text: Odek IDP camp.

text: Wilson Okoya: Mario Ottober testified that the day after the attack, he saw the body of

text: 3640 Wilson Okoya, a young man about 19 years old. Mario Ottober testified that Wilson

text: 3641 Okoya was shot inside his house and fell on the grinding stone. P-0252’s testimony

text: corroborates Mario Ottober’s. P-0252 testified that after being abducted by the LRA, he

text: was walking around the market of the camp with the LRA and other abductees when they

text: 3642 came across someone he knew bleeding ‘humped over a grinding stone’. P-0252

text: testified that the person had been shot in the stomach and all his intestines had come

text: 3643 3644 out. He identified this person as named Okoya. P-0252 testified

text: that when they saw Okoya’s body, LRA fighter Onen Kamdulu told him that if P-0252

text: 3645 tried to flee what was done to Okoya would be done to him. The Chamber finds the

text: witnesses’ evidence consistent and credible. P-0252’s testimony suggests that the LRA

text: 3646 indicated that Okoya was killed by the LRA. In light of the totality of the evidence,

text: the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters shot and killed Wilson Okoya in his home

text: during their attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Okoya: While running away towards the Odek River, trying to hide from the LRA, Zakeo

text: 3647 Odora saw LRA fighters shoot a civilian named Okoya. Okoya was 20 years old and

text: 3639 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 24. 3640 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 69. 3641 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 69. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary corroborates his account; ‘Okoya Wilson’ is listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Wilson Okoya is listed as number 19. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 69. 3642 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 11-12. 3643 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 9-11. 3644 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 17, lines 8-15. 3645 P-0252: T-87, p. 17, lines 18-21. 3646 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3647 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 541/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3648 newly married. Zakeo Odora testified that he saw the LRA shoot Okoya in the back

text: 3649 while Okoya was running away. Zakeo Odora testified that he saw Okoya fall down

text: 3650 ahead of him and blood was flowing out of him. In his annotated sketch of the Odek

text: IDP camp, Zakeo Odora indicated the spot, between Blocks A and B of the camp, where

text: 3651 the LRA shot Okoya. Zakeo Odora testified that Okoya is buried on his property in

text: 3652 Odek. The Chamber notes that Zakeo Odora only named ‘Okoya’ and did not specify

text: a further name. The Chamber also recalls its above discussion of the death of Wilson

text: Okoya. Given the details and the specificity of the witnesses’ accounts, the Chamber is

text: of the view that Zakeo Odora did not witness the killing of Wilson Okoya but rather saw

text: the killing of a different man. The Chamber notes that it finds Zakeo Odora, Mario

text: Ottober and P-0252’s accounts of their observations of killings of Wilson Okoya and

text: Okoya credible. The Chamber also notes that the Memorial Plaque erected in the camp

text: to commemorate the persons killed in the Odek IDP camp attack on 29 April 2004 lists

text: both Wilson Okoya and another Okoya, who has the further name Richard, amongst the

text: 3653 deceased. For the Chamber, this supports its view that Zakeo Odora spoke of the death

text: of a person other than Wilson Okoya. In light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced

text: that the LRA shot and killed Okoya in the course of their attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Obangomoko: Zakeo Odora testified about the death of his brother-in-law, Obangomoko,

text: 3654 a 37 year old catechist, who was survived by his wife and three young children. Zakeo

text: Odora saw Obangomoko’s body the day after the attack; he had died from gunshot

text: 3655 wounds. Zakeo Odora testified that he found Obangomoko’s body covered in blood,

text: 3656 close to the latrine in Block B of the camp. In his annotated sketch of the Odek IDP

text: camp, Zakeo Odora indicated the spot, at the intersection of Blocks A, B and C of the

text: 3648 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 23. 3649 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 23. 3650 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 23. 3651 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 23. 3652 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3653 See Memorial plaque, UGA-OTP-0250-0265, at numbers 36 and 37. See The Odek Memorial Plaque, shown in a photograph UGA-OTP-0250-0265, is discussed by several witnesses in this proceeding, specifically Mario Ottober, Zakeo Odora and P’Oyoo Lakoch, who explain its purveyance and the process in which the names were chosen for inscription. See para. 1549 below. The Memorial Plaque provides illuminating information on several points, including in relation to the names of the deceased and the number of the persons killed. 3654 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 29. 3655 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 29. 3656 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 29.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 542/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3657 camp, where he found Obangomoko’s body. Zakeo Odora testified that Obangomoko

text: 3658 is buried on his land. The Chamber notes the location in which Zakeo Odora

text: discovered Obangomoko’s body, close to the intersection of the three blocks in the camp.

text: The Chamber notes that this is not far from the location where Zakeo Odora saw the LRA

text: 3659 shoot and kill another civilian, Okoya. The proximity of the two locations and the

text: LRA’s control of the camp after the few government soldiers fled, further convince the

text: Chamber that the LRA shot and killed Obangomoko in the course of the attack.

text: Pedwang Opio: P-0275 testified that while he was being abducted by an LRA fighter he

text: 3660 saw the dead body of Pedwang Opio, lying near Pedwang Opio’s hut. P-0275 testified

text: 3661 that he knew Pedwang Opio because . P-0275

text: 3662 testified that Pedwang Opio was lying belly down in a pool of blood; his head was

text: 3663 turned to the side. P-0275 testified that Pedwang Opio had a wound on his back like

text: 3664 a hole and there was blood on his shirt around that hole. The Chamber finds P-0275’s

text: account of Pedwang Opio’s death credible. P-0275 does not mention the presence of

text: government soldiers in the area where he was abducted and where he saw Pedwang

text: Opio’s body. Rather, he indicated that LRA fighters were shooting guns, looting and

text: 3665 3666 abducting people in the area. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber

text: is convinced that Pedwang Opio was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: Thomas Opiyo: Mario Ottober testified that ‘Opiyo Thomas’, a 19 year old man was

text: 3667 killed during the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp. Mario Ottober testified that

text: his brother, Maurencio Ocana, owned the home in front of which Thomas Opiyo was

text: 3668 shot. Although Mario Ottober did not see Thomas Opiyo’s body, as it had already

text: 3657 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 29. 3658 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3659 See P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264- 0242-R01, at para. 23. 3660 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29. 3661 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29. 3662 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29. 3663 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29. 3664 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 29. 3665 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 19-30. See P-0275: T-124, p. 41, line 16 – p. 44, line 4. 3666 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3667 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 55. 3668 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 55.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 543/1077 4 February 2021 been taken away by the time camp leaders came around checking the camp the morning

text: 3669 after the attack, Mario Ottober saw the blood in front of Maurencio Ocana’s house.

text: Camp residents told Mario Ottober that during the attack, Thomas Opiyo was drunk and

text: 3670 was shouting at the LRA attackers, calling them ‘chicken thieves’. The LRA fighters

text: 3671 shot him and he died. P’Oyoo Lakoch’s account is consistent with and corroborative

text: of Mario Ottober’s testimony. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that after the attack, he saw

text: 3672 ‘Opio’s’ body lying nearby P’Oyoo Lakoch’s hut in the camp. P’Oyoo Lakoch

text: 3673 testified that Opio had been shot in the head. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he was told

text: 3674 by a man named Ocana that Opio had been drunk and was shouting ‘catch the thieves’

text: 3675 before being shot.

text: Other witnesses provided evidence consistent with the above witnesses’ accounts. Hellen

text: Adong testified that while she was walking through the camp with the LRA fighters who

text: 3676 abducted her, she saw Opio’s body lying by his house. She testified that he had fallen

text: on his stomach, his head was turned on its side, his leg was by the door of his house and

text: 3677 his body and head were covered in blood. Hellen Adong indicated that his house was

text: by the road and LRA rebels in the group she was with entered the house to take things

text: 3678 out. Similarly, P-0252 testified that while he was close to the road, walking through

text: the camp with LRA fighters who abducted him, he saw the body of a camp resident Opio

text: 3679 lying sideways and with blood flowing underneath. P-0252 testified that although he

text: could not see the wound that he sustained, he recognised Opio and saw him lying down

text: 3680 with blood flowing from beneath him. P-0252 testified that he knew Opio because he

text: 3669 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 55. 3670 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 55. 3671 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 55. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary corroborates his testimony as ‘Opio Thomas’ is listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack; the diary provides a contemporaneous record of Thomas Opiyo’s death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA- OTP-0244-3393. Thomas Opiyo is number 1 on the Mario Ottober’s list. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA- OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54-55. The Chamber notes that the Diary and other witnesses refer to ‘Opio’. The Chamber considers this a minor and irrelevant difference in spelling of the name. 3672 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3673 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3674 Likely Mario Ottober’s brother Maurencio Ocana. 3675 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3676 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 33. 3677 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 33. 3678 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 33. 3679 P-0252: T-87, p. 20, lines 6-13. 3680 P-0252: T-89, p. 13, lines 9-15. In questioning P-0252, the Defence raised the witness’s statement, in which he said he had seen Opio lying on his side and partially on his back, and that he later heard that the witness died.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 544/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3681 used to go and buy sugarcane from Opio’s plantation. While Hellen Adong and P-

text: 0252 did not mention the first name of the man whose body they saw, and do not mention

text: the details described by Misters Ottober and Lakoch, the Chamber considers that their

text: descriptions of Opio’s body is consistent with the other witnesses’ testimony. The

text: Chamber believes that all four witnesses likely describe the same person, Thomas Opiyo.

text: Further corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Opiyo

text: Thomas’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP

text: 3682 camp. The Chamber is convinced by the consistent and mutually corroborative

text: testimonies of Mario Ottober and P’Oyoo Lakoch, and other witnesses, that Thomas

text: Opiyo was shot and killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Thomas Ojok: Mario Ottober testified that he was told by the relatives of Thomas Ojok

text: 3683 that he was killed in the course of the attack on 29 April 2004. In light of the totality

text: 3684 of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that Thomas Ojok was killed by LRA

text: fighters in the course of the attack.

text: Valentino Okot: Zakeo Odora testified that when he walked around the camp the day

text: 3685 after the attack, he heard the cries of Kerobina Alaka, his uncle Valentino Okot’s wife.

text: 3686 Zakeo Odora testified that Kerobina Alaka was crying: ‘Okot, you have left me now!’

text: 3687 Zakeo Odora testified that he then saw that Valentino Okot had been shot in the chest.

text: 3688 Valentino Okot was lying face down, and was covered in blood. Zakeo Odora began

text: 3689 looking for a blanket to cover Valentino Okot’s body. In his annotated sketch of the

text: Odek IDP camp, Zakeo Odora indicated the spot where he discovered Valentino Okot’s

text: The Chamber considers that the witness’s statement to the Prosecution noted by the Defence is consistent with his statement to the Chamber. 3681 P-0252: T-87, p. 20, lines 11-13. 3682 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Thomas Opiyo is number 3 on the list of the deceased. 3683 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 70. Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary in which ‘Ojok Thomas’ is listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Thomas Ojok is listed number 20. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 70. 3684 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3685 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 27. 3686 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 27. 3687 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 27. 3688 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 27. 3689 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 27.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 545/1077 4 February 2021

text: body, in Block B of the camp. Zakeo Odora testified that Valentino Okot was buried

text: on his land. He further testified that the death certificate for Valentino Okot is with

text: his wife, Kerobina Alaka. Mario Ottober testified that Valentino Okot was an elderly

text: man. Valentino Okot’s relatives told Mario Ottober that Valentino Okot was shot

text: when he was trying to get into a big store with a steel door at the camp, where some of

text: the residents were hiding. Other witnesses corroborate the witness’s account that

text: Valentino Okot died in the course of the attack. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that the day after the attack, the body of Valentino Okot, a man in his 80’s, was found by P’Oyoo

text: Lakoch’s hut in the camp. Helen Opoka Acan testified that she saw the body of

text: Valentino Okot after the attack. Further corroborating the witnesses’ accounts, P- 0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Okot Valentino’ as one of the persons killed during the 29

text: 3697 3698

text: April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the totality of the evidence,

text: the Chamber is convinced that Valentino Okot was killed by LRA fighters in the course

text: of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Walter Ojok: Mario Ottober testified that the relatives of Walter Ojok informed him that

text: he was killed during the 29 April 2004 Odek attack. P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ojok Walter’ as one of the persons killed during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek

text: 3700 3701

text: IDP camp. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that

text: Walter Ojok was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: 3690 P-0325 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0264-0252-R01; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242- R01, at para. 27. 3691 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 32. 3692 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 35. 3693 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, para. 60. 3694 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, para. 60. Mario Ottober’s 2004 diary corroborates his account of Valentino Okot’s death in the attack, listing Okot Valentino among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP- 0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Valentino Okot is listed number 7. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA- OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 60. 3695 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 27. 3696 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3697 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Valentino Okot is number 6 on the list of the deceased. 3698 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3699 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 63. Mario Ottober’s 2004 Diary listed Ojok Walter among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. Walter Ojok is listed number 10. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 63. 3700 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Walter Ojok is number 13 on the list of the deceased. 3701 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 546/1077 4 February 2021

text: Shooting of Betty Atenyo: Hellen Adong testified that while hiding from the initial

text: gunshots in their home, her son told her that he could see that a camp resident, Atenyo,

text: 3702 had been shot and had fallen down. Hellen Adong testified that Betty Atenyo was a

text: 3703 mother of one child and was walking behind the bamboo tree when she was shot.

text: Hellen Adong testified that Betty Atenyo was shot in the shoulder and needed to have

text: 3704 the bullet removed. Mario Ottober testified that Betty Atenyo was shot in the back

text: 3705 during the course of the 29 April 2004 Odek attack. Mario Ottober testified that she

text: 3706 recovered from her injury. The Chamber notes that Hellen Adong and Mario Ottober

text: testify to a different injury suffered by Betty Atenyo. However, the Chamber is of the

text: view that the difference in the described injury is minimal (shoulder and back) and finds

text: their accounts are consistent that Betty Atenyo was shot in the course of the attack. In

text: 3707 light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters

text: attempted to kill Betty Atenyo by shooting her in the course of their attack on Odek IDP

text: camp.

text: Shooting of Christopher Moro and David Bua:

text: 3708 Moro and Bua, shot by LRA fighters, during the LRA attack on the camp.

text: testified that Moro and Bua were

text: 3709 .

text: 3710 Mario Ottober testified that Christopher Moro and his

text: 3711 brother David Bua were shot in the course of the attack. Christopher Moro was shot

text: in the waist and also injured in the thigh, the bullet in his waist was not removed and the

text: 3702 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 24. 3703 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 24. 3704 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 60. 3705 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 49. 3706 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 49. Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary in which Betty Atenyo is listed among the persons injured in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack. He testified that he wrote the names of camp residents who were injured and killed in this personal diary in the aftermath of the attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the attack on Betty Atenyo. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP- 0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3392. Betty Atenyo is listed number 3. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-3375-R01, at paras 46-47, 49. 3707 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. The Chamber is of the view that this finding similarly applies to the attempted killings in Odek IDP camp. 3708 3709 3710 3711 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 48.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 547/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3712 leg was later amputated. According to Mario Ottober, David Bua was shot in the

text: 3713 course of the attack and two of his toes were cut off by a bullet. Mario Ottober testified

text: that David Bua and Christopher Moro were treated for their injuries at Gulu Referral

text: 3714 Hospital. The Chamber considers that the evidence offered by and Mario

text: Ottober were credible, consistent and mutually corroborative. In light of the foregoing,

text: the Chamber finds that LRA fighters shot at Christopher Moro and David Bua, attempting

text: to kill them, in the course of their attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Shooting at P-0252: P-0252 testified that while he was running through the centre of the

text: 3715 camp, trying to escape from the LRA, an LRA fighter, Onen Kamdulu, saw him and

text: 3716 told him to stop. P-0252 testified that he kept running and Onen Kamdulu shot at

text: 3717 him. P-0252 testified that Onen Kamdulu kept shooting at him but did not manage to

text: 3718 hit him because P-0252 was able to dodge the bullets by hiding between the houses.

text: P-0252 testified that Onen Kamdulu fired his gun at a house and some of the dirt from

text: 3719 the house hit P-0252’s eyes and P-0252 fell down. P-0252 testified that the LRA

text: 3720 fighter then captured P-0252 and tied him with a rope. The Defence implies that it is

text: implausible that the bullets would hit the houses that were there and yet miss P-0252

text: 3721 given how dense the houses were in the relevant area. The Chamber is satisfied with

text: 3722 P-0252’s explanation that he was running around and trying to dodge the bullets. As

text: 3723 P-0252 stated, ‘[s]ometimes you can become lucky and survive just like that.’ The

text: Chamber notes that other witnesses, discussed further below in the Chamber’s discussion

text: of the abduction of civilians by LRA fighters, corroborate P-0252’s testimony that he

text: was abducted by the LRA. However, the Chamber notes that only P-0252 witnessed the

text: 3712 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 48. 3713 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 48. 3714 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 52. Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary in which Christopher Moro and David Bua are listed among the persons injured in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, this provides a contemporaneous record of the attack on them. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3392. David Bua is listed number 1 and Christopher Moro is listed number 2. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46-48. 3715 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 24-25. 3716 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 8-14. 3717 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 16-18. 3718 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 19-21. 3719 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 21-23. 3720 P-0252: T-87, p. 12, lines 21-23. 3721 P-0252: T-89, p. 11, lines 10-17. 3722 See P-0252: T-89, p. 11, lines 18-20. 3723 P-0252: T-89, p. 11, lines 21-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 548/1077 4 February 2021 exact circumstances of his abduction. The Chamber is convinced that P-0252 credibly described the circumstances of his abduction. The behaviour of the LRA fighters is consistent with the testimony of how LRA fighters behaved to civilians in Odek IDP camp and across the other locations relevant to the charges. Further, P-0252 provided details and a comprehensive narrative that convinced the Chamber that he spoke of an event he personally experienced. The Chamber is convinced that an LRA fighter shot at P-0252 in an attempt to kill him in the course of abducting him during the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Shooting of Kigali and his wife: P-0252 testified that in a house close to where he was 3724 abducted from, LRA fighters attacked a couple, shooting a woman and her husband. 3725 P-0252 identified the man as ‘Kigali’, and said he was also called ‘Gali’. P-0252 noted 3726 that the couple’s son was known as Pen. The witness’s testimony does not identify whether Kengali and his wife died. In any case, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA at least attempted to kill Kengali and his wife.

text: Atikcon: P-0252 testified of seeing the corpses of several persons that he knew while walking through the camp after being captured by the LRA, these persons were killed either in or close to their homes. P-0252 testified that he saw the corpse of one of his 3727 friends, a man called Atikcon, who had been killed. P-0252 testified that his friend’s 3728 body was lying in front of his house and he was bleeding. P-0252 testified that he 3729 knew Atikcon was dead from when he saw him shot and lying on the ground. In light 3730 of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that the LRA killed Atikcon.

text: Injury to man by borassus palm tree: While walking in the camp with the LRA, P-0252 3731 saw a fallen person near a borassus palm tree. P-0252 testified that this location was 3732 close to the person’s house. P-0252 testified that he saw that the person was bleeding 3733 but he could not tell the exact location of the injury on the body. The witness’s

text: 3724 P-0252: T-87, p. 21, lines 5-13. 3725 P-0252: T-87, p. 21, lines 5-13. 3726 P-0252: T-87, p. 31, lines 13-16. 3727 P-0252: T-87, p. 14, lines 24-25, p. 17, lines 2-7. 3728 P-0252: T-87, p. 14, line 25 – p. 15, line 2. 3729 P-0252: T-87, p. 31, lines 1-8. 3730 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3731 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 17-19. 3732 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 18-19. 3733 P-0252: T-87, p. 15, lines 20-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 549/1077 4 February 2021 testimony does not identify whether the man was dead. In any case, in light of the totality

text: 3734 of the evidence, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that, at least, the

text: LRA attempted to kill the man by the borassus palm tree.

text: Shooting of Okot LC’s mother: P-0252 testified that, in order to threaten and intimidate

text: the people he had abducted, an LRA fighter, Onen Kamdulu, opened the door of civilian

text: 3735 homes and shot at the people inside. P-0252 testified that the LRA fighter opened the

text: 3736 3737 door of the house of Okot LC2’s mother, who was over 50 years old, and shot

text: 3738 her. The Defence contends that it would have been difficult for P-0252 to see the

text: woman being shot given P-0252’s previous statement that the person shot was about 25

text: metres away from him and this occurred in a dense area with houses built less than a

text: 3739 metre apart. The Chamber is convinced by P-0252’s explanation that there were

text: 3740 pathways between the houses and he had an unobstructed view of the shooting. The

text: witness’s testimony does not identify whether Okot LC’s mother died. In any case, the

text: Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that, at least, the LRA attempted to kill Okot

text: LC’s mother by shooting her.

text: Unnamed camp resident: Julius Nyeko testified that the day after the attack residents

text: 3741 told him of a woman killed by the LRA because they found her ‘stubborn’. Julius

text: Nyeko testified residents said that a camp resident who was being abducted by the LRA

text: 3742 tried to run back to pick up her child, and the LRA called her ‘stubborn’. The LRA

text: then instructed her to pick up a bag of maize, when some of the maize spilled, she was

text: told to bend down to pick it up and as she was bending down to do so, the LRA shot her

text: 3743 on the head. Julius Nyeko testified that he was told that the child was not killed, but

text: ‘the child sat next to the mother the whole night until the next day when people came and

text: 3734 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3735 P-0252: T-87, p. 13, line 12 – p. 14, line 23. 3736 P-0252: T-87, p. 13, line 19 – p. 14, line 4, p. 16, lines 19-20. See also P-0252’s sketch of Odek, UGA-OTP- 0243-0455. 3737 P-0252: T-87, p. 16, lines 12-13. 3738 P-0252: T-87, p. 14, lines 2-4. 3739 P-0252: T-89, p. 12, lines 1-7. 3740 P-0252: T-89, p. 12, lines 8-16. 3741 D-0066: T-214, p. 25, line 17 – p. 26, line 1. 3742 D-0066: T-214, p. 25, line 19 – p. 26, line 1. 3743 D-0066: T-214, p. 25, line 17 – p. 26, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 550/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3744 picked the child away’. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber is satisfied that the

text: evidence shows that the unnamed camp resident was killed by the LRA.

text: Mary Agudu, Doreen Ojok, DP, Acayo, Aboni: In this context, the Chamber also

text: recalls Hellen Adong’s testimony that Mary Agudu and Doreen Ojok died in the course

text: 3745 of the attack. Similarly, Helen Opoka Acan also testified that she saw the dead bodies

text: 3746 of ‘DP’, Acayo, and Aboni the morning after the attack. In light of the totality of the

text: 3747 evidence, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that Mary Agudu, Doreen

text: Ojok, DP, Acayo and Aboni were killed by the LRA in the course of the attack.

text: P-0269’s mother-in-law and her grandson: P-0269 testified that she found that her

text: mother-in-law had been shot and killed in the house, together with her mother-in-law’s

text: 3748 grandson. P-0269 testified that the bodies were in the compound and people were

text: 3749 preparing to go and bury them. P-0269 testified that she was told that her mother-in-

text: 3750 law was shot in the house and fell down supine. P-0269 testified that her mother-inlaw’s grandson was around 10 years old, and ‘jumped out of the house, trying to flee, but

text: 3751 got caught in the crossfire’. P-0269 used the word ‘crossfire’ but made no mention of

text: a confrontation between LRA fighters and government soldiers, merely indicating she

text: 3752 learned about this incident from her husband. The Chamber understands her account

text: to indicate that the boy was shot in the surrounding gunshots. In this context, the Chamber

text: recalls LRA fighter P-0264’s above discussed testimony that LRA fighters fired

text: indiscriminately at civilian homes.

text: 3753 In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters

text: killed P-0269’s mother-in-law and the mother-in-law’s grandson.

text: Shooting of a woman in the mouth: Mario Ottober testified that right after the attack,

text: while going around checking the state of the camp, he came across a woman, whose name

text: 3744 D-0066: T-214, p. 26, lines 6-8. 3745 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 54. 3746 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 38. 3747 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3748 P-0269: T-85, p. 50, lines 12-16. 3749 P-0269: T-85, p. 50, lines 12-17. 3750 P-0269: T-85, p. 51, lines 6-13. 3751 P-0269: T-85, p. 51, lines 21-24. 3752 P-0269: T-85, p. 51, line 25 – p. 52, line 1. 3753 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 551/1077 4 February 2021 he did not recall, who was shot in the lower part of the cheek and the bullet came out on

text: 3754 the back of her neck. Mario Ottober testified that she had a baby on her back, but the

text: 3755 baby was not injured. He described that there was blood on her body and she had

text: 3756 vomited. Mario Ottober testified that he and his neighbour cleaned her and her wound,

text: 3757 3758 helped her to feed her baby and covered her with blankets. The woman survived.

text: Similarly, Hellen Adong testified of a woman, whose name she also did not recall, who

text: 3759 survived having been shot in the ear and jaw. Hellen Adong testified that she had seen

text: the woman when she was abducted and thought she had died. However, after Hellen

text: Adong returned from the bush, she discovered that the woman was in the hospital and

text: 3760 eventually recovered. Zakeo Odora also testified that a woman, whose name he did

text: 3761 not recall, was shot in the mouth and survived. Given the overwhelming similarities

text: in their description of the woman’s injury, the Chamber is convinced that the witnesses

text: 3762 are describing the same woman. The Chamber finds each witness credible in their

text: 3763 accounts of the woman shot. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is

text: convinced that LRA fighters attempted to kill the above described woman by shooting

text: her in the course of their attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Girl found by the river: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he personally buried a 13 year-

text: 3764 old girl who was a babysitter for his brother. P’Oyoo Lakoch did not recall the girl’s

text: 3765 name. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he and her relatives went looking for her after the

text: 3766 attack and found her body in the Odek River some days after the attack. P’Oyoo

text: 3767 Lakoch testified that she was face down in the water and was shot in the back. P’Oyoo

text: Lakoch testified that because it took so long to find her, she was the last person to be

text: 3754 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34. 3755 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34. 3756 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34. 3757 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34. 3758 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34. 3759 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 60. 3760 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 60. 3761 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 39. 3762 The Chamber notes that P-0274 testifies that the woman now lives in Omyeligali village while P-0325 states that the woman now lives in Odek. P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 34; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 39. 3763 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Odek IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 3764 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42. 3765 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42. 3766 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42. 3767 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 552/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3768 buried in Odek. Mario Ottober offers testimony consistent with and corroborative of P’Oyoo Lakoch, stating that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, he and his 3769 neighbour heard cries and shouting coming from the Odek River. Mario Ottober 3770 testified that they went closer but when they got to the river, it was quiet. Mario Ottober testified that he later learnt that there was a girl who was shot in the leg and fell 3771 in the water. Mario Ottober testified that he believes this was the girl they heard and that when he and his neighbour approached the river, she must have thought the LRA 3772 came back and decided to stay quiet. Mario Ottober testified that her body was 3773 recovered a few days later from the river. Mario Ottober testified that it had started to 3774 decompose. Similarly to the other witnesses, Zakeo Odora testified that a twelve year 3775 old girl died in the Odek River.

text: The Chamber considers that given the overwhelming similarities in the witnesses’ accounts, for example the location of the victim, the witnesses all spoke of the same girl found dead in the Odek River. The Chamber notes that there are some discrepancies in 3776 the witnesses’ description of the victim and her manner of death. The Chamber considers these discrepancies minor. Mario Ottober did not testify that he saw the victim himself and only stated that he heard that she was shot in the leg. The Chamber puts more weight on the testimony of P’Oyoo Lakoch, who saw the victim and personally buried her. However, the Chamber considers that both witnesses credibly testified that the young girl was shot and died in the Odek River. Further, that one witness said the victim was thirteen and another twelve is an even more minor inconsistency, they both testify that she was a young girl. The Chamber notes the location of her discovery as well as Mario Ottober’s testimony about what he heard in the aftermath of the attack. It is clear from the context of Mario Ottober’s testimony that he believed she was shot by the LRA. In

text: 3768 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 42. 3769 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3770 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3771 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3772 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3773 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3774 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 35. 3775 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 36. 3776 Zakeo Odora testified that she was twelve years old while P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that she was thirteen. Mario Ottober testified that she was shot in the leg while Zakeo Odora testified that she was shot in the back.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 553/1077 4 February 2021 light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters shot and killed the

text: young girl found in the Odek River in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: As regards the number of persons killed by the LRA in the course of the attack, it is

text: alleged in the charges that at least 61 civilians, men, women and children, were killed by

text: gunshot as a result of the attack on Odek IDP camp. In this context, the Chamber notes

text: the testimony of P’Oyoo Lakoch who stated that in total 64 persons were shot dead inside

text: 3777 the camp and counted 61 dead bodies himself. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that including

text: 3778 3779 the nine men killed in the bush, a total 73 people died as a result of the attack.

text: P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that there were lists made of the dead, including a list he made but

text: 3780 subsequently lost and another list made by another camp resident. P’Oyoo Lakoch

text: testified that the list making process was ‘a haphazard event, they were writing down the

text: 3781 name of the dead person and the next of kin.’ P’Oyoo Lakoch stated that there was

text: 3782 not any clear record of the names of the dead.

text: The Chamber notes the several lists of the deceased in evidence in these proceedings: P-

text: 0301’s Incident Report, Mario Ottober’s 2004 Diary and the Memorial Plaque that

text: commemorates the list of the dead. The evidence indicates that none of the lists are

text: exhaustive lists of the persons killed in the course of the attack. P-0301’s Incident Report,

text: which listed 25 persons killed in Odek IDP camp, named two people not listed in the

text: 3783 3784 memorial plaque: Jacob Okoya and Lucy Aber. Mario Ottober’s diary listed a total

text: 3785 of 32 persons killed in the attack, and did not include Okeny, the child killed in the

text: 3786 barracks alongside his father, a government soldier. Mario Ottober notes that his list

text: is not comprehensive and other people, including P’Oyoo Lakoch, might have more

text: 3787 information about the injured and the killed. Mario Ottober testified that he provided

text: 3777 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 32. 3778 See paras 1601-1608 below, referring to the nine men killed in the bush while held in captivity by Dominic Ongwen’s LRA fighters. 3779 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 43. 3780 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 32; P-0218: T-90, p. 68, line 15 – p. 70, line 9. 3781 P-0218: T-90, p. 70, lines 7-9. 3782 P-0218: T-90, p. 87, lines 3-6. 3783 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0439. Jacob Okoya is number 12 on the list of the deceased. 3784 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0440. Lucy Aber is number 25 on the list of the deceased. 3785 See P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. 3786 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 54. 3787 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 75.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 554/1077 4 February 2021

text: his list to the Justice and Reconciliation Project (JRP) who built the Memorial Plaque.

text: The Chamber notes that the Memorial Plaque lists 44 persons killed. Zakeo Odora, one of the camp’s block leaders, noted that only 44 names are listed on the Odek memorial

text: plaque, however, according to his observations, around 48 civilians were shot dead

text: 3790 3791

text: within the camp. These 48 civilians did not include the persons killed in the bush. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that ‘there is no living person’s name on that stone’ and

text: described the process through which the JRP collected the names of the persons

text: commemorated on the memorial plaque. P’Oyoo Lakoch noted the JRP was trying to

text: find the names of the people who had died since there was not any clear record.

text: As it is clear that the relevant lists in evidence are not exhaustive, the Chamber notes that

text: it discusses the evidence of 52 persons killed in the course of the Odek IDP camp attack

text: in depth. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that at least 52 persons

text: were killed in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp by the LRA, both in the camp

text: and during the retreat. The Chamber is also satisfied that the evidence shows that the

text: LRA attempted to kill at least ten people.

text: About an hour after the LRA began their attack on Odek IDP camp, the LRA attackers

text: retreated from the camp in the face of the arrival of government reinforcements.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that around the time the government

text: soldiers arrived, the LRA fighters in the camp retreated from the camp.

text: 3788 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 81. Indeed the Chamber notes that the memorial plaque correlates closely with Mario Ottober’s lists, containing many of the same unique spellings of the names of the deceased. 3789 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 36. 3790 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 36. 3791 See P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 36. 3792 P-0218: T-90, p. 86, line 15 – p. 88, line 8. 3793 P-0218: T-90, p. 87, lines 3-6. 3794 The Chamber here refers to its discussion above of the persons killed in the camp and its discussions below of the persons killed in the course of the LRA’s retreat. 3795 Para. 170 above. 3796 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 33 (before the end of the attack, Mario Ottober heard an exchange of gunfire when the mobile government soldiers were fighting the rebels. Soon after that exchange of gunfire, the government soldiers came around and the residents were assured that the rebels had left); P-0264: T-64, p. 62, lines 8-12 (P-0264 testified that the LRA forces left the camp because after defeating the government soldiers, and while LRA forces were looting items in the centre, some government soldiers came from the direction of the school and started shooting at the LRA fighters and so the LRA forces left the camp); P- 0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 29 (P’Oyoo Lakoch could see the soldiers returning from laying the ambush begin firing towards the camp); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 25 (while hiding from the rebels in the Odek River, Zakeo Odora could hear government soldiers approaching from the direction of Awere. Zakeo Odora heard the government soldiers exchange fire with the rebels); P-0406: T-

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 555/1077 4 February 2021

text: Camp resident Helen Opoka Acan testified that the government soldiers were running

text: after the rebels. Sinia fighter P-0264 corroborates her account, testifying that the LRA

text: forces left the camp after some government soldiers came from the direction of the school

text: and started shooting at the LRA fighters. In testimony consistent with the other witnesses’ accounts, P-0314 testified that he ran back to the bush after government

text: soldiers returned to the barracks. Many witnesses reported that in the course of the

text: attack, it began to rain heavily.

text: The Chamber is also satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA’s attack on Odek

text: IDP camp lasted approximately one hour.

text: When they left the camp, the LRA took with them abducted civilians and looted goods. In the course of the attack, LRA fighters abducted at least 40 civilian residents from the camp: men, women and children. Amongst many others Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Titus Latigo, James Ayella, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok, Fabio Otto, Onek, Witness P-0275, Witness P-0269, Witness P-0252, Brian Odokonyero, Hellen Adong, Alice Kidega, Acan, Adaa/Ada, Agnes Adoch, Ajok, Akanyo, Apio, Atenyo, Carolina Lagulu, Dennis Otema, Doreen Aluku, Kadoge,

text: 155, p. 46, line 25 – p. 47, line 10, p. 48, lines 6-11, p. 48, line 21 – p. 49, line 1, p. 53, line 1-18 (P-0406 stated that UPDF soldiers at the school shot at LRA fighters who were at the barracks, dislodging the soldiers at the barracks who then went into the camp centre. The UPDF soldiers were firing at the LRA fighters). See also P- 0406’s annotated sketch of Odek IDP camp and the course of the attack, UGA-OTP-0263-2806; P-0359: T-110, p. 46, lines 7-19 (According to P-0359, a UPDF officer, the UPDF generally do not direct heavy weapons inside a camp, out of fear of causing injury or death). 3797 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 34. Helen Opoka Acan testified that she knew that the soldiers were government soldiers because the government soldiers spoke Swahili while the rebels spoke Acholi. 3798 P-0264: T-64, p. 62, lines 8-12. 3799 P-0314: T-75, p. 11, lines 19-20. 3800 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 25 (it began to rain heavily as the attack ended); P- 0252: T-87, p. 33, lines 8-12; T-89, p. 3, line 21 – p. 4, line 7, p. 14, line 22 – p. 15, line 4 (it was raining when the LRA attacked Odek, the rain started around the time the LRA attacked the barracks and continued during the attack. It was still raining when the LRA were leaving the camp); P-0054: T-93, p. 15, line 21, p. 21, line 7-9 (it started to rain during the LRA’s attack on the barracks and there was heavy rain as they were leaving the camp); P-0309: T-63, p. 22, lines 22-25 (it was raining when they were leaving for Odek and it rained on the way back). The Chamber notes that many witnesses did not mention the rain and P-0340 testified that there was no rain that day. See P-0340: T-103, p. 48, line 18 – p. 49, line 3. The Chamber considers that P-0340’s testimony about the rain does not undermine its overall view of his credibility. 3801 P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 2-10, p. 32, lines 7-11 (According to P-0410, the attack began around 17:00 and the LRA forces started leaving the camp around 18:00); P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 24 (the attack lasted about one hour in total); P-0309: T-61, p. 9, lines 19-20 (the LRA was at the trading centre of Odek IDP camp for approximately 50 minutes to one hour). See P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168- R01, at paras 19 and 34 (the attack began between 17:00 and 18:00 and the government soldiers came between 19:00 and 19:30); P-0269: T-85, p. 35, lines 12-19, p. 36, lines 7-20, p. 48, lines 14-16; T-86, p. 77, lines 14-19 (P-0269 was abducted by the last group of LRA fighters that was fighting in the camp about an hour after the LRA arrived at the camp). The Chamber notes that P-0274 estimated the attack lasted about 30-45 minutes. P- 0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 28. The Chamber is of the view that this testimony is not inconsistent with its finding, particularly given that the witness estimated the time the LRA spent in the camp and the Chamber’s own finding is an approximation.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 556/1077 4 February 2021

text: Kala Adong, Joyce Aneno, Ocaka, Paul Ojara, Richard Okello, Santa Oling, Ventorina

text: Akello, and the wife of Olet Okello were abducted and forced to work for the LRA.

text: Abductees, including children as young as 11 or 12 years old, were forced to carry looted items away from the camp. Abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads for long distances under constant threat of harm; some abductees walked these long

text: distances barefoot. Abductees were forced to carry an injured fighter.

text: Civilians suffered instances of grave physical abuse at the hands of the LRA fighters, such as beatings with sticks and guns. Abductees were beaten for walking too slowly. One abductee was forced to kill another abductee with a club and forced to inspect corpses. Another abductee was forced to watch someone being killed. Some mothers were forced

text: to abandon their children on the side of the road; one child was left on a rubbish pit.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence demonstrates that LRA fighters abducted civilians

text: from Odek IDP camp and under armed guard forced them to work for the LRA, under

text: threat of beatings and/or death. In this context, the Chamber notes the evidence, discussed

text: further below, of the civilians the LRA abducted and killed.

text: Both LRA fighters and civilian residents of Odek IDP camp testified that LRA abducted

text: civilians and severely mistreated civilians in the course of the abductions and the retreat

text: from the camp.

text: LRA fighters themselves testified that the LRA abducted people from Odek IDP camp,

text: providing testimony which corroborates and is consistent with the testimony of the camp

text: residents. P-0340 testified that civilians were abducted in Odek IDP camp and made to 3805 ‘carry the loads’. Similarly, P-0309 testified that the LRA fighters abducted civilians

text: 3806 from the centre and from homes in the camp to help carry looted items. P-0309

text: testified that the abducted civilians were given items to carry, including beans and other 3807 foodstuff. According to P-0309, during the retreat, abducted civilians were walking 3808 in the midst of the LRA fighters. P-0410 testified that he personally abducted two 3809 people from Odek IDP camp.

text: 3802 Para. 171 above. 3803 Para. 172 above. 3804 Para. 173 above. 3805 P-0340: T-102, p. 36, lines 3-10. 3806 P-0309: T-60, p. 83, lines 4-7, lines 16-20; T-61, p. 8, lines 20-24. 3807 P-0309: T-61, p. 9, lines 14-18. 3808 P-0309: T-61, p. 10, lines 12-21. 3809 P-0410: T-151, p. 39, lines 1-3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 557/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3810 P-0352 testified that some of the abductees she saw were old and some were young.

text: P-0406 testified that after the operation, the LRA fighters gathered at the RV point and

text: along with the attackers of Odek IDP camp, there were abducted civilians present,

text: 3811 including children. P-0406 estimated that the youngest abducted children were

text: 3812 between 11 and 12 years old, girls as well as boys.

text: The Chamber also notes that in the intercepted radio communication discussed below, P-

text: 3813 0016 identified Dominic Ongwen as stating ‘I have abducted a number of people’.

text: The consistent and mutually corroborative evidence shows that the LRA fighters

text: abducted civilians from Odek IDP camp.

text: The civilians were abducted to carry goods that the LRA looted from the camp. P-0410

text: testified that he went and took food from the camp and abducted two civilians to help

text: 3814 him carry the items. He recounted that in the camp he cocked his gun while entering

text: 3815 a house and finding people inside, he brought them outside at gunpoint. P-0410

text: 3816 testified that one of the civilians was an adult and the other was a child.

text: Other LRA fighters corroborate P-0410’s account that civilians were abducted from the

text: 3817 camp to carry looted goods. Similarly, P-0406 testified that during the attack, he and

text: 3818 other LRA fighters went into a house to collect food. P-0406 stated that LRA fighters

text: 3819 told the civilians in the house to get up and carry the food. When the civilians refused

text: this order, P-0406 testified that his commander ordered him to beat the civilians with a

text: 3820 gun. P-0406 stated that he hit the civilians on the head and the chest with the butt of

text: 3810 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 126. 3811 P-0406: T-154, p. 50, lines 2-8. 3812 P-0406: T-154, p. 50, lines 5-13. 3813 P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0075; P-0016: T-32, p. 63, lines 18-22. 3814 P-0410: T-151, p. 45, line 22 – p. 46, line 2. 3815 P-0410: T-151, p. 46, lines 3-7. 3816 P-0410: T-151, p. 46, lines 10-13. 3817 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 22, lines 5-6, p. 24, lines 21-24 (civilians were abducted from Odek IDP camp to help with carrying looted items. The abducted civilians carried items looted by LRA fighters to the meeting point.); P- 0309: T-60, p. 83, lines 4-7 (LRA fighters abducted civilians to help carry looted goods). See also P-0252: T-87, p. 34, line 9 – p. 35, line 3 (food had been distributed to the camp three days before the attack, so when the LRA arrived the food was still there. The LRA gave the abductees the things that had been distributed to the camp to carry away, including flour, beans and cooking oil). 3818 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-6. 3819 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-7. 3820 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 558/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3821 3822 the gun. He also hit another civilian with the nozzle of the gun. After this the 3823 civilians got up and carried the food. P-0406 testified that some of the civilians stayed 3824 in the house and the LRA fighters shut the door. P-0264 testified that abductees 3825 carried food items on their heads and backs.

text: The evidence shows that abductees were forced to carry an injured LRA commander 3826 during the retreat. The Chamber also found P-0252’s account of civilians being forced to carry weapons from Odek credible. P-0252 stated that abductees were forced to carry a gun called a ‘B-10’, testifying that the older people from the camp carried the gun in

text: turns.

text: The Chamber also notes the evidence discussed throughout this section shows that the LRA used force throughout the abduction, for example, P-0275, P-0242, P-0269, and Hellen Adong testified that they were abducted by armed LRA soldiers. In this context, the Chamber recalls P-0264’s testimony that the people abducted from Odek IDP camp were tied at the waist with a rope so they do not escape and had to carry items on their 3827 head. In line with this testimony, P-0142 testified that it would not have been possible for civilians abducted to escape as they would have been under tight security by armed 3828 LRA fighters.

text: Helen Opoka Acan described her experience when armed LRA fighters entered her home and dragged her children out:

text: I couldn’t stop them. If you try to stop the rebels or talk to them they will kill you or take out your eye with the butt of the gun. You cannot stop them. If you try to stop them they will cut off your mouth or your ears. After they dragged the children out I was just sitting there in the hut. I had no strength or authority to do anything. I remained in the hut with my husband. They took all my children out of the house and only left [one of my son’s] children with us as they were very young. After they left my house I did not look outside my door. I could not have seen anything,

text: 3821 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-8. 3822 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-9. 3823 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-9. 3824 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 46, lines 4-10. 3825 P-0264: T-64, p. 64, lines 8-11. 3826 See paras 1601-1608 below. The experience and killing of these abductees is discussed further below. 3827 P-0264: T-64, p. 64, lines 12-18. 3828 P-0142: T-70, p. 36, line 21 – p. 37, line 18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 559/1077 4 February 2021 it was dark and confusing. I just bent my head down and waited for what was 3829 coming next.

text: The Chamber also recalls the testimony of Hellen Adong that LRA fighters beat people

text: 3830 who were moving slowly even when they were carrying very heavy items. Hellen

text: Adong testified that people avoided looking at the LRA because they were threatened

text: 3831 when they did. Hellen Adong testified that the LRA frequently threatened the

text: 3832 abductees with death.

text: The Chamber also heard consistent, detailed and credible evidence that the LRA forced

text: women to abandon their children during the retreat from the camp, under threats of

text: beatings or death.

text: Hellen Adong testified that the rebels repeatedly told her to throw her baby away, but she

text: 3833 refused. She testified that during the course of the retreat, as the abductees and their

text: LRA captors crossed a road, they found a baby boy, about two years old, who had been

text: 3834 3835 left on the path. Hellen Adong testified that the child’s mother was called Alice,

text: 3836 she later saw Alice among the abductees. After both of them were released, Alice told

text: 3837 her that she had been forced to leave her baby behind by the LRA. Hellen Adong

text: testified that people in the camp heard the child crying and brought him back to his

text: 3838 father. Hellen Adong’s husband, Mario Ottober, corroborated her account, testifying

text: that she told him that the LRA forced a woman named Alice to leave her child during the

text: 3839 retreat. Mario Ottober stated that according to Hellen Adong, the LRA said the child

text: 3840 was making noise and disturbing people. Mario Ottober also confirmed that the child

text: 3841 was later rescued by the residents of the camp.

text: 3829 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 24-25. 3830 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 41. 3831 See P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 41. 3832 See P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 41, 43-45, 47; P-0269: T-85, p. 44, lines 15-24 (LRA fighters threatened civilians that they would be killed if an injured commander died. P-0269 stated ‘soldiers really wanted to kill us that evening, as if we were not human beings’). 3833 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 38. 3834 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 38. 3835 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 38. 3836 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 38. 3837 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 55. 3838 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 55. 3839 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 43. 3840 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 43. 3841 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 43.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 560/1077 4 February 2021

text: Similarly, P-0269 testified that while she was being abducted, her two children came

text: 3842 following her, crying. P-0269 explained that one soldier told her that she had to leave

text: 3843 her children otherwise she would be killed. She also saw the LRA ask one of the

text: 3844 abducted civilians to untie her baby and leave the child. P-0269 also testified that

text: LRA fighters were telling women to remove the babies that they had on their back so that

text: 3845 they could carry luggage and not hold on to their children.

text: In the retreat from the camp with her LRA abductors, P-0269 saw a very young baby,

text: 3846 about two months old, who was thrown on a rubbish pit. P-0269 testified that she saw

text: 3847 children abandoned in the bush around the ages of 6-8 months. Similarly, abductee P-

text: 0275 testified to seeing a naked baby abandoned at the side of the path; the baby was on

text: 3848 its back and crying.

text: The Chamber also heard evidence of the LRA’s abduction and mistreatment of specific

text: civilians taken from Odek IDP camp in the course of the attack.

text: P-0275: The Chamber recalls the finding that P-0275 was nine years old at the time of

text: 3849 the attack on Odek IDP camp. P-0275 testified that the day of the attack, he was at

text: home with when he heard

text: gunshots and voices outside the hut saying ‘let us finish the people here and burn the

text: 3850 house’. P-0275 testified that as the intensity of the firing increased, he and the others

text: 3851 lay down on the floor of the hut. P-0275 testified that the bullets were hitting the

text: 3852 thatched roof of the house. An LRA fighter came in while they were hiding, took them

text: 3853 out of the house and ordered them to remove their shirts. P-0275 testified that they

text: 3854 were told to lie on the ground as bullets were still flying around. P-0275 testified that

text: 3842 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 17-24. 3843 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 17-24. 3844 P-0269: T-85, p. 39, lines 11-14. 3845 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 5-8. See P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 48 (some of the abducted women were made to abandon their children on the side of the road). 3846 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 2-14. 3847 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 11-16. 3848 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 31. 3849 See Chamber’s discussion oof P-0275’s credibility in section IV.B.2.iv.c.v above. 3850 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 16, 20. 3851 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 20. 3852 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 22. 3853 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 23-24. 3854 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 561/1077 4 February 2021 the fighter lined the boys up by height order with

text: 3855 . He stated that the LRA fighter took a rope and tied

text: 3856 it around their waist to join them together. P-0275 testified that the soldier led the

text: 3857 abductees away while holding one end of the rope. The LRA fighter entered several

text: 3858 civilian homes and removed items, giving them to the boys to carry. P-0275 testified

text: that the soldier ordered them to walk towards the direction of the stream, and that they

text: 3859 walked about four kilometres towards the direction of Lakim. Along the way, it began

text: 3860 to rain. In the course of the retreat with the LRA, P-0275 walked through the bush

text: barefoot and suffered injury. The witness testified that although he had slippers on at the

text: 3861 time of his abduction, they were soon damaged and he had to walk barefoot. P-0275

text: 3862 testified that from this he had lots of wounds on his feet and legs. After being caught

text: trying to escape while the LRA fighters and abductees were marching from Odek IDP

text: camp, P-0275 was beaten with sticks and also with an RPG; he testified that it was ‘like

text: 3863 they were hitting [him] with a big log’.

text: P-0275 testified that while traveling in the bush with the LRA, an LRA fighter beat a

text: 3864 woman, who had been previously abducted before the attack on Odek IDP camp, with

text: the back of a hoe because her feet were swollen, pus was coming out of her wounds and

text: 3865 she could no longer walk. P-0275 described that the soldier approached her while she

text: 3866 was on her knees and told her to say her prayers because she was about to die. P-0275

text: stated that as she said her prayers, the soldier struck her on the head, ‘on the third occasion

text: her head split with the rear of the skull falling forward. I saw some white material mixed

text: 3867 with blood coming from the wound. She died in front of me’. P-0275 further testified

text: 3855 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 26. 3856 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 26. 3857 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 27. 3858 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 27-28. 3859 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 30. 3860 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 30. 3861 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 32. 3862 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 56. 3863 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 43. 3864 P-0275: T-124, p. 65, lines 15-25. 3865 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 57. 3866 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 57. 3867 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 57.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 562/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3868 that he was forced to move and throw away the body of a person killed by the LRA. P-0275 described what he felt witnessing the LRA’s actions:

text: [T]he fact that I could see somebody who had just been killed, somebody who was covered in blood was extremely painful for me. … this person was already an adult 3869 and she was very heavy, so it was difficult for me to pull her as well. The Chamber is convinced of the credibility of P-0275’s account, noting his comprehensive testimony which offered the kind of details that spoke of a keenly observed personal experience. Further, other evidence corroborates P-0275’s testimony.

text: 3870 3871

text: 3872 3873 3874 In light of the foregoing, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that armed LRA fighters abducted P-0275 and forced him to work for the LRA in the course of their attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Ajok: P-0275 testified that one of the persons abducted at Odek was a young woman by 3875 the name of Ajok, who was older than him and had already left school. P-0275 testified that within a few days of the group setting off, Ajok was taken by an LRA fighter 3876 to be his ‘wife’. Noting that for him, time was difficult to assess while in the bush, P- 0275 testified that Ajok was taken as a ‘wife’ a very short time after the attack – he 3877 believed six days after she was abducted. P-0275 testified that the soldier that took Ajok was among the group that he was walking with in the aftermath of the Odek IDP

text: 3868 P-0275: T-124, p. 16, lines 10-15. 3869 P-0275: T-124, p. 16, lines 12-15. 3870

text: 3871 3872 . 3873 3874 3875 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 34, 36, 38. P-0275 testified that he could not estimate her age. 3876 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 38. 3877 P-0275: T-124, p. 50, lines 14-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 563/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3878 camp attack. P-0275 testified that he knew that Ajok had been made a so-called ‘wife’

text: 3879 because one night he realised that she was sleeping with an LRA ‘lapwony’. She

text: continued sleeping with this lapwony which made P-0275 believe that she had become

text: 3880 the lapwony’s ‘wife’. P-0275’s account of the experience of Ajok in captivity was

text: detailed, filled with context that explained the source of P-0275’s information and

text: showed that he was narrating events he observed. The Chamber considers this account

text: credible and finds that Ajok, a young woman was abducted by the LRA and made into a

text: so-called ‘wife’ of an LRA fighter.

text: Onek: P-0252 testified that a young man, about 21 or 22 years old, named Onek, was

text: 3881 abducted by an LRA fighter named Tito, one of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts. P-0252

text: testified that Onek stayed with Tito and became his escort, doing tasks such as preparing

text: 3882 Tito’s bed. P-0252 testified that when Onek escaped in the middle of the night, Tito

text: 3883 threatened to kill the abductees from Odek. In the end, P-0252 was severely beaten

text: 3884 because of Onek’s escape. The Chamber considers P-0252’s account of Onek’s

text: experience in and escape from the LRA credible.

text: Several other witnesses also offered testimony consistent and corroborative of P-0252’s

text: account that Onek was abducted during the course of the 29 April 2004 attack and later

text: 3885 returned from the bush. P’Oyoo Lakoch testifies that a ‘Charles’ Onek was abducted

text: by the LRA during the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp and returned after some

text: 3886 days. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that Onek was still in the bush at the time male

text: 3887 abductees were killed. In contrast, P-0275 testified that ‘Denish’ Onekalit was

text: 3878 P-0275: T-124, p. 51, lines 1-11. 3879 P-0275: T-124, p. 80, line 18 – p. 81, line 1. 3880 P-0275: T-124, p. 80, line 18 – p. 81, line 1. 3881 P-0252: T-87, p. 26, lines 5-7, p. 38, lines 19-25. See P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 66, lines 21-23 (Onek was also called Onekalit). 3882 P-0252: T-87, p. 38, line 19 – p. 39, line 2. 3883 P-0252: T-87, p. 38, line 19 – p. 39, line 13. 3884 P-0252: T-87, p. 39, lines 14-22. 3885 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 59 (a boy named Onek was abducted from Odek IDP camp during the 29 April 2004 attack and later returned from the bush); P-0269: T-85, p. 46, line 22 – p. 47, line 23 (P-0269 saw Onek among the persons abducted from Odek; he later returned to the camp); P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 44 (According to Helen Opoka Acan, Onek, her neighbour’s son, was abducted during the attack). The Chamber notes that several of the witnesses offer different ages when describing Onek, the Chamber does not consider that fact dispositive. The witnesses are consistent in describing that Onek was abducted and returned from the bush. The Chamber is of the view that the witnesses are discussing the same person. 3886 P-0218: T-90, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 8; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 38. 3887 P-0218: T-90, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 564/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3888 abducted from Odek IDP camp. P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Onekalit Denis’ as

text: one of the persons abducted during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp

text: 3889 and still in captivity as May 2004. The Chamber recalls P-0252’s testimony that Onek

text: was also called Onekalit. Given the similarities in the names of the victim, and the

text: circumstances of abduction, the Chamber is of the view that this evidence points to the

text: abduction of the same person, Onek. The above is also evidence that Onek was abducted

text: by LRA fighters in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp. In light of the foregoing,

text: the Chamber finds that Onek was abducted by the LRA and forced him to work for the

text: LRA.

text: Hellen Adong: Hellen Adong testified that in response to hearing gunshots in the camp,

text: 3890 she and her children hid in her home and locked the door. A rebel soldier carrying a

text: 3891 gun kicked down the door. According to Hellen Adong she picked up one of her

text: young children, Ocen, and ran outside and said to the LRA fighter, ‘don’t shoot me I am

text: 3892 3893 a civilian’. The fighter told her in Acholi to get moving. At the time Hellen Adong

text: 3894 was not wearing any shoes. Hellen Adong looked for an item of clothing with which

text: to carry her child but the LRA fighter hit her with the butt of his gun in the lower thigh

text: 3895 on her right leg. Hellen Adong stated that eventually she took off the blouse she was

text: 3896 wearing and used it to tie her baby on her back and walked bare-chested herself. She

text: 3897 stated that she was in severe pain where the LRA fighter had hit her. She, her child

text: and the soldier started walking from her home at one edge of the camp in the direction

text: 3898 of the barracks.

text: Hellen Adong testified that after the LRA looted homes near the barracks, armed fighters

text: 3899 told her and other abductees to carry the looted items. The LRA rebel who abducted

text: her found a sack of maize in a civilian, Ocii’s, house, in the middle of the camp and began

text: 3888 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 34. 3889 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441. 3890 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 23-25. 3891 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 26. 3892 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. 3893 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. 3894 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. 3895 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. 3896 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 30. 3897 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. 3898 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 27. The Chamber notes that the barracks was at the other edge of the camp. See P-0274 Sketch of Odek IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0244-3388-R01. 3899 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 28.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 565/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3900 to beat her, telling her to abandon her baby and carry the sack. According to Hellen

text: 3901 Adong, although the soldier continued to beat her, she refused to abandon her baby.

text: 3902 She carried the sack of maize on her head and her baby on her back, and continued to

text: 3903 carry it through the bush. Hellen Adong testified that eventually another LRA fighter

text: 3904 3905 halted the beating; she was able to keep carrying her child.

text: During the day she spent in captivity by the LRA, while she was forced to walk a long

text: distance with a sack of maize on her head while carrying her baby on her back, Hellen

text: 3906 Adong walked barefoot. After she returned from the bush, she could not walk well

text: for a couple of weeks because her feet had blisters and thorns on them from walking

text: 3907 barefoot in the bush.

text: Hellen Adong testified that during the retreat from Odek IDP camp, her child was crying

text: 3908 because he was naked and it was cold. She stated that the LRA beat her on her back

text: 3909 with the butt of their guns when she could not get him to stop crying. According to

text: 3910 the witness the LRA fighters also beat other women whose babies were crying. Hellen

text: Adong testified that it was wet and cold and the baby kept crying until she was finally

text: 3911 able to soothe him by breastfeeding.

text: Hellen Adong stated that after walking about six miles the day after the attack, LRA

text: fighters told the women who had to carry looted materials from Odek to bring the items

text: 3912 all to one place. The women were then released but were threatened that if a

text: commander who had been injured during the attack died, they would be found and

text: 3913 killed. Hellen Adong testified that the women were released around 15:00 the day

text: 3900 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 30. 3901 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 30. P-0268 testified that another LRA soldier eventually stopped the LRA fighter from hitting her. 3902 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 30. 3903 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 47. 3904 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 31. 3905 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 38, 52. 3906 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 27, 57. 3907 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 57. 3908 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 46. 3909 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 46. 3910 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 46. 3911 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 46. 3912 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 51. 3913 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 52-53.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 566/1077 4 February 2021

text: after the attack and ran most of the way home. Although Hellen Adong took one of

text: her children with her while she was abducted, she was forced to leave her other children

text: behind, including a breastfeeding baby, Sharon Apio. Hellen Adong testified that

text: after she returned home from her captivity a day later, she discovered that her child was

text: crying and weak and no longer wanted to be breastfed. Hellen Adong testified that

text: the doctor could not diagnose any problems; however the child died a week later.

text: The Chamber notes that Mario Ottober, Hellen Adong’s husband, corroborates her

text: account of her abduction. The small inconsistencies in their accounts do not

text: undermine their credibility and reliability. Rather, they are the normal variances expected

text: from independent recollections and go to show that their testimonies were not rehearsed

text: or coordinated. The Chamber finds that Mario Ottober’s account of what he witnessed of

text: her abduction and what she told him of her experience in captivity corroborate Hellen

text: Adong’s testimony and bolsters the Chamber’s view of her credibility and reliability. P’Oyoo Lakoch and Helen Opoka Acan corroborate the other witnesses, testifying that

text: Hellen Adong was abducted by LRA fighters and forced to carry looted food away from

text: the camp. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that Helen Ottober told him that she and others

text: brought the pillaged food to a bigger group of LRA fighters in Lakim. In light of the

text: evidence, the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters abducted Hellen Adong and

text: forced her to work for the LRA.

text: 3914 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 54. 3915 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 56. 3916 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 56. 3917 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 56. 3918 For example, Mario Ottober indicates that she carried the maize from outside their house at the edge of camp while Hellen Adong explicitly describes picking up the maize in the middle of the camp. 3919 See P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 29-30, 40 (Hellen Adong was in a house with their children with the door locked when the LRA kicked the door of the house open and his wife came out of the house. Hellen Adong told the LRA not to shoot as she is a civilian. The LRA told her to carry a large sack of maize from outside and follow them. She followed the LRA while carrying their son, Ocen, who was less than one year old on her back. She was released the day after the attack). 3920 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at paras 34-35 (Helen Ottober told him that the rebels made her and others carry food away from the camp. She told him that after they had walked some distance, they were released and were told by rebels to take a different route back to the camp in case the government soldiers followed them). The witness specifically refers to Helen Ottober. The Chamber notes that Hellen Adong is married to Mario Ottober and understands that references to Helen or Hellen Ottober are to Hellen Adong. See P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 13; P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 48 (Hellen Adong lived near Helen Opoka Acan and was one of the women who returned from the bush. Hellen Adong was abducted to carry loads for the LRA). 3921 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 35.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 567/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0269: P-0269 testified at the time of the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack, she was

text: 3922 six-months pregnant. She stated that when the gunshots began, she hid in a trench

text: 3923 inside her home. She came out of her hiding spot to see if the LRA fighters had left

text: 3924 the camp. P-0269 stated that she returned to her hiding spot, only to be followed by

text: 3925 an armed LRA fighter who told her to come out of her hiding spot. The LRA fighter

text: 3926 pulled a heavy bag of food, gave it to her to try to carry and told her to run after him.

text: P-0269 testified that she was not able to carry the heavy bag, so the fighter gave her a

text: 3927 bag of flour to carry. P-0269 testified that they encountered some gunfire from

text: government soldiers and at some point, the LRA fighter was hit in the chest but they

text: 3928 continued moving. P-0269 continued with the fighter out of Odek IDP camp, carrying

text: 3929 the bag she was given to carry. The LRA fighter told her that she would only get hit

text: 3930 if she did something wrong. She carried food, bags of salt and flour, during the course

text: 3931 of the retreat. P-0269 testified that she was threatened that if the salt was spoilt by the

text: 3932 rain she would be killed. According to P-0269, she was told never to try to escape,

text: 3933 and that she would be killed if she tried. P-0269 testified that the luggage the LRA

text: 3934 forced her to carry was ‘so heavy’ and she carried it on her side for a long time. She

text: 3935 also had to carry a saucepan with the salt bag. P-0269 testified that as a result of what

text: 3936 she carried through the bush, her ribs were injured.

text: P-0269 testified that the group that abducted her was the last group that was fighting at

text: 3937 the camp. P-0269 stated that eventually she was instructed to put down what she was

text: 3938 carrying and then join a line of women. The witness told that the LRA threatened the

text: 3922 P-0269: T-85, p. 41, lines 4-9. 3923 P-0269: T-85, p. 34, line 19 – p. 35, line 3. 3924 P-0269: T-85, p. 35, lines 12-19. 3925 P-0269: T-85, p. 36, lines 7-12. 3926 P-0269: T-85, p. 36, lines 7-17. 3927 P-0269: T-85, p. 37, lines 1-5. 3928 P-0269: T-85, p. 36, lines 7-25. 3929 P-0269: T-85, p. 37, line 25 – p. 38, line 5. 3930 P-0269: T-85, p. 38, lines 1-4. 3931 P-0269: T-85, p. 39, lines 15-22. 3932 P-0269: T-85, p. 39, lines 15-22. 3933 P-0269: T-85, p. 44, lines 8-14. 3934 P-0269: T-85, p. 53, lines 17-22. 3935 P-0269: T-85, p. 53, lines 17-23. 3936 P-0269: T-85, p. 53, lines 17-24. 3937 P-0269: T-85, p. 48, lines 14-16. 3938 P-0269: T-85, p. 48, lines 14-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 568/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3939 people in the line, telling them that they were going to be killed. Then, according to P-0269, the LRA discussed amongst themselves and told the women that ‘[y]ou won’t be killed this time around because if we kill you, there won’t be any other woman left in 3940 Odek camp. For that reason, we are going to release you to go back home’. P-0269 3941 testified that the women were made to walk in a zigzag fashion and then released. The Chamber considers that P-0269’s account of her abduction was internally consistent and credible. The witness offered comprehensive details that convinced the Chamber that she spoke from her personal experience. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that P-0269 was abducted by LRA fighters and forced to work for the LRA.

text: Brian Odokonyero (Odoki)

text: 3942 The Chamber notes that P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that ‘Odoki’ was abducted 3943 together with Hilary Kilama. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that Odoki later told him that 3944 he and Kilama were tied together and led away from the camp. Given the overwhelming similarities between the witnesses’ accounts of the manner of the victims’ abduction, it is clear to the Chamber that Brian Odokonyero is the same person called ‘Odoki’. Corroborating the other accounts, P-0252 testified that Odoki was a child 3945 abducted from Odek. Additionally, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Odoki s/o Onen Mugabe,’ as one of the persons abducted during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek 3946 IDP camp and still in captivity as of May 2004. In light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that armed LRA fighters abducted Odoki and forced him to work for the LRA in the course of the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: 3939 P-0269: T-85, p. 48, lines 14-20. 3940 P-0269: T-85, p. 48, lines 14-24, p. 50, lines 5-11. 3941 P-0269: T-85, p. 48, line 24 – p. 49, line 22. 3942

text: 3943 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. 3944 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. 3945 P-0252: T-87, p. 24, lines 14-24. 3946 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0440.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 569/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0252: The Chamber recalls its discussion of the attempted killing of P-0252

text: 3947 3948 by an LRA soldier. P-0252 was abducted by one of Dominic

text: 3949 Ongwen’s soldiers, Onen Kamdulu. Kamdulu also abducted several other people and

text: 3950 used a rope to tie them to each other, including P-0252. P-0252 testified that Onen

text: Kamdulu told the abducted persons that he would shoot them if they tried to flee and to

text: 3951 demonstrate his seriousness, shot at people within their homes. P-0252 testified that

text: he was forced to carry cooking oil that had been recently distributed to civilians in the

text: 3952 camp. The Chamber finds P-0252’s account of his captivity credible. Several

text: witnesses testified that P-0252 was abducted by the LRA and returned from the bush,

text: 3953 largely corroborating P-0252’s account. Further corroborating the witnesses’

text: accounts,

text: 3954 . The Chamber is convinced by the consistent and credible evidence that LRA

text: fighters abducted P-0252 and severely mistreated him.

text: P-0252 testified that several days after the attack on Odek IDP camp, before the LRA

text: fighters finally reached their destination with their abductees,

text: 3955 . P-0252 explained that

text: 3956 . He testified that LRA fighters Korea, Ayella and Tito, brought Atir with

text: 3957 Atir’s hands tied behind his back. According to P-0252, the LRA had already decided

text: 3958 that all the adults abducted from Odek would be killed. P-0252 testified that the other

text: 3947 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 6, lines 7-21. 3948 See the Chamber discussion of the attempted killing of P-0252 in para. 1536 above. 3949 P-0252: T-87, p. 9, line 25 – p. 10, line 3, p. 12, lines 24-25. 3950 P-0252: T-87, p. 13, lines 9-11. 3951 P-0252: T-87, p. 13, lines 12-18. 3952 P-0252: T-87, p. 34, lines 9-14. 3953

text: 3954 3955 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 66, lines 1-2. See P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 68, lines 5-14, p. 69, lines 21-24. 3956 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 66, lines 3-7, p. 66, line 23 – p. 67, line 2. 3957 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 66, lines 3-10. 3958 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 3-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 570/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3959 abductee Onek and Atir knew each other from home. P-0252 also knew Atir and his

text: 3960 family from Odek. P-0252 testified that when Atir saw Onek, Atir said to him ‘I am

text: 3961 going to be killed today’. P-0252 testified that the LRA fighters had already set up a

text: place where Atir was to be killed and Atir was pushed and fell facedown, his hands were

text: 3962 3963 still bound behind his back. The LRA fighters were laughing. P-0252 testified that

text: 3964 the LRA fighters ;

text: 3965 .

text: 3966 P-0252 testified that

text: 3967 .

text: 3968 P-0252 testified that

text: 3969 .

text: 3970 3971 The LRA fighters were still laughing. After the

text: death of Atir, the LRA fighters asked P-0252 if he was going to escape and P-0252 swore

text: 3972 that he would not escape in the name of God. The Chamber finds P-0252’s account

text: of the killing of Atir detailed, comprehensive, and internally consistent. P-0252 provided

text: details that made it clear to the Chamber that P-0252 was describing an event that he

text: actually experienced. The Chamber also notes that

text: . The Chamber finds P-0252’s testimony as to how and

text: why Atir was killed completely credible.

text: Other witnesses provided testimony which corroborates P-0252’s account of Atir’s death,

text: further convincing the Chamber of the credibility of P-0252’s testimony in this regard.

text: Zakeo Odora testified that someone named ‘Atii’ was abducted from Odek and killed in

text: 3959 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 9-10. 3960 P-0252: T-88-CONF, p. 37, lines 6-10. 3961 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 10-11. 3962 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 15-17. 3963 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 15-17. 3964 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 17-18. 3965 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 17-18. 3966 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 19-21. 3967 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 19-21. 3968 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, line 22. 3969 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 22-23. 3970 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, lines 23-24. 3971 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, line 24. 3972 P-0252: T-87-CONF, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 571/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3973 the bush by the LRA.

text: 3974 P-0269, who was abducted by the LRA during

text: the attack and later released, testified that the LRA began to torture Atir immediately

text: 3975 from the point where the retreating group had stopped to prepare meals. P-0269

text: 3976 testified that the LRA removed Atir’s shirt and bound him. She testified that she saw

text: 3977 him being undressed and beaten. P-0269 continued that Atir never returned from the

text: 3978 bush. P-0269 testified that one of the children who had been abducted and escaped

text: 3979 reported that all the men who were abducted were eventually killed. In light of the

text: evidence, the Chamber finds that the LRA fighters to kill

text: Atir by beating him to death.

text: The evidence shows that armed LRA fighters abducted many other persons apart from

text: the individuals discussed in detail above. Abductees were forced to work for the LRA.

text: P-0269 testified that she moved together with other persons abducted by the LRA, men,

text: 3983 women and children. P-0269 testified that the youngest person she saw among the

text: 3984 abductees was a child of about eight years old. P-0269 testified that the child was later

text: 3985 released together with the women who were released. In line with P-0269, Hellen

text: Adong testified of other abductees, stating that the abductees were made to carry items

text: 3974 3975 3976 P-0269: T-85, p. 43, lines 11-22. 3977 P-0269: T-85, p. 43, lines 11-22. 3978 P-0269: T-85, p. 43, lines 18-19. 3979 P-0269: T-85, p. 43, lines 19-22. 3980 3981 3982 3983 P-0269: T-85, p. 46, line 22 – p. 47, line 7. 3984 P-0269: T-85, p. 47, lines 5-10. 3985 P-0269: T-85, p. 47, lines 8-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 572/1077 4 February 2021 from the camp and after a rest period, the abductees were told to carry what they had

text: carried from the camp and were threatened that anyone who did not would be killed.

text: Witnesses reported that in addition to the civilians discussed in detail above, other

text: civilians who were abducted by the LRA in Odek IDP camp included: Alice Kidega,

text: 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993

text: Santa Oling, Acan, Adaa/Ada, Agnes Adoch, Akanyo, Apio,

text: 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998

text: Atenyo, Carolina Lagulu, Dennis Otema, Doreen Aluku, Kadoge, Kala

text: 3986 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 47. 3987 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at para. 48 (Alice Kidega was abducted and later came back from the bush; she had been abducted to carry loads for the LRA). The Chamber here recalls its discussion of ‘Alice’ who was forced to abandon her 2 year old child in the bush (see para. 1566 above). In the context of Helen Opoka Acan’s testimony as well as Hellen Adong’s, the Chamber is of the view that the witnesses are speaking of the same person. 3988 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 35 (Santa, the wife of Aleo, was one of the women Hellen Adong walked with in a line leaving the camp. Santa had new born twin girls, whom she left at home. According to Hellen Adong, both of the twin girls later died because when Santa came back, the girls were weak and could not breastfeed. She and Santa were neighbours and Santa told her that the twins were refusing to breastfeed. One twin died three days after Hellen Adong and Santa Oling returned from the bush and the other died three days later); P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 40-42 (Santa Oling was abducted from the camp. She had just given birth to twins. When she returned the next day, she found that her twins had died). The Chamber notes the discrepancy between the two witnesses’ accounts of when the twin girls died. The Chamber considers that the witnesses’ testimonies are consistent that Santa was abducted by the LRA. 3989 P-0406: T-156, p. 4, line 22 – p. 5, line 1, p. 6, lines 3-10 (a girl named Acan was abducted from Odek. P- 0406 would see her sleeping in the same tent as an LRA commander). 3990 P-0252: T-87, p. 24, lines 15-23 (Ada was a child abducted from Odek); P-0269: T-85, p. 46, line 22 – p. 48, line 7 (Adaa was among the abducted P-0269 saw during the retreat from Odek. Adaa later returned to Odek. P- 0269 estimated that Adaa was between 13 and 14 years old at the time of the abduction). 3991 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 41 (Agnes Adoch was abducted during the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack. She remained in the bush for between eight months and a year); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 36, 59 (Hellen Adong saw Agnes Adoch among the abductees. She was about 14-16 years old. She later returned from the bush); P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 34 (one of the persons abducted at Odek was a girl by the name of Adoch). 3992 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 34 (one of the persons abducted at Odek was a girl by the name of Akanyo, who was female and in primary six at his school). 3993 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 34 (one of the persons abducted at Odek was a young woman by the name of Apio). 3994 P-0252: T-87, p. 17, line 25 – p. 19, line 3, p. 26, lines 12-16 (Atenyo was a wounded woman tied to P-0252 and dragged into the bush). 3995 P-0252: T-87, p. 17, line 25 – p. 19, line 3, p. 26, lines 12-16 (Carolina Lagule was tied to P-0252 and dragged into the bush). 3996 P-0252: T-87, p. 24, lines 14-24, p. 41, lines 1-12 (Dennis Otema was abducted at the same time as P-0252 and by the Sinia brigade led by Odomi). The Chamber notes that it found this aspect of P-0252’s testimony credible. 3997 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 40 (Doreen Aluku was abducted from Odek during the attack. She was around 38 years old. She was released after about two days. She told Zakeo Odora that she was made to carry bags of beans and posho weighing 50 kilograms each. She told him that she was led away by the rebels in the direction of Lakim). 3998 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 34 (one of the persons abducted from Odek was Kadoge).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 573/1077 4 February 2021

text: 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003

text: Adong, Joyce Aneno, Ocaka, Paul Ojara, Richard Okello Ventorina

text: 4004 4005

text: Akello, and the wife of Olet Okello.

text: As to the number of persons abducted by the LRA from Odek IDP camp, the Chamber

text: notes that the evidence indicates that at least 40 were abducted from Odek IDP camp.

text: The Chamber notes its discussion below of the persons abducted by the LRA and killed

text: in the bush as well as its discussion above of the persons abducted in the camp. In

text: these various discussions, the Chamber discussed the evidence of a total of 40 named

text: persons.

text: Further, witnesses testify that many people were abducted from Odek IDP camp. P-

text: 0330 placed the number as less than 50 persons. Other witnesses testified to a smaller

text: number, between 20-30 persons. Noting that each witness testified from their vantage

text: points, the Chamber does not consider these testimonies incompatible with its finding.

text: 3999 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 41 (Kala Adong was abducted from Odek during the attack); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 35 (testified Karla Adong was one of the women Hellen Adong walked with in a line leaving the camp). 4000 P-0269: T-85, p. 46, line 25 – p. 47, line 21 (Joyce Aneno was one of the children P-0269 saw among the abducted. Joyce Aneno came back with the women who were released). 4001 P-0252: T-87, p. 17, line 25 – p. 19, line 3, p. 26, lines 12-17 (Ocaka was one of several children P-0252 saw abducted and was a young child, around eight or nine). 4002 P-0269: T-85-CONF, p. 23, lines 10-19 (Ojara was one of the abductees. P-0269 saw him on the first day of his abduction); P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, para. 34 (one of the persons abducted from Odek was Paul Ojara, who was in primary four at his school); P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0440 (P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Ojara Paul’ as one of the persons abducted during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp and still in captivity as of May 2004. The Incident Report also listed Ojara as being in primary four). 4003 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 44-45 (Helen Opoka Acan testified that her son Richard Okello was abducted by the LRA during the attack. Richard Okello later returned from the bush). 4004 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 40 (Ventorina Akello was abducted from Odek during the attack. She was around 58 years old. She told Zakeo Odora that she was made to carry bags of beans and posho weighing 50 kilograms each. She told him that she was led away by the rebels in the direction of Lakim. She was released after two days). 4005 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 43 (Hellen Adong saw the wife of Olet Okello among the abductees). 4006 See paras 1594-1608 below, discussing the abduction and killings of Aroja, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Ayella, James Titus Latigo, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok and Fabio Otto in detail. 4007 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 126 (many people were abducted from Odek IDP camp). P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 33 (many civilians, men, women and children, were abducted from Odek IDP camp). 4008 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 22, lines 8-13. 4009 P-0314: T-75, p. 12, line 13 – p. 13, line 1 (during the retreat from Odek, P-0314 saw an estimated 20-30 people who had been abducted from the camp, including girls); P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 33 (P-0275 saw perhaps 30 abductees); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 36, 40 (more than twenty people were abducted by the rebels, most were women and some of these women were carrying

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 574/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the LRA abducted civilians from Odek IDP camp and placed them under military guard to prevent their escape; civilians were forced to work for the LRA and compelled to carry looted goods, an injured fighter or a weapon away from the camp under threat of death or beatings.

text: Some civilians from the camp were killed when they struggled or tried to escape. One deceased was beaten so badly that his brain was exposed. LRA fighters killed a young abductee because his feet were too swollen and he was unable to walk any further. Nine adult men were abducted from the camp and forced to carry an LRA fighter who had been wounded during the attack; LRA fighters later killed all nine men when the LRA

text: commander died from his injury.

text: The LRA killed the following persons in the course of the retreat from Odek IDP camp: Aroja, Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Ayella, James Titus

text: Latigo, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok and Fabio Otto.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA continued to kill civilians after taking them into the bush. P-0330 testified that abducted civilians were killed because there was a suspicion that they would inform government soldiers about the location of the LRA and that would 4012 jeopardise the LRA’s position in Gulu. P-0330 testified that while he did not know

text: who ordered the killing of the civilians, he suspected that no other person could issues 4013 orders other than the ‘overall commander’.

text: The following evidence addresses the victims who were killed in the bush in the course of the LRA’s retreat from the camp. The evidence shows that LRA fighters

text: Atir in the course of the retreat; 4014 .

text: Aroja: P-0252 also testified that he heard that a girl named Aroja, who he identified as 4015 Banya Wilson’s daughter, was abducted by the LRA in the course of the attack in the

text: their babies. During the retreat, the abductees and the LRA fighters she was with moved in a line, every second person was a rebel and then an abductee). 4010 Para. 174 above. 4011 Para. 175 above. 4012 P-0330: T-52, p. 25, lines 9-12. 4013 P-0330: T-52, p. 25, lines 13-17. 4014 See paras 1586-1587 above. 4015 P-0252: T-87, p. 37, lines 14-15 (testifying that Banya Wilson was an LC).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 575/1077 4 February 2021 same group that he was in and was killed because she was unable to continue to move

text: 4016 during the retreat from Odek.

text: Hilary Kilama: P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that Hilary Kilama, the child of Romano Opoka

text: 4017 4018 4019 and Helen Acan, and also his cousin, was abducted and killed in the bush.

text: 4020 P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that he was told by another child, Odoki, who had been

text: abducted along with Hilary Kilama, that the two were tied together and led away from

text: 4021 the camp. According to Odoki, Hilary Kilama’s feet had swollen to the point where

text: he could no longer walk because of the pain, so the LRA rebels killed him the day after

text: 4022 the attack. P-0275 testified that

text: 4023 . P-0275 testified that

text: 4024 . P-0275 testified that while

text: sorting abductees at the rest stop, LRA fighters asked questions

text: 4025 . P-0275 testified that after he came back home from the bush,

text: 4026 Brian Odokonyero told him that Hilary Kilama had been killed by the LRA. P-0275

text: testified that he was informed that Hilary Kilama’s feet had been swollen and so the LRA

text: 4027 killed him. P’Oyoo Lakoch and P-0275’s narrative are consistent and mutually

text: corroborative.

text: Other witnesses also testify of Hilary Kilama’s killing. Mario Ottober’s testimony is

text: corroborative of the above witnesses; he stated that Kilama was one of two children from

text: 4016 P-0252: T-87, p. 37, lines 13-18. 4017 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. Helen Acan is Helen Opoka Acan, a witness in these proceedings. 4018 In P’Oyoo Lakoch’s victim application, Hillary Kilama is listed as his uncle. See Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0184. In his testimony, P’Oyoo Lakoch described his family relationship with Hillary Kilama, explaining that Hillary Kilama is the child of his father’s brother. See P-0218: T-90, p. 29, lines 18-19, p. 78, lines 3-20. The Chamber is satisfied with P’Oyoo Lakoch’s explanation of his family relationship with Hilary Kilama, and concludes that Hilary Kilama was his cousin, the child of his father’s brother. 4019 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. 4020 See para. 1584 above (finding the Brian Odokonyero is also called Odoki). 4021 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. 4022 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 37. 4023 P-0275: T-124-CONF, p. 27, lines 2-9. 4024 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 17-35. 4025 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 35. 4026 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 104. 4027 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at para. 104.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 576/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4028 Odek who were believed to have been killed in the bush after they were abducted.

text: Helen Opoka Acan, Hilary Kilama’s mother, testified that Hilary Kilama was abducted

text: 4029 and was shot and killed in the bush because he was walking too slowly. Helen Opoka

text: Acan testified that another son, who had also been abducted by the LRA, returned from

text: 4030 the bush and told her about Hilary Kilama’s death. P-0269 testified that among the

text: 4031 abductees she saw during the retreat was a boy called Kilama. She stated, ‘he went

text: 4032 for good, never returned’. P-0269 testified that she estimated that Kilama was

text: 4033 between 13 and 14 years old at the time of the abduction. The Chamber considers that

text: the above witnesses provide consistent and mutually corroborative evidence which

text: shows that Hilary Kilama was killed by the LRA. Further corroborating the witnesses’

text: accounts, P-0301’s Incident Report lists ‘Kilama Hillary’ as one of the persons abducted

text: during the 29 April 2004 LRA attack on Odek IDP camp and still not returned to the

text: 4034 camp as of May 2004. The Chamber is convinced that the evidence shows that LRA

text: fighters killed Hilary Kilama during the retreat from Odek IDP camp.

text: 4035 Lalam: P-0406 testified that a girl, Lalam, was abducted from Odek and killed in the

text: 4036 4037 bush, approximately a week after being abducted. According to P-0406 Lalam had

text: 4038 already been distributed when she was killed and the LRA was still in the Gulu area.

text: She had been placed on LRA commander ‘Okwee’s’ house. A boy was swept away by a

text: river and this commander decided that Lalam was the cause of this incident because

text: 4039 Lalam dreamt a lot at night and thus must be a witch. P-0406 testified that the

text: commander determined that Lalam should be killed by an LRA fighter, Odoki, and she

text: 4028 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 73. Mario Ottober’s listing of ‘Kilama’ among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack also provides a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 73. The Chamber notes that the first name of Kilama is somewhat illegible and appears to be ‘Mario’. The Chamber is also of the view that Mario Ottober’s reference to ‘Mario’ in his 2004 Diary is also why ‘Kilama Mario’ is listed on the Memorial Plaque erected in Odek IDP camp to commemorate the persons killed by the LRA on 29 April 2004. See Memorial plaque, UGA-OTP-0250-0265, at number 14. 4029 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 44-45. 4030 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 44-45. 4031 P-0269: T-85, p. 46, line 25 – p. 47, line 22. 4032 P-0269: T-85, p. 47, line 22. 4033 P-0269: T-85, p. 47, line 25 – p. 48, line 7. 4034 P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0440. 4035 P-0406: T-154, p. 50, line 25 – p. 51, line 3. 4036 P-0406: T-154, p. 50, lines 14-24. 4037 P-0406: T-156, p. 5, lines 5-7. 4038 P-0406: T-156, p. 5, lines 5-16. 4039 P-0406: T-154, p. 35, lines 3-22, p. 36, lines 3-7, p. 50, lines 19-24; T-156, p. 5, lines 5-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 577/1077 4 February 2021

text: was. The Chamber finds P-0406’s testimony detailed, comprehensive and credible.

text: Similarly, P-0252 testified that a Luo girl was killed in the bush after she was accused of

text: being a witch. P-0252 testified that someone was crossing the Agogo River and all of

text: a sudden he was killed and the LRA alleged that there was a witch and that the girl was

text: a witch and so she was killed. Given the great similarities in the details they provide,

text: the Chamber is of the view that P-0406 and P-0252 are likely speaking of the same person,

text: Lalam. The Chamber is convinced that the evidence shows that Lalam was killed by the

text: LRA after being abducted during the attack on the camp.

text: Rose Aweko: Mario Ottober testified that Rose Aweko was one of two children from

text: Odek who were killed in the bush after they were abducted. The Chamber notes that

text: the evidence shows that Rose Aweko was an LRA abductee and thus in the sole control

text: of the LRA. The Chamber is convinced that the evidence shows that Rose Aweko, an

text: abductee in the control of the LRA, was killed by the LRA after being abducted from

text: Odek IDP camp.

text: Nine men killed in the bush: Many witnesses credibly testified that nine men, abducted

text: by LRA fighters during the Odek IDP camp attack, were killed by the LRA in the bush

text: 4044 4045

text: in the course of the retreat from the camp: David Ojok, James Ayella, James Titus

text: 4040 P-0406: T-156, p. 5, lines 5-16. 4041 P-0252: T-87, p. 37, line 23 – p. 38, line 8. 4042 P-0252: T-87, p. 37, line 23 – p. 38, line 8. 4043 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 73. Mario Ottober provided a 2004 Diary in which Rose Aweko is listed among the persons killed in the 29 April 2004 Odek attack, thus providing a contemporaneous record of the death. P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. See also P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 73. 4044 P-0218: T-90, p. 13, lines 15-20; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39.

text: P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at para. 72; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 53, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (stating that David Ojok was 35 years old). 4045 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 41; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 33 years old). The Chamber is of the view that the witnesses’ reference to Ayella is merely a different spelling of the last name of James Ayela.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 578/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051

text: Latigo, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P’Mala Okot, Ojok and

text: Fabio Otto.

text: The evidence shows that LRA fighters forced at least some of these nine men to carry an

text: LRA fighter who had been injured during the attack on Odek IDP camp. When the

text: injured fighter died, all nine men were killed. LRA fighters hacked the men to death

text: 4046 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 49, 58; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 35 years old). 4047 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 33 years old). 4048 P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA- OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0252: T-87, p. 24, lines 14-21. 4049 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 49, 58; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 35 years old). The Chamber notes that the evidence refers to different names, ‘Odong’, ‘Odong Patrick,’ ‘Odap’ and ‘Opab’. Given the inscription in the memorial plaque for ‘Odong Patrick Opap’ and the similarities in the manner of the death, it is clear to the Chamber that the witnesses are referring to the same person. See Memorial plaque, UGA-OTP-0250-0265, at number 24. 4050 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0252: T- 87, p. 24, lines 14-21. 4051 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393. See P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 30 years old); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 49, 58. 4052 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 46, 54, 72; P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 34, 79; P-0252: T-87, p. 24, lines 14-21; P-0301 Incident Report, UGA-OTP-0249-0438-R01, at 0441 (according to P-0301, he was 47 years old); P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0248-0013-R01, at paras 49, 58. The Chamber notes that Hellen Adong states ‘Otoo’ rather than Otto, and considers it a mere difference in spelling of the same name. See P-0275: T-124, p. 11, lines 6-10. 4053 P-0269: T-85, p. 40, lines 12-24 (during the retreat, the LRA forced abductees to carry an injured LRA fighter); D-0066: T-214, p. 23, line 20 – p. 24, line 3 (some of the people who escaped and came back said that the LRA abducted nine men from the camp and made them carry an injured LRA commander). See P-0252: T-87, p. 35, lines 3-20 (the LRA also made abductees carry injured LRA fighters. Abductees carried an LRA fighter who had been shot in the eye as well as a fighter who had been shot in the head or the chest and was wrapped up in white cloth and carried on a stretcher); P-0264: T-64, p. 59, lines 1-20 (a commander called Okello was shot in the head and was carried and taken from Odek in a stretcher); P-0340: T-102, p. 31, line 13 – p. 32, line 12 (the morning after the attack, P-0340 saw an injured fighter being carried by some people on a stretcher. P-0340 testified that the fighter was carried in a kind of sack called a kita in which holes had been created with two logs pushed through the hole); P-0410: T-151, p. 45, lines 9-12 (P-0410 saw an injured LRA fighter being carried while the LRA forces were retreating). 4054 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39; P-0218: T-90, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 3 (nine men were abducted on the day of the attack and later killed by the LRA. P’Oyoo Lakoch learned that they had been made to carry an LRA commander who was injured during the attack on Odek IDP camp. The commander later died and the men were killed. P’Oyoo Lakoch was told about the deaths by a returned abductee); P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 41 (Zakeo Odora was told by the abductees that the abducted men were killed out of revenge, because an LRA commander who was injured during the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp, later died in the bush); P-0269: T-85, p. 44, lines 15-21 (after returning from the bush, P-0269 was told by one of the children who escaped later from the LRA that the injured commander died and because of that the

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 579/1077 4 February 2021

text: with machetes. The evidence demonstrates that the men were killed several days after

text: the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: The Chamber notes the testimony of Hellen Adong in describing what happened to the

text: nine abducted men. Hellen Adong testified that one of the rebels’ leaders was injured in

text: the attack and the Odek abductees carried him. She testified that four of the men

text: would carry him and then another four would take a turn. Hellen Adong testified that

text: the men carrying the rebel leader were right in front of her. Hellen Adong testified

text: that LRA fighters released her and other women who were abducted to carry looted goods

text: and told them that if the injured commander dies, the LRA was going to come and catch

text: them because the ‘Lapwony’ was worth ten of them. According to Hellen Adong the

text: women were frightened because the ‘Lapwony’ did not look well and they were

text: concerned that if he died, the LRA would kill them. Hellen Adong spoke with an

text: abductee after he returned from the bush who informed her that after the rebel

text: commander died, the other men who had been abducted were killed in revenge. P’Oyoo Lakoch testified that the bodies of the men were never found so the residents of

text: Odek have been unable to bury them.

text: Regarding the witness’s testimony that an injured commander carried by nine men who

text: were later killed was injured in a Pabbo attack, rather than the Odek attack as other

text: rest of the men were killed. The escaped abductee told her that if the commander had died immediately while the women were still in the bush, they would have been killed); P-0252: T-87, p. 65, lines 19-23 (an LRA officer was injured in Odek and when he was being carried, he stated that if he dies the people of Odek should be killed. The elders abducted from Odek were all killed after the officer died); P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3375- R01, at paras 44, 72 (the LRA abducted nine men to carry an LRA commander injured during the course of the 29 April 2004 Odek IDP camp attack. After the commander they carried died, the men were all killed); D-0066: T-214, p. 24, lines 1-4 (the people who were later released informed them that these nine people were eventually all killed. D-0066’s brother was among the persons killed). 4055 P-0218: T-90, p. 84, line 15 – p. 85, line 17; P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39 (an escaped abductee, Charles Onek, returned from the bush approximately two weeks after the attack and told P’Oyoo Lakoch that he witnessed the killing of the nine men. According to Charles Onek, the men were hacked with a machete). 4056 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39 (the men’s throats were cut on 1 May 2004). See P-0274’s 2004 Diary pages, UGA-OTP-0244-3391, UGA-OTP-0244-3393; P-0274 First Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-3375-R01, at paras 46, 54, 72 (Mario Ottober 2004 diary entry listed the nine men among the persons killed in the bush). 4057 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 49. 4058 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 49. 4059 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 49. 4060 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at paras 52-53. 4061 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 53. 4062 P-0268 Statement, UGA-OTP-0248-0013-R01, at para. 58. 4063 P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 39.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 580/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4064 available evidence shows, the Chamber notes that although P-0275 misidentifies this event as occurring after an attack on Pabbo, he describes events overwhelmingly similar to other witnesses who place the deaths of the nine men as occurring in the aftermath of the Odek IDP camp attack and names some of the same victims. It is clear that the witness spoke of the deaths of these nine men abducted in Odek and killed in the aftermath of the 4065 attack.

text: David Ojok: The Chamber notes the discrepancy between Helen Opoka Acan’s testimony that she saw the bodies of David Ojok and James Titus Latigo and the testimony of other witnesses that the nine men were killed in the bush and their bodies 4066 never found. The Chamber is of the view that the evidence shows that David Ojok and James Titus Latigo were killed in the bush and that Helen Opoka Acan indeed did 4067 not see their bodies.

text: James Titus Latigo: testified that she saw Latigo, also known as Otiko, being 4068 forced to carry an injured fighter over his shoulder. 4069 She testified that when Latigo could no longer carry the person alone because the fighter 4070 was so heavy, Latigo and the injured person fell down. Some LRA fighters told the others not to beat Latigo and instead took two logs, covered it with a polythene bag and 4071 used it as a stretcher to carry the injured person. Other persons were then brought to 4072 help carry the injured LRA fighter. P-0269 stated that after returning from the bush she was told by one of the abductees who escaped later that the injured commander died 4073 and that because of that the Odek men were killed.

text: 4064 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 74, 78-80; P-0275: T-124-CONF, p. 70, line 2 – p. 71, line 14. 4065 Given his young age at the time of his abduction, the traumatic nature of his abduction, the general consistency of his narrative with the other witnesses’ accounts, the Chamber is of the view that this inconsistency does not undermine the credibility of his evidence as a whole. 4066 P-0270 Statement, UGA-OTP-0241-0168-R01, at paras 40-41. 4067 See the Chamber’s discussion of Helen Opoka Acan’s testimony in section IV.B.2.iv.c.iv. 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 581/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4074 Fabio Otto:

text: Zakeo Odora testified that Fabio Otto was one of the nine abducted men killed in the 4076 bush by the LRA. 4077

text: 4079 The Chamber finds Zakeo Odora’s testimony credible. Zakeo Odora’s

text: narrative was specific and had the kind of details that convinced the Chamber of the

text: veracity of his account.

text: Apart from the abductees killed during the retreat, some abductees were released after a few days in the bush, others were integrated into the LRA, including into Dominic

text: Ongwen’s household.

text: 4081 The Chamber previously established that many abductees were killed. The evidence

text: shows that some abductees, particularly women who were already mothers, were released.

text: Above, the Chamber discussed the evidence that older female abductees such as Hellen

text: Adong and P-0269 were released by the LRA a day or two after the attack on Odek IDP 4082 camp. In this context, the Chamber also notes P-0359’s testimony that the Ugandan

text: 4074 4075 4076 P-0325 Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0242-R01, at para. 41. 4077 4078 4079 4080 Para. 176 above. 4081 See paras 1594-1608 above. 4082 See the Chamber’s discussion of the persons abducted in Odek IDP camp, in paras 1580, 1583 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 582/1077 4 February 2021 military rescued some abductees, including some young children between the ages of ten

text: 4083 and 15.

text: However, other abductees were kept and became part of the LRA. P-0314 testified that

text: 4084 abductees that were retained were made part of the LRA and given duties. P-0264

text: testified of what happened to the persons who were abducted:

text: Among those abducted there were those – those who could be recruited as – to proceed with the work were put aside, and those who were considered old were put in a different side. And then the energetic people who could help in carrying luggage were put in another group. Later on, when the group split, those who were considered able to be – to work and to be recruited into the ranks of the LRA, others were put in Oka battalion with Ben, others went to the headquarters and one – 4085 others went to other battalions.

text: Similarly, P-0252 testified that after leaving Odek and encamping several miles ahead of

text: Lakim, the people abducted from Odek were lined up with the older people in one line,

text: 4086 younger boys in a different line and the even younger children in another line. P-0252

text: 4087 testified that women were placed in a separate line as well. He explained that the

text: mothers, older females and very young children were sent home but some girls,

text: 4088 approximately 14 and upwards, were kept behind. P-0252 testified that children from

text: 4089 10-14 years were taken to the bush and recruited as fighters in the LRA.

text: 4090 P-0372 testified that children ‘who had some energy’ were retained by the LRA. P-

text: 0372 testified that the boys abducted from Odek were distributed within the Sinia

text: 4091 brigade and the girls were distributed among the LRA, and some joined Dominic

text: 4092 Ongwen’s household. P-0252 testified that he was abducted by Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 4083 P-0359: T-109, p. 60, line 17 – p. 61, line 4, p. 62, lines 18-19. 4084 P-0314: T-75, p. 18, lines 10-20. 4085 P-0264: T-64, p. 63, lines 13-20. See P-0314: T-75, p. 14, lines 11-20 (P-0340 was told by other LRA fighters that the abductees had been released however he did not ‘know whether they were let go home or something else had happened to them’. Something else meant ‘they could have been killed’). 4086 P-0252: T-87, p. 31, lines 17-24. 4087 P-0252: T-87, p. 33, lines 22-24. 4088 P-0252: T-87, p. 36, line 17 – p. 37, line 2. 4089 P-0252: T-87, p. 38, lines 9-16. 4090 P-0372: T-148, p. 43, lines 22-25. 4091 P-0372: T-148, p. 54, lines 1-19. 4092 P-0372: T-148, p. 58, lines 16-24. See P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 127 and 128 (P-0352 testified that there were some young abductees who remained after the others left and the LRA moved with them. The new abductees were taken to the headquarters); P-0218 Statement, UGA-OTP-0238-0720-R01, at para. 33 (most of the women returned in the following days. As far as P’Oyoo Lakoch knew all of the abducted

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 583/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4093 group and stayed in that group during his time in the bush. P-0252 testified that during

text: his time in the bush, he would be given ‘loads’ to carry and had to obey the LRA’s

text: 4094 orders. P-0252 testified that he would carry his commander’s guns, his bag and also

text: 4095 a jerry-can of oil to oil the gun.

text: P-0330 testified that the abducted children joined the different households of the LRA

text: 4096 leaders, including Dominic Ongwen’s and his subordinate’s, Okello Kalalang. P-

text: 0309 testified that he saw two abducted civilians from Odek IDP camp in the home of

text: 4097 one of Dominic Ongwen’s subordinate commanders. P-0309 testified that these two

text: 4098 persons were shot and killed after being accused of trying to escape.

text: P-0352 testified that later on the day they returned from attacking Odek, LRA fighters

text: 4099 and Odoki brought two girls to ’s home. P-0352 testified that the two

text: girls were about 16 years old and said that the girls were supposed to fetch water

text: 4100 and wash the saucepans. P-0352 testified that the two girls stayed in the camp for

text: 4101 around two weeks before they were killed by an aircraft. P-0264 testified that three

text: 4102 girls and boys younger than himself were distributed to Ben Acellam.

text: vii. Dominic Ongwen’s reporting of the attack

text: After the attack, the attackers joined the rest of the group commanded by Dominic Ongwen. The subordinate commanders briefed Dominic Ongwen. Dominic Ongwen

text: thanked the fighters.

text: Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters successfully carried out an

text: men were killed and that most of the abducted children remained in the bush, he did not know if they were dead or alive). 4093 P-0252: T-87, p. 41, lines 12-21. 4094 P-0252: T-87, p. 44, line 20 – p. 45, line 1. See P-0142: T-70, p. 33, line 20 – p. 34, line 20 (P-0142 saw the fighters who went to Odek return from the attack with a few civilians, fewer than five. It was clear from the clothing and demeanour that they were civilians. These abductees were younger than 17. P-0142 thought the reason they were brought was to increase the number of fighters). 4095 P-0252: T-87, p. 45, lines 2-5. 4096 P-0330: T-52, p. 26, lines 4-11. 4097 P-0309: T-61, p. 11, lines 18-23. 4098 P-0309: T-61, p. 11, line 18 – p. 12, line 3. 4099 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 129. 4100 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 129. 4101 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 129. 4102 P-0264: T-64, p. 65, lines 13-22. P-0264 did not know what happened to the rest of the abductees. P-0264: T- 64, p. 65, lines 23-24. 4103 Para. 177 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 584/1077 4 February 2021 attack on Odek IDP camp, shooting people, abducting civilians and looting in the

text: camp.

text: P-0314 testified that the soldiers returning from the attack joined the rest of the group

text: commanded by Dominic Ongwen near a stream. They got to the location the same

text: evening at about 22:00 or 23:00 hours. According to P-0314, Dominic Ongwen ‘saw

text: what his junior commanders had done and he was happy’. Dominic Ongwen thanked

text: the soldiers, and received a briefing by the junior commanders who conducted the

text: attack. The Chamber considers P-0314’s account credible, particularly given the radio

text: communication in which Dominic Ongwen reported on the attack to Joseph Kony and

text: other commanders. The Chamber also notes that P-0142 corroborates the account that Dominic Ongwen’s junior commanders returned and reported to him about the attack on

text: Odek IDP camp.

text: A record of an intercepted radio communication involved Dominic Ongwen, Ocen,

text: Joseph Kony, Labongo, Vincent Otti, Labalpiny and others speaking over the radio on

text: 30 April 2004, just one day after the 29 April 2004 attack on Odek IDP camp. In the

text: recording, Dominic Ongwen stated that he had ‘just come back from beating someplace’;

text: he goes on to state that he ‘beat’ Odek, the centre, the barracks and ‘whatever else’.

text: Joseph Kony asked Dominic Ongwen ‘[y]ou also cleaned the backside of my mother

text: right’? P-0003 explained that this is an LRA euphemism meaning ‘[d]id you kill all

text: 4104 Para. 177 above. 4105 P-0314: T-75, p. 13, lines 13-20. 4106 P-0314: T-75, p. 14, lines 6-7. 4107 P-0314: T-75, p. 17, lines 2-6. 4108 P-0314: T-75, p. 17, lines 7-13. 4109 P-0142: T-70, p. 30, lines 2-6, lines 13-18, p. 38, line 24 – p. 39, line 7. 4110 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038. See the Chamber’s discussion of enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038 in section IV.B.3.ii.k above. 4111 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0300-02; P-0003: T-43, p. 18, line 1 – p. 23, line 11 (P-0003 explains that this language is an LRA euphemism for attacking, hence Dominic Ongwen is stating that he attacked Odek); P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0066-68; P-0016: T-32, p. 42, line 4 – p. 49, line 11 (P-0016 explains that Dominic Ongwen states that he carried out attacks); P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0499-501; P-0059: T-37, p. 2, line 23 – p. 3, line 18; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0336-38; P-0440: T-40, p. 21, line 17 – p. 24, line 16. 4112 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0301; P-0003: T-43, p. 20, line 19 – p. 21, line 3; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0067; P-0016: T-32, p. 49, line 23 – p. 50, line 9; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0500; P-0059: T-37, p. 2, line 23 – p. 5, line 19; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0337; P-0440: T-40, p. 23, line 11 – p. 24, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 585/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4113 4114

text: the people’. Dominic Ongwen responded, ‘[c]ompletely, Over’. Dominic Ongwen

text: stated that ‘[e]verything including the barracks was burnt down’. After Dominic

text: Ongwen left the radio call, Joseph Kony stated, ‘[e]xcellent. This guy has pleased me

text: very much. I wish he threw them to the ground for me’.

text: Later in the same recording, Vincent Otti, Dominic Ongwen and others discussed

text: Dominic Ongwen’s operation. At one point in the communication, Dominic Ongwen

text: stated, ‘Just been shooting our colleagues […] I have just come over from shooting

text: people’. P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440 each heard Dominic Ongwen refer to

text: ‘many’ or ‘all’ civilian killed. In the communication, Dominic Ongwen explained,

text: ‘[w]e went to attack Odek and found they had deployed there a lot of soldiers. […] Those

text: soldiers were deployed to intercept me. […] They brought there a lot of soldiers’. P-

text: 0003, P-0016 and P-0059 each heard Dominic Ongwen report the abduction of male and

text: 4113 P-0003: T-43, p. 20, line 19 – p. 21, line 3. See P-0059: T-37, p. 5, lines 9-15; P-0440: T-40, p. 23, line 18 – p. 24, line 1. See also P-0016: T-32, p. 49, line 23 – p. 50, line 9. 4114 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0301; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0067; P-0016: T-32, p. 50, lines 10-13; P- 0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0500; P-0059: T-37, p. 5, lines 16-19; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0337. 4115 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0301; P-0003: T-43, p. 18, lines 7-22; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0067; P- 0016: T-32, p. 52, lines 3-12; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0500; P-0059: T-37, p. 5, line 25 – p. 6, line 1; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0337. 4116 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0302; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0068; P-0016: T-32, p. 54, lines 18 – p. 55, line 2; T-34, p. 62, line 16 – p. 63, line 7 (P-0016 stated that Joseph Kony, speaking to Labongo, said ‘Good. Very Good, This has really made me happy. He should have really – he should have really killed a lot more of these people, Labongo’. P-0016 emphasised that Joseph Kony did not say that Labongo should kill more people, rather Joseph Kony was talking to Labongo that the person they were talking about is the one who should have killed more); P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0501 (P-0059 annotated the transcript to change ‘threw’ to ‘finished’); P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0338. 4117 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0315-24; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0070-75; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0513-22; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0352-61. 4118 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, 0318-19; P-0003: T-43, p. 23, line 18 – p. 25, line 11, p. 27, line 21 – p. 28, line 16 (P-0003 explains that the reference to ‘colleagues’ is to the UPDF); P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0516- 17; P-0059: T-37, p. 6, line 22 – p. 13, line 5; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0356. 4119 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003: T-43, p. 26, lines 8-10; P-0016: T-32, p. 60, lines 15-23; P-0059: T-37, p. 8, lines 11-13; P-0440: T-40, p. 26, lines 19-21; The Chamber notes this portion of the radio recording discussed by the witnesses appears as unintelligible in the transcriptions. However later in the radio recording, Vincent Otti, still discussing the Odek attack, states, ‘civilian casualties are plenty. He does not know the numbers […] So many civilians died that he does not know the numbers’. P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263-R01, at 0323. 4120 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, 0319; P-0003: T-43, p. 25, line 7 – p. 26, line 21; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0517; P-0059: T-37, p. 6, line 22 – p. 13, line 5; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0356-57; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0070.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 586/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4121 female civilians. Dominic Ongwen then goes on to describe the military equipment

text: 4122 the LRA looted from Odek.

text: Regarding the suggestion that it was another LRA commander, Ocan Labongo, rather

text: than Dominic Ongwen who took credit for the attack on Odek IDP camp during the radio

text: 4123 communications, the Chamber recalls its finding that Labongo does indeed speak on

text: 4124 the relevant communication on Tape 808.

text: There are four different registers on the intercepted communication related to this

text: communication which shed some light on the issue: ISO, UPDF and Police logbooks as

text: well as an UPDF intelligence report.

text: The Chamber first notes, as explained further below, two other intercepting agencies

text: (ISO and Police) unequivocably attribute the radio reports to Dominic Ongwen and not

text: to Labongo and the same reports are also attributed to Dominic Ongwen by witnesses

text: testifying in these proceedings and by the rest of the testimonial evidence available to the

text: Chamber which connect Dominic Ongwen to the attack on the Odek IDP camp and not

text: Labongo.

text: As to the attribution to Labongo, the 9:00 situation report of 30 April 2004 UPDF

text: 4125 4126 logbook (Gulu), written by P-0003, recorded:

text: Labongo came on air briefly and informed Kony that he attacked Odek and he burnt 4127 UPDF defence and IDP camp […].

text: 4121 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, at 0324; P-0003: T-43, p. 30, lines 9-17; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065, at 0075; P- 0016: T-32, p. 63, lines 18-24; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462-R01, at 0521-22; P-0059: T- 37, p. 8, lines 23-25, p. 12, line 16 – p. 13, line 1. The Chamber notes that this portion of the radio recording discussed by the witnesses is largely recorded as unintelligible in the transcriptions. 4122 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038; P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263- R01, 0318-21; P-0003: T-43, p. 25, line 7 – p. 26, line 11; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462- R01, at 0517-19; P-0059: T-37, p. 7, line 22 – p. 8, line 13; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298- R01, at 0357-360; P-0440: T-40, p. 26, line 9 – p. 27, line 24. 4123 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 259, 290, 374 and 377. 4124 See the Chamber’s discussion of enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038 in section IV.B.3.ii.k above. 4125 See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3002-05 (note that UGA-OTP-0197-1670, at 1688- 1691 shown to P-0003 during his testimony is the same document, with UGA-OTP-0254-2982 being a re-scan). 4126 See P-0003: T-45, p. 34, line 13 – p. 36, line 18. 4127 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3004.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 587/1077 4 February 2021

text: The 18:30 situation report from the same day in the same logbook, also written by P- 4128 0003, recorded:

text: Labongo responded to Otti that today morning he fought UPDF in Odek […] and 4129 the following have been changed […].

text: However, in this 18:30 situation report, the name ‘Labongo’ is underlined and ‘Dominic’ 4130 is written in red next to it.

text: The 18:30 entry in an UPDF intelligence report of 30 April 2004 contains a summary of the same intercepted communications documented in the 18:30 entry in 30 April 2004 UPDF logbook (Gulu) and recorded: ‘Labong’/ ‘Lab’ reporting, ‘I attacked a detach in 4131 Odek and got the following […]’.

text: The Chamber recalls the above discussion of the content of the intelligence reports and the Chamber’s observation that they were generally based on the entries in the logbooks created by the intercepting agencies; the logbooks are in turn based on the shorthand 4132 notes of the interceptor listening to the intercepted radio communications. The Chamber is persuaded that both the UPDF logbook (Gulu) and the UPDF intelligence report summarise the intercepted radio communications contained in enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0235-0038.

text: The 30 April 2004 UPDF logbook (Gulu) entries were based on the corresponding short- 4133 hand rough notes of the intercepted radio communications. Significantly, these rough notes, likely created by P-0003 – who wrote the logbook entries – refer to ‘Dominic’ and 4134 not to ‘Labongo’.

text: 4128 See P-0003: T-45, p. 34, line 13 – p. 36, line 18. 4129 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3004. 4130 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3004. See P-0003: T-45, p. 37, line 5 – p. 41, line 16, p. 44, lines 9-23, p. 45, line 18 – p. 49, line 24. 4131 30 April 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0150, at 0154. 4132 See the Chamber’s discussion of the use of intercept evidence in intelligence reports in section IV.B.3.i.b.vii above. 4133 See the Chamber’s discussion of the interceptor logbooks and shorthand notes in sections IV.B.3.i.b.iv and IV.B.3.i.b.v above. 4134 UPDF Shorthand Notes, UGA-OTP-0254-2619, at 2742-43. See P-0003: T-42, p. 23, line 11 – p. 26, line 5; T-45, p. 36, line 15 – p. 37, line 6, p. 41, lines 1-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 588/1077 4 February 2021

text: The same 30 April 2004 radio communications were intercepted by the ISO and recorded 4135 4136 in the ISO logbook by P-0059. This logbook also refers to ‘Dominic’ and not to Labongo, stating ‘Dominic said he attacked Odek camp and changed the following

text: 4137 […]’.

text: The Ugandan police also intercepted the same 30 April 2004 communications and 4138 recorded it in the Police Logbook. This logbook attributes the report of the attack to

text: 4139 ‘Tem Wek Ibong’. Indeed, the Chamber notes that on the transcriptions of the audio

text: recording, the person reporting the attack uses the call sign ‘Tem Wek Ibong’. The Chamber recalls the finding that ‘Tem Wek Ibong’ is one of Dominic Ongwen’s call

text: 4140 signs.

text: Thus, regarding the reference to Labongo in the UPDF logbook (Gulu) and in the UPDF

text: intelligence report, the Chamber notes, as the UPDF short-hand rough notes refer to “Dominic”, the reference to Ocan Labongo in subsequent UPDF documents – which are

text: in fact based on those notes – appear to be the result of an initial transposition error.

text: The Chamber also notes that the UPDF logbooks, detailing the same 30 April 2004

text: communications intercepted in Achol Pii and in Sudan, attributed the attack to 4141 Abudema.

text: Considering this identification of Abudema as well as the transposition error attributing

text: the attack to Labongo, it is of great importance that the particular radio communications

text: at issue, on 30 April 2004, were actually recorded by the ISO and submitted into 4142 evidence.

text: 4135 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0267-70. The reference to ‘Dominic’ is in the 18:30 situation report, the earlier report on the same day refers to ‘unknown c/sign who was so brief on air reported that he attacked Odek IDP camp plus barracks and trading centre burning it completely’. UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0269. 4136 P-0059: T-39, p. 25, line 23 – p. 27, line 23. 4137 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0270. 4138 Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0144-46. The Chamber notes that the description of the contents of the radio communications matches that of the transcripts of the enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0235- 0038. 4139 Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0144. 4140 See Chamber’s discussion at para. 26 above. 4141 UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7480-81 (‘Abudema reported to Kony that he attacked Odek T/Centre, UPDF barracks and camp […]’); UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7244-46 (‘Abudema reported to Kony that today he attacked Odek Barrack cmmm centre […]’. The UPDF Logbook (Sudan) later corrects that ‘Cmm Dominic’ attacked Odek, not Abudema). 4142 Tape 808. See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 589/1077 4 February 2021

text: The recording of the communications was played to P-0003 and P-0059, respectively the

text: UPDF and ISO radio interceptors who made the logbook entries discussed above, as well

text: as former LRA signallers P-0016 and P-0440 during their testimony before the Court.

text: Importantly, they each identified the person reporting the attack on Odek IDP camp as

text: 4143 Dominic Ongwen.

text: Indeed, as the Chamber discussed in further detail in its analysis of intercepted radio

text: 4144 communications above, P-0003 and P-0016 also recognised the voice of Labongo

text: 4145 speaking in this recording. Thus, while Labongo was on the air, he was not the person

text: taking responsibility for the attack in the radio communications.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls the testimony of P-0142 that after receiving a post

text: attack report from his subordinates, Dominic Ongwen was communicating on the radio

text: and P-0142 was certain that Dominic Ongwen reported about what took place at the Odek 4146 IDP camp attack. P-0016 also testified that at the time of the Odek IDP attack, he was 4147 in the Gilva brigade and he heard the radio communication about an attack on Odek.

text: Similarly, P-0269 testified that she saw Dominic Ongwen speaking to his soldiers, telling

text: them that he called Joseph Kony and told him that he had attacked ‘Kony’s place’ and

text: that Joseph Kony was very happy and said ‘if the civilians of Odek were still continuing 4148 to stay in the camp, they should continue to be killed’.

text: Finally, it is worth emphasising that all witnesses questioned about the attack resisted the

text: suggestion that Labongo was responsible for the attack on Odek IDP camp. No

text: testimonial evidence connects Labongo to this attack, nor does the evidence credibly

text: 4143 P-0003 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0263-R01, at 0315-24; P-0003: T-43, p. 23, line 18 – p. 31, line 2; P-0016 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0065; P-0016: T-32, p. 42, line 4 – p. 53, line 15, p. 54, line 2 – p. 64, line 9; T-32-CONF, p. 53, line 16 – p. 54, line 1; P-0059 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0462- R01, at 0499-501, 0513-22; P-0059: T-37, p. 2, line 23 – p. 13, line 5; T-39, p. 25, line 23 – p. 27, line 23; P-0440 Tape 808 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0298-R01, at 0336-42, 0352-62. P-0440: T-40, p. 21, line 17 – p. 27, line 24; T-41, p. 28, lines 12-25. 4144 See the Chamber’s discussion of enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0038 in section IV.B.3.ii.k above. 4145 P-0003: T-43, p. 18, line 7 – p. 19, line 18 (appearing to distinguish an ‘Ocen’, also called ‘Madilu’, with ‘Ocen Labongo’); P-0016: T-32, p. 42, line 21 – p. 43, line 3. 4146 P-0142: T-70, p. 41, lines 11-20. The Chamber notes that P-0142 did not hear what Dominic Ongwen reported to Joseph Kony on the radio. P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 5-7. 4147 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 16, line 12 – p. 17, line 1. 4148 P-0269: T-85, p. 45, lines 5-14; T-86, p. 51, lines 5-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 590/1077 4 February 2021

text: connect Abudema to the attack. The evidence, as discussed above, clearly shows that

text: Dominic Ongwen was the person who reported the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: The Chamber notes that another record of an intercepted radio communication shows

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio on 1 May 2004,

text: two days after the attack on Odek IDP camp. In the recording, Dominic Ongwen adds to

text: his report from the day before on the Odek IDP camp attack. Dominic Ongwen reports

text: that heavy weapons were taken from the UPDF and a diamond was also taken by one of

text: his subordinate commanders.

text: Logbooks, created by ISO and UPDF officers, contain contemporaneous written records

text: of this radio communication and include details which correspond with the radio

text: communication. The Chamber notes that the ISO logbook as well as the UPDF

text: logbooks created in Gulu and Sudan, all identify Dominic Ongwen as the person

text: reporting on the looted item, although the UPDF logbook created in Achol Pii identified

text: ‘Labongo’.

text: Significantly, the Chamber notes P-0059, P-0440 and D-0100 listened to the radio

text: communication during their in court testimonies and each clearly recognised Dominic

text: Ongwen’s voice reporting on the Odek attack and the taking of the diamond. The

text: 4149 The Chamber recalls its position on the credibility of P-0410’s testimony that Buk Abudema participated in the attack. See the Chamber’s discussion of P-0410’s testimony in section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxiii above. 4150 See Enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0235-0015 and the Chamber’s discussion of the same, in section IV.B.3.ii.l above. 4151 See Enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0235-0015; P-0059 Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0258-0809-R01; P-0059: T-37, p. 47, line 16 – p. 49, line 6; P-0440 Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0205-R01; P-0440: T-40, p. 27, line 25 – p. 28, line 19; D-0100: T-234, p. 50, line 13 – p. 52, line 20, p. 54, lines 16-20. 4152 See Enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0235-0015; P-0059 Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0258-0809-R01; P-0059: T-37, p. 47, line 16 – p. 49, line 6; P-0440 Tape UGA-OTP-0039-0006 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0205-R01; P-0440: T-40, p. 27, line 25 – p. 28, line 19; D-0100: T-234, p. 50, line 13 – p. 52, line 20, p. 54, lines 16-20. 4153 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0272-74; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3006-07; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7481-82; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP- 0242-7194, at 7247-7248. See 1 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0157, at 0160. The 1 June 2004 ISO intelligence report created in order to brief senior government officials and based on entries in the ISO logbook reports a communication which generally corresponds with the logbook entries and the radio communication and shows Dominic Ongwen reporting on items looted during the Odek attack to Joseph Kony. 4154 See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0272-73; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3006-07; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7247-7248; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA- OTP-0242-7309, at 7481-82. 4155 P-0059: T-37, p. 47, line 16 – p. 50, line 21; P-0440: T-40, p. 27, line 25 – p. 30, line 2; D-0100: T-234, p. 50, line 13 – p. 52, line 20, p. 54, lines 16-20. See the Chamber’s discussion of the intercepted radio communication, UGA-OTP-0235-0015 in section IV.B.3.ii.l above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 591/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber is of the view that this further confirms that the voice heard in the 30 April 2004 intercepted radio communication reporting on the attack on Odek IDP camp was Dominic Ongwen.

text: Further there is other, independent, evidence of Dominic Ongwen claiming responsibility for this attack. The Chamber notes P-0085’s testimony regarding his meeting with Dominic Ongwen after the attack. P-0085 testified that he met up with Dominic Ongwen, about a week after hearing reports on FM radio that Dominic Ongwen had attacked 4156 Odek. P-0085 sat down with Dominic Ongwen, and asked Dominic Ongwen whether 4157 he attacked Odek barracks. P-0085 reported as follows the response that Dominic Ongwen gave to him:

text: And he responded, he said "Yeah, I sent my people. They went, they attacked the barracks. They scattered the barracks. They burned houses, they burned down the barracks. They took six guns, four SMGs, one G2, and a recoiller, a B-10, one. And I told him, I said, "Okay. No worries. I heard that over the radio. I had already heard that over the radio, that you had sent your people on mission to that place." And he told me, yeah, he said, "Yes, I did send my people to Odek. And they went, they 4158 attacked the barracks." Asked whether Dominic Ongwen said anything about civilian deaths, P-0085 stated 4159 ‘[w]ell, with respect to civilians, he told me that civilians were shot’.

text: In the view of the Chamber, this evidence, which is contextualised, logical and detailed, provides further entirely independent corroboration of the conclusion that Dominic Ongwen directed and controlled the Odek attack. The similarities between what Dominic Ongwen told P-0085 and what he reported to Joseph Kony in the radio communication also further convinces the Chamber that Dominic Ongwen was the person reporting on the attack on Odek IDP camp to Joseph Kony.

text: In light of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that the 30 April 2004 and the 1 May 2004 intercepted radio communications show Dominic Ongwen reporting the Odek IDP 4160 camp attack to Joseph Kony and other LRA commanders. Dominic Ongwen’s own

text: 4156 P-0085: T-158, p. 42, lines 11-19. 4157 P-0085: T-158, p. 42, line 25 – p. 43, line 2. 4158 P-0085: T-158, p. 43, lines 3-9. 4159 P-0085: T-158, p. 43, line 11. See also para. 1484 above. 4160 Accordingly, the Chamber does not accept the contrary submission of the Defence. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 259, 290, 295, 386-390.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 592/1077 4 February 2021 words show him taking responsibility for the Odek IDP camp attack, reporting on the

text: killings and abduction of civilians as well as the looting that occurred in the camp.

text: Attack on Lukodi IDP camp

text: i. Lukodi IDP camp

text: Lukodi IDP camp was situated in Bungatira Sub-County, Aswa County, Gulu District

text: and a large contingent of civilians resided in the camp at the time of the attack.

text: Lukodi village is located in Bungatira Sub-County, Aswa County, Gulu District,

text: Uganda. In May 2004, the Lukodi IDP camp was located near the village, having been

text: created around 2002 to protect civilians from the LRA’s frequent attacks in the region. There are some discrepancies in the witnesses’ understanding of whether Lukodi camp

text: was officially designated an IDP camp by the Ugandan government. In any case, the

text: evidence indicates that at the time of the May 2004 attack at issue in these proceedings,

text: the Ugandan government had directed local residents to move from their villages into the

text: camp. The Chamber also notes that the evidence shows that Ugandan government

text: forces were present for protection; and that the residents received food aid from

text: international organisations/NGOs.

text: P-0017, a police investigator who examined Lukodi in the aftermath of the attack,

text: testified that the Lukodi camp leader told him that the camp had an estimated 7,000

text: 4161 Para. 178 above. 4162 Agreed Facts, A2. 4163 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 21 (stating that around 2002, government soldiers directed civilians to move to Lukodi IDP camp). 4164 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 12 (testifying that Lukodi IDP camp was not an official camp and did not have a camp leader); P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at paras 201-02 (testifying that the camp was not officially recognised as an IDP camp, but stating that he obtained information from the camp leader); P-0187: T-164, p. 7, line 10-18 (testifying that when she moved to the camp in Lukodi in 2002 it was not yet a designated camp); P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 21-23, 28-31, 42, 79 (testifying that the camp was officially recognised in 2002, and that before official registration there was just one camp leader for Lukodi and Coopee). 4165 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 10, 21; P-0024: T-77, p. 19, lines 13-16; T-78, p. 16, line 11-24; P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 13. 4166 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 12-25; P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034- R01, at paras 17-18. 4167 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 48; P-0187: T-164, p. 8, lines 10-17; T-165, p. 15, lines 6-14. The Chamber notes that the camp residents also practiced some level of sustenance farming although this was made difficult by LRA activity in the area. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 45; P-0187: T-164, p. 8, lines 10-14; P-0024: T-78, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 15; P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0233-1046-R01, at para. 16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 593/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4168 residents at the time of the attack. V-0004, the LC1 of Lukodi, testified that although

text: it was not easy to know the exact number at the time of the attack, there were about 4,000

text: 4169 residents of Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0035, the

text: , that although he was not certain and was not in

text: charge of dealing with the numbers, he roughly estimated that 400-500 people lived in

text: 4170 the camp. Noting that P-0035 was uncertain as to the number of residents living in

text: the camp and P-0017, P-0035 and V-0001’s testimony differ significantly, the Chamber

text: is unable to make a definitive conclusion as to the number of civilians that lived with

text: Lukodi IDP camp. However, in light of the evidence, including the evidence of camp

text: 4171 residents testifying about their experiences within the camp, the Chamber is satisfied

text: that a large number of civilians lived within Lukodi IDP camp at the time of the attack.

text: The Chamber refers to its discussion above of the LRA’s policy to specifically target IDP

text: 4172 camps to, amongst other things, obtain provisions. The evidence indicates that this

text: also occurred at Lukodi IDP camp already before the attack on the camp in May 2004.

text: Witnesses testified that in the months prior to the May 2004 attack, the LRA had made

text: 4173 incursions into the camp, to obtain food and other provisions. Witnesses also testified

text: that in the days before the attack, camp residents had received food and household

text: 4174 provisions from the Caritas NGO.

text: There was a government military barracks located in the northern area of the camp, on

text: 4175 the grounds of a disused school, and comprised of small huts. The Chamber notes also

text: 4168 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 201. 4169 V-0004: T-173, p. 8, lines 9-13. 4170 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 19. 4171 See testimonies of P-0024, P-0060 and P-0187. 4172 See section IV.C.4 above, the Chamber’s discussion of the LRA’s policy. 4173 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 51 (stating that before the May 2004 attack, LRA fighters sporadically came to the camp to loot food and other things, but did not injure or kill anyone); P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 27-33 (Lukodi was often approached by the LRA, who came to get food, including twice in early April 2004). 4174 P-0024: T-78, p. 24, lines 15-23; P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 29. See also P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 17. 4175 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 13-15; P-0035 Sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA- OTP-0036-0094 (stating that the barracks was in the north side of the camp and comprised of small huts, and that the military detachment was surrounded by a trench, where soldiers were supposed to fight from in the event of an attack); P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 17-18; P-0060’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0069-0048 (stating that the houses in the military barracks were smaller than the civilian houses and the area was secured by a trench); P-0024: T-78, p. 21, line 2 – p. 24, line 14 (according to P-0024, the military barracks was within the large school compound, the school was no longer in use for students at the time of the attack). See also P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 202.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 594/1077 4 February 2021 that there were two main civilian areas in Lukodi, one close to the barracks and another 4176 closer to the trading centre.

text: ii. Dominic Ongwen’s order to attack Lukodi IDP camp

text: Dominic Ongwen decided to attack Lukodi IDP camp. For the purpose of the attack, he gathered soldiers from Sinia as well as from the nearby Gilva brigade sickbay. At a gathering the morning of the day before the attack, Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and everyone present at that location, including civilians, and to take food from the camp. Dominic Ongwen selected his subordinate Ocaka to be commander on the ground. Other commanders on the ground included Ojok

text: Kampala, Oyenga, Kobbi, Ojara and Abonga Won Dano.

text: There is evidence that the preparations for the Lukodi attack began a few days in advance, when, as laid out in detail in the following paragraphs, Dominic Ongwen instructed that Sinia brigade’s Terwanga battalion and the Gilva sickbay select and send soldiers to him.

text: P-0205 testified that this instruction came to the Terwanga battalion by way of a meeting (‘RV’), where Dominic Ongwen’s instruction was passed to the Terwanga battalion to

text: ‘form a standby’, i.e. a group of soldiers for an attack, and to meet with Dominic 4178 4179 Ongwen. As discussed below, this instruction was followed.

text: The evidence demonstrates that for the purpose of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen also took control of a number of soldiers from the Gilva sickbay which was operating nearby.

text: P-0145 testified that before the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen, who was Sinia brigade commander at the time, came to the Gilva brigade sickbay, which was

text: under the command of Major Olak Otulu (more commonly referred to as Tulu) and at the 4180 time stationed close to the bank of the Aswa River. P-0145 specified that Dominic

text: Ongwen came to the Gilva sickbay ‘in the evening, perhaps around 4 p.m.’ on the day

text: 4176 See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 20; P-0060’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA- OTP-0069-0048; P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 17-18; P-0035 Sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0036-0094. 4177 Para. 179 above. 4178 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 51, lines 3-9, p. 52, line 2 – p. 53, line 5. Dominic Ongwen and the various groups under his command often moved in separate groups and would meet together at various locations. See P-0205: T- 47, p. 36, line 24 – p. 40, line 11. 4179 See paras 1662-1664 below. 4180 P-0145: T-143, p. 11, line 21 – p. 12, line 2, p. 21, lines 13-20, p. 35, lines 12-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 595/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4181 before the attackers set out for Lukodi. Dominic Ongwen came with five or six people, 4182 whose names P-0145 was not able to recall.

text: According to P-0145, Dominic Ongwen convened the Gilva sickbay officers together and told them that he had planned an operation, a ‘very good operation’, and that he 4183 wanted to help the people get food and supplies. Six or seven commanders were present for the meeting with Dominic Ongwen, including Tulu, who was in charge, Major Abucingo, Oyet Matata (more commonly referred to as Matata), Abonga Won Dano, 4184 Ojoko, Ojok, Ojara Gali (more commonly referred to as Ojara) and Kilama. P-0145 also clarified that the order for Gilva brigade to select people for the attack was issued by Tulu, but that Tulu, a major, was subordinate to Dominic Ongwen, as major general 4185 or brigadier general and that Dominic Ongwen had already planned the operation. P- 0145, who went from Gilva brigade to participate in the attack, indicated that although he was in a different brigade, he recognised Dominic Ongwen as his superior and 4186 commander.

text: P-0145 stated that on the day after, people from the sickbay went to join Dominic 4187 Ongwen’s group at the riverbank, from where they headed to Lukodi. P-0145 named 4188 Ojoko and Kilama as officers who went for the attack from Tulu’s sickbay.

text: P-0018 stated that she was in Tulu’s sickbay group in ‘Tegot-Atto’ when soldiers came 4189 and told the leader that Dominic Ongwen had sent them. It is noted that P-0018’s testimony implies that Dominic Ongwen did not himself come to Tulu’s sickbay, thereby contradicting the testimony of P-0145. However, considering that P-0145 had a better opportunity to observe the meeting and provided more detailed testimony, the Chamber follows his evidence on this point. The Chamber also notes that, as discussed below, P- 0172 also testified that Dominic Ongwen came to Tulu’s sickbay in person.

text: 4181 P-0145: T-143, p. 15, lines 7-13. 4182 P-0145: T-143, p. 15, lines 14-18. 4183 P-0145: T-143, p. 13, line 15 – p. 14, line 5. 4184 P-0145: T-143, p. 14, lines 2-5, p. 15, line 19 – p. 16, line 11. 4185 P-0145: T-143, p. 20, lines 8-18. 4186 See P-0145: T-143, p. 14, line 20 – p. 15, line 2. 4187 P-0145: T-143, p. 14, lines 8-15. 4188 P-0145: T-143, p. 24, lines 4-25, p. 25, lines 11-14. 4189 P-0018: T-68, p. 53, line 12 – p. 54, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 596/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0018 continued that Abonga Won Dano and Bicingu, both fighters under Tulu, selected

text: 4190 people to ‘go to collect food’, including herself. Some of the selected people were

text: 4191 armed, but others, including P-0018, were not.

text: The evidence demonstrates that Tulu did not go to Lukodi and did not participate in the

text: attack beyond responding to Dominic Ongwen’s request to select and send soldiers to

text: him for the attack. Both P-0145 and P-0018 testified that Tulu did not personally go with

text: 4192 the selected soldiers for the operation, but remained behind. P-0142 also stated that

text: 4193 Tulu did not go to Lukodi. Correspondingly, as is apparent from the analysis of the

text: 4194 course of the attack below, witnesses who were present at the attack discussed the

text: participation of several commanders but none stated that Tulu was himself on the

text: 4195 ground.

text: The evidence of P-0145 and P-0018 is also corroborated by the – less direct – testimony

text: of P-0172. This witness testified that while he was in Tulu’s sickbay in May 2004 he

text: heard ‘from younger soldiers’ that Joseph Kony had told Tulu that ‘the world was saying

text: he was no longer there, he had died’, that he should prepare a standby and that he (i.e.

text: 4196 Joseph Kony) would send Dominic Ongwen to Tulu ‘so that they would go and fight’.

text: P-0172 explained that the younger soldiers were privy to this information because they

text: 4197 were able to hear what was said on the radio. P-0172 stated that the sickbay was west

text: 4198 of Loyo Ajonga at the time. The Chamber has received no other reliable evidence of

text: 4199 this radio communication between Joseph Kony and Tulu, in particular not in any

text: 4190 P-0018: T-68, p. 54, lines 4-17. 4191 P-0018: T-68, p. 54, lines 21-24. 4192 P-0145: T-143, p. 20, lines 21-25 (explaining that Tulu was injured at the time and could not walk long distances); P-0018: T-69, p. 47, line 15 – p. 51, line 7. 4193 P-0142: T-70, p. 48, lines 13-15. 4194 See section IV.C.8.iv below. 4195 The Chamber has taken note of the police notes of intercepted radio communications, dated 23 May 2004, stating: ‘The details of the attack on Lukodi are not ready since “Tem Wek Ibong” didn’t appear on air. The commanders who were responsible for the attack were Major Olak Tulu and Captain Ocaka Alex.’ Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0121-22. See also P-0125: T-136, p. 31, line 16 – p. 32, line 25. Noting that the text of the entry itself indicates that the interceptors did not have detailed knowledge of the attack on Lukodi at the time, that it is not specifically asserted that Tulu participated in the attack on the ground, and in light of the witness testimonies before the Chamber, the Chamber does not rely on the police notes for this issue. 4196 P-0172: T-113, p. 19, lines 11-17; T-114, p. 6, lines 15-19. 4197 P-0172: T-113, p. 19, lines 18-22. 4198 P-0172: T-113, p. 20, lines 15-18. 4199 The Chamber notes that D-0032 testified about an order from Joseph Kony to Tulu, but in a different context and with different content. In any case, as explained below, the Chamber does not rely on this specific testimony. See para. 1661 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 597/1077 4 February 2021 records of intercepted communications, and does not make a finding in this regard. It may be noted, however, that any such discussion between Joseph Kony and Tulu would have no impact on the Chamber’s findings in relation to Dominic Ongwen being the person who decided that the attack on Lukodi IDP camp would take place, and gave the orders for the attack.

text: 4200 P-0172 testified that Dominic Ongwen indeed arrived with his troops at the sickbay. 4201 It is noted that P-0172 testified that Dominic Ongwen was in Gilva brigade at the time, which is an obvious error but, in the view of the Chamber, immaterial in the context. According to P-0172, by the time Dominic Ongwen arrived, Tulu had already prepared 4202 a standby, so they left soon afterwards. P-0172 estimated the number of departing 4203 troops at 50 to 60. He also stated that he learnt from the younger soldiers who were 4204 listening to radio communications that the attackers had gone to Lukodi.

text: Evidence of some relevance for the above conclusions also came out during the testimony of D-0032, who stated that he obtained knowledge of the Lukodi attack from Tulu, with 4205 whom he spoke three to five days after the attack, and from certain other individuals. In the presence of direct evidence of several witnesses, however, the Chamber does not deem it necessary to engage in detail with the evidence of D-0032, with the exception of one particular issue addressed just below, and limits itself to noting that this evidence does not undermine the above conclusions.

text: The evidence of the witnesses referred to above is unequivocal that these arrangements were undertaken at the initiative of Dominic Ongwen and by his authority as Sinia brigade commander. Based on the unfolding of the events, and on the specific testimony on the issue, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen’s authority was unquestioned even with respect to Tulu, who was a lower-ranking officer in another brigade. As discussed below, the soldiers selected for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, including those obtained

text: 4200 P-0172: T-113, p. 20, line 19 – p. 21, line 3. 4201 P-0172: T-113, p. 21, line 25 – p. 26, line 2. 4202 P-0172: T-113, p. 22, lines 3-5. 4203 P-0172: T-113, p. 22, lines 10-12 (referring to the number of combined troops, including Tulu’s and those Dominic Ongwen had come with). 4204 P-0172: T-113, p. 22, line 22 – p. 23, line 3. 4205 D-0032: T-201-CONF, p. 30, line 21 – p. 31, line 10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 598/1077 4 February 2021 from the Gilva sickbay, were placed under the single command of Ocaka, by order of Dominic Ongwen.

text: There is also radio communication evidence, which in context corroborates the conclusion that it was Dominic Ongwen who conceived the idea of the attack on Lukodi. A UPDF logbook records a conversation on 17 May 2004 at 9:00 hours, which is two days before the attack and the morning of the day that Dominic Ongwen went to organise soldiers from the Gilva sickbay, during which Dominic Ongwen sought and obtained 4206 from Joseph Kony permission to attack any camp for food. It is noted that no specifics appear to have been discussed.

text: The Chamber notes that D-0032 testified that Joseph Kony issued separate orders on 4207 radio to both Tulu and Dominic Ongwen in relation to the Lukodi attack. However, as the basis of the witness’ knowledge is entirely unclear and in the absence of any other evidence referring to this fact, including records of intercepted radio communications, the Chamber does not consider the testimony provided by D-0032 on this point to be of sufficient strength to sustain a positive finding of fact.

text: Following these initial preparatory steps aimed at organising an attacking force, a gathering of the LRA soldiers selected for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp took place; this fact is well attested by the evidence. Witnesses who came from Sinia brigade’s Terwanga battalion or the Gilva sickbay speak of this meeting, as do others, who had been personally moving with Dominic Ongwen for some time.

text: 4208 P-0142, a member of Sinia brigade, stated that a combination of fighters from Gilva 4209 and Sinia brigades was set up. This took place ‘in an area around Omel Kuru and 4210 Kanu, around Awach area’. More specifically about the set-up of the attacking force, P-0142 stated that the soldiers came from Tulu’s Gilva sickbay as well as from all three 4211 of Sinia’s battalions – Oka, Terwanga and Siba. P-0142 specified, in line with the

text: 4206 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3037. The ISO intercepted the same conversation, but the corresponding notebook notes it was in ‘codes not yet broken’, before noting that Joseph Kony gave Dominic Ongwen a go-ahead. ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0314. 4207 D-0032: T-201, p. 32, line 2 – p. 33, line 1. 4208 P-0142: T-70, p. 16, lines 6-8. 4209 P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 16-18. 4210 P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 19-21. 4211 P-0142: T-70, p. 44, lines 8-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 599/1077 4 February 2021 evidence analysed above, that Dominic Ongwen selected ‘his people’ and Tulu identified

text: 4212 ‘his people’, after which they were brought together. He testified that about 100-150

text: 4213 4214 soldiers went for the attack. Upwards of 50 of those were from the Gilva sickbay.

text: P-0142 also specified that in addition to armed fighters, there were unarmed persons

text: 4215 among the attackers, and their task was to carry looted goods.

text: P-0205 stated that, at this gathering, the Terwanga battalion soldiers who had been

text: 4216 previously summoned met with Dominic Ongwen and other Sinia brigade soldiers.

text: As to the presence of Gilva soldiers, P-0205 testified very specifically that two persons

text: from Gilva brigade were present, namely one Ojara and one woman who later escaped

text: 4217 on the way back from the attack. The Chamber observes that P-0205’s evidence is

text: reliable as to the presence of the two Gilva brigade members, but that the witness did not

text: purport to give an overview of the entire group of attackers – he was merely describing

text: 4218 who he recognised. P-0205 gave the location of this gathering as Omel Boke.

text: As to the movement of the Gilva brigade contingent, P-0145 stated that the people who

text: were selected from Tulu’s sickbay joined Dominic Ongwen’s group at the riverbank,

text: 4219 from where the attackers headed to Lukodi. P-0018 stated that then the group from

text: 4220 sickbay started moving and there was an RV with many people.

text: The evidence, discussed above, shows that the soldiers who had been summoned for the

text: attack from the Gilva sickbay and the Terwanga battalion converged at the gathering with

text: soldiers already present with Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber notes at this juncture that,

text: in line with its conclusions above, it does not rely on the evidence of P-0410 to the extent

text: 4212 P-0142: T-70, p. 44, lines 16-18. 4213 P-0142: T-70, p. 48, lines 16-22. 4214 P-0142: T-72, p. 74, lines 13-15. This estimate corresponds to the testimony of P-0145, who stated that ‘maybe up to 60’ people were selected from the Gilva sickbay for the operation; see P-0145: T-143, p. 17, lines 20-24. 4215 P-0142: T-70, p. 59, lines 16-24. 4216 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 53, lines 6 – p. 54, line 9. 4217 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 53, lines 8-11, p. 56, lines 16-22, p. 59, line 22 – p. 60, line 1; T-50-CONF, p. 47, lines 11-16. It is clear that the woman in question is P-0018, who testified that she was one of the people who came from the Gilva sickbay, and that she escaped on the way back from the attack; see P-0018: T-68, p. 53, line 12-18; T-69, p. 17, line 24 – p. 19, line 2. 4218 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 58, lines 13-18. See also P-0205 sketch, UGA-OTP-0233-1388. 4219 P-0145: T-143, p. 14, lines 8-15. 4220 P-0018: T-68, p. 54, line 25 – p. 55, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 600/1077 4 February 2021 that he implicates Vincent Otti and Buk Abudema in the attacks on Odek and Lukodi 4221 IDP camps.

text: The Defence submits that the witness evidence in relation to the location of this gathering 4222 is inconsistent and therefore unreliable. While reiterating that witnesses who were present at LRA gatherings in the bush may not be able to name the location due to their unfamiliarity with the area, the meandering movements of LRA units or any other reason, the Chamber notes that in fact the witnesses’ testimonies, in this particular instance, point to a relatively precise area. In addition to P-0142’s and P-0205’s testimony on the point as referred to above, the Chamber notes that P-0410, while not providing a precise indication of the location where the gathering took place, and explaining that it was not easy to situate oneself with directions in the bush, indicated that moving towards Lukodi 4223 they reached the Awach road and turned west in the direction of Gulu. This indicates that the attackers came from the south-east, and is compatible with the evidence of P- 0142 and P-0205, as is, due to the presence of the Aswa River, P-0145’s reference to a ‘riverbank’.

text: 4224 P-0101, who also referred to the gathering, testified that the selection took place in 4225 Lalogi, while also stating that she was not conversant with the area. In any case, her indication as to the location of the event is compatible with the rest of the evidence.

text: The Defence emphasised P-0406’s evidence as that most irreconcilable with the rest of 4226 the evidence. The Chamber notes P-0406’s testimony that he was not familiar with the area, and that generally in the bush ‘you keep meandering about and it becomes very 4227 difficult for you to know where exactly you are going’. P-0406 does testify that his 4228 unit was in Koch Goma before going to Lukodi. However, contrary to the Defence’s submission, this was not an indication of the location of the gathering prior to the attack on the Lukodi IDP camp. In fact, the witness testified that they walked from Koch Goma,

text: 4221 See section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxiii above, the Chamber’s discussion of P-0410’s testimony. 4222 Defence Closing Brief, paras 399-411. 4223 P-0410: T-152, p. 43, line 11 – p. 45, line 3. 4224 See para. 1692 below. 4225 P-0101: T-13, p. 53, lines 17-24. 4226 Defence Closing Brief, para. 409 (arguing that the witness placed the RV in the area of Koch Gama). 4227 P-0406: T-155, p. 55, line 19 – p. 56, line 2. 4228 P-0406: T-155, p. 55, lines 15-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 601/1077 4 February 2021 where they reached a place and settled, and where the next day people were selected for 4229 the attack and Dominic Ongwen gave his instructions.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence in its submissions on the location of the gathering also refers to the evidence of P-0018 and P-0145 relating not to the gathering at issue but 4230 to the location of the Gilva sickbay.

text: Finally on the topic of location, in light of specific submissions by the Defence in relation 4231 to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, the Chamber reiterates that it does not rely for its 4232 conclusions on the direction-finding evidence.

text: As to the time of this gathering, detailed and entirely overlapping testimony of several witnesses as to how long it took to arrive to Lukodi thereafter allows for the conclusion 4233 that the gathering took place in the morning of the day preceding the day of the attack.

text: The Chamber turns now to the instructions given by Dominic Ongwen at this gathering to the LRA soldiers selected to depart on an attack to Lukodi IDP camp.

text: P-0205 reported the order given by Dominic Ongwen as follows:

text: You standby, you are going to attack Lukodi. When you arrive at Lukodi, there are few soldiers. Shoot the soldiers. Do not leave the camp. Anybody you find in the camp, no matter – no matter how the person is, don’t leave them. Nobody should 4234 be left behind. Everybody should be killed.

text: The Defence argues that P-0205’s testimony about the order given by Dominic Ongwen should be disregarded as it ‘drastically changed’ from his interview with the Prosecution in 2015, where he stated that Dominic Ongwen’s order was to attack only the military at Lukodi, that the order was to attack at 18:00 hours at the latest so as to still be able to distinguish between soldiers and others, and that ‘the mission was not to kill

text: 4235 civilians’. The Chamber notes that P-0205 explained some of the discrepancy by

text: 4229 P-0406: T-155, p. 56, lines 6-16. 4230 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 399, referring to P-0018: T-68, p. 53, lines 12-20; P-0145: T-143, p. 21, line 25. 4231 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 396-98. 4232 See section IV.B.3.iii above. 4233 See paras 1694-1696 below. 4234 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 10-16. 4235 Defence Closing Brief, para. 416; P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 7, line 1 – p. 10, line 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 602/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4236 stating that he had not remembered the information during the interview in 2015. But this explanation is not entirely satisfactory because, as pointed out by Defence counsel in court, the investigator asked specifically about orders in relation to civilians during the interview, and the witness at that time clearly stated that the attack on Lukodi IDP camp 4237 was designed so as not to harm civilians. Nevertheless, P-0205 insisted on his in-court testimony. The Chamber deems significant in this respect that he did so even though the statement he gave to the Prosecution in 2015 was decidedly more favourable to him than his in-court statement, considering his own involvement in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. His statement of 2015 is at odds with the rest of the evidence on the order given, the events on the ground, and on the way the attack was reported, whereas his account in the courtroom is in accord with other reliable evidence. Finally in this context, the Chamber also pays due attention to the fact that P-0205 testified before it under oath, and did so after having been given assurances against self-incrimination under Rule 74 of the Rules. In these circumstances, the Chamber accepts P-0205’s testimony in court as truthful.

text: According to P-0018, at the RV Dominic Ongwen made a speech, stating that ‘whoever 4238 [they] found on the road should be killed because the Acholi had become stubborn’. She specifically also confirmed her prior statement that Dominic Ongwen ordered ‘to go and kill everybody, even if we find a woman who is giving birth, we should kill her because the government had sent helicopters to kill our leaders, and even our children 4239 were killed’. Further, P-0018 confirmed her prior testimony that Dominic Ongwen told those present that the Acholi people were stubborn because they did not want to 4240 leave the camps and go back to their villages. According to P-0018, after this meeting, 4241 about 80 people went for the attack.

text: P-0142 also testified that brigade commander Dominic Ongwen was the one who issued 4242 the instruction to attack Lukodi. According to P-0142, Dominic Ongwen gave the order to ‘go to Lukodi, go and disperse the soldiers in Lukodi, burn their houses, loot

text: 4236 P-0205: T-50-CONF, p. 54, lines 19-25, p. 55, lines 15-18. 4237 See P-0205: T-50-CONF, p. 56, lines 3-7; T-51, p. 10, lines 18-23. 4238 P-0018: T-68, p. 55, lines 13-23. 4239 P-0018: T-68, p. 59, line 23 – p. 60, line 6. 4240 P-0018: T-68, p. 60, lines 13-18. 4241 P-0018: T-68, p. 62, lines 6-8. 4242 P-0142: T-70, p. 43, lines 13-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 603/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4243 food, and come back’. While initially stating that ‘[t]here was no order about

text: 4244 civilians’, P-0142 confirmed in court, after having his memory refreshed from his

text: previous written statement, that, in fact, the order was also to kill the civilians they find

text: 4245 during the attack.

text: P-0145 also testified that when Dominic Ongwen’s group and the Gilva sickbay group

text: converged in the morning of the day before the attack, Dominic Ongwen addressed those

text: present, stating that he had planned an operation, and specifically telling those from the

text: 4246 sickbay that they were going to get food.

text: 4247 P-0410 also stated that Dominic Ongwen spoke at the RV. He testified that the

text: commanders speaking there told them that they should ‘go and work’ and ‘not leave

text: anything alive’, that ‘the Lukodi attack should be worse than that of Odek’, and that

text: ‘whoever was going should come back with bloodstains on his clothes to show that you

text: 4248 have worked well’.

text: Similarly, P-0406 testified that Dominic Ongwen issued instructions before the attack on

text: 4249 Lukodi IDP camp. The witness recounted the order as stating that ‘some soldiers

text: should go to the barracks, others should go to the camp and that they should take food

text: 4250 items and abduct some children’. P-0406 further stated that Dominic Ongwen ordered

text: that the civilians who run away should ‘not be disturbed they should just be let go’, and

text: 4251 that civilians should not be shot using guns, but only soldiers. Asked about what was

text: to be done in respect of civilians instead, P-0406 explained that ‘[m]ost times if it’s a

text: stubborn civilian who is believed has the interest of escaping’, the person would be tied

text: 4252 up and hit on the back of their head until they died.

text: 4243 P-0142: T-70, p. 46, lines 16-19. 4244 P-0142: T-70, p. 46, lines 20-21. 4245 P-0142: T-70, p. 47, lines 9-20. 4246 P-0145: T-144, p. 37, lines 2-8. 4247 P-0410: T-151, p. 61, lines 16-17. 4248 P-0410: T-151, p. 61, lines 19-24; T-152, p. 41, lines 11-23. See also T-151, p. 60, lines 1-4. 4249 P-0406: T-154, p. 53, lines 5-16. 4250 P-0406: T-154, p. 53, lines 17-20. 4251 P-0406: T-154, p. 53, lines 20-23. 4252 P-0406: T-154, p. 53, line 24 – p. 54, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 604/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber, noting but rejecting on the basis of its analysis the related argument of the 4253 Defence, considers that the evidence, coming from several credible sources, allows it to reconstruct in detail the order issued by Dominic Ongwen. Thus, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen ordered the fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and everyone present at that location, and to take food from the camp. Based on the terms of this order as established on the basis of the evidence, the Chamber considers that it logically included targeting civilians.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0018 testified that the original plan was to attack Awach, but because there were many government soldiers at Awach this was changed and it was 4254 decided to attack Lukodi instead. Immediately thereafter, P-0018 accepted as truthful her prior statement during the interview with the Prosecution to the effect that at the meeting, Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA fighters to attack Gwendia and to kill 4255 everyone. According to P-0018, the decision to attack Lukodi was made by those who 4256 were leading the attackers, ‘because we could not go back without food’.

text: On this specific point, in light of the detailed evidence of the witnesses who testified about the orders given by Dominic Ongwen to the attackers before they departed, the 4257 Chamber does not accept the evidence of P-0018. It is unreasonable to conclude that a person in the relatively low position in the organisation as she held at that time would know of this fact, as opposed to those witnesses who were in better position to know, in particular due to their relatively higher position or due to their role in the attack. In any case, the Chamber notes that P-0142 specifically denied the proposition that the Lukodi 4258 attack was originally planned to take place at Gwendia.

text: The evidence is unequivocal that, on the same occasion as when he gave his instruction for the attack, Dominic Ongwen also appointed Ocaka to lead the attack on the ground. 4259 This was stated by P-0205, who explained that at that point Ocaka was support

text: 4253 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 420 (arguing that ‘[t]he evidence about the alleged instructions at the RV is so unclear that it fails to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Ongwen was part of a common plan or engaged in a conduct which would result in a crime’). See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 414-19. 4254 P-0018: T-68, p. 55, line 24 – p. 56, line 2. 4255 P-0018: T-68, p. 56, line 3 – p. 57, line 6. 4256 P-0018: T-69, p. 8, lines 4-7. 4257 See, in this regard, Defence Closing Brief, para. 413. 4258 P-0142: T-72, p. 71, lines 12-16. 4259 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 17-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 605/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4260 commander in Sinia brigade. P-0142 also testified that Captain Ocaka was selected

text: 4261 as the overall commander of the attack. He testified that he did not know how he had

text: 4262 been identified, but that it was Dominic Ongwen who announced the appointment.

text: 4263 Like P-0205, P-0142 testified that Ocaka was in Sinia at the time, and that he was

text: 4264 ‘member of the support’.

text: There is also evidence that deputies were appointed for Ocaka. According to P-0205,

text: Dominic Ongwen appointed two deputies for Ocaka, Ojok Kampala and Oyenga,

text: 4265 . P-0205 also testified that a Sinia brigade officer, Kobbi, and a soldier

text: 4266 from Gilva known as Ojara, commanded attackers on the ground.

text: P-0142 testified that Ocaka’s second-in-command for the attack was to be Abonga Won

text: 4267 4268 Dano, Ojara and also confirmed that Oyenga went for the attack.

text: 4270 P-0145 testified that he did not

text: 4271 know that Ocaka was commander of the attack on the ground. In this context, the

text: Chamber recalls its finding in relation to the general credibility of P-0145, to the effect

text: that it would not rely on this witness for any fact concerning the unfolding of the attack

text: on Lukodi IDP camp on the ground.

text: Without more specific

text: 4260 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 3-4. 4261 P-0142: T-70, p. 44, lines 19-21. 4262 P-0142: T-70, p. 46, lines 2-12, p. 47, lines 21-23. 4263 P-0142: T-70, p. 44, lines 22-25. 4264 P-0142: T-70, p. 45, line 23 – p. 46, line 1. 4265 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 20-22. 4266 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 7-12. P-0205 testified that Kobbi was from the Terwanga battalion; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 59, lines 11-21. 4267 P-0142: T-70, p. 45, lines 1-4. 4268 P-0142: T-70, p. 45, lines 13-16. 4269 4270 4271 P-0145: T-144, p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 606/1077 4 February 2021 findings being necessary, the Chamber concludes that, in addition to Ocaka as commander on the ground, Ojok Kampala, Oyenga, Kobbi, Ojara and Abonga Won Dano participated in the attack in leadership roles.

text: P-0410 also testified about further specific events which took place before the attack commenced. In particular, he stated that after the RV there was a reconnaissance mission 4272 which came back with a report. P-0410 also stated that after the RV before the Lukodi attack those who were going were smeared with oil in the presence of Dominic Ongwen 4273 and all the commanders. He explained that the commanders stayed close to those who 4274 were going for battle, because they wanted to encourage the attackers.

text: Finally, the Chamber notes the testimonies of two further witnesses who, albeit not providing much detail, corroborate the above evidence in relation to the preparation of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: P-0054 stated that prior to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, he was ‘under Atoo Hills’ 4275 with ‘those of Dominic’. According to his testimony, Dominic Ongwen selected 4276 people and they went to Lukodi, under the command of Ocaka and Ocan Nono as 2IC. Asked how he knew that Dominic Ongwen was the one to give instructions, P-0054 4277 stated that ‘he [was] responsible for selecting the people’. The Chamber is attentive 4278 to the fact that P-0054 testified firmly that Gilva brigade under Tulu was not involved. In light of the specific evidence to the contrary, including from persons who participated in the attack after being selected from the Gilva sickbay, the Chamber does not accept the evidence of P-0054 on this specific point, considering it entirely plausible that P-0054 simply did not get to know of the fact.

text: P-0101, who was Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ at the time, testified that the Gilva group of Tulu and Sinia soldiers selected by Dominic Ongwen went for an attack in

text: 4272 P-0410: T-151, p. 61, line 25 – p. 62, line 5. 4273 P-0410: T-151, p. 62, lines 6-15. 4274 P-0410: T-151, p. 62, lines 10-12. 4275 P-0054: T-93, p. 30, lines 4-8. It is noted that ‘under Atoo Hills’ is a geographical indication compatible with the rest of the evidence in relation to where the preparations for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp took place. 4276 P-0054: T-93, p. 30, line 8 – p. 31, line 11. It is clear from this evidence that P-0054 himself did not go to attack Lukodi. 4277 P-0054: T-93, p. 31, lines 21-25. 4278 P-0054: T-94, p. 19, lines 2-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 607/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4279 Lukodi. She stated that she was not as such present for the selection of soldiers, but

text: 4280 that she was nearby ‘in the kitchen’ and ‘overheard them selecting’ soldiers. She

text: testified that Ocaka was the leader ‘from Dominic’s side’, and confirmed that Ojok

text: 4281 Kampala also went for the attack.

text: The Chamber also notes that P-0214 testified that she heard of the attack on Lukodi, but

text: that she did not hear Dominic Ongwen issue any orders for it and that ‘none of us’ left

text: 4282 the location where they were. Considering that the witness had limited insight into

text: military operations, the Chamber does not attribute any consequence to her testimony on

text: this point.

text: iii. Departure of attackers for Lukodi

text: After receiving the orders given by Dominic Ongwen, the attackers left for Lukodi IDP camp. They arrived at Lukodi in the evening of the following day after setting out.

text: Dominic Ongwen stayed behind at the location of the pre-attack gathering.

text: Several witnesses consistently described the movement of the attackers from the

text: gathering point to Lukodi.

text: P-0205 testified that after Dominic Ongwen gave his instructions, the attackers set out

text: 4284 for Lukodi. The journey took one and a half to two days – they arrived at Lukodi in

text: 4285 the evening of the second day. P-0142 identically testified that the attackers walked

text: 4286 the entire day and arrived at Lukodi the next day in the evening. The witness estimated

text: 4287 the distance from the meeting point at 15-20 kilometres. He also stated that on the

text: way the attackers obtained some information from the civilians and reorganised the

text: 4288 fighters according to Ocaka’s instructions.

text: 4279 P-0101: T-13, p. 28, lines 14-19. The date given was corrected immediately thereafter; see P-0101: T-13, p. 29, line 17 – p. 30, line 4. 4280 P-0101: T-13, p. 29, lines 2-8. 4281 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 30, lines 10-17, p. 52, line 22 – p. 53, line 1. 4282 P-0214: T-15, p. 40, lines 7-16. 4283 Para. 179 above. 4284 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 23-25. 4285 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, line 25 – p. 55, line 2; P-0145: T-144, p. 35, line 19 – p. 36, line 1. 4286 P-0142: T-70, p. 58, line 24 – p. 59, line 2. 4287 P-0142: T-70, p. 58, lines 18-23. 4288 P-0142: T-70, p. 59, lines 3-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 608/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0018 testified that on the way to Lukodi, the attackers passed the foothills of the Atoo

text: 4289 Hills, then crossed the Paicho road before stopping for the night. The next morning

text: 4290 they crossed the Awach road and went to ‘the place where we were supposed to work’.

text: The presence of Dominic Ongwen on the ground for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp is

text: not alleged by the Prosecutor, and indeed the evidence confirms that after having

text: delegated command for the attack, he did not leave the gathering point with the attackers.

text: P-0142 stated that Dominic Ongwen remained in the position from which he had sent the

text: 4291 attackers. P-0406 stated that he saw Dominic Ongwen at the position where people

text: 4292 were selected for the attack, but not thereafter. P-0101 also stated that Dominic

text: 4293 Ongwen himself did not go to Lukodi.

text: At the same time, the Chamber notes that P-0145 stated that to his knowledge, Dominic

text: 4294 Ongwen went to Lukodi, because ‘he could not leave his people behind’. He did not

text: 4295 directly answer the question whether he saw Dominic Ongwen at Lukodi. Noting its

text: above findings as to the reliability of P-0145’s account of the events on the ground during

text: the attack, it is clear to the Chamber that the evidence of P-0145 is speculative on this

text: specific point, and as such the Chamber does not rely on the witness in this regard.

text: iv. The LRA’s attack against the civilian population of Lukodi IDP

text: camp

text: On or about 19 May 2004, LRA fighters, sent by Dominic Ongwen, attacked Lukodi IDP

text: camp.

text: In the evening on the day of the attack, at least 80 LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and armed with an assortment of

text: 4289 P-0018: T-69, p. 3, lines 20-25. 4290 P-0018: T-69, p. 3, lines 20-25. 4291 P-0142: T-70, p. 58, lines 13-17. 4292 P-0406: T-154, p. 55, lines 3-9. See also T-155, p. 58, lines 9-12 (stating that they started walking together with Dominic Ongwen, but that eventually he could not establish whether Dominic Ongwen was still in the line or had dropped out). 4293 P-0101: T-13, p. 28, lines 19-21. 4294 P-0145: T-143, p. 16, line 25 – p. 17, line 5. 4295 P-0145: T-143, p. 17, lines 6-9. 4296 Para. 178 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 609/1077 4 February 2021 weapons, including an RPG, an SMG, a PK, AK-47s, and a ‘12’, as well as

text: machetes/pangas, attacked Lukodi camp from the east.

text: Regarding the number of LRA fighters that attacked Lukodi IDP camp, LRA fighter P-

text: 0142, who participated in the attack on Lukodi, estimated that between 100 and 150 LRA

text: 4298 soldiers went to attack Lukodi. LRA attacker P-0018 testified that there were about

text: 4299 80 attackers that went to Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber notes P-0406’s testimony

text: 4300 that 40-50 LRA fighters attacked Lukodi IDP camp. However, the witness also stated

text: 4301 that he was just estimating because ‘you are not allowed to count while you are there’.

text: 4302 P-0172 estimated the number of troops departing from Gilva at 50 to 60. P-0035 and

text: 4303 camp resident David Komakech testified that about 100 rebels attacked Lukodi camp.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that at least 80 LRA fighters attacked Lukodi IDP camp during

text: the attack at issue.

text: The evidence also shows that children younger than 15 years old participated in the attack

text: on Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber recalls P-0142’s testimony that there were children

text: among the unarmed group of attackers that participated in the Lukodi attack, including

text: persons in the ‘age category 14’ from 11 to 20 years old and that the armed fighters

text: 4304 ranged from 11 to 35 years old. Concerning the attackers aged 11-14 years old, P-

text: 0142 stated that some of them were already initiated as soldiers and were assigned as

text: fighters, had guns, and were able to fight and others were not yet initiated and were

text: 4305 primarily tasked with carrying food items.

text: P-0142’s testimony is corroborated by P-0406’s testimony that LRA attackers from the

text: ages of 12 to 14 were banging jerry cans to make noise to provide morale for the attacking

text: 4306 force. Similarly, P-0410 corroborates P-0142’s testimony, stating that armed LRA

text: 4297 Para. 180 above. 4298 P-0142: T-70, p. 48, lines 20-22. 4299 P-0018: T-68, p. 62, line 6-8. 4300 P-0406: T-154, p. 54, lines 10-14; T-155, p. 58, lines 15-18. 4301 P-0406: T-154, p. 54, lines 10-14; T-155, p. 58, lines 15-18. 4302 P-0172: T-113, p. 22, lines 10-12 (referring to the number of combined troops, including Tulu’s and those Dominic Ongwen had come with). 4303 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 37; P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 15. 4304 P-0142: T-71, p. 6, lines 9-21. 4305 P-0142: T-71, p. 6, line 22 – p. 7, line 2. 4306 P-0406: T-154, p. 54, lines 10-14, p. 59, lines 9-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 610/1077 4 February 2021 fighters, about 14 years old were among the forces that went to the barracks to attack the

text: government soldiers.

text: As to the weapons LRA fighters used in the camp, credible and consistent evidence

text: shows that the LRA forces attacked Lukodi IDP camp with various weapons, including

text: an RPG, an SMG, a PK, AK-47, and a ‘12’, as well as machetes/pangas.

text: While the Chamber notes that witnesses differ in their testimony as whether the attack

text: on Lukodi IDP camp happened on 19 or 20 May 2004, the Chamber is satisfied that

text: on or about 19 May 2004, Lukodi camp was attacked. The Chamber is also satisfied that

text: the evidence indicates that the attack began in the late afternoon or early evening;

text: witnesses testify to a range of time between 16:00 and 18:45.

text: 4307 P-0410: T-151, p. 63, line 22 – p. 64, line 12. 4308 P-0142: T-70, p. 59, line 25 – p. 60, line 3; P-0406: T-154, p. 55, lines 10-12; P-0410: T-151, p. 64, lines 13- 17. This is corroborated by the results of a government investigation after the attack. See P-0017 Statement, UGA- OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 207 (stating that a UPDF commander informed P-0017 that the LRA used heavy and small arms to attack, and that 207 cartridges, nine bullets, one burnt magazine and a part of an RBG shell were recovered from the camp site); P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 130 (stating that there were lots of shells from big bullets lying on the ground in the civilian parts of the camp). See also P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 39; P-0024: T-77, p. 34, line 23 – p. 35, line 14. 4309 Several witnesses testify that the camp was attacked on 19 May 2004. P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233- 1046-R01, at para. 18 (stating that she knows the date because ‘everybody in Lukodi remembers this day and every year there is a memorial in Lukodi for the people who died on this day’); P-0024: T-77, p. 21, lines 17-18; P-0187: T-164, p. 8, lines 7-9; P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at paras 14, 31 (stating that he was not certain as he found the exact date difficult to remember and that he thought that the police noted 20 May 2004 as the day of the attack in a statement he gave to them because they took his statement on 20 May 2004, but that was the day after the attack). Still, others stated that the camp was attacked on 20 May 2004. P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 17; P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 52; P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 205. See also Uganda police report on Lukodi attack, UGA-OTP- 0023-0022, at 0022. The Chamber also notes that P-0035 did not give a specific date, but stated that the attack took place ‘between the 20 and the 22 May 2004’; P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 34. 4310 P-0187: T-164, p. 8, lines 7-9 (the attack took place between 16:00 and 17:00); P-0406: T-154, p. 62, lines 1- 7 (the LRA attack on Lukodi IDP camp began around 17:00-18:00); P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 12-13 (the LRA reached Lukodi between 17:00 and 18:00); P-0018: T-69, p. 9, lines 10-14 (the LRA entered the camp around 18:00); P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 17-19 (stating that at around 18:00 hours while preparing a meal, she heard the rebels blowing whistles and making an alarm); P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0233-1020-R01, at para. 14 (approximately 18:00); P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 34 (between 18:30 and 18:45); P-0142: T-70, p. 60, lines 19-22 (around 18:45).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 611/1077 4 February 2021

text: Credible and consistent evidence demonstrates that LRA forces entered Lukodi IDP

text: camp from the east, in two groups, one group going to engage the soldiers at the

text: barracks and the second heading to the civilian areas.

text: The LRA fighters went into the civilian areas of the camp and some fighters went to barracks to fight the government soldiers. Government soldiers engaged the LRA fighters and then quickly fled. The remaining civilian population in the camp were left defenceless.

text: LRA fighters targeted civilians within the camp with acts of violence.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that around 30 government forces were

text: present in the camp the day of the Lukodi IDP camp attack. P-0035,

text: , indicated that there were 30 LDU soldiers in

text: Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber is of the view that

text: , P-0035 is best placed to have credible information as to how many government

text: troops were in Lukodi at the time of the attack.

text: While there is indication that there were rumours of LRA activity in the area in the days

text: before the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, the evidence demonstrates that the camp

text: residents and government soldiers present in the camp were caught unaware when the

text: attack actually began.

text: Santo Ojera, one of the camp leaders, testified that the LRA entered the Lukodi IDP camp

text: whistling, then shouting and finally shooting. Similarly, P-0187 testified that when

text: the attack began the LRA were shouting on the top of the voices, banging jerry cans, and

text: 4311 P-0187: T-164, p. 8, lines 2-6, p. 15, lines 4-7, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 6; P-0142: T-71, p. 9, lines 8-16; P- 0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 35; P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 19-20. 4312 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 3-4; P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 16-19; T-152, p. 47, line 20 – p. 48, line 2; P-0018: T-69, p. 9, lines 6-9; P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 1-3; P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 54; P-0060’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0069-0048. See P-0142: T-70, p. 58, lines 7-12. 4313 Para. 181 above. 4314 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 12. See also P-0024: T-77, p. 19, lines 17-24; T-78, p. 19, line 17 – p. 20, line 1; P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 7-12. 4315 P-0024: T-78, p. 33, line 18-21; P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 19. 4316 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 34 (explaining that unlike the other times the LRA attacked, the day of the May 2004 attack, no one advised the soldiers that the rebels were around, and that he was alerted to the attack when he noticed that civilians were running coming from the north eastern part of Lukodi towards the military’s position); P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 17-19 (stating that she was cooking in her home when she heard the rebels blowing whistles and making an alarm, followed by civilians shouting ‘lakwena, lakwena’ and gunshots); P-0187: T-164, p. 9, lines 16-25 (testifying that she was returning home on her bicycle after shopping for vegetables when she encountered people running); P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 16 (stating that he was spending time with a friend in a shop at the trading centre of Lukodi camp when he heard the gunshots). 4317 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 55.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 612/1077 4 February 2021 blowing whistles, that was how the people in the camp realised that the camp would be

text: 4318 under attack. P-0187 heard gunshots at the start of the attack and saw some houses

text: 4319 being torched. P-0187 testified that the shooting began on the eastern side of the

text: 4320 camp.

text: Camp resident P-0024 described the scene as the attack began. P-0024 was at home

text: 4321 around evening time, in a civilian area close to the barracks, when she saw a group of

text: 4322 people coming. P-0024 assumed that they were government soldiers coming to

text: reinforce and assist the soldiers already stationed in the camp to protect the camp

text: 4323 residents from LRA activity. P-0024 explained ‘all of a sudden we saw so many

text: 4324 soldiers and there were bullets and their machetes and they were cutting people’. P-

text: 0024 took shelter inside a house, and explained:

text: A. We entered the house because you couldn’t run at that time.

text: Q. Why couldn’t you run?

text: A. Because there were too many. It was very abrupt and there was nowhere to flee. Those who fled were being shot. Many of them died. The ones who were fast enough were able to escape, but for me who had a child it was difficult to run. We 4325 were too close, they were already too close to us and we could not run.

text: LRA fighter P-0410 corroborates the camp residents’ account of an ordinary day

text: 4326 interrupted. P-0410, who testified to being part of the force attacking the barracks,

text: stated that when his group of LRA fighters headed to the barracks, some government

text: soldiers were playing football with civilians near the camp, and had placed their guns

text: 4327 down, not noticing the presence of the LRA forces. The LRA fighters fired on these

text: soldiers and pushed them towards the barracks, also collecting the guns of the fleeing

text: 4318 P-0187: T-164, p. 14, line 23 – p. 15, line 17. 4319 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 3-5. 4320 P-0187: T-164, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 6. 4321 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 3; T-78, p. 21, lines 2-5, p. 22, lines 1-4. 4322 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 3; T-78, p. 36, line 21 – p. 37, line 3, p. 37, line 24 – p. 38, line 5. 4323 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 6. 4324 P-0024: T-77, p. 20, lines 8-10. 4325 P-0024: T-77, p. 23, line 22 – p. 24, line 2. 4326 P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 18-19. 4327 P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 12-19; T-152, p. 47, line 20 – p. 48, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 613/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4328 soldiers. The Chamber finds this aspect of P-0410’s testimony detailed, graphic and

text: credible.

text: In line with P-0410’s testimony, other witnesses indicate that as they entered the camp

text: from the eastern side, the LRA fighters started shooting, attacking the barracks and

text: civilians alike. Camp resident David Komakech testified that the shooting started at the

text: 4329 very edge of the camp, where there were only civilians. According to David

text: Komakech, there were government soldiers amongst the Lukodi population but the LRA

text: 4330 fighters were shooting at everybody, including civilians.

text: Camp resident Pyerina Ayaa could hear gunshots and it seemed to her that the soldiers

text: 4331 in the barracks and the attackers, based in the east, were shooting at each other. She

text: testified that eventually the gunshots coming from the direction of the barracks stopped

text: 4332 and she could only hear gunshots from the east.

text: Other LRA fighters further described the course of the attack. P-0142 testified that the

text: LRA fighters went to the primary school, which had been converted into the government

text: 4333 soldiers’ barracks and faced the soldiers. P-0142 could not clearly recall which party

text: started shooting, but described a short exchange of fire between the government soldiers

text: 4334 and the LRA fighters. Similarly, P-0406 testified that as the LRA fighters went

text: 4335 towards the barracks, there was an exchange of fire with the government soldiers.

text: According to P-0410, the LRA forces had heavier weaponry than the government

text: 4336 soldiers.

text: P-0205 testified that he was in the group that went to attack the barracks along with LRA

text: 4337 commanders Ocaka and Ojok Kampala. According to his testimony, the LRA fighters

text: 4328 P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 16-20; T-152, p. 48, lines 2-4, p. 49, lines 12-14. 4329 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 14. 4330 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at paras 14-15. 4331 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 20. 4332 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 21. 4333 P-0142: T-70, p. 61, lines 15-19; T-71, p. 9, line 15 – p. 10, line 1; T-71-CONF, p. 63, lines 13-16. See P- 0142’s annotated map of Lukodi, UGA-OTP-0251-0642. 4334 P-0142: T-70, p. 60, lines 19-22, p. 61, line 9 – p. 62, line 4. 4335 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 55, lines 19-24. 4336 P-0410: T-152, p. 51, lines 12-16. 4337 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 54, lines 20-22, p. 55, lines 5-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 614/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4338 shot at the government soldiers. P-0205 testified that some government soldiers

text: 4339 stayed behind and were hiding behind the school so the LRA shot at those soldiers.

text: The evidence shows that the exchange of fire between the LRA fighters and the

text: government soldiers was brief and that the government fighters quickly fled. P-0142

text: testified that the exchange of fire ‘didn’t take very many minutes’, because the

text: 4340 government soldiers fled into the civilian camp.

text: P-0142 testified that after the government soldiers fled, the LRA fighters went to the

text: 4341 barracks, searched it, and set it on fire, burning all the homes within the barracks. In

text: line with this testimony, P-0205 testified that when the LRA fighters attacked the

text: government soldiers hiding behind the school, the fighting ‘did not take long before [the

text: 4342 LRA fighters] saw the whole place burning’. P-0205 also testified that the LRA

text: 4343 fighters burnt the soldiers’ homes and took everything that they found there.

text: P-0410 corroborates the other LRA fighters’ accounts testifying that there were only a

text: few government soldiers in the camp and although they tried to resist the attack, it was

text: 4344 easy to overrun the barracks. P-0410 testified that the government soldiers ran away

text: 4345 after being overrun by the LRA and the civilians remained in the camp. Camp resident

text: P-0024 corroborates this account; she testified that as the LRA attackers approached the

text: 4346 camp, the government soldiers fled.

text: The Chamber is convinced by the overwhelming evidence that government soldiers

text: quickly fled the camp after a short engagement with LRA fighters in the barracks and in

text: the camp.

text: 4338 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 10-12. 4339 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 14-16. 4340 P-0142: T-70, p. 62, lines 1-7; T-71, p. 11, lines 20-24. 4341 P-0142: T-70, p. 62, lines 14-18. 4342 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 15-16. 4343 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 13-16. 4344 P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 20-23. 4345 P-0410: T-151, p. 59, lines 22-24. 4346 P-0024: T-77, p. 22, lines 18-23; T-78, p. 39, lines 1-23. See also P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018- R01, at paras 21, 37 (testifying that while hiding in the bush in the night, she heard the arrival of the government soldiers reinforcing the camp, and heard them say that the Lukodi government soldiers had all run away).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 615/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0142 testified that some of the LRA fighters followed the retreating government

text: 4347 soldiers into the civilian camp and continued firing as they moved into the camp.

text: Meanwhile, as one group of the LRA fighters were at the barracks, another group of

text: attackers, some armed and some unarmed, went into the civilian areas of the camp and

text: targeted the civilians within. P-0142 testified that the unarmed LRA soldiers,

text: accompanied by some armed LRA soldiers, scattered into the camps, to loot items and

text: 4348 come back. Similarly, P-0205 testified that as some fighters went to the barracks, the

text: ‘people who were sent to look for food also went to look for food’ under the command

text: 4349 of a Sinia brigade officer, Kobbi, and a soldier from Gilva known as Ojara.

text: 4350 While some civilians tried to hide inside homes in the civilian area, others moved to

text: 4351 flee from the camp.

text: The evidence is clear that in its attack on Lukodi IDP camp, the LRA fighters sent by

text: Dominic Ongwen followed his orders and targeted civilians on his orders, committing

text: numerous acts of violence against them.

text: 4352 P-0406 testified that he saw people being beaten by an LRA fighter. Similarly, P-

text: 0410 testified:

text: [The LRA] started by burning the houses and then shooting civilians and the soldiers. And then later, some people were abducted. They looted food and looted 4353 a few items from the barracks.

text: The Chamber also notes that the credible, consistent and mutually corroborative evidence

text: of the civilians about what they observed within the camp corroborates P-0410’s account.

text: 4347 P-0142: T-70, p. 63, lines 3-8. 4348 P-0142: T-70, p. 63, line 17 – p. 65, line 11. 4349 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 7-12. P-0205 testified that Kobbi was from the Terwanga battalion; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 59, lines 11-21. 4350 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 18, 22-29 (testifying that, together with two of her children, she remained in her home with the door closed until the attackers entered. See also para. 1757 below.); P-0024: T-77, p. 23, line 20 – p. 24, line 14; T-78, p. 36, line 21 – p. 37, line 3 (explaining that she hid in her house together with five of her own and three of her neighbour’s children); P-0187: T-164, p. 10, line 1-9 (stating that she hid in a house with two other civilian women); P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 21 (stating that when she and her sister-in-law heard the noises, they hid behind the door, and that they could hear gunshots outside). 4351 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 54, 57-59 (stating that he ran west, crossing and then following the Ororo stream, and that he met other people who were running just like him). 4352 P-0406: T-155, p. 61, lines 22-25. See also P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 44 (Pyerina Ayaa testified that after the attack she saw one injured woman Atim had been beaten all over her body). 4353 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, lines 6-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 616/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also recalls its finding above that Dominic Ongwen’s order for the attack

text: 4354 on Lukodi IDP camp included the instruction to target everyone present in Lukodi. Altogether, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the LRA fighters attacking Lukodi IDP camp targeted civilians. At this juncture, the Chamber provides a more specific assessment of the available evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence, looting and destruction of property perpetrated by LRA fighters against civilians in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, as well as in its immediate aftermath. As also emerges from the evidence analysed below, the victims targeted by the LRA attackers were

text: civilian residents of the camp.

text: LRA fighters killed civilians in Lukodi IDP camp: men, women and children. At least 48 civilians died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. Civilians were shot, burnt and

text: beaten to death.

text: The following persons were among those killed by the LRA within the camp: Keneri Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kilama Aloyo, Kilama Kidega, Jackline Anee, Milly Anek, Akello Acii, Innocent Okello, Ojoko, unnamed man shouting at the LRA, Christine Ajok, Odong Apiyo, David Otim and an unnamed stabbing victim, Agwesa Odoch, Beatrice’s son, Charles Odong, Jasinta Aol, Jojina Angom, Lalobo’s son, Tezira Oroma, Ojara, Okwera, Olwedo, Ocaka’s wife and one unnamed teenage girl, Onencan, Witness P-0024’s mother and , Min Ojoko, Ocii, Atim, Charles Anywar, Danger Joseph Oryem, James Opiro, Jeneth Lalur Akello, Joseph Ojara, Obedi, Rose Kiter, Tabicha Alum,

text: Vincent Ocaya and Santa Oroma.

text: LRA fighters attempted to kill at least 11 other civilians who managed to survive. The fighters shot at civilians and in some cases wounded them. Civilians were beaten and left for dead. Civilians, including children, were thrown into burning houses. The following persons were among those who survived these LRA acts of violence: Pyerina Ayaa, Florence Adong, Adong Paska, Piloya, Joel Opiyo, Ojoko, an unnamed elderly woman,

text: Nyeko, two unnamed girls who had been shot and an unnamed girl with a burnt leg.

text: The Prosecution argues that the LRA intentionally targeted the civilians in Lukodi IDP camp in both deliberate and attempted killings and the deaths were not caused by 4358 ‘crossfire’. The Defence submits that the Prosecution has failed to demonstrate that

text: 4359 civilians were deliberately targeted by the LRA. The evidence is clear that LRA fighters purposely killed or attempted to kill persons during the May 2004 attack on

text: 4354 See section IV.C.8.ii above. 4355 Para. 182 above. 4356 Para. 183 above. 4357 Para. 184 above. 4358 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 315, 336. 4359 Defence Closing Brief, paras 423, 429.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 617/1077 4 February 2021

text: Lukodi IDP camp. Both LRA fighters and camp residents testify that the LRA burnt, shot and beat people within the camp.

text: As camp resident P-0187 testified in response to a question as to whether the LRA’s purpose in the camp was to collect food:

text: But talking about them coming to collect food, well, I was just guessing, they could have heard that Caritas had distributed flour and cooking oil. […] But if they had come for food only, they would not have killed people, they would not have torched houses. They came prepared and ready to kill. They needed--they wanted to kill 4360 people. If they only wanted food, they would have collected only food.

text: Camp resident P-0024 testified that while she was abducted by the LRA fighters, she heard the LRA fighters laughing and joking about the attack in Lukodi:

text: I heard them laughing. I heard them saying that they should not have wasted their guns in Lukodi, they should have just hit people on their skulls, they should have beaten the soldiers, they should have killed the soldiers, they should have killed the civilians as well. That’s what they were doing. They said they wasted their bullets. That’s what they were doing, they were joking, they were laughing about the attack, saying that they should have killed us, they should have used other means to kill us. We were tied up. At the time we felt that we were dead anyway, we felt that we 4361 were walking dead. There was nothing that we could do.

text: Similarly, camp resident Lilly Apiyo testified that during her abduction, a commander told the abductees:

text: [W]e were supposed to kill all of you. In Atiak everyone was killed but I am going to spare you but we have killed all your children and the husbands that you left in the camp. We are also going to kill all the men we abducted. I am going to release 4362 you to go back to the camp and bury your children and husbands.

text: In testimony consistent with the above accounts, camp resident David Komakech testified that while he was hiding from the LRA during the attack, he could hear the LRA 4363 saying ‘kill all of them anyone you find you should kill’. In this context, the Chamber

text: recalls P-0142’s response when asked whether shooting a civilian during the course of an attack would constitute an offence, P-0142, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighter,

text: 4360 P-0187: T-165, p. 31, lines 3-21. 4361 P-0024: T-78, p. 51, lines 12-20. 4362 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 42. 4363 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at paras 16, 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 618/1077 4 February 2021 said that ‘nobody would see it as a crime if a civilian is injured or if a civilian is shot

text: 4364 at’.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA shot, beat or cut people, killing them, in Lukodi IDP

text: camp. P-0406, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighters, testified that when abducted

text: 4365 people tried to run away, they were shot and killed by the LRA. P-0406 testified that

text: 4366 .

text: P-0410, another of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighters, testified that the LRA shot civilians

text: 4367 at the camp. P-0410 testified that he saw civilians that were already dead and he saw

text: 4368 other civilians being shot. Asked if he knew how the dead civilians had been killed,

text: 4369 P-0410 testified that they had been shot or burnt in houses. P-0410 testified that while

text: moving around ‘[s]ometimes when you are walking along the road, you jump over

text: people’s corpses and you keep on moving. You find another corpse; you jump over it and

text: 4370 keep on moving. People died from bullet shots, people died from bombs’.

text: Camp resident P-0024 explained that in the course of the attack, the LRA fighters started

text: 4371 shooting into the houses, ‘outside there were so many bullets that we could hear, there

text: 4372 was a lot of smoke everywhere’. P-0024 testified that there were bullets and the LRA

text: 4373 were cutting people. P-0024 described what she observed as she was hiding away

text: from the LRA during the attack:

text: [W]e lay down [in the house] hoping that they wouldn’t come to us because we were not seeing what was taking place in the compound. All we could hear were bullets. And you could hear them cutting people into pieces. And there were a lot of noise being made. They were laughing while they were cutting people into pieces. And they were saying that they shouldn’t have wasted their bullets in Lukodi, they should just hit people with the clubs and cut them with machetes until

text: 4364 P-0142: T-71, p. 25, lines 18-21. 4365 P-0406: T-154, p. 56, lines 12-16. See P-0406’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp and the course of the attack, UGA-OTP-0263-2807 (in his annotated sketch of the map of Lukodi and the course of the attack, P-0406 indicates several spots where the bodies of dead civilians were found). 4366 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 57, lines 3-6. 4367 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, lines 6-7. 4368 P-0410: T-151, p. 64, lines 20-24. 4369 P-0410: T-151, p. 65, lines 1-4, lines 18-20. 4370 P-0410: T-151, p. 67, lines 13-15. 4371 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 11. 4372 P-0024: T-77, p. 24, lines 23-25. 4373 P-0024: T-77, p. 22, lines 6-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 619/1077 4 February 2021 they die. That is what happened. We were helpless and we were hoping that we 4374 could be saved. 4375 Contrary to what is alleged as a possibility by the Defence, there is no evidence of persons killed in crossfire. As the Chamber discussed above, the evidence shows that there was at most a short exchange of fire between the LRA fighters and the government soldiers stationed in the camp, after which the government soldiers quickly fled. Indeed, it is theoretically possible that civilians could die caught in that exchange, but based on the evidence before the Chamber this is no more than theoretical speculation.

text: P-0142 did not go into the camp and claimed to not have personally witnessed anything that occurred in the camp or any civilian killed, however when asked how the civilians died in the camp, he testified that it would be ‘really difficult’ for him to say exactly how the civilians died but thought they could have died in the crossfire between the LRA 4376 soldiers and government soldiers who fled and went into the civilian area.

text: Similarly, LRA fighter P-0172, who also did not go to the attack, testified that the LRA fighters who returned from the camp told him that it was a ‘fierce battle, because they found the soldiers who were guarding the civilians, you needed to first attack the soldiers before reaching the civilians, and the soldiers also had civilians in the crossfire. That is 4377 why there were many injuries’. P-0172 testified that he was told that government soldiers ran away from the battlefront, went behind civilians and started shooting their 4378 guns from behind civilians and the civilians were caught in the middle.

text: P-0205, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighters, testified that it was possible that during 4379 the crossfire, some civilians died, but he did not see any deaths personally. LDU soldier Okello Michael Tookwaro also raised the possibility of civilian deaths by 4380 crossfire or from government soldiers. The Chamber notes that both P-0205 and Okello Michael Tookwaro testified about the presence of a mamba, which fired on the

text: 4374 P-0024: T-77, p. 24, line 23 – p. 25, line 8. See P-0024: T-78, p. 37, lines 4-15. 4375 Defence Closing Brief, para. 425. 4376 P-0142: T-70, p. 65, line 23 – p. 66, line 4, p. 66, lines 12-15. 4377 P-0172: T-113, p. 25, lines 14-20. 4378 P-0172: T-114, p. 6, lines 5-14. 4379 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 17, lines 10-15. 4380 D-0072: T-212, p. 38, line 23 – p. 39, line 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 620/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4381 LRA fighters. P-0205 however states that the mamba arrived when the LRA fighters 4382 had crossed the Unyama River, some distance from the camp. Thus, his evidence does not support the contention that the mamba fired in the camp and could have been responsible for the deaths of civilians within the camp. Indeed P-0205 also testified, as 4383 discussed below, that he did not see any civilians killed in the course of the attack. Regarding Okello Michael Tookwaro, the Chamber recalls its finding that his testimony 4384 regarding what happened during the Lukodi attack is unreliable. As such, the Chamber is unable to rely on his testimony in this regard.

text: As for P-0205, P-0172 and P-0142, the Chamber notes that their evidence in this regard is purely speculative. None of these witnesses testified to seeing any civilian die in the attack. Instead, many other witnesses offered credible, eyewitness accounts of what happened in Lukodi IDP camp and none of them testified to seeing a government soldier kill a camp resident, or described circumstances that would establish death in crossfire as a reasonable possibility.

text: Evidence also demonstrates that although government reinforcements came to Lukodi IDP camp the night of the attack, they did not engage with the LRA fighters as the fighters 4385 had already left the camp.

text: The Chamber also notes that contrary to the Defence’s contention, Martin Kalyemenya’s testimony does not suggest that the government soldiers used ‘heavy machine guns’ in 4386 the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack. The Defence’s argument stretches the witness’s testimony to make an unsupported speculation. Further, the witness testified that the shells were collected and that he did not remember what happened to them

text: 4381 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 17-22; D-0072: T-212, p. 38, line 21 – p. 39, line 23. 4382 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 17-22. 4383 See the Chamber’s discussion of the reporting of the attack to Dominic Ongwen in paras 1838-1845 below. 4384 See the Chamber’s discussion of D-0072’s testimony in section IV.B.2.v.b.iii above. 4385 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at paras 42, 48-49 (stating that he sent a communication to the battalion HQ asking for reinforcement, which arrived around 45 minutes later by which time the rebels had already left the camp towards the north-eastern direction). See also P-0142: T-72, p. 73, lines 19-23 (stating that he did not hear any ground reinforcements with vehicles come during the course of the attack on Lukodi); P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 35-36 (stating that a vehicle with government soldiers arrived at the camp about 30 minutes after she heard the sound of a mamba firing); V-0004: T-173, p. 45, line 13 – p. 46, line 8 (stating that when the ground military forces arrived at the camp, the LRA had already left and that when the mambas came to the camp, they did not fire. ‘They only parked there and guarded the place until the next morning’). 4386 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 426-27. The Defence pointed to P-0036’s (Martin Kalyemenya) statement that there were lots of shells from big bullets lying on the ground in the civilians’ part of the camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 621/1077 4 February 2021

text: afterwards, but at no point stated that the shells went missing as the Defence writes

text: in its closing brief. In this context, the Chamber notes bullet cartridges were collected

text: from the Lukodi campsite.

text: The Chamber also notes the Defence submissions about the location of the Lukodi

text: barracks and the suggestion that the proximity of the barracks and the civilian camp

text: blurred the distinction between the military and civilians for the LRA fighters. As noted in the Chamber’s discussion above, LRA fighters entered the camp, attacking on

text: foot, they separated into two groups and clearly attacked both the barracks and the

text: civilian area as ordered by Dominic Ongwen. No LRA fighter testified to being unable

text: to distinguish between the barracks and the civilian areas. On the contrary, the evidence

text: demonstrates that LRA fighters who participated in the attack clearly distinguished the

text: military barracks from the civilian areas of the camp. Camp residents also testified

text: that the barracks, albeit quite close to some parts of the civilian camp, was distinguishable

text: from the civilian camp.

text: 4387 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 130. 4388 Defence Closing Brief, para. 426. 4389 See P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 207 (stating that during the post attack government investigation a UPDF commander informed P-0017 that the LRA used heavy and small arms to attack, 207 cartridges, nine bullets, one burnt magazine and a part of an RBG shell were recovered from the camp site). See also Photographs of collected items, UGA-OTP-0171-0178, UGA-OTP-0171-0179, UGA-OTP-0171-0180, UGA-OTP-0171-0181, UGA-OTP-0171-0182, UGA-OTP-0171-0183, UGA-OTP-0171-0184, UGA-OTP-0171- 0185, UGA-OTP-0171-0186, UGA-OTP-0171-0187, UGA-OTP-0171-0191, UGA-OTP-0171-0192, UGA-OTP- 0171-0193, UGA-OTP-0171-0194, UGA-OTP-0171-0195, UGA-OTP-0171-0196, UGA-OTP-0171-0197, UGA-OTP-0171-0200, UGA-OTP-0171-0201, UGA-OTP-0171-0203, UGA-OTP-0171-0204. Some of these photographs appear to show the bullet catridges collected from the Lukodi IDP camp sites. 4390 Defence Closing Brief, paras 423-24. 4391 P-0142: T-70, p. 62, lines 8-13 (testifying that the civilian camp was between 100 to 500 metres from the barracks, adding that ‘the distance was really small and 500 metres would even be on really the higher side, but it was really not far’). See also P-0142: T-71, p. 60, line 21 – p. 61, line 23 (distinguishing between the barracks and the burning houses); P-0018: T-69, p. 53, lines 5-10 (there was a distance, although not far, between the barracks and the camp); P-0410: T-152, p. 47, line 20 – p. 48, line 4 (clearly distinguishing between the military barracks and the civilians dwellings when describing his movements during the attack). 4392 P-0035 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0082-R01, at para. 14 (stating that there was a distance of about 300 meters between the military barracks and the nearest civilian houses); P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034- R01, at paras 17-18; P-0060’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0069-0048 (stating that he lived only around 25 meters away from the military barracks as were the home of several other civilians, and that there was a trench surrounding the military barracks); P-0024: T-78, p. 21, line 2 – p. 24, line 14 (stating that civilians moved to the edge of the school compound in an attempt to be more secure by proximity to the barracks; but that there was a distance between the school and the civilian homes); P-0187: T-164, p. 7, line 19 – p. 8, line 6; T-165, p. 3, lines 22-25, p. 4, line 15-25 (stating that civilians established their dwellings behind the barracks, which was based at the school, and that she lived less than a mile away from the barracks). See also P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0036-0042-R01, at para. 122 (stating that there was a military detachment on the extreme left side of the camp, very close to the civilian parts of the camp); P-0036’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0036-0063.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 622/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence also shows that civilians were burned to death in their homes by the LRA.

text: The Defence alleges a possibility that tracer (stretcher) bullets or the battle light burnt

text: 4393 the camp, presumably also accounting for the persons burnt in the camp. However,

text: this is a speculative scenario that is not based on any evidence. Rather, the evidence is

text: overwhelming that LRA fighters purposely burnt homes in the camp, burning civilians

text: to death within their homes. LRA fighters themselves testified accordingly.

text: Camp resident P-0018 stated that LRA fighters sent people into their houses, locked the

text: 4394 doors and set the houses on fire with the people inside the houses. According to P-

text: 0018, after the LRA attackers took food out of the houses, they would light a match and

text: 4395 set the houses ablaze. However, in some houses, the LRA attackers would take fire

text: from the cooker and tell people and children to go into the houses, lock the doors and

text: 4396 then set the houses on fire. P-0018 escaped from the LRA and returned to Lukodi

text: camp the day after the attack, when she saw that many people were killed and some were

text: 4397 burnt inside their houses. A female civilian abductee who had escaped from the LRA

text: with P-0018 came back the next day and found that her child had been burnt inside the

text: 4398 house.

text: Similarly, Sinia fighter P-0406 testified that during the Lukodi attack, he saw people who

text: 4399 were pushed inside a house and locked inside and the house set on fire. P-0410 also

text: 4400 testified that he also saw civilians who were burning inside a hut. Sinia fighter P-0410

text: 4401 stated that the civilians who did not flee were burnt in their houses. In line with P-

text: 0018’s testimony, P-0410 testified that the LRA forces used the fire used for cooking to

text: 4402 set the huts on fire.

text: P-0410 testified that during the attack, he came to a house and saw many civilians

text: 4403 crowded inside. P-0410 testified that because he pitied the people inside, he closed

text: 4393 Defence Closing Brief, para. 428. 4394 P-0018: T-69, p. 12, lines 2-8. 4395 P-0018: T-69, p. 12, lines 2-17, p. 17, lines 16-23. 4396 P-0018: T-69, p. 12, lines 14-20. 4397 P-0018: T-69, p. 18, line 20 – p. 19, line 5. See P-0018: T-68, p. 51, line 24 – p. 52, line 16. 4398 P-0018: T-69, p. 19, lines 3-7. 4399 P-0406: T-154, p. 55, line 25 – p. 56, lines 3. 4400 P-0410: T-151, p. 64, lines 20-25. 4401 P-0410: T-151, p. 65, lines 1-4. 4402 P-0410: T-151, p. 65, lines 10-15. 4403 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, lines 8-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 623/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4404 the door and locked it as if there was no one inside. P-0410 testified that the LRA fighter who came after him opened the door and found people were inside, so that fighter 4405 bolted the door, locked it with a padlock and set the house on fire. P-0410 testified that the LRA fighter waited there until the people had burnt down and then he left to 4406 report P-0410 to their superiors for having attempted to spare the lives of the civilians. 4407 P-0410 testified that he saw the civilians all burnt to death. P-0410 testified that ‘so 4408 many people were burnt to death’ in Lukodi. The Chamber finds P-0410’s testimony here credible; it is specific, compelling, rich with detail and consistent with other reliable evidence.

text: Camp resident P-0024 corroborates these accounts, testifying that the LRA killed people in the camp, and in particular that she saw the LRA loot houses and then set the houses 4409 ablaze, killing people.

text: Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that the evidence proves that LRA fighters killed the victims during the attack. The evidence does not suggest that the civilians killed in Lukodi IDP camp were killed during crossfire between the government forces and the LRA fighters. The Chamber notes the below discussion of the persons killed in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack and the manner in which they were killed. There is also no evidence that government soldiers beat, burnt or cut any civilian in the course of the attack. There is ample evidence that the LRA committed these acts.

text: The Chamber heard credible evidence that LRA fighters killed civilians during the attack and in its their retreat from the camp. On some occasions, the killing was not fully carried out because of independent circumstances.

text: Camp resident Lilly Apiyo described what she witnessed in returning to the camp the day after the attack:

text: 4404 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, lines 8-16. 4405 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, lines 8-16. 4406 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, lines 15-23. 4407 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, lines 24-25. 4408 P-0410: T-151, p. 66, line 25. 4409 P-0024: T-77, p. 20, lines 16-21, p. 33, line 25 – p. 34, line 5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 624/1077 4 February 2021

text: I saw dead bodies covered with blankets. I saw people who had been burnt in the house being removed from the burnt houses. People were using sticks to get them 4410 out because some of the houses were still burning.

text: Lilly Apiyo testified that she was lucky that her house was set on fire once she had gotten

text: 4411 out of it because some people were killed and burnt in their houses. She testified to

text: 4412 seeing the bodies of children who had been killed when she returned to the camp. She

text: stated that she also saw the body of a woman who was killed with her daughter-in-law

text: 4413 and grandchild.

text: The Chamber recalls camp resident P-0187’s general testimony about the LRA’s killing

text: of children in the camp. P-0187 testified:

text: Some were hit. Some children were put in a polythene bag and beaten to death. Some were locked inside and burnt inside. Others were put in a bag and they were thrown in the bush. So many of them--some of them disappeared and they were 4414 never found. Others were found in the morning.

text: ISO officer P-0301 testified that the morning after the attack, he arrived at the camp with

text: 4415 4416 an army convoy. P-0301 testified that he saw ‘bodies hacked in a barbaric way’.

text: 4417 P-0301 testified that the people killed were civilians, men, women and children. P-

text: 4418 0301 stated that he saw the bodies of ‘old persons that could not run away’. P-0301

text: 4419 testified that the day after the attack, he saw the body of a girl as young as three. P-

text: 0017 testified that he observed that the deceased were all civilians, some adults and some

text: 4420 4421 children. P-0017 saw a grave with the bodies of young children.

text: P-0187 testified that some bodies were not recovered soon after the attack, some bodies

text: 4422 were found in the bush, many months after the attack. She stated, ‘the bodies were

text: 4410 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 51. 4411 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 23. 4412 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 27. 4413 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4414 P-0187: T-164, p. 20, lines 24 – p. 21, line 5. 4415 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 52. 4416 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 54. 4417 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 54. 4418 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 54. 4419 P-0301 Statement, UGA-OTP-0249-0423-R01, at para. 54. 4420 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 211. 4421 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 211. See Photograph of grave of young children, UGA-OTP-0023-0312. In his statement, P-0017 stated that he recognised on this photograph one of the graves in Lukodi IDP camp, covered with bricks. 4422 P-0187: T-164, p. 24, line 24 – p. 25, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 625/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4423 discovered like luggage which had been abandoned’. Similarly, camp resident P-0024

text: testified that some of the dead bodies were never recovered, others were burned in the

text: 4424 houses, and some remained in the bush. She stated that for some deceased their bodies

text: 4425 were been eaten by dogs.

text: According to P-0024, a child who was taken by the LRA and thrown away in the bush

text: 4426 during the course of the retreat died and the dead body was never recovered. P-0024

text: also testified that the morning after the attack, she was told by other returned abductees

text: 4427 that the other seven people who had been abducted with her were killed.

text: be killed by the LRA within the camp.

text: Keneri Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kilama Aloyo, Kilama Kidega and Jackline Anee: P-

text: 0187 testified that in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, LRA fighters shot

text: Keneri Okot, his daughter-in-law and three other children and then burnt them in the

text: 4428 house. Santo Ojera also testified of the five persons burnt in a house, gave their names

text: and provided additional detail about their deaths. He testified credibly that the day after

text: the attack he saw that five civilians had been burnt inside a house: Keneri Okot, Jeneth

text: Lakot, her children Kilama Aloyo and Kilama Kidega, and another child by the name of

text: 4429 Jackline Anee. According to Santo Ojera, no one knew exactly what happened and

text: how the persons were burnt as everyone else had run away by the time they were

text: 4430 burned. However, he noted that all the bodies were lying in the same spot inside the

text: house and thus the residents believed that the victims were shot before they were burnt

text: 4431 inside the house. This, to the camp residents, explained why the bodies were found

text: 4432 in one spot rather than in different places inside the house. Santo Ojera lists Keneri

text: Okot, Kilama Aloyo, Jeneth Lakot, Kilema Kidega and Jackline Angee in his list of

text: 4423 P-0187: T-164, p. 24, lines 14-23. 4424 P-0024: T-77, p. 50, lines 8-14. 4425 P-0024: T-77, p. 49, line 22 – p. 50, line 3. 4426 P-0024: T-77, p. 40, lines 4-12. 4427 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-9. 4428 P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 1-4, p. 19, lines 4-8, p. 22, lines 7-11. 4429 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 64. 4430 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 64. 4431 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 64. 4432 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 64.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 626/1077 4 February 2021

text: persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. The Chamber finds both P-0187 and Santo Ojera’s accounts of these deaths credible and consistent and mutually

text: corroborative. Additionally, P-0024, who testified that there was a house where five

text: people were burnt to death, provided further albeit more general corroboration.

text: The corpses of many of the persons killed in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack

text: were exhumed from their graves days after the attack and autopsied by Martin

text: Kalyemenya, a pathologist. The post-mortem reports, created in the course of Martin

text: Kalyemenya’s examination, possess all indicia of authenticity, bearing the stamp of the Makerere University Pathology Department’s District Medical Officer and the signature

text: of Martin Kalyemenya, the consultant pathologist. The Chamber is satisfied that the

text: individual post mortem reports, discussed further below, are the authentic post mortem

text: reports of persons deceased in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp relevant to

text: the charges, and that the process of the post-mortem examinations was adequately

text: explained by Martin Kalyemenya. The Chamber notes particularly that it considers

text: that the post-mortem reports provide evidence as to the marks and wounds that could be

text: observed on the bodies of the deceased. Post-mortem reports exist for four of the five

text: persons named by Santo Ojera: Keneri Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kidega Kilama and Aloyo

text: Kilama. These four persons were also identified in Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic

text: 4433 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0050. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79 (Santo Ojera testified that he drafted a list of the persons killed and injured during the attack with the former Lukodi Camp Leader after the attack. This Camp Leader was abducted by the LRA a few months after the Lukodi attack and never returned; Santo Ojera testified that the list also disappeared. However, Santo Ojera reconstructed the lists of persons killed, injured and abducted in the Lukodi IDP camp attack during the course of his statement). Given his position as one of the camp’s leaders, his role as a representative of former Lukodi camp residents and the detail with which he recollects names and ages and locations in his testimony, the Chamber is satisfied that Santo Ojera’s lists contain credible information which may serve to corroborate other evidence. The Chamber also notes that another list of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp was submitted into evidence. See List of Lukodi deceased, UGA-OTP-0146-0145, Decision on Prosecution’s Request to Submit 1006 items of evidence, 28 March 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-795, p. 23. The Chamber concurs with the Defence that the lack of information about the provenance of the document undermines the Chamber’s ability to rely on the information contained therein. See Confidential Annex A to Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”, ICC-02/04-01/15-701-Conf-AnxA, at 138. 4434 P-0024: T-77, p. 50, lines 8-14. 4435 See P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01. 4436 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 131-42. See Defence Closing Brief, para. 426, n. 691. 4437 Post-mortem report of ‘Keneth’ Okot, UGA-OTP-0146-0154, at 0154-55; Post-mortem report of ‘Jength’ Lakot, UGA-OTP-0146-0172, at 0172-73; Post-mortem report of Kidega, UGA-OTP-0146-0191, at 0191-92; Post-mortem report of Aloyo, UGA-OTP-0146-0227, at 0227-28 (according to the reports, the bodies of ‘Keneth Okot’, ‘Jength’ Lakot, Kidega and Aloyo of Lukodi camp were identified by relatives. The reports list ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence on each body). The Chamber also notes that the post-mortem report, as well as the forensic medical report refers to ‘Kenneth’ Okot, instead of the witnesses’ reference to Keneri Okot.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 627/1077 4 February 2021

text: medical report. According to Martin Kalyemenya’s report, Keneri Okot was 65 years

text: old; Jeneth Lakot was 32 years old; Kilama Kidega was one and a half years old and

text: 4439 4440

text: Kilama Aloyo was four years old. Further, the post-attack video recorded by the

text: police investigators after the attack also identified Keneri Okot and Jeneth Lakot. The

text: Chamber is convinced that the evidence shows that LRA fighters shot and burnt Keneri

text: Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kilama Kidega, Kilama Aloyo and Jackline Anee, killing them, in

text: the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Milly Anek and the shooting of Pyerina Ayaa and Florence Adong: Pyerina Ayaa

text: testified that during the attack, she hid in her house with her two daughters, Florence

text: Adong, around 14 years old and Milly Anek, 8 years old. She described how she saw

text: five armed LRA fighters coming in the direction of her house, shouting that everyone

text: should come outside their houses. As she moved to open the door of the house, the

text: LRA fighters ripped out the frame of the door along with the door itself and threw it

text: However, given the overwhelming similarities in the manner of death, and the last name of the deceased, the Chamber is of the view that the evidence refers to the same person, Keneri Okot. The Chamber notes that the postmortem report names ‘Jength’ Lakot, while Santo Ojera referred to ‘Jeneth’. The Chamber is of the view that this is a mere difference in spelling and the reference is to the same person Jeneth Lakot. See also Requests for postmortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0153; UGA-OTP-0146-0171; UGA-OTP-0146-0190; UGA-OTP-0146- 0226. 4438 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193- 94. The Chamber notes that Martin Kalyemenya testified that he compiled the list contained in the forensic reports, the persons killed, injuries and cause of death, based on the results of his exhumation, as well as data he collected on the victims from their relatives. P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 131. The Chamber is satisfied that this document is the authentic medical report prepared by Martin Kalyemenya and that it contains the results of his work during the government investigation into the deaths at Lukodi IDP camp. 4439 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193- 94. The Chamber notes that the report refers to ‘Lokot Janat’. Given the similarities in the name and sound of ‘Janat Lokot’ to ‘Jeneth Lakot’, it is clear to the Chamber that the reference is to the same person. 4440 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008. The government investigators that went to Lukodi IDP camp in the days after the attack recorded a video of what they observed in the camp, including the exhumations of persons killed and buried within the camp as well as the people severely injured in the attack and convalescing at the hospital in Gulu. P-0017 and Martin Kalyemenya discuss the content of the video in their testimonies, describing the scenes in the video and demonstrating that the video was taken during the course of the post-attack investigation which they participated in. The Chamber is satisfied that the video discussed by P- 0017 and Martin Kalyemenya is the authentic video taken in the days after the attack and shows the impact of the attack on the camp and the civilians that lived within it. The video has probative value as corroborative evidence of the results of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. See P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at paras 202, 207, 214; P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 119-22, 124. 4441 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:39:57 (the post attack video shows parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as Keneri Okot, 65 years, the body was completely charred); Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:39:42 (the post attack video shows parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as Janath Lakoth, 32 years). The Chamber notes the different spelling of the victim’s name and given the similarities considers that the evidence references the same person. 4442 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 8, 22. 4443 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 23-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 628/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4444 away. Then from outside the house, the five LRA fighters began to shoot inside the

text: 4445 house. They shot in the direction of Pyerina Ayaa and her two daughters and at

text: 4446 everything else in the house. Pyerina Ayaa testified that everything in the house was

text: 4447 destroyed by the bullets, including blankets and other property. Pyerina Ayaa stated

text: 4448 that she tried to move her leg and could not move it and fell down. That is when she

text: 4449 realised that she had been shot. Her daughter Milly fell on top of her and she saw that

text: 4450 a bullet had hit Milly in the stomach and had come out on the other side. She realized

text: 4451 that Milly was dead. Pyerina Ayaa testified that her daughter Florence was also shot

text: 4452 in the two big toes of her left foot. Pyerina Ayaa testified that the five rebels then

text: 4453 entered the house. Pyerina Ayaa stated that she said to them ‘You are all Acholi

text: 4454 children. Why do you do this to us? You have shot and killed my child’. The LRA

text: 4455 fighters responded that they wanted cooking oil. Pyerina Ayaa testified that she gave

text: 4456 them the cooking oil and the fighters left. Pyerina Ayaa stated that she went outside

text: of her house and saw the barracks burning, concerned that the LRA fighters would return

text: 4457 to burn her house, she told Florence to run away to the west. She crawled away from

text: the house, pulling Milly along with her; she managed to reach the latrine and hid there

text: 4458 until the attack was over. The morning after the attack, the government soldiers came

text: 4459 to collect injured people and take them to the hospital. Pyerina Ayaa saw her daughter

text: 4460 Florence among the injured people with the soldiers. Milly Anek was eventually

text: 4461 buried outside of the camp. The Chamber finds Pyerina Ayaa’s account of her and

text: her daughter’s shootings detailed, comprehensive, graphic and entirely credible. Pyerina

text: Ayaa’s account is also corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses. P-0187 testified

text: 4444 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 25-26. 4445 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 27. 4446 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 27. 4447 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 27. 4448 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 28. 4449 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 28. 4450 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 28. 4451 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 28. 4452 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 28. 4453 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 29. 4454 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 29. 4455 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 29. 4456 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 29. 4457 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 30. 4458 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 30, 33. 4459 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 42. 4460 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 42. 4461 See P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 39, 46.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 629/1077 4 February 2021 that as she was walking with the LRA fighters who abducted her and other abductees,

text: 4462 the group came across a woman with a young girl. The LRA shot the woman, Pyerina

text: 4463 Ayaa, in the knee and shot and killed her daughter, Anek. P-0024 testified that after

text: the attack she was taken to the hospital along with a woman Ayaa who had been shot in

text: 4464 the leg and her daughter Adong who had been shot in the toe. The Chamber finds that

text: LRA fighters shot and killed Milly Anek and attempted to kill Pyerina Ayaa and her

text: daughter Florence Adong by shooting them.

text: Akello Acii, Innocent Okello, Ojoko and the beating of Adong Paska and Piloya:

text: 4465 , the LRA shot at the house, eventually shooting the door open.

text: 4466 The LRA fighters abducted her and then set fire to the house. testified that

text: when the LRA set the house on fire, the children came out of the house; one seven year

text: 4467 old child, Adong Paska, was beaten to a pulp by the LRA and left for dead. The LRA

text: 4468 beat Adong Paska in the face on the right eye. Adong Paska was eventually brought

text: 4469 to the hospital because of the serious injuries on her eyes; however, even now her

text: 4470 eyes have not fully recovered. Another girl, , Piloya was also

text: 4471 beaten and left for dead. Further,

text: 4472 , Akello Acii, tried to run and the LRA cut her and carried her and threw her

text: 4473 back into the fire along with two other children, Innocent and Ojoko. P-0024 testified

text: 4474 that the children were burnt in the house. These three children were each four years

text: 4462 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 11-13. 4463 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 11-13, p. 17, lines 5-25 (according to P-0187, Anek was four to five years old. P- 0187 testified that Pyerina Ayaa and Anek were hiding in a house, they started running out when they saw houses burning and were shot). The Chamber notes some differences in the two witnesses accounts. The Chamber considers the difference in their testimonies in relation to Milly Anek’s age immaterial. However, the Chamber relies more prominently on the Pyerina Ayaa’s testimony as the mother of Milly Anek. In relation to the witnesses’ description of the shooting, the Chamber considers Pyerina Ayaa’s account more reliable as she personally experienced the events and P-0187 just briefly encountered Pyerina Ayaa and her daughter. 4464 P-0024: T-77, p. 49, lines 7-11. 4465 4466 4467

text: 4468 4469 4470

text: 4471 4472 4473 4474

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 630/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4475 old.

text: P-0187 also stating that the child of

text: Lalobo Wilfred and Eveline Ataro, called Akello was thrown in the flames and got 4476 burnt. The post mortem report of Akello Acii stated that her body had extensive 4477 burns. Martin Kalyemenya also testified that he concluded that Akello died of 4478 neurogenic shock because he observed extensive deep burns on her body. A post- 4479 mortem report identified Innocent Okello and states that the body was charred. Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report identified Akello and Innocent Okello as two of

text: 4480 the persons deceased in Lukodi and states that both were three years old. The post

text: attack video shows parts of the exhumations of several small children, including one identified as ‘Akello D/O Ataro, 3 years’ with extensive burns on almost half of her

text: 4481 body as well as another identified as Innocent Okello, three years, this body was 4482 entirely charred and the bones of the skeleton were apparent in the video. Given the

text: overwhelming similarities in the manner of death and the name of the witness, the

text: Chamber is of the view that the Innocent Okello identified in the documentary and video

text: evidence is the same Innocent whose death is described by . In light of the

text: foregoing, the Chamber finds that in the course of the Lukodi attack, LRA fighters killed

text: Akello Acii, Ojoko and Innocent Okello by burning them to death. The evidence also

text: demonstrates that in the course of the attack, LRA fighters attempted to kill Adong Paska

text: and Piloya by beating them and leaving them for dead.

text: Unnamed man shouting: P-0187 testified that in the course of her abduction, right after

text: the LRA fighters had torched a house, a man started shouting from the western side of

text: 4475 4476 P-0187: T-164, p. 22, lines 7-18. 4477 Post-mortem report of Akello, UGA-OTP-0146-0182, at 0182-83 (the body of ‘Akello D/O Ataro’ of Lukodi camp was identified by relatives. The report lists ‘extensive burns’ as the external mark of violence. The cause of death is listed as neurogenic shock from the burns). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP- 0146-0181. 4478 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 136. See also Photograph of Akello’s body, UGA- OTP-0023-0321. P-0036 recognised Akello’s body in the photograph. The Chamber notes that the image also corresponds with the child identified in the video as Akello D/O Ataro in the post-attack video. 4479 Post-mortem report of Innocent Okello, UGA-OTP-0146-0188, at 0188-89 (according to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives. The report listed ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0187. 4480 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194. 4481 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:36:55. 4482 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:37:16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 631/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4483 4484 the camp. An armed LRA fighter went over to the man and shot him dead. P-0187

text: indicated that this man was named Charles and that he fell down right in front of P-0187

text: 4485 and two other female abductees. The Chamber is convinced by P-0187’s account of

text: this murder. The Chamber also notes that Lilly Apiyo tells a similar story, stating that

text: she was told after the attack by people in the camp that a man had been hiding in the

text: 4486 bathroom next to the banana plant. He had been drunk and was insulting the LRA

text: 4487 fighters, so they shot him. The Chamber is convinced that the LRA shot the man who

text: was shouting at the LRA dead in the course of their attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Christine Ajok and Odong Apiyo: Several witnesses testified as to the death of

text: Christine Ajok. Santo Ojera testified that after returning to the camp the morning after

text: the attack, he saw people digging graves from the road; he later learned that one of the

text: 4488 graves was for a mother called Christine Odong Ajok and her child Odong Apiyo.

text: Santo Ojera also named Christine Odong Ajok and Odong Apiyo on his list of persons

text: 4489 killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. Martin Kalyemenya corroborates the

text: account of Christine Ajok’s death. Martin Kalyemenya testified that Christine Ajok was

text: 4490 one of the victims of the attack that he observed was burnt and not shot. She is also

text: 4491 listed on Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report as one of the deceased.

text: 4492 According to the report, Christine Ajok was 25 years old. Martin Kalyemenya listed

text: ‘neurogenic shock’ as her cause of death because he concluded that she must have died

text: 4493 of pain from the injuries she suffered. Further, the post-mortem report identified the

text: 4494 body of Christine Ajok of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. The post attack video

text: shows parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as Christine Ajok, 25 years; the burns

text: 4483 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 9-10, p. 17, lines 5-8, p. 17, lines 15-22. 4484 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 9-10. 4485 P-0187: T-164, p. 17, lines 5-8, 15-22. 4486 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 52. 4487 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 52. 4488 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 61. 4489 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0051. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4490 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 136. 4491 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. Christine Ajok is adult victim number 14. 4492 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. 4493 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 136. 4494 Post-mortem report of Christine Ajok, UGA-OTP-0146-0197, at 0197-98 (according to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report listed ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0196.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 632/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4495 4496 on the body were apparent from the video. In light of the totality of the evidence,

text: the Chamber considers that the evidence shows that Christine Ajok and Odong Apiyo

text: were killed by the LRA in the course of the attack.

text: David Otim and an unnamed stabbing victim: The evidence demonstrates that David

text: Otim was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. David

text: Komakech testified that after the attack he saw the bodies of two men who had been

text: 4497 stabbed, one of them was a man named Otim. Martin Kalyemenya provided evidence

text: 4498 about David Otim’s death. Martin Kalyemenya testified he was told by David Otim’s

text: 4499 relatives that he was stabbed to death by a child not older than eight years old.

text: According to Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, David Otim was 28 years

text: 4500 old. A post-mortem report identified the body of David Otim of Lukodi camp after its

text: 4501 exhumation. The post-mortem report listed ‘multiple stab wounds’ as external marks

text: of violence on the body; it was noted that an autopsy was performed, discovering

text: 4502 ‘multiple stab wounds left scapula and sub-scapular region’. The post attack video

text: shows parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as David Otim, 28 years; wounds on

text: 4503 the body’s back as well as burns were visible. The Chamber also recalls Gipson

text: Okulu’s testimony that his son ‘Ottim David’ was found dead in the aftermath of the

text: attack, he had been ‘stabbed with the bayonet on the back and it came through the body,

text: 4504 through the chest’. Given the similarities in the description of the death and the last

text: name of the victim, the Chamber is convinced that the Otim mentioned by David

text: 4495 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:46:22. A photograph taken in the course of the investigation corresponds with the image shown in the video. See Photograph of Christine Ajok, UGA- OTP-0023-0338. 4496 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4497 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4498 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. David Otim is adult victim number 15. 4499 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 136. 4500 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. 4501 Post-mortem report of David Otim, UGA-OTP-0146-0160, at 0160-61 (according to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The cause of death was shock as a result of blood loss from the injury). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0159. 4502 Post-mortem report of David Otim, UGA-OTP-0146-0160, at 0160. 4503 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:48:07. 4504 V-0004: T-173, p. 16, lines 10-18. The Chamber notes that Gibson Okulu stated that his son was 19 years old. While this age differs from that listed in the post-attack video and Martin Kalyemenya’s testimony, given the description of the body, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence is related to the same person.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 633/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4505 4506 Komakech is David Otim. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber

text: finds that an LRA attacker killed David Otim and a second unnamed man by stabbing

text: them during the May 2004 Lukodi IDP camp attack.

text: The throwing of Joel Opiyo into a burning hut: Joel Opiyo, seven years old at the time

text: of the attack, testified that he had just returned home after herding cattle with his brother

text: 4507 Morris Nyeko when he heard people blowing whistles. Joel Opiyo stated that he first

text: 4508 thought it was traditional dancers but his mother told him and his siblings to run. He

text: ran and eventually hid, along with his brother and sister Jennifer Atenyo, in the house of

text: 4509 4510 a woman who lived close to him. There were other people hiding in the hut. Joel

text: Opiyo testified that an armed fighter came into the house and fired a shot into the house

text: 4511 and then left. The people in the house were shortly thereafter commanded out by a

text: 4512 female attacker. Morris Nyeko and Jennifer Atenyo, were tied together and the

text: abductees were made to carry items like beans, sim-sim and sorghum, that was taken

text: 4513 from homes along the way as the attackers and their captives moved. Joel Opiyo

text: stated that as they were moving, still within the camp, one of the attackers said that he

text: was interfering with the movement of the abductees and grabbed him under his armpits

text: 4514 and threw him into a burning hut. Joel Opiyo bumped his back into the central pillar

text: 4515 that supported the roof of the hut and fell on the floor. Joel Opiyo stated that he started

text: crying and crawling around trying to find an exit; he was bumping into things, the roof

text: 4516 of the hut was about to collapse and parts of it were falling around him. Joel Opiyo

text: 4517 testified that he managed to crawl out of the hut, but when one of the attackers saw

text: 4518 him, the attacker shouted that he should be shot. Joel Opiyo testified that another

text: 4505 The Chamber also notes that Lilly Apiyo testified that the morning after the attack she saw the dead body of Agaja Otim. P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. Noting that the witness does not provide evidence as to the wounds she observed on the victim, the Chamber makes no finding that this is the same person discussed by the other evidence. 4506 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4507 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 15. 4508 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 15. 4509 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 15. 4510 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 16. 4511 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 16. 4512 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 17. 4513 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 17. 4514 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4515 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4516 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4517 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4518 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 634/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4519 4520

text: attacker told the other not to waste his bullet. Joel Opiyo survived. Joel Opiyo

text: stated that he was later taken to a hospital in Gulu where he spent three months recovering

text: from burn wounds on his left leg and stomach. Joel Opiyo still experiences pain on

text: his back and knees. The Chamber finds Joel Opiyo’s testimony comprehensive, rich

text: in detail, consistent and credible. The Chamber finds that an LRA fighter attempted to

text: kill Joel Opiyo by throwing him into a burning house in the course of the May 2004

text: attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Agwesa Odoch: Santo Ojera named ‘Agweca Odoch’ on his list of persons killed during

text: 4523 4524

text: the May 2004 Lukodi attack. P-0187 testified that the LRA shot ‘Agwica’. A postmortem report identified the body of ‘Agwesa Odoch’ of Lukodi camp after its

text: exhumation and lists ‘gun shot head’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an

text: autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘brain damage’. According

text: to Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, Agwesa Odoch was 85 years old.

text: Lastly, the post attack video shows parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as

text: 4527 4528

text: ‘Agoja’ Odoch, 85 years. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds

text: that Agwesa Odoch was shot and killed by the LRA during the Lukodi attack.

text: Beatrice’s son: Lilly Apiyo testified that Beatrice, one of the released abductees came

text: back to the camp and was looking for her son because he had been following her and

text: other abductees. Lilly Apiyo stated that Beatrice was told that her son had been

text: 4519 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4520 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 19. 4521 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 21. 4522 P-0196 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1061-R01, at para. 23. 4523 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0050. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4524 P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 1-6, p. 19, lines 4-8. 4525 Post-mortem report of Agwesa Odoch, UGA-OTP-0146-0169, 0169-70 (according to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists brain damage as the cause of death). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0168. 4526 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. The Chamber is of the view that the report’s reference to ‘Agweja’ instead of ‘Agwesa’ was a mere difference in spelling. 4527 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:35:35. A photograph taken in the investigation also corresponds to the image of Agwesa Odoch’s body seen in the video. See Photograph of Odoch, UGA-OTP-0023-0333. The Chamber notes the discrepancy in the first name. The evidence above refers to: Agwica, Agweca, Agwesa, and Agoja. The Chamber notes that apart from P-0187, who does not mention the deceased’s last name, the other testimony refers to a person with the last name of Odoch. Further, given the similarities in the names, the Chamber is satisfied that the evidence all refer to the same person, whom the Chamber identifies as Agwesa Odoch. 4528 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4529 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 47.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 635/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4530 killed. Lilly Apiyo testified that as she searched for her own missing daughter and

text: Beatrice searched for her son, the two women discovered the body of Beatrice’s son in a

text: 4531 sack. According to Lily Apiyo, the boy’s neck had been broken and he had bruises all

text: over because the LRA and the abductees had been stepping on his body in the sack as

text: 4532 they moved. The Chamber finds Lilly Apiyo’s account of the death of Beatrice’s son

text: credible. P-0187’s testimony that children were put into sacks and beaten to death is

text: consistent with Lilly Apiyo’s account of the state in which Beatrice’s son was

text: 4533 4534 discovered. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that LRA

text: fighters killed Beatrice’s son during their attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: 4535 Charles Odong: P-0187 testified that the LRA shot Charles Odong. A post-mortem

text: 4536 report identified the body of Charles Odong of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. The

text: post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wounds left supraclavicular region’ as the external

text: mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist

text: 4537 discovering ‘laceration left lung and heart’. The listed cause of death was

text: 4538 ‘exsanguination’, meaning severe loss of blood. According to Martin Kalyemenya’s

text: 4539 forensic medical report, Charles Odong was 40 years old. The post attack video shows

text: 4540 parts of the exhumation of a body, identified as Charles Odong, 40 years. Santo Ojera

text: also corroborated the other evidence about the death of Charles Odong, naming him on

text: 4541 the list of persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. The evidence is

text: 4542 consistent and mutually corroborative. In light of the totality of the evidence, the

text: 4530 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 47. 4531 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 47. 4532 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 47. 4533 P-0187: T-164, p. 24, lines 14-19. 4534 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4535 P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 5-6, p. 19, lines 4-8. 4536 Post-mortem report of Charles Odong, UGA-OTP-0146-0157, at 0157-58 (according to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146- 0156. 4537 Post-mortem report of Charles Odong, UGA-OTP-0146-0157, at 0157. 4538 Post-mortem report of Charles Odong, UGA-OTP-0146-0157, at 0158. 4539 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. The Chamber is of the view that the report’s reference to ‘Ondong’ instead of ‘Odong’ is a mere difference in spelling. 4540 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:32:05. 4541 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0051. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4542 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 636/1077 4 February 2021

text: Chamber finds that Charles Odong was killed by the LRA in the course of their attack on

text: Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Jasinta Aol: After being rescued by government soldiers after the attack, Pyerina Ayaa

text: 4543 was put on a vehicle with other injured people. She identified one of the injured

text: 4544 women she saw as Aol. According to Pyerina Ayaa, Aol was cut in the back of her

text: 4545 head and shot in the back, the bullet came out at the front of her waist. Pyerina Ayaa

text: 4546 testified that Aol later died in the hospital. Similarly, Santo Ojera named Jesina Aol

text: 4547 on his list of persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. A post-mortem report

text: 4548 identified the body of Jasinta Aol of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. The postmortem report listed ‘cut wound occipital region gun shot wound chest’ as the external

text: 4549 discovering ‘cut wound occipital region’ and ‘gun shot wounds chest’. According to

text: 4550 Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, Jasinta Aol was 50 years old. Further,

text: the post attack video shows the body of a woman, identified as Jasinta Aol; it was

text: apparent in the video that the deceased had a wound on the back of her head as well a

text: 4551 wound on her chest and back. A photograph taken in the course of the investigation

text: 4552 corresponds to the image shown in the video. Given her description of the wounds

text: Aol suffered and the last name she provided, the Chamber is of the view that Pyerina

text: 4553 Ayaa testified about the death of Jasinta Aol. The evidence in its totality is consistent,

text: 4554 specific, and mutually corroborative. In light of the totality of the evidence, the

text: Chamber finds that LRA fighters killed Jasinta Aol by cutting her and shooting her.

text: 4543 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 42. 4544 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 44. 4545 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 44. 4546 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 44. 4547 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0051. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4548 Post-mortem report of Jasinta Aol, UGA-OTP-0146-0218. See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0217. 4549 Post-mortem report of Jasinta Aol, UGA-OTP-0146-0218, at 0218. 4550 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. 4551 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:24:35. 4552 See Photograph of Jasinta Aol, UGA-OTP-0023-0320. 4553 The Chamber notes that the evidence lists different first names for Aol: Jacinta, Jesina, Jasinta. The Chamber also notes a reference to ‘Aoul Jacinta’ in the forensic medical report. The Chamber is of the view that the differences are the result of a mere difference in spelling and the evidence all refer to the same person, Jasinta Aol. 4554 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 637/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4555 Jojina Angom: P-0187 testified that the LRA burnt ‘Georgina’ Angom. P-0187

text: 4556 testified that Georgina Angom was an elderly sickly woman who could not run. The

text: post-mortem report identified the body of Jojina Angom of Lukodi camp after its

text: 4557 exhumation and listed ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence. According to

text: 4558 the report, the autopsy did not establish the cause of death. The Chamber recalls

text: Martin Kalyemenya’s testimony that some bodies were so charred, he could not establish

text: 4559 the cause of death and the bodies were not opened. The post attack video shows parts

text: 4560 of the exhumation of a body, identified as Jojina Angom, 80 years. The Chamber

text: finds that LRA fighters killed Jojina Angom in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack.

text: Lalobo’s son: Lilly Apiyo testified that after the attack, she found out that the son of her

text: 4561 brother-in-law Lalobo was also shot. He had been crying for his mother and the rebels

text: 4562 4563 shot him in the mouth. His body was left next to a banana plant. Although this

text: knowledge was, according to Lilly Apiyo’s own testimony not based on direct

text: observation, the Chamber notes that she did see the body after she returned to the

text: 4564 camp. Lilly Apiyo did not know the exact age of the child, but stated that he could

text: 4565 walk and talk. The Chamber is of the view that Lilly Apiyo’s testimony is credible. It

text: is also consistent with other evidence of how the LRA behaved in the course of attack on

text: Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber finds that the evidence demonstrates that the LRA killed

text: Lalobo’s son in the course of the attack.

text: 4566 Tezira Oroma: P-0187 testified that LRA fighters shot Tejera Oroma. Santo Ojera

text: corroborates the evidence that Tejera Oroma died in the attack, naming Tejira Oroma in

text: 4555 P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 1-5, p. 19, lines 4-8, p. 22, lines 5-16. 4556 P-0187: T-164, p. 22, lines 5-16. 4557 Post-mortem report of Jojina Angom, UGA-OTP-0146-0175, at 0175-76 (according to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146- 0174. 4558 Post-mortem report of Jojina Angom, UGA-OTP-0146-0175, at 0175-76. 4559 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 137. 4560 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:32:55. See also Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. The Chamber is of the view that the difference in the name of the deceased reflects a mere difference in spelling and/or pronunciation and the evidence refers to the same person Jojina Angom. 4561 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 48. 4562 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 48. 4563 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 52. 4564 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 49. 4565 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 52. 4566 P-0187: T-164, p. 18, lines 1-2, p. 19, lines 4-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 638/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4567 his list of persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. A post-mortem report

text: identified the body of Tezira Oroma of Lukodi camp after its exhumation and listed ‘gun

text: shot wounds’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed

text: 4568 with the pathologist discovering a ‘shattered skull’. The post attack video shows parts

text: 4569 of the exhumation of a body, identified as ‘Tejira Oroma, 50 years’. According to

text: 4570 Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, Tejera Oroma was 50 years old. In

text: 4571 light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that the LRA killed Tezira

text: Oroma in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Ojara, Okwera, Olwedo, Ocaka’s wife and one teenage girl: Lilly Apiyo testified that

text: when she returned to the camp, she saw the bodies of Okwera, Olwedo and Ojara; they

text: 4572 had been shot to death. Lilly Apiyo stated that she was told that the rebels thought

text: 4573 Okwera was UPDF because he was ‘fair skinned’. Okwera pled with them that he was

text: 4574 not UPDF, the rebels shot him. Lilly Apiyo testified that the bodies she saw were

text: 4575 close to the place where she reunited with her family on returning to Lukodi camp.

text: The Chamber finds Lilly Apiyo’s testimony specific, detailed and credible. Similarly,

text: David Komakech testified that the morning after the attack, he saw three people who had

text: 4576 been shot dead and had blood oozing out of a mark on their bodies. One of these men

text: 4577 was called Ojara. The Chamber is of the view that Lilly Apiyo likely refers to the

text: same persons seen by David Komakech. David Komakech also saw two female bodies

text: 4578 that had been burnt in a house. He testified that, of these two, one woman, whom he

text: 4567 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0051. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4568 Post-mortem report of Tezira Oroma, UGA-OTP-0146-0166, at 0166-67 (according to the post-mortem report, her body was identified by relatives). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146- 0165. 4569 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:32:14. The Chamber notes several slight differences in the name of the deceased, and considers them mere differences in spelling. The Chamber finds that the evidence refers to the same person, Tezira Oroma. 4570 See Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. The Chamber considers the report’s reference to ‘Orama’ instead of ‘Oroma’ to be a mere difference in spelling. 4571 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4572 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4573 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4574 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4575 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4576 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4577 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4578 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 639/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4579 identified as Ocaka’s wife, was burnt in the top half of her body and her head. The 4580 other person, a young girl in her teens, was completely burnt. David Komakech saw 4581 the girl’s mother there crying. The Chamber finds David Komakech’s accounts of the 4582 deceased he saw credible. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is convinced that Ojara and Olwedo and Okwera, Ocaka’s wife and one teenage girl were killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: Onencan: Lilly Apiyo testified that her nephew, Onencan, a three year old child, was 4583 found in the camp with his neck broken. The Chamber finds Lilly Apiyo’s accounts 4584 credible. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Onencan was killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: P-0024’s mother and : P-0024 testified that her mother and 4585 were killed in the course of the attack. The Chamber finds P-0024’s account 4586 credible. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that P-0024’s mother and were killed by the LRA in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: The throwing of Ojoko and of an unnamed elderly woman into a burning hut: P- 0024 testified credibly that during the attack, she saw a child, Ojoko, who was shot by 4587 the LRA and thrown into a fire along with an elderly lady. The Chamber finds P- 0024’s account credible. The Chamber notes that while the evidence strongly indicates that Ojoko and the elderly woman were killed by the LRA, it is not conclusive. Thus, the Chamber finds that the LRA at least attempted to kill Ojoko and the elderly woman by shooting them and throwing them into a burning hut in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Min Ojoko, Ocii: One of the injured women Pyerina Ayaa saw in the aftermath of the attack was Min Ojoko, who had been shot in the thigh and the bullet had gone from one

text: 4579 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4580 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4581 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 24. 4582 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4583 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 52. 4584 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4585 P-0024: T-77-CONF, p. 33, line 14-23, p. 38, line 18 – p. 39, line 4. 4586 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4587 P-0024: T-78-CONF, p. 41, lines 10-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 640/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4588 side to the other; she died in the hospital. There was another injured man by the name of Ocii, who had been shot in the lower part of his back; the bullet came out higher on 4589 his back, close to his shoulder. P-0024 testified that after rescuing her, the government soldiers brought eight people to the hospital along with her; five died and three of them 4590 4591 survived. One of the persons who died was Okello Ocii. The Chamber finds the witnesses account credible and considers that they testify about the same victim, in light 4592 of the similarities of their accounts. In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Min Ojoko and Ocii were killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack.

text: The shooting of Nyeko, two unnamed girls and the burning of a third unnamed girl: Pyerina Ayaa, who was injured and eventually taken to the hospital along with other injured people, testified that among the injured people going to the hospital with her was 4593 Nyeko, who had been shot in his shoulder. One of the girls had been shot in the chest, 4594 another had been hit in the thigh and the third girl’s leg had been burnt. In light of the 4595 totality of the evidence, the Chamber finds that the LRA shot attempting to kill Nyeko and two unnamed girls and burnt another girl’s leg.

text: Atim, Charles Anywar, Danger Joseph Oryem, James Opiro, Jeneth Lalur Akello, Joseph Ojara, Obedi, Rose Kiter, Tabicha Alum, Vincent Ocaya and Santa Oroma: While witnesses did not offer testimony naming certain people among the persons killed in the course of the attack, the Chamber notes that the Uganda government investigators that went to Lukodi IDP camp after the attack, also identified and performed exhumations of

text: 4588 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 44. 4589 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 43. 4590 P-0024: T-77, p. 49, lines 12-18. See also p. 41, lines 9-10. 4591 P-0024: T-77, p. 49, lines 12-21. 4592 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4593 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at paras 42-43. 4594 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 45. 4595 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 641/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4596 4597

text: the bodies of the following persons: Atim, Charles Anywar, Danger Joseph

text: 4598 4599 4600 4601 4602

text: Oryem, James Opiro, Jeneth Lalur Akello, Joseph Ojara, Obedi, Rose

text: 4596 Post-mortem report of Atim, UGA-OTP-0146-0178, at 0179-80 (the post-mortem report identified the body of Atim of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the report, his body was identified by relatives. The report lists ‘gunshot wounds left lower 1/3 leg’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering the same wounds as the external mark of violence). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0177; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194. 4597 Post-mortem report of Charles Anywar, UGA-OTP-0146-0203, at 0203-04 (the post-mortem report identified the body of Charles Anywar of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the report, his body was identified by relatives. The report lists ‘gunshot wounds of the chest’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘gunshot wound chest with lacerated left lung and heart’. The listed cause of death was ‘exsanguination’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146- 0202; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. 4598 Post-mortem report of Danger Joseph Oryem, UGA-OTP-0146-0185, at 0185-86 (the post-mortem report identified the body of Danger Joseph Oryem of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report listed ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0184; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194 (according to Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, Danger Joseph Oryem was six years old). 4599 Post-mortem report of James Opiro, UGA-OTP-0146-0163, at 0163-64 (the post-mortem report identified the body of James Opiro of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wounds chest and abdomen’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘laceration right lung’ and ‘ruptured stomach.’ According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was shock from the injuries). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0162; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194. 4600 Post-mortem report of Jeneth Lalur Akello, UGA-OTP-0146-0206, at 0206-07 (the post-mortem report identified the body of Jeneth Lalur Akello of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wound abdomen’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘several laceration to the gut’. The listed cause of death was ‘exsanguination’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA- OTP-0146-0205; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023- 0188, at 0193. The Chamber is of the view that the reference to ‘Janet’ instead of ‘Jeneth’ is a mere mis-spelling. 4601 Post-mortem report of Joseph Ojara, UGA-OTP-0146-0200, at 0200-01 (the report identified the body of Joseph Ojara of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wounds […] shattered skull’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering a ‘shattered skull’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0199; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194. 4602 Post-mortem report of Obedi, UGA-OTP-0146-0194, at 0194-95 (the report identified the body of Obedi of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘multiple gun shot wounds in […] abdomen’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘laceration right lung’ and ‘ruptured viscera’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0193; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0194. The Chamber considers the report’s reference to ‘Obed’ instead of ‘Obedi’ to have been a mere difference in spelling.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 642/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4603 4604 4605 4606

text: Kiter, Tabicha Alum, Vincent Ocaya and Santa Oroma. The post attack

text: video shows parts of the exhumation of: a small child, identified as Atim D/O Ajok, two

text: 4607 4608

text: years; a body, identified as Charles Anywar, 33 years; a small child, identified as

text: James Opiro, seven years old, with a gapping stomach wound; a body, identified at

text: 4610 4611

text: ‘Jenegt’ Lalur Akello; a small body, identified as Joseph Ojara, four years; a small

text: child, identified as Obedi S/O Otto Nels, 6 years; the exposed abdomen of the victim was

text: 4612 4613

text: apparent in the video; a body, identified as Rose Kiter, 55 years; a body, identified

text: 4603 Post-mortem report of Rose Kiter, UGA-OTP-0146-0224, at 0224-25 (the report identified the body of Rose Kiter of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by a relative. The post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wounds burns head and cheeks’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘fractured skull […]’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0223; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. 4604 Post-mortem report of Tabicha Alum, UGA-OTP-0146-0215, at 0215-16 (the post-mortem report identified the body of Tabicha Alum of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report listed ‘charred body’ as the external mark of violence). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0214; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. In the Chamber’s view, the reference to ‘Tabisha’ instead of ‘Tabicha’ is a mere difference in spelling. 4605 Post-mortem report of Vincent Ocaya, UGA-OTP-0146-0212, at 0212-13 (the report identified the body of Vincent Ocaya of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, his body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘gunshot wound right side of the chest’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘lacerated right lung’. The listed cause of death was ‘exsanguination’, meaning severe loss of blood). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0211; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP- 0023-0188, at 0193. The Chamber is of the view that the report’s reference to ‘Ochaya Vicent’ instead of ‘Ocaya Vincent’ is a mere difference in spelling. 4606 Post-mortem report of Santa Oroma, UGA-OTP-0146-0209, at 0209-10 (the report identified the body of Santa Oroma of Lukodi camp after its exhumation. According to the post-mortem report, the body was identified by relatives. The post-mortem report lists ‘gun shot wound of the head with shattered vault’ as the external mark of violence and notes that an autopsy was performed with the pathologist discovering ‘shattered skull vault’). See also Request for post-mortem examination, UGA-OTP-0146-0208; Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0193. According to Martin Kalyemenya’s forensic medical report, Santa Oroma was 35 years old. The Chamber is of the view that the report’s reference to ‘Santos’ instead of ‘Santa’ is a mere difference in spelling. See P-0187: T-164, p. 22, lines 5-16. Noting that P-0187 appears to indicate that Santa Oroma was an elderly woman, while the documentary evidence indicates otherwise, the Chamber does not rely on her testimony in relation to the death of this victim. 4607 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:46:00. A photograph taken in the course of the investigator shows the same body identified as Atim in the video. See Photograph of Atim, UGA-OTP-0023-0341. 4608 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:29:03. 4609 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:31:14. A photograph taken in the course of the investigation corresponds with the image seen in the video. 4610 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:29:45. The Chamber is of the view that the reference to ‘Janegt’ instead of ‘Jeneth’ is a mere difference in spelling. 4611 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:34:40. 4612 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:41:45. See Photograph of Obedi, UGA-OTP-0023-0340. 4613 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:45:15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 643/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4614 4615

text: as Tabicha Alum 80 years; a body, identified as Vincent Ocaya, 64 years; and a

text: body, identified as Santa Oroma. Santo Ojera also named ‘Anywa Charles’, Lalur Akello, ‘Abongyo Obedi’, Rociliya Aryemo Kiter’, ‘Tabica Alum’, Vincent Ocaya, and

text: ‘Sanja Oroma’ in his list of persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack, thus

text: corroborating the other evidence that these persons were killed in the course of the attack.

text: In light of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is of the view that the above

text: named persons were killed by LRA fighters in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP

text: camp.

text: The Chamber also notes that a number of civilians were hospitalised because of injuries

text: suffered in the course of the attack. P-0017 was informed by the then-Lukodi Camp

text: Leader that 16 civilians were admitted into Gulu hospital. P-0017 went to the Gulu

text: hospital along with the pathologist (Martin Kalyemenya) and met the victims of the

text: attack. The post-attack video showed the severe injuries of several persons at Lacor

text: 4621 4622

text: hospital. Photographs also record images similar to the ones recorded in the video.

text: 4614 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:36:15. 4615 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:35:13. 4616 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at approximately 00:31:54. 4617 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0050-51. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4618 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4619 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 210. 4620 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 213; P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 120-43. 4621 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, from approximately 00:50:15. 4622 See Photographs of the Lukodi investigation, UGA-OTP-0023-0310 to UGA-OTP-0023-0360, UGA-OTP- 0023-0387 to UGA-OTP-0023-0407; P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 213; P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at paras 119-43. P-0017 and P-0039 discuss the content of some of these photographs, giving context to the images. The Chamber also notes that when viewing the images in line with the videos, it is clear the photographs were taken over the course of the investigators’ visits to Lukodi IDP camp and the hospital in Gulu. Both P-0017 and Martin Kalyemenya discusssed the photographs taken at the hospital of the persons injured in the Lukodi attack. Both witnesses testified that the photographs are of the Lukodi victims they saw at the hospital during their visit in the course of the investigation. The Chamber is of the view that the photographs have probative value as corroborative evidence of the types of injuries suffered by civilians in the course of the attack. See Photographs of the injured victims of the Lukodi attack, UGA-OTP-0023-0389 to UGA- OTP-0023-0407. UGA-OTP-0023-0389 is a photograph of a man lying on a hospital bed; he has large bandages/medical dressing across his entire chest, indicating a large injury on his chest. UGA-OTP-0023-0391 is a photograph of a man sitting on a hospital bed; he has a large bandage/medical dressing on his neck and upper back, indicating an injury. UGA-OTP-0023-0392 and UGA-OTP-0023-0406 are photographs of an elderly man sitting on a hospital bed; he has medical dressing over the shoulder facing the camera, indicating a shoulder injury. UGA-OTP-0023-0393 is a photograph of an elderly man sitting up in a hospital bed; there is a bandage/medical dress on his lower side, indicating an injury. UGA-OTP-0023-0394 is a photograph of a woman sitting on a hospital bed; the location of her injury is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0395 is a photograph of a woman sitting on a hospital bed; the location of her injury is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP- 0023-0396 is a photograph of a woman sitting on a hospital bed; the location of her injury is not clear from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0397 is a photograph of a baby lying on a hospital bed; the location of its injury is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0398 is a photograph of two women sitting on hospital beds;

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 644/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber finds that this evidence of injuries suffered by survivors supports its

text: findings that the LRA committed numerous acts of violence against the lives of civilians.

text: It is charged that at least 45 civilians, including at least 12 children were killed by the

text: LRA in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack. In his forensic medical report,

text: Martin Kalyemenya listed 25 persons as deceased in Lukodi IDP camp, 15 adults and 10

text: children. These 25 persons were the persons recovered within the Lukodi IDP

text: camp. Martin Kalyemenya testified that he was confident that the investigators

text: identified all the dead bodies within the camp. The Chamber notes that P-0017, the

text: police investigator accompanying Martin Kalyemenya, testified that some civilians were

text: buried outside of the camp and the investigators did not exhume those bodies. P-0017

text: testified that the Lukodi Camp Leader informed him that 42 civilians were killed in the

text: camp. Santo Ojera, one of the camp’s leaders, testified that he learned that 42 people

text: were killed during the account, 39 of these persons were physically counted after the

text: attack, but the bodies of three people were never found. Gipson Okulu remembered

text: that 47 people were buried in total in the aftermath of the attack. The Chamber notes

text: that the Lukodi memorial plaque commemorating the dead in Lukodi lists 45 persons as

text: killed in the course of the attack. The Chamber also notes that there is scarce

text: one of the women has a bandage/medical dressing on her clavicle, indicating an injury, the other woman has a bandage/medical dressing around one of her calves, indicating an injury. UGA-OTP-0023-0399 is a photograph of three persons; the central person is lying on a hospital bed, with bandages/medical dress on the toes of both feet, indicating an injury. UGA-OTP-0023-0400 is a photograph of a woman lying on a bed; the woman has a bandage/medical dressing on one of her ankles. UGA-OTP-0023-0401 is a photograph of two boys sitting on a hospital bed; the younger has wounds on his face and leg. UGA-OTP-0023-0402 is a photograph of a woman sitting on a hospital bed, holding a young child; the location of their injuries is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0403 is a photograph of a young woman holding a baby; the location of their injuries is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0404 is a photograph of a woman holding a young child, the location of their injuries is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0405 is a photograph of a person lying on a bed; the location of the person’s injury is not apparent from the photograph. UGA-OTP-0023-0407 is a photograph of a man lying on a bed, with a wound on his head. 4623 Para. 46 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p. 82). 4624 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0191. 4625 Forensic medical report of the massacres of Lukodi & Pajak of Gulu district, UGA-OTP-0023-0188, at 0191. 4626 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 128. In the context of the witness’s testimony, it is clear that the witness references all the dead bodies buried within the camp. 4627 See P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at paras 210-11. 4628 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 210. 4629 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 67. 4630 V-0004: T-173, p. 17, lines 19-20. He stated that these people were all buried within the camp. V-0004: T- 173, p. 18, lines 9-14. 4631 Memorial plaque, UGA-OTP-0250-1476.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 645/1077 4 February 2021 information as to how the names were collected for the plaque. However, it notes that many of the persons it discussed in detail are named on the plaque.

text: The Chamber notes that above, it discusses the evidence of 48 persons killed in the course 4632 of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp in depth. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that at least 48 persons were killed by the LRA in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber is also satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA attempted to kill at least 11 other persons.

text: LRA fighters entered civilian homes and shops in Lukodi IDP camp and looted food and other property from them. Among the items stolen by the attackers were beans, maize,

text: cooking oil, soap, cooking utensils, chickens, money and clothes.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence demonstrates that LRA fighters looted Lukodi IDP camp during the May 2004 attack. The Chamber notes that some of the evidence of the looting of the camp has been set out above.

text: Both the LRA fighters who participated in the attack and camp residents gave credible evidence that LRA fighters looted Lukodi camp during the May 2004 attack. LRA fighters provided evidence consistent with the camp residents’ accounts. Sinia fighter P- 0142 testified that unarmed LRA soldiers, accompanied by armed fighters, went into the 4634 camp to loot food items. P-0142 testified that items looted from the civilian area of the camp included household items such as beans, groundnuts, biscuits, sodas and 4635 lotion. Similarly, LRA attacker P-0018 was among the group that went to the camp 4636 to collect food. P-0018 testified that she went into people’s empty houses and took 4637 food and a 10 litre jerry can.

text: Sinia fighter P-0410 testified that the LRA looted food and other items belonging to 4638 civilians from the civilian camp and also looted in the barracks. P-0410 testified that

text: 4632 See the Chamber’s above discussion of the persons killed in the camp and its below discussion of the person killed in the course of the LRA retreat from the camp. 4633 Para. 185 above. 4634 P-0142: T-70, p. 64, line 17 – p. 65, line 3. 4635 P-0142: T-70, p. 68, lines 18-24; T-71, p. 5, lines 16-19. 4636 P-0018: T-69, p. 9, lines 19-25. 4637 P-0018: T-69, p. 11, lines 20-25. 4638 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, line 8, p. 67, lines 3-4, p. 68, lines 8-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 646/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4639 he carried food from Lukodi. P-0410 testified that the LRA looted food items such as

text: 4640 beans, flour, chickens as well as clothes and other small items such as saucepans.

text: Camp residents provided credible and mutually corroborative evidence that household

text: goods, including food, as well as other items were looted from the camp. P-0187 testified

text: 4641 that an LRA fighter took money away from her. P-0024 testified that the LRA fighters

text: 4642 that abducted her demanded beans and cooking oil from her. The items had been

text: 4643 distributed two days earlier from the Caritas NGO. P-0024 testified that the LRA took

text: 4644 everything from her house, including maize. David Komakech saw LRA rebels loot

text: 4645 sugar, salt, sweets and soap from the shop he was hiding in. Pyerina Ayaa testified

text: that while hiding away from LRA fighters, she heard some LRA fighters inside her house,

text: 4646 looting. Pyerina Ayaa testified that she later realised that they had taken beans and

text: 4647 clothes. Corroborating other evidence of looting, Santo Ojera, one of the camp’s

text: leaders, testified that when he returned the day after the attack, he saw that a lot of food

text: 4648 had been taken away from the trading centre.

text: Sinia fighter P-0205 testified that as the LRA retreated backwards, he saw civilians as

text: 4649 well as LRA soldiers carrying food. P-0205 testified that after the LRA fighters

text: returned to the scheduled meeting place, they started itemising the items seized from the

text: 4650 barracks. LRA fighter P-0172 testified that when the LRA fighters returned from

text: 4651 Lukodi, they came back with clothes and food. The items were taken to Tulu’s place,

text: 4652 in the sickbay, and they were later distributed among the people.

text: During their attack on the camp, LRA fighters set huts on fire. Approximately 210 civilian huts in the camp were burnt. Civilians’ household goods, including food stocks,

text: 4639 P-0410: T-151, p. 67, lines 3-4. 4640 P-0410: T-151, p. 67, line 25 – p. 68, line 4. 4641 P-0187: T-164, p. 31, lines 8-24. 4642 P-0024: T-77, p. 26, lines 15-18. 4643 P-0024: T-77, p. 26, lines 15-25, p. 30, lines 2-6. 4644 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 12, p. 25, lines 11-13, p. 26, line 21 – p. 27, line 1. 4645 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 17. 4646 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 31. 4647 P-0026 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0018-R01, at para. 31. 4648 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 60. 4649 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 17-19. 4650 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 56, lines 4-9. 4651 P-0172: T-113, p. 24, lines 21-24. 4652 P-0172: T-113, p. 25, lines 1-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 647/1077 4 February 2021 were destroyed in these fires. Domestic animals such as goats were also burnt by the

text: LRA.

text: The Chamber is convinced by the evidence showing that LRA fighters destroyed property

text: in Lukodi IDP camp, set houses on fire and destroyed civilians’ household goods,

text: including their food stocks.

text: The Chamber recalls the evidence discussed above which shows that during the attack

text: on the camp, LRA fighters set huts on fire and destroyed civilian household goods,

text: including their food stocks.

text: 4654 As discussed above, the evidence does not support the proposition that tracer bullets

text: or battle light caused the destruction to Lukodi IDP camp. The credible and consistent

text: evidence of witnesses demonstrates that LRA fighters systematically and purposefully

text: set fire to civilian homes and property.

text: LRA fighters themselves admitted to setting houses within Lukodi’s civilian areas on

text: fire. P-0406 testified that he saw houses set on fire and some houses were burning with

text: 4655 smoke billowing. P-0406 testified that he personally torched houses in Lukodi IDP

text: 4656 4657 camp. Similarly, P-0410 testified that the LRA burned houses at the camp.

text: The testimony of camp residents is consistent with the LRA fighters’ account. P-0187

text: testified that after she was abducted, as the LRA fighters were leaving with the abductees,

text: 4658 they set the house she had been hiding in on fire. P-0187 stated that she also saw the

text: 4659 4660 LRA torch other civilian houses; they burned houses as they were moving along.

text: P-0187 and abducted women removed items from various houses in the camp under

text: 4661 orders from the LRA. P-0187 saw that after the items were removed from a house,

text: 4662 the LRA would set fire to the house. P-0187 testified that when she returned to the

text: 4653 Para. 186 above. 4654 See paras 1741-1745 above. 4655 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 55, line 25 – p. 56, line 4. 4656 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 57, lines 3-11. 4657 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, lines 6-7. 4658 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 7-8. 4659 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 3-5. 4660 P-0187: T-164, p. 19, lines 4-8. 4661 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 1-18. 4662 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 18-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 648/1077 4 February 2021 camp, her two houses and all the items inside were burnt as was her daughter-in-law’s

text: 4663 house.

text: Consistent with P-0187’s account, Lilly Apiyo also saw LRA fighters setting the houses

text: 4664 in the camp on fire. Lilly Apiyo testified that after abducting her, an LRA fighter set

text: 4665 her house on fire. Corroborating Lilly Apiyo’s account, David Komakech, her

text: husband, testified that the morning after the attack, he returned to his house to see that

text: the house was burnt down along with other property in the house, including clothes and

text: 4666 food items.

text: In line with the above accounts, P-0024 testified that after abducting her and looting her

text: 4667 home, the LRA set the house on fire. P-0024 explained:

text: Even my goats that were in the veranda were all burned. Everything got wasted. I 4668 was told all this when I was now in the hospital because I had lost it all.

text: P-0017 and Martin Kalyemenya saw the remnants of two burnt bicycles inside a

text: 4669 destroyed hut a few days after the attack.

text: Santo Ojera testified that when he returned to the camp the day after the attack he saw

text: 4670 that many houses in zones E and F of the camp were burned. Santo Ojera stated that

text: 4671 there were houses where the walls were still standing but the roofs were gone. Santo

text: 4672 Ojera testified that houses in the trading centre were not destroyed or burnt. In line

text: with this account, P-0187 testified that some houses did not burn because they had

text: 4673 corrugated roofs, particularly in the trading centre.

text: 4663 P-0187: T-164, p. 41, lines 20-25. 4664 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 23. 4665 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 21. 4666 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 22. 4667 P-0024: T-77, p. 26, line 21 – p. 27, line 3. 4668 P-0024: T-77, p. 26, line 21 – p. 27, line 3. 4669 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 214; P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 123. See Photograph of two burnt bicycles inside a destroyed hut, UGA-OTP-0023-0350. See also Postattack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:35:08. 4670 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 61; P-0060’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP- 0069-0048. 4671 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 61. 4672 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 60. 4673 P-0187: T-165, p. 43, lines 5-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 649/1077 4 February 2021

text: Santo Ojera stated that after returning to the camp the day after the attack to his burnt out

text: houses and finding his wife and all of his children alive, he decided that he would 4674 immediately leave the camp with his family. All the things inside his two houses had 4675 4676 been burnt. Other people were already leaving. That same day, Santo Ojera 4677 walked with his family to another IDP camp. They left with nothing, except the

text: blanket his wife had taken with her when she was fleeing the LRA attackers the night 4678 before. Santo Ojera testified that after the attack, most of the residents left Lukodi and 4679 moved to an IDP camp closer to Gulu town.

text: According to P-0017, the Camp Leader and the police agreed that 210 huts were 4680 destroyed in the civilian part of the camp. The post attack video of Lukodi-IDP camp 4681 shows numerous burnt huts within the camp. In the video, some of the huts were still 4682 smouldering. Martin Kalyemenya observed that only specific parts of the camp had 4683 been burned, not the entire camp. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows

text: that approximately 210 huts were burnt down in the civilian area of the camp.

text: LRA fighters abducted at least 29 civilians, men, women and children, to carry looted goods from the camp. Among the abductees were Witness P-0024, Olanya, Aleka, Onek, four unnamed male abductees, Witness P-0187, two unnamed female abductees, Joel Opiyo, Lilly Apiyo, Christine Alanyo, Milly Ayaa, Beatrice, Mary Aol, Min Lagum, Min Ojak, Min Ochora, Alora, Okumu, Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet, an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Lakwec, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya. Some of the abductees were tied together. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads, some for long distances, while tied together and under constant threat of harm. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. Abductees were also injured by the LRA, Witness P-0187 was wounded by an LRA fighter. She was also raped by an LRA fighter. Witness P-0024 was beaten throughout her abduction. LRA fighters kept slapping her and threatening her. Some abductees were carrying their babies when the LRA took them. Mothers were forced to abandon their children in the bush. LRA fighters threw small children,

text: 4674 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 66. 4675 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 63. 4676 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 66. 4677 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 66. 4678 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at para. 66. 4679 P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 12, 25. 4680 P-0017 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0007-R01, at para. 214. 4681 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:12:00-00:13:00. 4682 Post-attack video of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA-OTP-0023-0008, at 00:12:56, 00:33:53. 4683 P-0036 Statement, UGA-OTP-0036-0042-R01, at para. 123. See P-0036’s sketch of Lukodi IDP camp, UGA- OTP-0036-0063.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 650/1077 4 February 2021 including babies, into the bush because the children were crying and making it difficult

text: for their mothers to carry looted goods.

text: Many of the women abductees were subsequently released. Some abductees, particularly

text: men, were killed in the bush. Some of the abducted children remained with the LRA.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA fighters left the camp with abductees from the camp

text: carrying looted goods. Regarding the time the LRA spent in the camp, P-0142 testified

text: 4686 that the LRA stayed in Lukodi for 30-50 minutes, less than one hour. P-0018 and a

text: 4687 camp resident indicated that the attack may have lasted for perhaps another hour. The

text: Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that the LRA spent around one to two hours

text: in the camp.

text: from Lukodi IDP camp and under armed guard forced them to work for the LRA, under

text: threat of beatings and/or death.

text: LRA fighters testified about their abduction of civilians from Lukodi camp. P-0406

text: 4688 testified that he saw civilians abducted from Lukodi. P-0142 testified that the people

text: 4689 who went to collect food brought back the civilians to help them carry the load. P-

text: 0142 testified that the unarmed soldiers, the armed soldiers and abductees carried looted

text: 4690 goods away from Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Similarly, P-0406 testified that the people abducted from Lukodi were tied up and moved

text: 4691 along with LRA fighters. P-0406 testified that at the rendezvous point the day after

text: the attack, he saw a number of abducted people, the youngest of whom were

text: 4692 approximately 12-14 years old. P-0406 testified that abductees carried items such as

text: 4684 Para. 187 above. 4685 Para. 187 above. 4686 P-0142: T-72, p. 74, lines 3-5. 4687 P-0018: T-69, p. 15, lines 15-17 (estimating that the LRA were in the camp for one or two hours); P-0187: T- 165, p. 22, line 18 – p. 23, line 5 (testifying that the LRA attack lasted for about an hour and a half before the helicopter gunship arrived). 4688 P-0406: T-154, p. 56, lines 5-6. 4689 P-0142: T-71, p. 12, lines 19-21. 4690 P-0142: T-70, p. 67, line 21 – p. 68, line 17. 4691 P-0406: T-154, p. 56, lines 7-11. 4692 P-0406: T-154, p. 63, lines 5-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 651/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4693 flour, beans, and cooking oil. P-0406 testified that some items were ‘quite big’, large

text: 4694 bags of flour or beans, with 50 kilos written on the sack.

text: P-0410 corroborates the above accounts, testifying that he saw LRA forces abducting

text: 4695 civilians at the camp – men, women and children. P-0410 testified that older

text: abductees were abducted to carry food and the abductees carried looted goods on their

text: 4696 heads. P-0410 testified that if people could not walk or carry their load, they were

text: 4697 beaten at the back of their heads or clubbed to death.

text: P-0018 testified that she saw abductees forced to carry loads from the camp under threat

text: 4698 4699 of death. The loads the abductees carried were 25 kilos and up. P-0205 testified

text: that during the retreat, he saw civilians under the control of LRA fighter Kobbi, carrying

text: 4700 food back from the middle of the camp.

text: The LRA fighters’ accounts were consistent and mutually corroborative. Consistent with

text: these accounts camp residents also provide evidence of their and other abductees

text: experiences in the course of the Lukodi IDP camp attack and its aftermath.

text: The evidence also shows that a government helicopter gunship arrived at Lukodi IDP

text: camp as the LRA fighters were already moving away with abductees and looted

text: 4701 goods. Moreover, the Chamber notes P-0205’s testimony that shortly after LRA

text: fighters crossed the Unyama River with their abductees and looted goods, in addition to

text: the helicopter gunship, a mamba came and started firing at the LRA, and that government

text: 4702 soldiers came back with reinforcements. P-0410 also described an ambush in the

text: 4703 course of the retreat.

text: 4693 P-0406: T-154, p. 63, lines 13-16. 4694 P-0406: T-154, p. 63, line 17 – p. 64, line 5. 4695 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, line 7, p. 67, lines 6-11, lines 16-20. 4696 P-0410: T-151, p. 67, lines 16-20. 4697 P-0410: T-151, p. 68, lines 5-7. 4698 P-0018: T-69, p. 21, lines 5-14. 4699 P-0018: T-69, p. 21, lines 18-21. 4700 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, line 24 – p. 56, line 3. 4701 P-0018: T-69, p. 15, lines 18-24; P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 23-25; P-0024: T-77, p. 21, lines 10-11; T-78, p. 48, line 1 – p. 49, line 19; P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 17-20. 4702 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, lines 17-22. 4703 P-0410: T-151, p. 60, lines 14-23, p. 68, lines 12-22, p. 70, lines 17-18; T-152, p. 52, lines 21-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 652/1077 4 February 2021

text: Below the Chamber discussed evidence of specific individuals abducted and mistreated

text: in the course of the LRA’s attack on Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber notes its above

text: 4704 discussion of the experiences of Joel Opiyo and Beatrice above and its below

text: 4705 discussion of the persons killed in course of the retreat.

text: P-0024, Olanya, Aleka and Onek and four unnamed abductees: P-0024 had given

text: 4706 birth just two weeks before the attack. P-0024 testified that in the course of the attack,

text: LRA fighters shot at the door of the house she was hiding in and removed her from the

text: 4707 house. She stated that a fighter took her and bound her with a rope, tying her together

text: 4708 with seven men that had been abducted as well. Each abductee had one hand bound

text: 4709 with a rope and tied close to the next person. P-0024 testified that only one of her

text: 4710 hands was bound while the other was used to hold the load she carried on her head.

text: P-0024 had her young child on her back and the LRA attackers were beating her and

text: 4711 other abductees, hitting their chests to force them to walk. P-0024 stated that the

text: people who were hitting her were the younger fighters, ‘they [were] the ones who were

text: caning us badly. They didn’t allow you to even rest, to hold luggage to your head and to,

text: 4712 to stop and rest’. P-0024 testified that as the LRA fighters were tying her up and

text: 4713 slapping her, they yelled at her for having shouted in alarm.

text: P-0024 testified that the fighters who abducted her had many guns, they put the abducted

text: people in a line and abductees started moving, some abductees carrying basins of beans

text: 4714 and some pulling goats. According to P-0024, as the abductees started walking:

text: […] you were supposed to move in one line and you should not retire. If somebody

text: moves aside from the line, they make sure they beat all of you and for that reason my ears are still injured up to now. You shouldn’t let your luggage fall because you will be beaten. And for them I think they wanted us to carry the luggage until some point where they could kill us. I think they really wanted us to move with all this so that they could kill us later on because all the other seven people with whom

text: 4704 See paras 1762, 1764 above. 4705 See paras 1831-1837 below. 4706 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 4, p. 39, lines 16-17, p. 59, line 24 – p. 60, line 3. 4707 P-0024: T-77, p. 25, lines 9-12. 4708 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 13, p. 26, lines 11-14, p. 27, lines 13-15. 4709 P-0024: T-77, p. 29, line 17-21. 4710 P-0024: T-77, p. 29, lines 10-16. 4711 P-0024: T-77, p. 20, lines 23-24. 4712 P-0024: T-77, p. 23, lines 13-18. 4713 P-0024: T-78-CONF, p. 41, lines 2-7. 4714 P-0024: T-77, p. 27, lines 7-20, p. 29, lines 17-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 653/1077 4 February 2021 they went were killed and I think they gave us the luggage so we could carry and then they take us and kill us, but I think God protected me and that’s the reason I 4715 am here, though I am weak.

text: P-0024 testified to her state of mind during her abduction:

text: You were just wondering whether you would be the next victim or you would be shot and you couldn’t ask. You were only hearing gunshots everywhere. And you would feel hungry. You wouldn’t be able to say anything. You wouldn’t even— 4716 you’ll only be waiting for death.

text: P-0024 testified that she was beaten throughout her abduction, including when she asked

text: 4717 the LRA a question. She stated that after the attack, she had injuries on her head,

text: 4718 knees, right-hand side and chest, her teeth were also hurt when the LRA hit her. P-

text: 4719 0024 testified that some of her teeth had to be removed in the hospital. P-0024 stated

text: 4720 ‘I am still weak up to now’. P-0024 also stated that the LRA beat other persons

text: 4721 abducted from the camp.

text: 4722 P-0024 was the last person in the line of abductees. She managed to escape when the

text: 4723 government helicopter gunship came to pursue the LRA attackers. P-0024 testified

text: that as she was hiding from the LRA fighters, she heard them wondering where she was

text: 4724 and saying they would shoot her if they found her. When she returned home, she

text: 4725 found that the houses and her children were gone.

text: 4726 P-0024 testified that the group she was abducted with included a man named Onek,

text: as well as an over 50 year old man named Olanya who was made to carry beans and pull

text: 4727 4728 a goat during the retreat from Lukodi IDP camp, and another man Aleka, P-0024

text: testified that the morning after the attack, she was told by other returned abductees that

text: 4715 P-0024: T-77, p. 27, line 16 – p. 28, line 1. 4716 P-0024: T-77, p. 33, line 25 – p. 34, line 9. 4717 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 5-17. 4718 P-0024: T-77, p. 21, lines 15-16, p. 49, lines 2-6. 4719 P-0024: T-77, p. 49, line 2-6. 4720 P-0024: T-77, p. 22, line 12. 4721 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 5-17; T-78, p. 46, lines 6-22, p. 49, lines 9-19. 4722 P-0024: T-77, p. 29, lines 24-25. 4723 P-0024: T-77, p. 21, lines 10-11; T-78, p. 47, lines 5-17, p. 50, lines 14-24. 4724 P-0024: T-77, p. 46, lines 4-15. 4725 P-0024: T-77, p. 21, lines 12-14. 4726 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 16-21. 4727 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 16-21, p. 29, lines 17-25. 4728 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-9, p. 28, line 25 – p. 29, line 7. See the Chamber’s discussion of the killing of Aleka in para. 1836 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 654/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4729 the other seven people she had been abducted with had been killed. She stated that

text: 4730 there were many other people abducted besides the group that she was tied with.

text: 4731 P-0024 testified that she is the person shown in UGA-OTP-0023-0396, one of the

text: photographs taken at the hospital by government investigators the day after the attack.

text: The Chamber finds P-0024’s testimony in this regard detailed, specific, comprehensive

text: and entirely credible. The Chamber is convinced that she testified truthfully about a

text: personal experience that is still deeply disturbing to her. The Chamber finds LRA fighters

text: forcefully abducted P-0024, Olanya, Onek and Aleka and four unnamed men and forced

text: them to carry looted goods during the retreat from Lukodi IDP camp. The LRA severely

text: mistreated the abductees.

text: P-0187 and two other unnamed women: P-0187 was returning home on her bicycle

text: 4732 after shopping for vegetables when she encountered people running. She attempted to

text: 4733 flee to her home but there were gunshots and so she decided to enter a house to hide.

text: 4734 Two other civilian women joined her in the house. Three LRA fighters eventually

text: 4735 came to the house and commanded the women to get out; one of the fighters had a gun.

text: The women were forced to carry items from a house, including cooking oil, beans and

text: 4736 flour. P-0187 testified that the LRA fighters told them that if anyone tried to run, they

text: 4737 4738 would be shot. P-0187 stated that she was afraid and shaking. P-0187 testified that

text: 4739 the LRA tied one of her hands with a rope with a goat attached. P-0187 was also

text: forced to carry two basins of beans on her head as well as a roughly 10 litre jug of cooking

text: 4740 oil. P-0187 testified that when the helicopter gunship came, she was close to an LRA

text: fighter; he threatened to beat her when she asked him for help to remove the items she

text: 4729 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-9. See the Chamber’s discussion of the killings in Lukodi IDP camp. 4730 P-0024: T-78, p. 45, line 22 – p. 46, line 5. 4731 P-0024: T-77, p. 55, line 20 – p. 56, line 9. See Photograph, UGA-OTP-0023-0396. 4732 P-0187: T-164, p. 9, line 16 – p. 10, line 3. 4733 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 1-7. 4734 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 7-9. 4735 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, lines 14-19, p. 16, lines 3-7, p. 17, lines 1-4. 4736 P-0187: T-164, p. 10, line 25 – p. 11, line 3. 4737 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 1-2. 4738 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, line 2. 4739 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 21-22, p. 12, lines 13-16. 4740 P-0187: T-164, p. 11, lines 22-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 655/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4741 was carrying and hide them as he had instructed her to do. The LRA fighter pushed

text: 4742 P-0187 and wounded her in the stomach.

text: P-0187 testified that in the course of the retreat, the group would step on the dead bodies

text: 4743 that they found along the way. Eventually, the LRA and their abductees reached a

text: 4744 4745 place where they stopped. P-0187 was guarded by about six to eight LRA fighters.

text: The evidence supports P-0187’s account that LRA fighters together with abducted

text: civilians met at a rest stop before continuing on to eventually meet Dominic Ongwen and

text: the other fighters they left behind. P-0205 testified that Sinia commander Kobbi, Ocaka,

text: Ojok Kampala, other fighters met at this scheduled rest-stop, along with abductees, to

text: 4746 itemise the items that had been seized from the camp. P-0205 stated that at this rest-

text: 4747 stop, some civilians were released, in particular ‘older people, mothers and men’. The

text: 4748 Chamber notes that P-0142 and Lilly Apiyo also corroborate these accounts.

text: While at the resting place with the LRA and other abductees, an LRA fighter isolated P-

text: 4749 0187, and raped her. P-0187 described what happened:

text: So as I came towards him he grabbed me by hand and threw me down, he threw me down, picked his penis and put it in my private part. He slept with me, had sex with me. And he never gave me back [the waist beads he had previously taken]. He just told me to go back. ‘You just go back, don’t say anything. I will kill you if you don’t.’ So I crawled back to my colleagues slowly. I was in pain. I did not explain 4750 anything to my colleagues.

text: P-0187 testified that after she re-joined the other abductees, the fighter kept coming back

text: 4751 as though to check whether she would say anything to anyone. P-0187 testified that

text: 4752 she believed that at one point in time, he came back with the intention to kill her. P-

text: 4741 P-0187: T-164, p. 12, lines 4-9. 4742 P-0187: T-164, p. 12, lines 9-16; T-165, p. 52, line 22 – p. 53, line 6. 4743 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 1-4. 4744 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 10-14. 4745 P-0187: T-164, p. 23, lines 1-7. 4746 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 55, line 24 – p. 56, line 11. 4747 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 56, lines 4-15. 4748 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 13, line 25 – p. 14, line 5; P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 31-42 (mentioning notably that at the rest-stop one of the commanders was taking notes in a notebook); P-0187: T-164, p. 13, line 18 – p. 14, line 2, p. 36, line 18 – p. 38, line 21 (also similarly referring to the presence of a commander with a book and a pen). 4749 P-0187: T-164-CONF, p. 32, line 15 – p. 33, line 5. 4750 P-0187: T-164-CONF, p. 32, line 15 – p. 33, line 5. See P-0187: T-165-CONF, p. 37, line 20 – p. 38, line 9. 4751 P-0187: T-164-CONF, p. 33, line 6 – p. 34, line 13. 4752 P-0187: T-164-CONF, p. 34, lines 1-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 656/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4753 0187 identified herself as being the woman pictured in UGA-OTP-0023-0395, a picture taken by police investigators of victims at Gulu hospital. The Chamber finds P- 0187’s testimony credible, detailed, and comprehensive. The Chamber is convinced that this event happened to her and that she spoke truthfully of it to the Chamber. The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that P-0187 was raped by an LRA fighter in the course of the LRA’s retreat from Lukodi IDP camp. Further, Lilly Apiyo, a camp resident who was also abducted and taken to the rest-stop by the LRA fighters testified that while 4754 at the rest-stop, an LRA commander took away one of the abducted women. The woman remained with the commander and Lilly Apiyo did not know what happened to 4755 her at that time. In the context of Lilly Apiyo’s testimony, it appears to the Chamber 4756 that this woman was one of the women abducted from Lukodi by the LRA. While the Chamber is not certain whether the woman Lilly Apiyo spoke of is P-0187, it notes Lilly Apiyo’s testimony of an LRA fighter isolating a woman away from the other abductees during the rest-stop.

text: P-0187 eventually managed to hide and escaped from her LRA abductors and was taken 4757 to the hospital by government soldiers. The Chamber also finds that armed LRA fighters abducted P-0187 and two other unnamed civilians and forced them to carry looted goods.

text: Lilly Apiyo, Christine Alanyo, Milly Ayaa, Beatrice, Mary Aol, Min Lagum, Min

text: Ojak, Min Ochora, Alora, Okumu and other abductees: Lilly Apiyo testified that an armed LRA fighter entered her house in the course of the attack holding a lit grass torch, and abducted her and her sister-in-law, Christine Alanyo, and forced them to carry bags 4758 of maize and beans. At the time, Lilly Apiyo was carrying her child Sidonia Akello 4759 on her back and Christine Alanyo was carrying her son Junior Ociti. After coming out 4760 of the house, Lilly Apiyo saw houses on fire and civilians carrying loot. The LRA 4761 fighters escorted the abductees out of the camp in the eastern direction. Lilly Apiyo

text: 4753 P-0187: T-164-CONF, p. 35, line 23 – p. 36, line 4. 4754 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 40. 4755 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 40. 4756 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 40, 43. 4757 P-0187: T-164, p. 38, line 19 – p. 40, line 21. 4758 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 21. 4759 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 19. 4760 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 23. 4761 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 657/1077 4 February 2021 and her sister-in-law were asked to carry a bag of beans that their abductor found inside

text: 4762 the camp. Lilly Apiyo saw Milly Ayaa, Beatrice wife of Oryem and Mary Aol among

text: 4763 the abductees being led out of the camp by the LRA. As the rebels and the abductees

text: were on the edge of the camp, the government helicopter gunship arrived and the rebels

text: 4764 and abductees hid. At that time, Christine Alanyo managed to escape with her

text: 4765 4766 child. As discussed below, in the course of the retreat from the camp, an LRA

text: fighter threw Lilly Apiyo’s daughter Sidonia Akello into the bush. By the time they

text: reached the LRA’s resting area, Lilly Apiyo was the only abductee remaining with the

text: group that had abducted her; she was made to join other civilian abductees, a group of

text: 4767 women and two men tied to each other at the waist. Among the women were Min

text: 4768 Ajak, Min Ochora, Min Lagum and Beatrice. The two men among the abductees were

text: 4769 4770 4771 Alora and Okumu. Alora returned to Lukodi camp. Okumu was never found.

text: Lilly Apiyo testified that she could not remember the names of some of the abductees

text: 4772 4773 that she saw. Lilly Apiyo was released by the LRA. The Chamber notes that David

text: 4774 Komakech, Lilly Apiyo’s husband, corroborates her account. The Chamber is

text: convinced by Lilly Apiyo’s consistent, detailed and credible account of her experience.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that armed LRA fighters abducted Lilly

text: Apiyo and other abductees and forced them to carry looted good.

text: In addition to the experiences of the specific individuals discussed above, the evidence

text: shows that LRA fighters mistreated abductees by forcing mothers to leave their children

text: in the bush, under threat of harm. As the LRA retreated from Lukodi, LRA attacker P-

text: 0018 saw other LRA fighters tell abducted mothers to untie their children from their

text: 4775 4776 backs and leave them. P-0018 recalled hearing the children crying. In the course

text: 4762 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 23. 4763 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 25. 4764 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 26. 4765 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 33. 4766 See para. 1825 below. 4767 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 34, 36. 4768 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 39-40, 47. 4769 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 44. 4770 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 44. 4771 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 44. 4772 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 25, 39-40, 44. 4773 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 43. 4774 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at paras 26, 28. 4775 P-0018: T-69, p. 16, lines 4-8, 16-22. 4776 P-0018: T-69, p. 16, line 23 – p. 17, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 658/1077 4 February 2021 of her escape from the LRA immediately after the attack, P-0018 and a woman who had

text: escaped from the LRA after being abducted from the camp took some of the children

text: 4777 back to the camp in the morning. Similarly, P-0024 testified that some abductees had

text: 4778 their children strapped to their backs when they were abducted. The LRA took those

text: 4779 children and threw them away.

text: P-0024 knew of four children whom the LRA threw away in such a fashion, one was her

text: 4780 two week old son , whom she testified the LRA took and threw away in the

text: 4781 course of the retreat, when it was getting dark. P-0024 testified that her son was naked

text: 4782 when he was thrown into the bush and stayed that way overnight. The other children

text: 4783 were all less than a year old, all babies that were still breast-feeding. P-0024 testified

text: that she pled with the LRA fighters to not throw her baby away, but they told her ‘“if you

text: continue talking, then you are going to see, you are going to see what will happen to you

text: 4784 4785 later”’. The LRA fighters did not listen to anyone’s pleading. P-0024 identified

text: her child who was ‘thrown away’ by the LRA as the child pictured in UGA-OTP-0023-

text: 4786 0397.

text: According to P-0024, the children stayed in the bush until the morning when the

text: 4787 government soldiers rescued them. The morning after the attack while being taken to

text: the hospital by government soldiers, P-0024 was reunited with her son; he was so sick

text: 4788 that she could not breast feed.

text: Consistent with the other accounts, P-0187 testified that she saw the LRA throw the child

text: 4789 of one of the women she was abducted with into the bush. The child, about two or

text: 4790 three months old, was thrown into the bush because it was crying. The child was later

text: 4777 P-0018: T-69, p. 16, line 23 – p. 17, line 7, p. 18, lines 17-19. 4778 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 7-10. 4779 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 7-12. 4780 P-0024: T-77-CONF, p. 20, line 25, p. 40, lines 4-15. 4781 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 5-17; T-78, p. 46, lines 6-22, p. 49, lines 9-19. 4782 P-0024: T-77, p. 64, lines 12-16. 4783 P-0024: T-77, p. 40, lines 4-9. 4784 P-0024: T-78, p. 50, line 25 – p. 51, line 21. 4785 P-0024: T-78, p. 51, lines 8-11. 4786 See P-0024: T-77, p. 56, line 10-21. See Photograph, UGA-OTP-0023-0397. 4787 P-0024: T-77, p. 39, lines 18-23. 4788 P-0024: T-77, p. 41, lines 2-9. 4789 P-0187: T-164, p. 21, lines 13-18, p. 25, line 19 – p. 26, line 11. 4790 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 4-5, p. 25, line 19 – p. 26, line 11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 659/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4791 found alive. P-0187 testified that there were other children who were thrown in the

text: 4792 bush and were crying. P-0187 stated that ‘[s]o, so many children were thrown away

text: 4793 in the bush’.

text: Lilly Apiyo also testified that as the abductees and the LRA fighters were moving from

text: Lukodi, she could hear the crying of children who had been thrown in the bush by the

text: 4794 LRA fighters. Lilly Apiyo saw a baby, about three months old, lying on the bridge

text: 4795 4796 crying. The child was not killed and was later found alive. Lilly Apiyo testified

text: 4797 that all the children who had been left along the way were later collected, some of the

text: children who had been crying on the way to the LRA’s base were killed, and Lilly Apiyo

text: 4798 saw their bodies when she returned to the camp.

text: During her abduction, Lilly Apiyo had her daughter Sidonia Akello tied to her back; as

text: the group walked on, a young LRA fighter whom Lilly Apiyo referred to as a ‘kadogo’

text: came to her and said ‘do you see any other person with a child’ and made her remove her

text: 4799 daughter and put her down. The LRA fighter then picked up Sidonia Akello and threw

text: 4800 her into the bush. Lilly Apiyo testified that at the time, ‘all [she] could think of was

text: 4801 death’. Lilly Apiyo was forced to continue walking after the fighter threw her child

text: 4802 away. Lilly Apiyo testified that another young LRA fighter later came up to her and

text: asked her what had happened to her child, when she told him that she had been thrown

text: 4803 away, he replied ‘some people are really bad’. Sidonia Akello was later found, mostly

text: 4804 unhurt but with some bruises on her face. David Komakech, Lilly Apiyo’s husband,

text: corroborates her account. He testified that his wife, Lilly Apiyo, and young daughter,

text: 4805 Sidonia Akello, were abducted. Sidonia Akello was found and carried back to the

text: 4791 P-0187: T-164, p. 21, lines 19-25. 4792 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 4-5. 4793 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 7-8. 4794 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 27. 4795 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 28. 4796 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 28. 4797 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 28. 4798 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 50. 4799 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 29. 4800 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 29. 4801 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 29. 4802 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 30. 4803 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 35. 4804 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 53-54. 4805 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at paras 26, 28.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 660/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4806 camp by other persons. David Komakech testified that when she was found, she was

text: 4807 crying but there was no sound coming out. She had been alone without her mother

text: 4808 and in the cold for the whole night.

text: P-0187 testified that the day after the attack, after children were collected from the bush,

text: some mothers could not recognise their own children because the children were so

text: 4809 bruised and swollen; they had also cried so much that they lost their voices.

text: A number of witnesses speculated about the reasons the LRA made women throw their

text: babies away. P-0018 stated that it was because children could cry and government

text: 4810 soldiers would find the LRA. Similarly, P-0024 speculated that this was because the

text: LRA thought the crying children would alert the government soldiers to the LRA’s

text: location and that the abductees’ attention would be diverted to their children and not on

text: 4811 the loads they were supposed to carry. P-0187 also testified that the LRA fighters

text: would just pick up the babies and throw them away because the babies were crying and

text: 4812 the LRA were concerned that the babies would be heard and they would be followed.

text: The Chamber notes that the reasons for the LRA forcing mothers to abandon their

text: children are interpretation of the witnesses. The Chamber however finds these

text: testimonies relevant to explain the circumstances of the incidents.

text: As the Chamber discussed above some abductees managed to escape when the helicopter

text: gunship arrived. Some continued with the LRA to a rest stop and were later released,

text: 4813 particularly the elderly. The evidence discussed above indicates that some civilians,

text: especially men, were killed.

text: As a result of the LRA fighters trying to evade the hovering helicopter gunship, some

text: 4814 abductees managed to escape, however others remained in the custody of the LRA.

text: 4806 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 26. 4807 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 26. 4808 P-0185 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1020-R01, at para. 26. 4809 P-0187: T-164, p. 25, lines 2-9. 4810 P-0018: T-69, p. 16, lines 4-8, 16-22. 4811 P-0024: T-77, p. 41, lines 19-23. 4812 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 5-9. 4813 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 56, lines 4-13, p. 57, lines 13-17. 4814 P-0024: T-78, p. 49, lines 9-19 (stating that she managed to escape when the gunships came and disrupted the LRA’s retreat from the camp); P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 33 (stating that her sisterin-law managed to escape the custody of the LRA when the helicopters came, whereas the witness herself

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 661/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence indicates that at least a few abductees continued on with the LRA. P-0142

text: testified that there were two young boys, possible 16-18 years old in his estimation,

text: 4815 amongst the abductees who were ‘recruited as soldiers’ in the LRA.

text: Regarding the number of persons abducted, P-0187 testified that many people were

text: 4816 abducted and forced to carry looted goods by the LRA. P-0205 testified that he saw

text: 4817 about 10 civilians, a mixed group of men and women, who were made to carry food.

text: 4818 P-0024 testified that she was in a group of eight persons during her abduction.

text: Similarly, Lilly Apiyo recalled the names of eight persons she saw during her abduction

text: 4819 and indicated that there were many other abductees. The Chamber notes that it is not

text: clear whether all the camp residents that were abducted were in the same group. The

text: evidence also suggests that LRA fighters moved in separate groups with their abductees

text: for at least a portion of the time. The Chamber discussed the abduction of 29 civilians in

text: 4820 depth. The Chamber finds that the LRA abducted at least these 29 civilians from

text: Lukodi IDP camp and placed them under military guard to prevent their escape; civilians

text: were forced to carry looted goods away from the camp under threat of death or beatings.

text: The killing of civilians was not confined to the area of Lukodi IDP camp. After they left Lukodi, LRA fighters killed persons they had abducted from the camp. Among the civilians killed in the retreat were Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet,

text: an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya.

text: Below, the Chamber discusses the evidence of specific individuals killed during the

text: course of the LRA’s retreat from the camp.

text: Nancy Akello: P-0187 testified that in the course of the retreat, after the helicopter

text: 4822 gunship had arrived, the group she was moving in as an abductee ‘would step on the

text: 4823 bodies that [they found] along the way’. P-0187 testified that one of the bodies

text: remained abducted); P-0187: T-164, p. 11, line 23 – p. 12, line 16 (stating that she remained with the LRA after the helicopter gunship came). 4815 P-0142: T-71, p. 16, line 9 – p. 18, line 14. 4816 P-0187: T-164, p. 23, lines 13-18. 4817 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 60, lines 5-9. 4818 P-0024: T-77, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 13, p. 26, lines 11-14, p. 27, lines 13-15. 4819 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at paras 19, 23, 25, 40. 4820 See the Chambers discussion of persons abducted above as well as its discussion of abducees killed below. 4821 Para. 188 above. 4822 The Chamber notes that P-0187 did not indicate that the helicopter gunship shot at the retreating fighters. 4823 P-0187: T-164, p. 13, lines 1-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 662/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4824 stepped upon was the body of Nancy Akello, the child of Lucy Akot. P-0187 testified

text: that she personally stepped on the body of Nancy Akello and indicated that she could see

text: 4825 the victim because the LRA had a torch they were using to illuminate their way. P-

text: 4826 0187 testified that Nancy Akello had a mental disability. P-0187 testified that Nancy

text: 4827 Akello’s body was never recovered after the attack. P-0024 testified that a ‘very

text: young’ girl, around 10 years old, called ‘Akello Nancy’, was abducted and given luggage

text: 4828 to carry by the LRA; she has never been found since the attack. In light of the totality

text: 4829 of the evidence, the Chamber finds that the LRA killed Nancy Akello in the course of

text: their retreat from Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Unnamed man stabbed with bayonet: In the course of the retreat from the camp, LRA

text: fighter P-0018 saw the LRA stab a man in the chest with a bayonet because he did not

text: 4830 want to walk or carry luggage for the LRA. The Chamber finds P-0018’s testimony

text: credible. The Chamber finds that the LRA killed the abductee in the course of their retreat

text: from Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Unnamed abductee: Sinia fighter P-0406 testified that he witnessed the killing of a

text: 4831 Lukodi abductee who was not moving fast enough during the retreat from the camp.

text: 4832 P-0406 testified that LRA commander Okwee ordered the killing. P-0406 testified

text: 4833 that the abductee was killed by another newly abducted person. P-0406 estimated that

text: 4834 the new abductee who killed this person was between 12 and 13 years old. In this

text: context, P-0406 stated ‘once you have been picked, you cannot refuse. You have to go

text: 4835 and do the order and execute the orders. If you refuse, then they will also kill you’.

text: The Chamber finds that the LRA killed the unnamed abductee in the course of their

text: retreat from Lukodi IDP camp.

text: 4824 P-0187: T-164, p. 26, line 17 – p. 27, line 1. 4825 P-0187: T-164, p. 26, line 17 – p. 27, line 1. 4826 P-0187: T-164, p. 26, lines 17-25. 4827 P-0187: T-164, p. 41, lines 13-15. 4828 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-11, 16-20; T-78, p. 53, line 12-21. 4829 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA. 4830 P-0018: T-69, p. 16, lines 8-12. 4831 P-0406: T-154, p. 58, lines 19-24. 4832 P-0406: T-154, p. 58, lines 19-24. 4833 P-0406: T-154, p. 58, line 19 – p. 59, line 1. 4834 P-0406: T-154, p. 59, lines 19-21. 4835 P-0406: T-154, p. 59, lines 2-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 663/1077 4 February 2021

text: Justin Omony: , Justin Omony, was abducted by the LRA as he was 4836 returning from the farm. Lakwec, who had also been abducted by the LRA in the attack and managed to escape and return to the camp, 4837 saw the LRA shoot Justin Omony because he was not able to carry luggage. His body 4838 4839 was never found. Justin Omony was 13 years old when he died.

text: 4841 The Chamber is satisfied that Justin Omony and that he was killed by the LRA after being abducted. The Chamber is satisfied that Lakwec was abducted by the LRA in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Aleka: Lilly Apiyo testified that as she was returning to the camp from her abduction, 4842 she saw the body of Aleka, a camp resident, near the Unyama stream. Aleka was lying 4843 on his back, bare chested with a bullet wound on his chest. P-0024, who was abducted by the LRA in the course of the attack, testified that the morning after the attack, she was told by other returned abductees that the other seven people she had been abducted with 4844 had been killed. P-0024 testified that only one of these seven bodies was ever 4845 recovered, the body of a man called Aleka, who was over 50 years old. P-0024 indicated that she was told that the LRA shot and killed Aleka because he was weak and

text: 4836 4837 4838 4839 4840

text: 4841 4842 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4843 P-0195 Statement, UGA-OTP-0233-1046-R01, at para. 46. 4844 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-9. See also the Chamber’s discussion of P-0024’s abduction in paras 1805-1812 above. 4845 P-0024: T-77, p. 28, lines 2-9, line 25 – p. 29, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 664/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4846 could not carry the load any further. The Chamber finds both P-0024 and Lilly Apiyo

text: to be credible and reliable witnesses. Their testimony in relation to Aleka is specific,

text: consistent and credible. The Chamber finds that during the retreat from Lukodi IDP camp,

text: the LRA killed Aleka, a person they had abducted, by shooting him.

text: Charles Obwoya: P-0187 testified that after she was freed from her abduction by the

text: LRA in the morning after the attack, she reached the area where the LRA had spent the

text: night after the attack, where she came across the body of a man, ‘Obwoya’, who had been

text: 4847 killed and was lying on his belly. P-0187 testified that Obwoya was naked, lying on

text: his belly with his head turned to the side; his body was swollen and ‘so big’, even the

text: 4848 4849 head was swollen. A dead sheep’s head was placed between his legs. Because the

text: 4850 head was turned to the side, P-0187 could see his face clearly. P-0187 reacted when

text: she found the body there, ‘I was just pleading and talking to myself, “Look, there is

text: 4851 nothing now I can do for you. I am also like a dead person”’. P-0187 testified that she

text: 4852 left Obwoya there and moved on. She stated that government soldiers later went to

text: 4853 look for his body, but it was never found and never brought home. The Chamber finds

text: P-0187’s testimony as to Obwoya’s death specific, rich with detail, internally consistent

text: and entirely credible. Santo Ojera corroborated P-0187’s account insofar as he included

text: 4854 Charles Obwoya in his list of persons killed during the May 2004 Lukodi attack. In

text: 4855 light of the totality of the evidence, and noting especially the details of his death, the

text: Chamber finds that he was killed by LRA fighters in the course of their retreat from

text: Lukodi IDP camp.

text: 4846 P-0024: T-77, p. 29, lines 5-9. 4847 P-0187: T-164, p. 39, line 17 – p. 40, line 4, p. 40, line 22 – p. 41, line 10. 4848 P-0187: T-164, p. 41, lines 5-10. 4849 P-0187: T-164, p. 39, line 24 – p. 40, line 1. 4850 P-0187: T-164, p. 41, lines 5-10. 4851 P-0187: T-164, p. 39, line 17 – p. 40, line 4. 4852 P-0187: T-164, p. 39, line 17 – p. 40, line 4. 4853 P-0187: T-164, p. 40, line 22 – p. 41, line 4. 4854 P-0060’s List of persons killed in Lukodi IDP camp attack, UGA-OTP-0069-0049, at 0052. See P-0060 Statement, UGA-OTP-0069-0034-R01, at paras 32, 42, 71-76, 79. 4855 The Chamber recalls its above finding that the killings in Lukodi IDP camp are attributable to the LRA.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 665/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA fighters returned from the attack and reported to Dominic Ongwen about the

text: success of their mission.

text: According to the evidence, the LRA fighters continued walking the following day and

text: 4857 re-joined Dominic Ongwen in the evening of that day. P-0142 and P-0410 explained

text: 4858 that on the way back, the attackers moved in separate groups.

text: P-0054, a Sinia fighter who did not participate in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, testified

text: that before the attackers returned, there was an announcement on Mega FM public radio

text: that the LRA had attacked Lukodi IDP camp and had killed a number of people and burnt

text: 4859 houses. Similarly, P-0142 testified that the day after the attack, when the attackers

text: were ‘about to reach Dominic’, the radio reported that LRA fighters went and attacked

text: the government soldiers and civilians in Lukodi and civilians died and houses were burnt

text: 4860 down.

text: P-0205 gave a corroborative account, testifying that before his group of fighters had rejoined Dominic Ongwen, a message by the RDC was broadcast on FM radio, saying

text: ‘Dominic, we found out that you have sent people to attack Lukodi. You killed many

text: 4861 people. You burnt all the houses.’

text: P-0205 also testified that after the standby came back to re-join the rest of the group, they

text: reported on the operation to Dominic Ongwen, informing him that the attack was smooth,

text: the barracks was overrun, the radio mentioned that many people died and the camp was

text: 4862 burnt down. P-0205 testified that Ocaka, the commander of the attack, gave a written

text: 4863 report as well as a verbal one to Dominic Ongwen. P-0142 corroborates this account,

text: 4856 Para. 189 above. 4857 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 13, line 25 – p. 14, line 16 (testifying that the LRA continued the following morning and returned in the evening to the position where they had left Dominic Ongwen and met with him); P-0406: T- 154, p. 62, lines 14-17 (stating that the morning after the attack, the participating LRA fighters were ‘in the convoy’ and ‘then’ met with Dominic Ongwen); P-0410: T-151, p. 68, line 23 – p. 69, line 2 (stating that he saw Dominic Ongwen at the gathering place when the fighters returned from the attack). 4858 P-0142: T-71, p. 13, line 25 – p. 14, line 3; P-0410: T-151, p. 68, line 23 – p. 69, line 2. 4859 P-0054: T-93, p. 30, lines 4-17, p. 32, lines 17-22. 4860 P-0142: T-70, p. 63, lines 14-16, p. 66, lines 18-22; T-71, p. 20, lines 3-8. 4861 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 56, line 16 – p. 57, line 2. The Chamber understands RDC to mean resident district commissioner. 4862 P-0205: T-47, p. 61, lines 11-19. 4863 P-0205: T-47, p. 61, line 20 – p. 63, line 2; T-51-CONF, p. 11, lines 8-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 666/1077 4 February 2021 testifying that he saw Ocaka in conversation with Dominic Ongwen discussing the

text: 4864 outcome of the events in Lukodi.

text: 4865 P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen appreciated ‘the work well done’.

text: The Defence raised P-0205’s previous statement to the Prosecution, in which he stated

text: that he heard of civilian deaths on Mega FM public radio and that he raised this radio

text: 4866 broadcast with Dominic Ongwen. The Defence noted that in P-0205’s statement, he

text: had reported that Dominic Ongwen stated, ‘If the civilians had died then they have died,

text: 4867 but what he knows is that he did not kill them’. The Defence also noted that P-0205

text: had stated that the LRA fighters had not written in their report that they killed any

text: 4868 civilians. In response, P-0205 had stated that he did have this discussion with Dominic

text: 4869 Ongwen. The Chamber notes that P-0205 testified that he did not personally see any

text: 4870 civilian deaths and did not report seeing any civilian deaths and that if there were

text: civilian deaths in Lukodi then perhaps the group that went to collect food carried out the

text: 4871 killing but did not tell the others.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls the testimony of P-0101, one of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: so-called ‘wives’ who testified that she overheard Dominic Ongwen reproaching Ocaka

text: saying that he had asked Ocaka to go and attack soldiers and take food and get civilians

text: to carry the loot and that he had told them not to kill children, not to kill civilians but

text: Ocaka had killed children and civilians and now ‘they would say he is the one who did

text: 4872 it’. According to P-0101, Dominic Ongwen reproached Ocaka saying that Ocaka was

text: 4873 spoiling his name on the radio. The Chamber does not consider it exceptional that one

text: of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ overheard him discussing the attack with

text: 4874 Ocaka. However, the Chamber notes that evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen

text: ordered his fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and everyone within it and also, as

text: discussed below, later reported his fighters’ success to his superiors. Nothing in Dominic

text: 4864 P-0142: T-71, p. 20, lines 12-23. 4865 P-0205: T-47, p. 61, lines 11-19. 4866 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 15, line 17 – p. 16, line 6. 4867 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 16, lines 7-9. 4868 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 15, line 17 – p. 16, line 21. 4869 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 16, lines 18-21. 4870 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 12, lines 5 – p. 14, line 2. 4871 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 14, lines 9-15. 4872 P-0101: T-13, p. 32, line 5 – p. 33, line 13. 4873 P-0101: T-13, p. 32, line 5 – p. 33, line 13. 4874 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 435.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 667/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen’s reports to his superiors about the attack indicates that he disavowed the

text: killings of civilians in the camp; indeed, he appears to laud the killings. In light of the

text: overwhelming evidence to contrary, P-0101’s testimony does not undermine the Chamber’s findings as to the orders Dominic Ongwen gave for the attack on Lukodi IDP

text: camp.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0142 somewhat contradicts the accounts that Dominic

text: Ongwen knew about the reports of civilian deaths in Lukodi. P-0142 testified that after

text: the fighters returned from Lukodi, Dominic Ongwen was unhappy that people were not

text: 4875 4876 killed there. The Chamber also notes that P-0142 testified that ‘we’ heard over the 4877 radio a report stating that people were killed in Lukodi by the LRA. Given the ample

text: evidence that Dominic Ongwen heard about the civilians’ deaths in Lukodi and reported

text: it to his superiors, the Chamber finds his testimony unreliable in this regard.

text: v. Dominic Ongwen’s reporting of the attack

text: Dominic Ongwen also reported his soldiers’ attack on Lukodi IDP camp to other LRA commanders, including Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti. Dominic Ongwen took

text: responsibility for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: A record of an intercepted radio communication shows Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti 4879 and others speaking over the radio on 21 May 2004, after the attack on Lukodi IDP

text: camp attack but before the standby had returned to his position to give a formal report on 4880 the attack. In the communication, Dominic Ongwen, using the call sign Tem Wek 4881 Ibong, reported that he carried out the attack on Lukodi. Vincent Otti asked Dominic Ongwen, ‘[w]ho was responsible for the Lukodi attack/who hit Lukodi’ and Dominic

text: 4875 P-0142: T-71, p. 18, line 17 – p. 19, line 16. 4876 It is not clear to the Chamber whether the witness includes Dominic Ongwen in this reference to ‘we’. 4877 See P-0142: T-71, p. 20, lines 3-8. 4878 Para. 189 above. 4879 See Chamber’s discussion of the Enhanced audio recording UGA-OTP-0239-0123 at section IV.B.3.ii.n above. 4880 See P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0129-0419, at 0428-29; P-0016: T-32, p. 75, line 14 – p. 76, line 4; T-35, p. 30, line 16 – p. 33, line 13 (P-0016 testified that Dominic Ongwen (Tem Wek Ibong) stated ‘It’s my people who attacked [Lukodi], but I’ve not yet met up with them’). 4881 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0123; P-0003 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0093- R01, at 0102-03; P-0003: T-42, p. 78, line 11 – p. 79, line 23; P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0129- 0419, at 0428-29; P-0016: T-32, p. 75, line 14 – p. 77, line 17; P-0059 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266- 0084, at 0137-39; P-0059: T-36, p. 75, line 23 – p. 76, line 23; T-38, p. 66, lines 15-25; T-39, p. 5, lines 6-14, p. 8, line 23 – p. 9, line 13, p. 16, line 8 – p. 19, line 8; P-0440 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0235-R01, at 0288-90; P-0440: T-40, p. 30, line 3 – p. 36, line 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 668/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen responded ‘[t]hat was me.’ The LRA fighters involved in the communication

text: continued to discuss the attack, saying, ‘I heard that they burned more than 100 houses’

text: and ‘[t]hey killed more than fifty – Twenty five people’. As discussed above, several

text: witnesses testified that at that point, Mega FM radio had reported the attack on Lukodi

text: IDP camp, including killings and burnings of homes. It is notable that the transcript

text: of the communication does not indicate that the participants questioned the accuracy of

text: the information about killings and burning of houses. Instead, reference was made in this

text: context to ‘the people’ being ‘full of morale’.

text: Additionally, logbooks, prepared by UPDF and ISO officers, contain contemporaneous

text: written record of the radio communication; the logbooks are also in line with the

text: testimonies of P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440. Each logbook denotes Dominic

text: Ongwen taking responsibility for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: 4882 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0123; P-0003 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0093- R01, at 0102-03; P-0003: T-42, p. 78, line 11 – p. 79, line 23; P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0129- 0419, at 0428-29; P-0016: T-32, p. 75, line 23 – p. 77, line 17; T-35, p. 30, line 16 – p. 33, line 13; P-0059 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266-0084, at 0137-39; P-0059: T-36, p. 73, line 14 – p. 74, line 3; T-38, p. 66, lines 15-25; T-39, p. 8, line 23 – p. 9, line 13, p. 16, line 8 – p. 19, line 8; P-0440 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0262-0235-R01, at 0288-90; P-0440: T-40, p. 30, line 3 – p. 36, line 13. 4883 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0123; P-0003 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0093- R01, at 0102-03; P-0003: T-42, p. 80, line 2 – p. 81, line 2; P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0129-0419, at 0428-29; T-35-CONF, p. 29, line 18 – p. 33, line 13; P-0059 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266-0084, at 0113-15, 0137-39; P-0059: T-36, p. 73, line 14 – p. 77, line 3; P-0440 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262- 0235-R01, at 0288-90. 4884 See paras 1839-1840, 1843 above. 4885 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0123; P-0003 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0132-0093- R01, at 0102-03; P-0016 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0129-0419, at 0428-29; P-0059 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0266-0084, at 0137-38; P-0440 Tape 824 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0235-R01, at 0288-89. 4886 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0320-22 (the logbook, dated 21 May 2004, notes ‘Otti asked Dominic who attacked Lukodi. Dominic replied that he is the one who attacked’); UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0254-2982, at 3045-46 (the logbook, dated 21 May 2004, notes ‘Otti reported to Kony that radio news reported a certain LRA group under unknown commanders attacked and killed 25 civs including young people and burnt about 100 houses in Lukodi centre in Bungatira […] Dominic told Otti that he is the who made that deployment’); UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0263-64 (the logbook, dated 21 May 2004, notes ‘Dominic has appeared on air about late and reported to V. Otti that his splinters grps attacked Lukodi centre near Bungatira, but the forces haven’t join[ed] him yet and otherwise he is expecting the forces will be reported back to him tomorrow. V. Otti however has advised Dominic they shd continue with attacking civs in the internal displaced camps til the civilians […] camps remain empty’); UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7291-92 (the logbook, dated 21 May 2004, notes ‘Otti informed Kony that he have heard that a group of LRA whose his commander not known went and attacked Lukodi camp […] and killed 25 civis and burnt over 100 huts. […] Otti asked Dominic if he is the one who attacked Lukodi in Bungatira. Dominic said it seems to be his group as he was sent them out, otherwise details to follow. Otti congratulates him and said the forces continue killing pple. So far Dominic said the moral of soldiers is very high’). The Chamber notes that the logbooks indicate that Kony was also on the radio communication at least at an earlier point. See also 21 May 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0017-0268, at 0271-73.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 669/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 24 May 2004, several days after the attack, UPDF and ISO logbooks again recorded an intercepted radio communication of Dominic Ongwen making a report to other LRA commanders, including Joseph Kony, claiming responsibility for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp attack. The ISO logbook entry at 18:30 reported:

text: Dominic stopped Abudema and started sending his achievements in the Logole (Lukome) attack. That he clashed with UPDF in Lukome and charged [items]. He said the UPDF were alert/aware of their coming but still they managed to overrun them. He claimed nothing wrong happened to their side at all. That the UPDF ran away, and later they called g/ship […] Kony instructed Dominic that he should now use all the bullets he had, and also distribute some to all soldiers to carry on any mission. Dominic said if civilians die he feels happy. […] Abudema asked Dominic 4887 to reserve for him 03 pairs of uniform and 03 pairs of shoes’.

text: Noting the reference to Lukome, the Chamber recalls that several witnesses indicated 4888 that Lukome is the same place as Lukodi.

text: The UPDF logbook recorded in Gulu intercepted the same radio conversation at 18:30:

text: Dominic reported to Kony that he caused havoc in Lokodi camp and that he decided to kill all living things in that camp where by even he is very sure that Museveni will note him as Odiambo according to the incident which Odiambo had done in Barlonyo. […] Dominic claimed to have charged the following [from] UPDF after disorganising the camp. […] He said that in that very day gunship came for reinforcement in that camp but they did not hit him. Kony said that let Dominic fight seriously. […] Abudema told Dominic to reserve for him 03 pairs of uniforms 4889 and 03g/ boots […].

text: The UPDF logbook recorded in Lira recorded the same 18:30 radio reports and also corresponds with the other logbooks:

text: Dominic has reported to Kony and Abudema that attack on Lukodi internal displaced camps and the UPDF barracks. They have charged the following items […]. Dominic further told Kony that […] numbers of civilians were killed in the camps while Dominic said at that very night UPDF gunship came to reinforce to rescue the civilians in the camps and they tried to fire at the gunship and the gunship returned back […]. Kony ordered Dominic to continued killing civilians in the internal displaced camps as he wants […] Abudema has instructed Dominic to keep 4890 03 pairs of uniforms and 03 pairs of footwears for him.

text: 4887 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0329. 4888 P-0406: T-154, p. 52, lines 12-18; P-0410: T-151, p. 51, lines 22-25; P-0018: T-69, p. 8, lines 12-18. 4889 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3050. 4890 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0277-79.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 670/1077 4 February 2021

text: The 18:30 entry in the UPDF logbook recorded in Sudan reported on the same conversation in less detail and noted ‘Dominic reported to Abudema that some time back he went and attacked the det of UPDF in Lukoli near Lukome and charged the following […]. Abudema told him to keep 04 pairs of uniforms and 04 pair of g/boots for him one 4891 will be issue to Kony’.

text: While these four, independently recorded, logbooks, contain some discrepancies in detail, the logbooks indicate that Dominic Ongwen reported the attack, the report was received with approval and that the killing of civilians was discussed among the LRA participants on the intercepted radio communication.

text: This is further confirmed by P-0016, an LRA signaller, who testified that at the time of the Lukodi attack, he was in Pader with Ocan Bunia and he heard Dominic Ongwen send 4892 a radio communication to Vincent Otti about the Lukodi attack.

text: The Chamber also notes that Dominic Ongwen was promoted by Joseph Kony after the 4893 Lukodi attack. This is demonstrated by a record of an intercepted radio communication between Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti and others speaking over the radio on 30 May 2004. In the communication, Joseph Kony promotes Dominic Ongwen, 4894 among others. Logbooks, prepared by UPDF, ISO and police officers, contain contemporaneous written record of the radio communication and serve as corroboration 4895 of its content.

text: Further, an ISO logbook, dated 31 May 2004, denotes an intercepted radio communication between Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Dominic Ongwen and other LRA fighters in which Vincent Otti notes that a UDPF Lt. Col Walter Ochora was on Mega Radio and was ‘annoyed of what Tulu and Dominic did in Lukodi […] killing several

text: 4891 UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP-0242-7194, at 7299. 4892 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 11, lines 11-22. See also T-32, p. 75, line 24 – p. 76, line 12. 4893 See also paras 1078-1083 above, the Chamber’s discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s promotion to Colonel. 4894 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0239-0112; P-0003 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0143- R01, at 0179-82; P-0003: T-43, p. 40, line 18 – p. 43, line 15; P-0016 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259- 0116, at 0119-21; P-0016: T-33, p. 3, line 2 – p. 6, line 15; P-0059 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0381- R01, at 0417-19; P-0059: T-37-CONF, p. 23, line 21 – p. 26, line 13; P-0440 Tape 830 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0262-0425-R01, at 0438-45; P-0440: T-40-CONF, p. 42, line 11 – p. 44, line 13. 4895 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0004; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3061-62; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0304-06 and Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0107.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 671/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4896 civ’. Vincent Otti is then recorded as addressing Tulu, telling him that he should carry 4897 forward because civilians were their ‘first enemy’. Buk Abudema also encouraged Tulu to ‘increase on killing civilians’. Tulu replied that that was ‘what their god has 4898 promised them to do’. The Chamber notes that, as explained above, some of the force which attacked Lukodi on the order of Dominic Ongwen originated from a Gilva sickbay 4899 commanded by Tulu. Dominic Ongwen is recorded in the ISO logbook as on air 4900 during this communication. The content of the communication is corroborated by the 4901 separately created police logbook. In the assessment of the Chamber, the communication shows that the LRA commanders were aware of the fact that civilians were killed in Lukodi IDP camp, and approved of this fact referring to the general LRA 4902 policy in relation to civilians. The communication also shows that the LRA commandersattributed responsibility for the attack to Dominic Ongwen. It is true that on the face of the communication, Tulu is referred to prominently, but the Chamber notes that in fact, the communication does not state any facts incompatible with the findings above in relation to the planning of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: In conclusion on this issue, the evidence shows that in intercepted radio communications, Dominic Ongwen, in his own words, took responsibility for the May 2004 attack on Lukodi IDP camp, including specifically for harm done to civilians. Other high-ranking members of the LRA leadership noted his work and commended him for it. This evidence is in line with the witness testimony discussed above as to Dominic Ongwen’s ordering of the attack and the course of the attack.

text: 4896 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. 4897 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. 4898 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. 4899 See paras 1649-1658 above. 4900 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0007. 4901 Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0104-05. 4902 See section IV.C.5 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 672/1077 4 February 2021

text: Attack on Abok IDP camp

text: i. Abok IDP camp

text: Abok IDP camp was situated in Ngai sub-county, Apac district and contained thousands

text: of civilians displaced by frequent LRA attacks in the region.

text: 4904 In June 2004, Abok was located in Ngai sub-county, in the Apac district of Uganda.

text: The nearby IDP camp was created in 2003 by the local population and Ugandan

text: governmental authorities as a reaction to the influx of civilians fleeing from frequent

text: 4905 LRA attacks in the region. While the evidence is not uniform on this point, estimates

text: range from there being at least 7,000 to just over 13,000 residents in the camp at the time

text: 4906 of the June 2004 attack.

text: The Abok IDP camp received food in humanitarian assistance from NGOs, in addition

text: 4907 to some farming undertaken by the residents. The Chamber refers to its earlier

text: discussion of the LRA’s policy to specifically target IDP camps to, amongst other things,

text: 4908 obtain provisions. In this context, the Chamber notes Cyprian Ogola’s testimony that

text: a girl, who had been abducted by and escaped from the LRA prior to the 8 June 2004

text: attack, told camp officials that the LRA rebels said that the Abok IDP camp was like a

text: 4909 bee-hive they were waiting to go to and harvest honey from at the right time. Cyprian

text: Ogola testified that, to the camp’s leaders, this was in reference to the eventual attack on

text: 4910 and burning of the camp.

text: There were two military barracks in Abok IDP camp, the ‘old barracks’, which was in

text: the south of the camp and no longer in use at the time of the attack and the ‘new barracks’

text: 4903 Para. 190 above. 4904 See Agreed Facts, A4. 4905 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 19-21; P-0293: T-138, p. 5, lines 7-24; P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at paras 13-14. Ugandan authorities formally established the camp in 2004. P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 25. 4906 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 25; P-0293: T-138, p. 11, line 12 – p. 12, line 12; P- 0293: T-139, p. 8, line 18 – p. 11, line 4; P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 15; P-0306: T- 130, p. 51, line 21 – p. 53, line 19. See P-0293, Population of Abok Internally Displaced Persons camp, UGA- OTP-0244-1197; P-0306, Population of Abok Internally Displaced Persons camp, UGA-OTP-0247-1269. 4907 P-0293: T-138, p. 26, lines 8-16; P-0304: T-133, p. 48, line 20 – p. 49, line 3; P-0306: T-130, p. 37, line 4-25. 4908 See section IV.C.4 above, the Chamber’s discussion of the LRA’s policy. 4909 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 50. 4910 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 50.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 673/1077 4 February 2021

text: which was in the north-eastern area of the camp. The Chamber noted the location of

text: the two barracks during their site visit to the former Abok IDP camp.

text: ii. Senior LRA commanders, including Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti, encouraged attacks on IDP camps

text: In the days and weeks preceding the attack, Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti instructed

text: Dominic Ongwen to continue to attack civilians in IDP camps.

text: In the 21 May 2004 UPDF and ISO logbook records contemporaneously memorialising

text: the 21-22 May 2004 radio communications, after Dominic Ongwen reported his

text: attack on Lukodi IDP camp, Vincent Otti advised Dominic Ongwen to ‘continue with attacking [civilians] in the internal displaced camps til the civilians […] camps remain

text: empty’.

text: A UPDF logbook provides a credible written contemporaneous record of a 24 May 2004

text: intercepted LRA communication in which Joseph Kony orders Dominic Ongwen to continue ‘killing the civilians in the internally displaced camps as he want’ and if ‘one

text: LRA soldier are in the contact at least over 50 civilians must [lose] their lives’.

text: Further, on 1 June 2004, just a week before the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp, a

text: UPDF logbook, prepared in Lira, recorded Joseph Kony directing LRA commanders,

text: 4911 See P-0306’s Map of Abok camp UGA-OTP-0261-0285. Note that P-0306, along with several other witnesses, testified that there were two barracks at Abok, the old barracks and the new barracks. P-0306: T-130, p. 47, line 18 – p. 48, line 1 (the Chamber notes that while the questioning counsel mistakenly references ‘Odek’ it is clear from the line of questioning that the counsel and the witness were discussing Abok). At the time of the Abok attack, the old barracks were no longer in use and the government soldiers were stationed at the new barracks. 4912 Para. 191 above. 4913 This intercept and the corresponding logbooks are discussed in further detail in the Chamber’s above discussion of the Lukodi attack. See Chamber’s discussion of the reporting of the Lukodi attack in section IV.C.8.v above. 4914 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0263-64. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3045-47. The Chamber notes also the above discussion of the reliability of the interceptor logbooks. See the Chamber’s discussion of interceptor logbooks in section IV.B.3.i.b.iv above. Further, the Chamber notes that P-0003, P-0016, P-0059 and P-0440’s summaries of the intercepted radio communication on record contain part of the same conversations recorded in the logbooks and that the witnesses consistently recognised Dominic Ongwen and Vincent Otti’s voices, that the logbooks are a contemporaneous written record of the LRA’s intercepted communications and the two cited logbooks are consistent with each other despite coming from different intercept operations. 4915 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0278. See the Chamber’s discussion of interceptor logbooks in section IV.B.3.i.b.iv above. The Chamber notes that while the UPDF Logbook (Gulu) and ISO Logbook (Gulu) recording the same intercepted radio communication do not contain this exact detail, all three logbooks are generally consistent, describing the same series of conversations while emphasising different details and language. This can be expected of material made by interceptors working in different locations and taking contemporaneous record of a live radio communication. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3050-51; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0328-29.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 674/1077 4 February 2021 including Dominic Ongwen, to ‘uplift the standard of massacre against the [IDP camps]

text: like someone who was sweeping white ants during the night’. In the same 1 June 2004

text: UPDF logbook entry, Buk Abudema, a senior LRA commander, instructed Dominic Ongwen to ‘wake up and begin serious operations against the [IDP camps] and maximum

text: death rate be maintained … [and] to deploy his forces in various directions targeting [IDP

text: camps]’. A UPDF logbook memorialising the same conversation, but prepared in

text: Gulu, recorded that Dominic Ongwen told LRA commander Abudema that ‘[Dominic

text: Ongwen] was going to kill many [civilians] and he will send the result to Kony where by

text: Kony will be happy about it’.

text: iii. Dominic Ongwen’s order to attack Abok IDP camp

text: Dominic Ongwen chose to attack Abok IDP camp. Prior to the attack, Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA fighters subordinate to him to attack this camp, including civilians. At a gathering in the foothills of Atoo, Dominic Ongwen addressed the troops before the attack and gave instructions to go and collect food, abduct people, attack the barracks and burn down the camp and the barracks. Dominic Ongwen did not go to Abok as part of the fighting force. He appointed Okello Kalalang to command the attackers on the ground according to his instructions. Kalalang led the LRA fighters in the attack on Abok IDP

text: camp on behalf of Dominic Ongwen.

text: The testimony of witnesses in these proceedings demonstrates that the LRA fighters who

text: attacked Abok were subordinate to Dominic Ongwen. As discussed below, P-0406,

text: 4916 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0313. See the Chamber’s discussion of interceptor logbooks in section IV.B.3.i.b.iv above. The Chamber notes that while the UPDF Logbook (Gulu) and ISO Logbook (Gulu) recording the same intercepted radio communication do not contain the same exact detail, all three are generally consistent, describing the same series of conversations while emphasising different details and language. The Chamber also notes that the need for the LRA to kill civilians was a main topic across each logbook entry. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3065-66; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0008-10. 4917 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0314. See the Chamber’s discussion of interceptor logbooks in section IV.B.3.i.b.iv above. Although this exact instruction to Dominic Ongwen is not noted in the other logbooks memorialising the same radio communication, this does not undermine the credibility and reliability of the UPDF Logbook (Lira) entry as such differences in details and language can be expected of material made by interceptors working in different locations and taking contemporaneous record of a live radio communications. Indeed, such differences actually increase the credibility of the logbooks as they show that the various interceptors were not merely copying from one another but were actually taking a contemporaneous record of the live communication. See UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3065-66; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA- OTP-0062-0002, at 0008-10. 4918 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3066. See the Chamber’s discussion of Interceptor logbooks in section IV.B.3.i.b.iv above. The Chamber also notes that the other UPDF and ISO logbooks do not contain this exact detail. However, in line with its reasoning set out in this section, the Chamber finds the logbook entry credible. See UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0311-14; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP- 0062-0002, at 0008-10. 4919 Para. 192 above. 4920 The Chamber recalls the finding that P-0406 is a credible witness. See the Chamber’s discussion of the P- 0406’s testimony at section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxiii above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 675/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0054, P-0252 and P-0205, all fighters who were under Dominic Ongwen’s command

text: 4921 in Sinia brigade, testified that the group sent to Abok was part of the Sinia brigade

text: 4922 and under Dominic Ongwen’s command. Credible and consistent evidence, discussed

text: below, demonstrates that before the attack, at a gathering in the foothills of Atoo,

text: 4923 Dominic Ongwen addressed the troops and gave orders for the attack. In this context,

text: 4924 the Chamber recalls that it rejects as unreliable all direction-finding evidence.

text: P-0406, a Sinia fighter, testified that he was present when Dominic Ongwen issued the

text: 4925 orders for the Abok IDP camp attack. He stated that all the people selected to go to

text: Abok were lined up and before they headed out, Dominic Ongwen addressed them and

text: 4926 instructed them as to what they were supposed to do. P-0406 testified that Dominic

text: Ongwen told the attackers to go and collect food, abduct people, attack the barracks and

text: 4927 burn down the camp and the barracks. P-0406 also testified that after Dominic

text: 4928 Ongwen addressed the soldiers, the fighters left him and moved ahead. The Chamber

text: is satisfied that P-0406’s account of this gathering and the orders given by Dominic

text: Ongwen in credible and reliable.

text: Other LRA fighters corroborate P-0406’s statement that Dominic Ongwen gave the

text: orders regarding the Abok attack. P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen told him that

text: 4929 he had sent people to Abok and that they went and attacked. In the Chamber’s view,

text: this evidence is reliable; it is detailed and P-0205 refers with precision to the occasion on

text: 4930 which Dominic Ongwen told him about the Abok attack.

text: 4921 P-0406: T-154, p. 16, lines 15-17, p. 34, lines 12-15; P-0054: T-93, p. 10, lines 19-24; P-0252: T-87, p. 41, lines 10-21; P-0205: T-47, p. 9, lines 18-22, p. 36, line 14 – p. 37, line 6. 4922 The Chamber notes that D-0105 testified that LRA commander Odhiambo chose the soldiers for the Abok attack (D-0105: T-190, p. 26, lines 17-23). In this context, the Chamber recalls its finding that the witness’s testimony is not credible and cannot be relied upon. 4923 In light of the evidence, the Chamber, does not accept the submissions of the Defence in this regard. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 444-457. The Chamber notes that in light of the credible and consistent evidence discussed in this section, the Chamber is unconvinced by D-0085’s testimony that there were two gatherings before the attack on Abok IDP camp. In this context, the Chamber also notes that the witness could not recall what happened during the first gathering. See D-0085: T-239, p. 21, lines 19-25. 4924 See section IV.B.3.iii above. 4925 P-0406: T-154, p. 66, lines 5-14. 4926 P-0406: T-154, p. 66, lines 12-14. 4927 P-0406: T-154, p. 66, lines 16-20. 4928 P-0406: T-155, p. 67, lines 17-21 (P-0406 did not know whether Dominic Ongwen remained at the base). 4929 P-0205: T-47, p. 67, lines 13-21. See P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 68, line 15 – p. 69, line 8. 4930 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 69, lines 4-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 676/1077 4 February 2021

text: While P-0054 did not actually see Dominic Ongwen select the fighters going to Abok,

text: he participated in the attack and testified that while Sinia was based under Atoo hills,

text: Dominic Ongwen selected people and instructed them to go to Abok. He testified that

text: he knows this because his commander was present when the selection took place. The Chamber finds that the witness’s explanation of how he obtained the hearsay evidence is

text: plausible and convincing. The Chamber notes the Defence submission that P-0054 did

text: not testify to hearing an overt command to attack civilians. Indeed, P-0054 testified that the instruction passed down to the soldiers was to ‘go and work at Abok’, however

text: he also clarifies that what he understood by the term ‘work’ was fighting and collecting

text: food.

text: P-0252 stated that the soldiers selected to go to Abok were selected from amongst the

text: soldiers who were under Atoo hills, and that Dominic Ongwen would be the person

text: to issue the orders to attack Abok. P-0252 explained that Dominic Ongwen would

text: issue orders to his subordinates and those orders would be communicated to the

text: attackers. P-0252 indicated that this was how the orders were communicated for the

text: attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: 4931 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 1-8. See also P-0286: T-131, p. 33, line 6 – p. 34, line 7 (P-0286 was taken to Atoo hills after being abducted by LRA fighters in the 8 June 2004 Abok attack and was told that Atoo hills was the group’s base). The Chamber considers the witnesses’ lack of specificity as to the exact location of the gathering within the foothills of Atoo hills natural and expected given that the gathering took place in the bush and that the witnesses mentioned the geographical references available to them. Contrary to the Defence submission in Defence Closing Brief, paras 447-48, the Chamber is satisfied by the evidence that a gathering occurred in which Dominic Ongwen gave orders to his forces to attack Abok and that the gathering occurred within the area around the Atoo hills. 4932 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 1-8. 4933 P-0054: T-93, p. 34, lines 4-8. 4934 Defence Closing Brief, para. 453. 4935 P-0054: T-93, p. 34, lines 9-14. See also P-0340: T-102, p. 38, line 23 – p. 39, line 1 (stating that ‘[t]here were no exact instructions [from his immediate instructor about the attack] other than the fact that we are going to collect food’). In this context, the Chamber recalls its assessment of P-0340’s credibility in section IV.B.2.ii.b.xix above. The Chamber also recalls its discussion of P-0340’s elaboration of what it means to ‘collect food’. See para. 1407 above. 4936 P-0252: T-87, p. 74, lines 23-25. See also P-0306: T-130, p. 30, lines 13-14 (‘In our area, in Lango and Acholi, the person who was responsible, who had leadership for those areas was Dominic Ongwen, who was based under Atoo hills’); P-0293: T-138, p. 21, line 11 (‘the rebels [who carried out the 8 June 2004 attack] came from a location known as Atoo hills’). 4937 P-0252: T-87, p. 75, lines 6-8. See P-0252: T-88, p. 6, line 14 – p. 7, line 16 (Dominic Ongwen was present during a headcount of the soldiers who returned from Abok). 4938 P-0252: T-87, p. 75, line 6 – p. 76, line 7. 4939 P-0252: T-87, p. 75, line 6 – p. 76, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 677/1077 4 February 2021

text: Finally, some corroboration is provided by P-0330, who did not hear the orders but testified that there was no overall commander other than ‘Odomi’ and ‘Odomi’ had all

text: 4940 the authority and ‘Odomi’ was the overall commander who ordered the attack on 4941 Abok.

text: 4942 In light of the above, and contrary to the Defence’s argument, the Chamber does not

text: find that the witnesses’ evidence is inconsistent. The witnesses expressed their

text: recollection in their own terms, describing or emphasising their particular perspective in

text: line with their particular role or location. The Chamber considers that the evidence before

text: it justifies and necessitates its finding that Dominic Ongwen ordered the attack on Abok

text: IDP camp, giving instructions that his fighters attack the camp, collect food, abduct

text: people, attack the barracks and burn down the camp and barracks. Based on the terms of

text: this order as established on the basis of the evidence, the Chamber considers that it

text: logically included targeting civilians.

text: In addition to the evidence of these insider witnesses, and as discussed in detail below,

text: the intercepted radio communications also demonstrate that Dominic Ongwen initiated 4943 and oversaw the Abok attack. Noting that radio communications record Dominic

text: Ongwen describing the fighting that occurred in the camp, the burning of huts in the

text: camp and barracks and the capturing of civilians, the Chamber considers that the radio

text: communications are consistent with and confirm the orders Dominic Ongwen gave to his 4944 fighters to carry out the attack.

text: Further, Cyprian Ayoo, one of the camp’s leaders, testified that the abductees rescued 4945 from Abok told him that the rebels were sent by Dominic Ongwen. Cyprian Ayoo

text: 4940 P-0330: T-52, p. 28, lines 14-25. 4941 P-0330: T-52, p. 28, lines 18-22. The Defence mischaracterises P-0330’s testimony in their submission that P-0330’s testimony indicates that it was Okello who issued the instructions for Abok and selected the standby, not Dominic Ongwen. Defence Closing Brief, para. 450. It is clear from the witness’s testimony that while he personally heard about the instructions about the attack from his superior Okello, P-0330 specified that Dominic Ongwen was the higher authority who ordered the attack and that Okello selected a standby upon Dominic Ongwen’s instructions. 4942 Defence Closing Brief, paras 446-448. 4943 See section IV.C.9.v, the Chamber’s discussion of the reporting on the attack. 4944 See paras 2001-2008 below. 4945 P-0293: T-138, p. 35, lines 11-15. See also P-0304: T-133, p. 27, line 21 – p. 28, line 3 (P-0304 was told by James Oringa, another returned abductee, that ‘Dominic’s group’ attacked Abok IDP camp); P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 33 (P-0306 testified that P-0280 and P-0304 told him that the LRA group involved in the attack was led by Dominic Ongwen).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 678/1077 4 February 2021 stated that when he asked the abductees what their abductors said, the returned abductees

text: relayed that the LRA fighters were talking amongst themselves and saying that Dominic

text: Ongwen would be extremely happy because the attack was successful.

text: While the Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen

text: carried out the attack on Abok IDP camp, the Chamber notes that the evidence shows

text: that Dominic Ongwen himself did not physically participate in the attack. This was

text: confirmed by multiple witnesses, particularly LRA fighters. Rather, this same

text: evidence shows that Dominic Ongwen designated Okello Kalalang, one of his

text: subordinate commanders, to command the attack on the ground, and that the latter in

text: fact led the attack on Abok IDP camp under Dominic Ongwen’s instructions.

text: The Chamber notes P-0054’s credible testimony that Dominic Ongwen delegated the

text: leadership of the physical attack on the camp to ‘Kalalang’. The Chamber also considers

text: this delegation to be a necessary inference from the fact that the attack took place

text: 4946 P-0293: T-138, p. 36, line 21 – p. 37, line 4. 4947 P-0054: T-94, p. 26, lines 9-13 (Dominic Ongwen sent Kalalang to ‘go and carry out the operation’ and did not go there himself. Dominic Ongwen stayed back on the other side of Orapwoyo, near Loyo-Ajonga); P-0340: T-103, p. 55, lines 20-21 (P-0340 did not see Dominic Ongwen at the Abok attack); P-0330: T-55, p. 34, line 25 – p. 35, line 1 (Dominic Ongwen did not go to the Abok attack). See also P-0359, a UPDF colonel, testified that Dominic Ongwen had sent Okello Kalalang, one of his field commanders, to attack Abok but had not participated in the attack physically. P-0359: T-109, p. 67, lines 7-11; T-110, p. 38, line 25 – p. 39, line 2, p. 77, lines 16-23. 4948 P-0054: T-94, p. 26, lines 9-11 (Dominic Ongwen ‘sent Kalalang to go and carry out the operation’). See P- 0330: T-52, p. 28, line 18 – p. 29, line 7 (Dominic Ongwen issued instructions to Okello to select a standby and Kalalang did so). See also P-0359: T-109, p. 65, line 19 – p. 66, line 7, p. 67, lines 7-11; T-110, p. 38, line 22 – p. 39, line 3, p. 77, lines 16-23. 4949 P-0280: T-83, p. 67, lines 4-7 (P-0280 was told while in the bush that ‘Kalalang was under Dominic’);

text: P-0359: T-109, p. 65, line 19 – p. 66, line 5 (Okello Kalalang was a self-styled major of the LRA and was part of Dominic Ongwen’s group. ‘Kalalang was a notorious commander of Dominic Ongwen that in most cases Dominic himself would assign him these nasty operations’); P-0286: T-131, p. 47, 10-16 (‘Odomi’ was Kalalang’s overall commander); P-0054: T- 93, p. 34, lines 15-18 (Kalalang was in Terwanga battalion and Dominic was the brigade commander at the time of the Abok IDP camp attack). 4950 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 1-7 (Kalalang served as the overall commander of the Abok mission); P-0286: T- 131, p. 19, line 23 – p. 20, line 2 (LRA fighters Otim and Opio told P-0286 that the commander who was giving the orders to go to the barracks was called Kalalang, that he was the one leading the group of attackers); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 45 (after P-0286 returned from captivity, he informed camp officials that Okello Kalalang had commanded the group that had attacked Abok IDP camp); P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 33 (after P-0280 and P-0304 had returned from captivity, they informed P- 0306 that Okello Kalalang led the attack while the LRA group itself was led by Dominic Ongwen); P-0293: T- 138, p. 35, lines 11-15, p. 36, line 21 – p. 37, line 11 (returned Abok abductees told P-0293 that Kalalang was the attackers’ commander but they had been sent by Dominic Ongwen); P-0359: T-109, p. 65, lines 19-24 (abductees rescued after the Abok attack stated that Okello Kalalang led the attack into Abok); D-0085: T-239, p. 21, lines 7-16, p. 25, lines 3-9 (Kalalang was in charge of the group that went to Abok); P-0205: T-47, p. 67, lines 13-21 (Dominic Ongwen told P-0205 that he had sent Okello Kalalang to led the group Dominic Ongwen sent to Abok).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 679/1077 4 February 2021 pursuant to Dominic Ongwen’s orders, that it was carried out by his subordinates and

text: that Okello Kalalang was the commander on the ground.

text: In this context, the Chamber notes Cyprian Ayoo’s testimony that while hiding from the

text: LRA, he heard LRA fighters speaking amongst themselves and praising ‘Afande Okello

text: Kalalang’ for changing the orders/instructions of ‘Afande Dominic Ongwen’ on a

text: 4951 particular point. Cyprian Ayoo stated that the fighters said that Dominic Ongwen had

text: instructed the rebels to shoot anyone they found, and Kalalang changed the order, telling

text: the fighters to spare their bullets so they could protect themselves against the government

text: 4952 soldiers. Instead, according to the fighters, Kalalang instructed the soldiers to do

text: whatever they could: burn a person in a house, push a person into a fire or smash their

text: 4953 head with a club.

text: In light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic

text: Ongwen carried out the attack on Abok IDP camp pursuant to his orders.

text: iv. The LRA’s attack against the civilian population of Abok IDP camp

text: On 8 June 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen attacked Abok IDP

text: camp.

text: The day of the attack, Abok IDP camp residents observed LRA troops moving in the western side of the camp. A contingent of Ugandan government soldiers were sent to track

text: the LRA activity. However, the LRA eluded the government soldiers.

text: 4951 P-0293: T-138, p. 27, line 16 – p. 28, line 8. P-0293 testified that ‘Afande’ was a title for someone superior to you. P-0293: T-139, p. 18, lines 20-25. The Defence challenged the witness that he did not mention ‘Ongwen’ in his previous statement to the Prosecution, however P-0293 clarified that the soldiers clearly had said the name ‘Dominic Ongwen’ and that his written statement’s reference to ‘Afande Kalalang’ and ‘Afande Dominic’ was mistaken. P-0293: T-138, p. 32, line 7 – p. 33, line 1. The Chamber attributes little significance to this discrepancy between the written statement and the in-court testimony; the witness is clear in identifying the two subjects of the conversation and the original identification of ‘Dominic’ and ‘Kalalang’ is specific in itself. The mention of names of persons unknown to the witness (the witness conceded that he had not seen Dominic Ongwen and Kalalang at the time) and the specificity of the change in the order demonstrate P-0293’s sincerity and truthfulness. Further, the Chamber is satisfied with the explanation the witness provided in his live testimony when he testified under oath before the Chamber. 4952 P-0293: T-138, p. 27, line 16 – p. 28, line 6. 4953 P-0293: T-138, p. 27, line 23 – p. 28, line 1. 4954 Para. 190 above. 4955 Para. 193 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 680/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the evening of that day, at least 20 LRA fighters, including fighters under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and, with an assortment of arms, including guns,

text: attacked Abok IDP camp from the southwest.

text: Witnesses who were Abok IDP camp residents at the time of the attack provided credible,

text: consistent and overlapping testimony that on 8 June 2004, residents saw LRA fighters in

text: the northwest of the camp, later in the day, the LRA were seen in the southwest side of

text: the camp.

text: 4958 4959

text: Government soldiers present at the camp were notified of the presence of gunmen,

text: and some soldiers were deployed to pursue the rebels. The deployed soldiers were

text: 4956 Para. 193 above. 4957 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 21 (around 15:00 on 8 June 2004, Abok IDP camp residents who had been outside of the camp started reporting the presence of unknown gunmen in the northwestern side of the camp and that around 17:00, a resident of the camp reported that the gunmen had crossed the road going to Ngai); P-0280: T-83, p. 45, lines 10-19, p. 56, lines 5-8; T-84, p. 37, lines 11-15 (on 8 June 2004, LRA fighters passed very close to the camp, the LRA fighters came from the direction of Ngai and branched off towards Abok school. The LRA fighters were visible from the camp as they were on the hill going towards Abok school); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 29 (P-0284 saw the rebels; they moved like they were going to cross the road to Ngai but instead took the road that leads to the Abok Primary School in the direction of Ariba); P-0286: T-131, p. 8, line 15 – p. 9, line 8 (on 8 June 2004, the rebels came and passed very near the camp, between 17:00 and 18:00, there was a report that many people, possibly rebels, were passing by the camp); P-0293: T-138, p. 15, line 10 – p. 16, line 12 (while walking around surveying the camp, P-0293 noticed people crossing the Ngai road, one group crossing on one side and another group crossing on the other side). See P-0304: T-133, p. 7, lines 13-18 (late in the evening on a Tuesday in 2004, there were rumours of strange soldiers sighted opposite the signpost of Abok primary school). 4958 In light of the consistent testimony of P-0306 and P-0293, the Chamber is satisfied that there were at least 45 government soldiers at the Abok IDP camp around the time of the 8 June 2004 attack. P-0306 Statement, UGA- OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 21; P-0306: T-130, p. 33, lines 7-11, p. 46, lines 14-24, p. 47, lines 1-9, p. 82, line 17 – p. 83, line 3 (there were about 45 government soldiers at Abok IDP camp on 8 June 2004 comprised of local defence forces (‘LDUs’) as well as UPDF forces); P-0293: T-138, p. 8, lines 6-11 (there were initially 45 soldiers and then nine more were added, bringing the number to 54). The Chamber notes the testimony of D-0065 in relation to the military forces present in the camp is consistent with its finding here. See D-0065: T-211, p. 14, line 20 – p. 16, line 1 (there were approximately 20 government forces in the camp itself with others deployed to protect the barracks and to set up an ambush. The forces in the camp were LDUs). The Chamber notes that the witness also testified that the commanding officer was a member of the UPDF, indicating that there was at least one UPDF soldier present. 4959 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 21 (after being informed around 17:00 that the gunmen had been seen crossing the road going to Ngai, P-0306 instructed the camp defence secretary to inform the overall commander of the government forces at the army barracks); P-0293: T-138, p. 16, line 13 – p. 17, line 4 (when P-0293 went to inform the commander of the soldiers stationed at the camp that he had seen suspected rebels crossing the road, the commander told him that he had already been informed of the movement); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 29 (word was sent to the barracks and the community was alerted about the presence of the rebels in the area). 4960 P-0280: T-84, p. 38, line 16 – p. 39, line 2 (there were soldiers deployed to where the LRA fighters were seen); P-0306 and P-0293 corroborate P-0280’s testimony, both testifying that soldiers were deployed. P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 21; P-0306: T-130, p. 83, lines 4-11; P-0293: T-138, p. 72, line 20 – p. 73, line 3. While the Chamber is mindful that the camp officials offered somewhat different testimony on where exactly the troops were sent, the Chamber is satisfied that some government soldiers were deployed to pursue the gunmen while some others remained in the camp. To this end, the Chamber notes the testimony of D- 0065, an LDU officer, who testified that the civilians had come to give a report of LRA rebels sighted in the

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 681/1077 4 February 2021

text: unable to intercept the LRA fighters. Around 15 government soldiers remained to

text: guard the camp, some of these soldiers were stationed at the new barracks and some

text: were within the camp centre.

text: Contrary to the Defence’s contention, the Chamber is unconvinced that other LRA

text: brigades played any significant role in attacking Abok IDP camp. The testimony of D-

text: 0085 and P-0340, cited in support of the Defence’s contention, does not undercut the Chamber’s finding that fighters subordinate to Dominic Ongwen attacked Abok IDP

text: camp under his orders.

text: The Chamber first recalls the above discussion that Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA

text: forces subordinate to him, namely fighters in the Sinia brigade, to attack Abok IDP

text: camp. Of the nine LRA forces who testified about the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok

text: IDP camp and whom the Chamber found generally credible, only one, D-0085, attested

text: that LRA groups merged together and went to attack Abok IDP camp. The Chamber

text: puts more weight on the accounts of these other witnesses, who corroborate each other

text: and does not rely on D-0085’s testimony in this regard. In line with the other witnesses,

text: D-0085 also testified that she heard that Kalalang was the commander who led the attack

text: vicinity of the camp and the commanding officer had set up an ambush. D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 1-8, p. 21, line 23 – p. 22, line 3. 4961 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 29-30 (some of the government soldiers left the camp to follow the rebels but unfortunately the soldiers took the wrong direction and continued until Ariba but the LRA fighters had branched to a swamp and hidden there. P-0284 knew that the rebels had branched into the swamp because he later saw the tracks that they had left behind). 4962 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 21; P-0306: T-130, p. 83, lines 4-11 (15 government soldiers were deployed on the eastern road, another 15 were deployed towards Abok primary school and 15 remained to guard the camp); P-0293: T-138, p. 72, line 20 – p. 73, line 3 (one group went towards Iceme road to ambush the people sighted, another group was guarding the camp and went to the old barracks, and a third group remained in the new barracks). 4963 See section IV.C.9.iv, the Chamber’s discussion of the course of the attack. 4964 Defence Closing Brief, paras 442, 459-464 (arguing that the evidence shows that Okot Odhiambo and Ocan Bunia, senior LRA commanders from other brigades, controlled and commanded a combined force of fighters along with Dominic Ongwen). 4965 D-0085: T-239-CONF, p. 8, line 10-11 and p. 13, lines 12-14, p. 20, lines 7-9. Regarding P-0340, the Chamber notes the Defence’s contention that a 8 February 2004 ISO logbook entry identifies P-0340’s commander and two other commanders and in extension P-0340 as a member of the Gilva battalion. Defence Closing Brief, paras 454, 459-460, citing ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0056. In his testimony, P-0340 refuted the contention that he was a part of the Gilva brigade. See P-0340: T-102, p. 16, line 7 – p. 17, line 10, p. 39, lines 3- 8; T-103-CONF, p. 19, lines 5-7, p. 59, line 19 – p. 60, line 14. See sections IV.B.2.ii.b.xxxiii and IV.B.2.ii.b.xix above, the Chamber’s discussion of D-0085 and P-0340’s testimony. 4966 See Chamber’s discussion of Dominic Ongwen’s order to attack Abok IDP camp in section IV.C.9.iii above. 4967 D-0085: T-239, p. 20, lines 4-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 682/1077 4 February 2021

text: on Abok IDP camp. Further, camp residents who offered testimony on this issue

text: attributed the attack to Okello Kalalang and Dominic Ongwen’s group and made no

text: mention of hearing that any other LRA group was involved in the attack. Importantly,

text: Dominic Ongwen himself, when reporting the attack to Joseph Kony, as discussed further

text: below, took sole responsibility for the attack on Abok IDP camp and made no mention

text: of the involvement of any other commanders. There is no evidence that any other

text: LRA commander took credit for the attack. Thus, the Chamber is satisfied that Dominic

text: Ongwen, controlled or commanded the fighters that went to attack Abok IDP camp on 8

text: June 2004 and that no other LRA commander was involved.

text: As to the number of LRA fighters that attacked Abok IDP camp, the Chamber is

text: convinced by the testimony offered by LRA fighters who actively participated in the

text: attack and are in a position to know how many LRA fighters were sent to attack Abok.

text: P-0406 testified that having received orders from Dominic Ongwen, maybe 30-40

text: fighters went to Abok. P-0406 stated later in his testimony that there were not many

text: people selected to go to Abok, perhaps 25-30. P-0330 testified that ‘maybe 20 or 28

text: 4968 D-0085: T-239, p. 21, lines 7-16, p. 25, lines 3-9. The Defence argues that the witness’s testimony indicates that forces in Trinkle brigade joined in the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 462 and 464. 4969 See the Chamber’s discussion of the reporting of the attack in section IV.C.9.v below. In this same section, the Chamber discusses the evidence that the Government of Uganda also attributed the attack to Dominic Ongwen’s forces. 4970 The Chamber does not accept the submissions in Defence Closing Brief, paras 461-463. The Chamber recalls, as discussed above, that it does not consider D-0105’s testimony to be reliable. The Chamber notes that D-0085, part of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade, testified that ‘more than a hundred’ LRA forces went to Abok IDP camp and that the people who went to Abok were ‘much more’ than the people who went to Pajule. D-0085: T-239, p. 20, lines 12-15, p. 24, lines 23 – p. 25, line 2. The Chamber notes that D-0085 played a minor role in the LRA’s attack on Abok IDP camp, tasked with running into the camp and collecting food. Further, given the evidence of the Pajule attack, as discussed above, in particular, the credible, consistent and ample evidence that a multitude of LRA forces convened for that attack, as well as the testimony of the LRA fighters who actually fought within the Abok IDP camp and testified to the presence of less LRA fighters, the Chamber is unconvinced by D-0085’s evidence in this aspect. The Chamber also notes that some camp residents indicated that around 100 LRA fighters attacked Abok. P-0304: T-133, p. 27, lines 14-24 (P-0304 was told by an escaped LRA fighter that there were 104 soldiers who attacked Abok); P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 35 (in 2008, P-0306 spoke to a returned LRA fighter, around 17 years old, who claimed to have participated in the Abok attack, the fighter informed him that there had been 104 soldiers participating in the attack). See also P-0306: T-130, p. 71, lines 2- 10. The Chamber notes that both of these witnesses testify to hearing this number from an escaped abductee. The specificity of the number implies that the same abductee spoke to both witnesses. 4971 P-0406: T-154, p. 67, lines 1-3. 4972 P-0406: T-155, p. 66, lines 11-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 683/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4973 people’ were selected for the Abok attack. In light of these witnesses’ testimony, the

text: 4974 Chamber considers that at least 20 LRA fighters went to attack Abok.

text: Witnesses credibly and consistently testified that there were children younger than 15

text: years old among the LRA forces that attacked Abok IDP camp. P-0054 testified that

text: among the group of LRA fighters sent to Abok were people approximately 13 years

text: 4975 old. Consistent with this account of the presence of children younger than 15 years

text: old among the LRA forces, Cyprian Ayoo testified that he could hear children’s voices

text: among the LRA, from the voices he concluded that the children were between the ages

text: 4976 of 10 and 15 years old. He described what he saw when the children came into his

text: view:

text: The children were really […] they were really young. […] They were actually young. If you would compare […] in terms of fighting, one person would actually fight with three of those children. But as they were moving, they were moving with 4977 their heads straight up and very, very active.

text: In light of the evidence, the Chamber is satisfied that children under the age of 15

text: participated in the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: The Chamber is also satisfied that credible and consistent evidence shows that the LRA

text: 4978 forces attacked Abok IDP camp with weapons including guns, clubs and machetes.

text: The witnesses, both LRA insiders and residents of the camp, agree that the gunshots

text: began in the evening of 8 June 2004, testifying to a range of times between 19:00 and

text: 4973 P-0330: T-52, p. 29, lines 8-11. 4974 See also P-0280: T-84, p. 38, lines 8-15 (while P-0280 could not give the exact number, he estimated that over 40 LRA fighters came to attack Abok). The Chamber notes that P-0280 is a camp resident who was abducted during the Abok attack and so observed the contingent returning from the attack. 4975 P-0054: T-93, p. 35, lines 9-18, p. 36, lines 5-17 (P-0054 saw a group of ‘young children’ about 13 years old whom he identified as LRA fighters beating a child). See also P-0406: T-154, p. 67, lines 11-20 (some of the fighters sent to Abok IDP camp were ’13, 14, 15, 16 as well’ who had tasks like blowing whistles, hitting jerrycans and making noise). 4976 P-0293: T-138, p. 23, lines 2-15. 4977 P-0293: T-138, p. 23, lines 18-25. 4978 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at paras 20, 23 (Jacob Opio saw LRA fighters outside of his house with guns and pangas); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 34-35 (P-0284 saw that some of the attacking rebels had guns and others had clubs); P-0293: T-138, p. 24, lines 5-16 (among the LRA fighters, P-0293 saw children carrying sticks and machetes and adults with guns); P-0286: T-131, p. 16, lines 13- 16, p. 23, lines 2-7 (P-0286 saw that one of the LRA fighters carried an RPG); P-0280: T-83, p. 53, lines 11-14 (P-0280 saw rifles, AK47s, LMGs, J2s and PKs with the LRA fighters).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 684/1077 4 February 2021

text: 20:45. The Chamber is further satisfied by the consistent and credible testimony of

text: several witnesses, all residents of the camp, who testified to first hearing gunshots

text: coming from the direction where the armed men had been sighted earlier that day.

text: The Chamber is convinced by the testimony of these witnesses as to the date and time of

text: the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: The LRA fighters went past the old barracks in the south of the camp and entered the camp, firing their guns. LRA fighters went to the civilian area in the camp and a contingent of the fighters eventually ended up near the new barracks in the north east of the camp. While government soldiers were able to defend the new barracks, the soldiers within the camp itself were not able to stop the LRA’s attack on the camp. These soldiers

text: in the camp fled. The LRA attacked the civilians in the camp.

text: The Chamber observes that the testimony of the Abok IDP camp residents about the start

text: of the fighting and the movement of the LRA fighters is consistent with that of the LRA

text: fighters who participated in the attack as well as with that of a government soldier who

text: was present during the attack. The witnesses describe a scene in which LRA fighters

text: outside the camp exchanged fire with government soldiers who were at the boundaries

text: of the camp or within the camp.

text: 4979 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-20; T-83, p. 45, lines 10-21 (Abok was attacked by LRA soldiers on 8 June 2004 and P-0280 heard gunshots from around 20:00); P-0054: T-93, p. 34, lines 20-22 (the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok began between 19:00-20:00); P-0286: T-131, p. 9, lines 22-24, p. 14, lines 19-22 (between 19:00- 20:00, P-0286 heard gunshots from the direction that the rebels had passed around, from the direction of the old barracks); P-0293: T-138, p. 17, line 25 – p. 19, line 3 (around 20:00, P-0293 heard a gunshot from the direction of the old barracks); P-0304: T-133, p. 15, lines 11-16, p. 55, lines 11-13 (the initial gunshots came from the direction of the Abok school, at around 20:00); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 29 (the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok began at 20:45). 4980 P-0306: T-130, p. 54, lines 19-24 (in the beginning, the gunfire came from the side where the rebels were approaching). See also P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 22 (people started hearing gunshots from the south-western side of the camp).The Chamber notes that some witnesses testified that the gunshots came from the direction of the old barracks, while others said that the gunshots came from the direction of the school. P-0286: T-131, p. 9, lines 22-24, p. 14, lines 19-22 (between 19:00-20:00, P-0286 heard gunshots from the direction that the rebels had passed around, from the direction of the old barracks); P-0293: T-138, p. 17, line 25 – p. 19, line 3 (around 20:00, P-0293 heard a gunshot from the direction of the old barracks). See P-0286’s sketch of Abok IDP Camp, UGA-OTP-0248-0091-R01; P-0293’s sketch of Abok IDP Camp, UGA-OTP-0248- 0058-R01. P-0304: T-133, p. 15, lines 11-16 (the initial gunshots came from the direction of the Abok school); P- 0280: T-84, p. 36, line 24 – p. 37, line 4 (the gunfire started from the area of the school where the LRA soldiers had gone). During its site visit to the former Abok IDP camp, the Chamber observed that both the old barracks and the school are on the south side of Abok, although not in the same location. Annex to the Registration into the Record of the Case of the Site Visit Report pursuant to Trial Chamber Decision ICC-02/04-01/15-1211 of 27 March 2018, 27 June 2018, ICC-02/04-01/15-1292-Anx, at 9-11. Thus, both accounts of the direction of the first gunfire, whether referencing the old barracks or school, are consistent with the Chamber’s observations that the school and the old barracks were roughly in the same direction when viewed from the vicinity of the camp centre. 4981 Para. 194 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 685/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0340 and P-0330, both LRA fighters in Sinia brigade, testified that the fighting began

text: while the LRA fighters were still setting up their formations and government soldiers at

text: the boundaries of the camp recognised the presence of the LRA and started firing at

text: them. P-0330 indicates that the entire LRA contingent in Abok were not together

text: when the fighting began. He testified that he was in a group of just five LRA fighters

text: when they set the formation for the battle. P-0054, also a fighter in Sinia brigade,

text: commanded by Dominic Ongwen, gave evidence which corroborates this account,

text: testifying that as they approached Abok, the LRA fighters split up. P-0054 further

text: testified that his group heard gunfire while still in the bush and ran and found that the

text: people, i.e. LRA fighters, had scattered. The Chamber finds these witnesses’ accounts

text: consistent and credible.

text: P-0330 and P-0340 testified that the LRA fighters fired back at the government soldiers

text: and headed towards the camp. Similarly, Cyprian Ayoo, one of the camp’s leaders,

text: testified that he could hear the fighting coming towards the camp.

text: Camp residents, who were within the camp at the time of the attack, testified to hearing

text: escalating gunfire. Cyprian Ayoo described gunshots firing and subsiding with

text: increasing intensity. Charles Amodo testified that the shooting would subside at some

text: point and then begin again. Both Charles Amodo and Robson Oper testified that the

text: 4982 P-0340: T-102, p. 39, lines 16-22 (the attack started while the LRA fighters were still getting into their formations. The government soldiers overheard the LRA making noise and started shooting and the LRA started firing back); P-0330: T-52, p. 31, lines 6-11; T-55-CONF, p. 37, lines 4-8 (before the formation was final, the government soldiers who were at the border of the camp recognised the LRA fighters and started firing). See P- 0252, also an LRA fighter, gave a corroborating account of events, testifying that there was gunfire between the LRA and the government soldiers. P-0252: T-87, p. 74, lines 4-8. 4983 P-0330: T-52, p. 30, line 23 – p. 31, line 1. 4984 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 8-9. 4985 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 9-10. 4986 P-0340: T-102, p. 40, lines 1-4 (during the attack P-0340 instinctively started firing back at the government soldiers and ran towards the battlefront); P-0330: T-52, p. 31, lines 12-14; T-55-CONF, p. 37, lines 4-10 (the LRA fighters shot back at the soldiers while advancing towards them). 4987 P-0293: T-138, p. 22, lines 4-5. 4988 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 20 (the gunshots were few at first but then intensified); P-0306: T-130, p. 60, lines 5-15 (P-0306 and the Political Commissioner were moving around in the camp when the gunshots began and they tried to move ahead but realised that the gunshots were increasing); P-0286: T-131, p. 9, line 24 (the gunshots carried on and intensified). The Chamber notes that the testimony of defence witness D-0065, an LDU soldier, is consistent with the camp residents’ accounts of the intensifying gunfire. D-0065: T- 211, p. 21, lines 1-12. 4989 P-0293: T-138, p. 21, line 18 – p. 22, line 8 (after the initial gunshot, several shots came and then the gunfire subsided, the initial exchange lasted from five to ten minutes. The gunfire then began again suddenly. Then the gunshots began again a third time and that was the heaviest fighting). 4990 P-0304: T-133, p. 55, lines 14-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 686/1077 4 February 2021

text: 4991 shooting continued for some time. The Chamber finds these witnesses’ accounts

text: credible and reliable. The Chamber is convinced by the above witnesses’ consistent and

text: overlapping evidence that there was gunfire as LRA forces moved on the camp.

text: The evidence does not preclude that there was an exchange of gunfire between

text: 4992 government soldiers and LRA fighters within the camp itself. The Chamber notes the

text: evidence provided by Dorcas Ayo, a young camp resident, who testified that while she

text: and her family were hiding in their home, a UPDF soldier squatted by their door and was

text: 4993 shooting at the rebels. Dorcas Ayo indicated that her home was near the new

text: 4994 barracks. Given the location of the new barracks on the northeast side of the camp,

text: this allows that LRA fighters may have already been within in the camp when this

text: exchange of fire took place. Dorcas Ayo testified that when the fighting got heavier, the

text: 4995 soldier ran away and there were many rebels in the camp.

text: The Chamber also recalls Douglas Obwor’s testimony that when the battle intensified,

text: the gunshots were coming from all over the place including from where the government

text: 4996 4997 soldiers were based. Charles Amodo corroborates Douglas Obwor’s testimony.

text: However, regardless of whether there was an exchange of gunfire between LRA fighters

text: and government soldiers within the camp itself, the Chamber is convinced by the credible

text: and reliable evidence of witnesses that the government soldiers in the camp centre were

text: 4998 quickly overwhelmed and fled. Further, as discussed below, the Chamber is utterly

text: unconvinced by the claim that government soldiers fired indiscriminately into Abok IDP

text: 4999 camp and/or committed the crimes that the Prosecution attributes to the LRA. The

text: credible and reliable evidence shows that on 8 June 2004, government soldiers fled from

text: 4991 P-0304: T-133, p. 55, lines 14-19; P-0286: T-131, p. 10, line 4. 4992 This is outside of an exchange of gunfire that occurred at the barracks and is discussed further below. 4993 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 16. 4994 See P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at paras 14, 17 (P-0281 testified that she lived in a hut near the barracks, making no distinction between the old and new barracks. In the context of her testimony, particularly that she described the barracks as populated by soldiers and the evidence shows that the old barracks was no longer in use, the Chamber concludes that P-0281 makes reference to the ‘new barracks’). 4995 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 16. 4996 P-0306: T-130, p. 54, line 19 – p. 55, line 1. 4997 P-0304: T-133, p. 16, lines 8-20 (there was gunfire ‘coming from all over the place’. P-0304 was not sure who was responsible for firing the guns). See P-0304: T-133, p. 7, lines 19-20. 4998 The Chamber notes that these witnesses’ evidence is consistent with and corroborates each other. 4999 The Chamber recalls D-0105 and D-0121’s testimony and recalls its discussions above concerning the unreliability of these witnesses’ testimony. See D-0105: T-190, p. 32, line 14 – p. 33, line 11; D-0121: T-213, p. 41, line 16 – p. 42, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 687/1077 4 February 2021 the centre of Abok IDP camp while LRA fighters entered the camp and committed crimes within it. This evidence also forecloses the possibility that the crimes could have been committed by the government soldiers after the LRA retreated.

text: In this context, the Chamber notes camp resident Cyprian Ayoo testified that after several exchanges of gunfire, he heard government soldiers within the camp saying that ‘these 5000 people have defeated us so we should all run away’. Similarly, camp resident Robson

text: Oper stated that the government soldiers within the camp exchanged fire with the rebels but the rebels were stronger and they were able to chase away the soldiers who were 5001 providing protection to the camp residents. Camp resident Charles Amodo corroborates these accounts, testifying that there was an exchange of gunfire between the rebels and the government soldiers and the soldiers in the camp itself were outnumbered 5002 and they fled. P-0280 also provides evidence which corroborates these accounts, testifying that the government soldiers who were guarding the camp fled after running 5003 out of ammunition and realising that they could no longer defend themselves.

text: The testimony of D-0065, a government soldier, corroborates these witnesses’ accounts and is evidence of the behaviour of the government soldiers. D-0065 testified that the 5004 government soldiers ran out of bullets and withdrew from the fight. D-0065 testified 5005 further that he personally had only three bullets to defend himself. He stated that the other soldiers also had only a few bullets, perhaps five or six, so having run out of bullets, 5006 they withdrew out of the camp. Witnesses also testify that the UPDF officer in charge 5007 of the camp fled the camp.

text: 5000 P-0293: T-138, p. 22, lines 16-20. 5001 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 5-8. 5002 P-0304: T-133, p. 17, lines 9-10. 5003 P-0280: T-84, p. 43, lines 9-13, p. 44, lines 10-19. 5004 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 13-14. 5005 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 13-14. See also p. 22, line 21 – p. 23, line 4. 5006 D-0065: T-211, p. 22, line 21 – p. 23, line 10. 5007 D-0065: T-211, p. 23, line 13-19 (UPDF Commander Mugabe, fled Abok IDP camp during the attack holding a chicken); P-0306: T-130, p. 9, line 17 – p. 10, line 2 (the UPDF Commander in charge of the camp at the time had fled upon rumours of the LRA’s impending attack); D-0084: T-235, p. 32, lines 5-13 (UPDF Commander Mugabe fled the camp as did the junior soldiers).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 688/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0330’s testimony that as the government soldiers in the camp centre fled, the LRA

text: 5008 fighters also started running to enter the camp is corroborated by the evidence on the LRA’s movement within the camp.

text: This evidence shows that even after the government soldiers had fled, the LRA fighters

text: continued to fire their weapons as they moved through the camp. In particular, the

text: Chamber recalls the evidence provided by P-0280, one of the camp residents who was

text: abducted during the attack and later escaped from the LRA. P-0280 testified that the LRA

text: 5009 fighters shot their guns as they moved ahead in the camp. He stated that there was ‘a

text: lot [of fire] within the camp. The fighters did not care whether there were civilians there

text: 5010 or not’. P-0280 also indicated that there were no soldiers ahead of the LRA when this

text: 5011 shooting was going on.

text: In addition to hearing shooting after the government soldiers had fled, camp residents

text: 5012 reported hearing noises and seeing fires burning throughout the camp.

text: As to where the LRA fighters went in the camp, the Chamber recalls Charles Amodo’s

text: testimony that the rebels came in from the direction of the camp that was most populated,

text: 5013 the Iceme side, as opposed to the Lalogi side which was less populated. The Chamber

text: notes that the Iceme side referenced by the witness is the southern part of the camp, thus this testimony is consistent with the Chamber’s earlier finding about the direction from

text: which the LRA fighters moved on the camp. The Chamber notes the evidence, discussed

text: further below, that while LRA fighters were moving on the camp, there were government

text: 5014 soldiers in the barracks who were able to repel the LRA’s attack on the barracks.

text: 5008 P-0330: T-52, p. 31, lines 12-15; T-55-CONF, p. 37, lines 10-11. 5009 P-0280: T-84, p. 42, line 25 – p. 43, line 8. 5010 P-0280: T-83, p. 46, lines 2-4. 5011 P-0280: T-84, p. 42, line 25 – p. 43, line 8. 5012 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 1-8, p. 57, lines 17-21, p. 67, lines 5-11 (when the LRA came to P-0304’s home and forced him outside, he found the whole camp was very bright, there were gunshots going on all around the camp, fire was burning all around and there was a lot of noise. He heard the sounds of the cocking and shooting of guns not only next to him but all over the camp); P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 20 (while Jacob Opio could not see what was going on outside his house, he could hear the shouting, clanging sounds, gunshots and the crackling sound of houses being burnt); P-0286: T-131, p. 10, line 4-5 (P-0286 heard people whistling while others were burning the camp). See also P-0286: T-132, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 7. The Chamber notes that in the context of these witnesses’ full testimony, the government soldiers had fled at this point in time. 5013 P-0304: T-133, p. 68, lines 13-21. 5014 See paras 1963-1967 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 689/1077 4 February 2021

text: evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence, looting and destruction of property

text: perpetrated by LRA fighters against civilians in the course of the attack on Abok IDP

text: camp, as well as its immediate aftermath. As also emerges from the evidence analysed

text: below, the victims targeted by the LRA attackers were civilian residents of the camp.

text: The LRA fighters looted civilian houses and shops at the trading centre, taking away food items such as sugar, flour, beans, maize, goats, cooking oil, biscuits and salt, as well as a radio, money, clothing, cooking utensils and medicine. At times, while demanding the

text: goods, LRA fighters would use violence.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that LRA fighters looted Abok IDP camp

text: during the 8 June 2004 attack. Both the camp residents and LRA fighters who

text: participated in the attack gave credible evidence in this regard.

text: goods, including food, were looted from the camp. Cyprian Ayoo testified that when the

text: people returned in the morning after the attack, there were no food items left, the rebels

text: 5016 took the food items as well as cooking utensils that were newly distributed. Several

text: camp residents reported that LRA fighters had taken items such as money, clothes,

text: medicines, various food items like sugar and beans, cooking utensils, a radio, bed-sheets 5017 and other household goods. Cyprian Ayoo testified that the looted items were 5018 collected and put at one location. Consistent with the other witnesses’ testimony,

text: Robson Oper testified that he knew the items he saw with the LRA were looted from

text: 5015 Para. 195 above. 5016 P-0293: T-138, p. 26, lines 3-7. See also P-0306: T-130, p. 60, lines 2-4 (after he returned from the bush, he was told that when the gunfire subsided, the rebels started breaking in and looting the things that were in the camp). 5017 P-0304: T-133, p. 18, lines 7-13 (LRA soldiers took clothes from his home); P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0261-0277-R01, at para. 32 (the LRA looted food items such as sodas, biscuits and sugar); P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 18 (the rebel fighters entered her home and looked through her family’s belongings, eventually removing money and clothes before moving on to the next house); P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 25 (the rebels who came into his house looting things in the house including a radio, clothes, beans, maize, pigeon peas, cooking utensils, a suitcase, a luggage bag and other smaller items); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 41 (the rebels looted foodstuffs like beans, sim-sim, goats and other relief supplies like cooking pots from the camp); P-0293: T-138, p. 24, lines 5-11 (he saw the LRA break into a house that contained medicines that were supposed to aid residents in the camp and that the LRA carried away the stock or medicine and went on to other houses). 5018 P-0293: T-138, p. 24, lines 21-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 690/1077 4 February 2021 people’s houses because the LRA did not have gardens where they cultivated crops, nor

text: 5019 did they have goats, so they untied goats from people’s households and took them.

text: The evidence provided by LRA fighters is consistent with the camp residents’ account.

text: P-0340 testified that the LRA fighters had been instructed to go and collect food from

text: 5020 the camp, and that they followed instructions and collected materials from the camp:

text: I know that most of the people who headed towards the camp had the same intention, to carry stuff and run. So the person would run, pick up something and 5021 then run. You go into a house, you find something, you take it.

text: 5022 P-0340 testified that the LRA took beans and flour from the camp. P-0330 offers a

text: similar account as P-0340, testifying that during the attack, LRA fighters looted the shops,

text: 5023 eating biscuits, drinking soft drinks and taking money and also looted houses, taking

text: 5024 bed-sheets, saucepans, and foodstuffs like beans and flour. Corroborating these

text: accounts, P-0252 testified that the LRA looted maize grains, and that he was given maize

text: 5025 and cooking oil to carry from Abok. Similarly, D-0085 corroborates the above

text: accounts, testifying that she saw LRA forces ransacking shops and also saw LRA forces

text: 5026 taking food from civilians homes and personally took foodstuff from Abok IDP camp

text: The UPDF report, dated August 2004, supports the witnesses’ account, noting that the

text: 5027 LRA took animals, foodstuff and other household items from Abok.

text: Some LRA fighters also reported firing their weapons as they looted in Abok IDP camp.

text: P-0340 testified that the LRA members fired their guns and headed to the locations where

text: 5028 they were supposed to pick up food. Consistent with this account, P-0406 testified

text: that some LRA fighters fired guns while others looted, stating:

text: 5019 P-0286: T-131, p. 33, lines 13-18. 5020 P-0340: T-102, p. 38, line 23 – p. 39, line 1. See also D-0085: T-239, p. 23, lines 11-14. 5021 P-0340: T-102, p. 41, lines 1-3. See also T-103, p. 49, lines 22-23. 5022 P-0340: T-102, p. 40, lines 18-20. 5023 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 33, lines 8-14. 5024 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 34, lines 3-6, p. 35, lines 13-16. 5025 P-0252: T-87, p. 78, lines 19-22, p. 79, line 24 – p. 80, line 16, p. 81, lines 7-9; T-89, p. 40, lines 1-15. 5026 D-0085: T-239, p. 28, lines 2-5, p. 29, lines 12-15, p. 34, lines 7-14. 5027 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5028 P-0340: T-102, p. 40, lines 7-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 691/1077 4 February 2021

text: You know, when you line up and then you start firing, some people would be running to go and collect food items, others would just be firing their guns so that 5029 people would be able to loot some food items to go back with to the bush.

text: In line with the testimony that LRA fighters fired weapons as they looted, the Chamber

text: recalls witness testimony that often times the LRA were violent when demanding items

text: from civilians. The Chamber notes its discussion of the LRA’s behaviour when

text: 5030 demanding goods from civilians. In this context, the Chamber notes Dorcas Ayo’s

text: testimony that the rebels that entered her house during the attack all carried guns; they

text: 5031 asked her father for money and one of them began to beat him with the butt of a gun.

text: Dorcas Ayo testified that the rebel fighter was beating her father so much she thought he

text: 5032 would be killed.

text: 5033 Robson Oper testified that the rebels made him show them the shops in the camp. He

text: 5034 took them to the first shop and there was merchandise inside. The rebels gave him an

text: axe to break down the door and when it opened the rebels sent him in to get the items

text: 5035 they wanted. The rebels identified what was useful to them and items deemed useless

text: 5036 were abandoned. Robson Oper testified that the rebels moved on to the next shop and

text: 5037 after finding nothing in the shops, they beat him severely. They continued to beat him

text: 5038 despite his pleading. When they reached the next shop after that, the rebels told him

text: 5039 that if there were no items in that shop, they would kill him. Robson Oper testified

text: that when they reached the shop, there were items in that shop and the LRA fighters again

text: 5040 gave him an axe to break down the door and retrieve items. Robson Oper testified that

text: the LRA fighters looted cooking oil, biscuits, salt, sweets and other edible items from the

text: 5041 shops.

text: 5029 P-0406: T-155, p. 69, lines 4-7. 5030 See for example the discussion of the murder of Albino Okal and Justina Akullu. 5031 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 18. 5032 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 18. 5033 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 22-24. 5034 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 23-24. 5035 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, line 24 – p. 11, line 2. 5036 P-0286: T-131, p. 11, lines 2-4. 5037 P-0286: T-131, p. 11, lines 5-6. 5038 P-0286: T-131, p. 11, lines 5-10. 5039 P-0286: T-131, p. 11, lines 10-13. 5040 P-0286: T-131, p. 11, lines 13-15. 5041 P-0286: T-131, p. 17, lines 7-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 692/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that LRA fighter P-0054 testified that not much was looted from Abok IDP camp. P-0054 testified that nobody actually carried food from Abok because 5042 the situation was extremely chaotic. Given the volume of evidence to the contrary, the Chamber does not find the witness reliable in this regard. The Chamber finds it significant that he testified that he did not enter Abok IDP camp during the attack and 5043 stayed outside the camp. The Chamber does not imply that the witness was untruthful in this aspect of his testimony. Rather, given the circumstances, it is possible that the witness was sincere but not reliable as to what actually occurred in relation to what was taken from the camp by LRA fighters.

text: In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the LRA looted houses and shops in the trading centre during the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack.

text: LRA fighters set huts on fire in the camp, taking grass from burning thatched roofs to set other huts on fire. Several hundred civilian homes were burnt during the attack. Civilians’

text: food stocks were also destroyed.

text: The Chamber is convinced by the evidence showing that LRA fighters destroyed property in Abok IDP camp, set houses on fire and destroyed civilians’ household goods, including their food stocks. The Chamber finds that the evidence is clear that LRA fighters deliberately set fire to civilian dwellings.

text: In the intercepted radio communication, Dominic Ongwen himself says, talking of the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack: ‘we burnt everything that was there including all the 5045 huts even the camp and the barracks’. Further, the Chamber recalls the testimony of P-0406, an LRA fighter who participated in the Abok attack, and stated that the LRA 5046 deliberately burnt Abok IDP camp. The Chamber found his account credible and reliable. The Chamber particularly notes that P-0406 testified to personally setting two 5047 to three houses on fire in Abok.

text: 5042 P-0054: T-93, p. 35, lines 19-21. 5043 See P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 13-19, p. 35, lines 2-5. 5044 Para. 196 above. 5045 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0125-0127; P-0003: T-43, p. 33, line 19 – p. 38, line 19; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0259-0086, at 0089-0090; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0543-0545; P-0059: T-37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 20, line 15, p. 21, lines 12-21 and p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 18; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0383-0384; P-0440: T-40, p. 36, line 15 – p. 39, line 9. 5046 See P-0406: T-154, p. 68, line 8. 5047 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 70, lines 7-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 693/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0330 corroborates P-0406’s testimony,

text: 5048 testifying also that LRA fighters set houses on fire.

text: Camp residents also witnessed LRA fighters set houses on fire during the attack. Cyprian

text: Ayoo testified that the rebels would remove grass from one of the huts and put it on fire

text: 5049 and then torch other houses until the fire spread in the camp. Jacob Opio corroborates

text: this account, testifying that he saw rebels setting houses on fire using lit grass from one

text: 5050 house to the next. Similarly, Robson Oper testified that he saw the rebels set the

text: 5051 civilian houses on fire, saying that the LRA fighters would torch one house and then

text: 5052 go some distance to torch another. Robson Oper stated, ‘I saw the houses that were

text: 5053 being burnt. Nobody told me these things, I witnessed it personally’. Robson Oper

text: 5054 testified that the flames from the houses had ‘lightened up the place and it was clear’.

text: The Chamber notes that Robson Oper was able to identify an LRA fighter named Opio

text: 5055 as being among the fighters who torched the houses. Recalling its finding about

text: Robson Oper’s credibility, the Chamber considers that the other witnesses’ accounts of

text: the burning of Abok adequately corroborate his testimony and thus finds his account

text: credible and reliable on this point.

text: The Chamber also recalls Dorcas Ayo’s testimony that she saw the rebels setting houses

text: 5056 on fire after they had looted things. The Chamber notes that Dorcas Ayo testified that

text: the rebels used matches to light the fires and were setting houses on fire on both sides of

text: 5057 the road; the Chamber does not find this account inconsistent with the other witnesses’

text: accounts.

text: 5048 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 32, lines 6-7 and 15-21. 5049 P-0293: T-138, p. 23, line 18 – p. 24, line 3. 5050 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 26. 5051 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 8-10. See also P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28 (she too saw rebels setting houses on fire). 5052 P-0286: T-131, p. 18, lines 11-18. See also P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 70, lines 7-12 (the houses in the camp were very close together so he did not know if other houses also caught fire). 5053 P-0286: T-132, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 2. 5054 P-0286: T-131, p. 18, lines 11-15. See also T-132, p. 11, lines 8-13. 5055 P-0286: T-131, p. 18, line 21 – p. 19, line 15. 5056 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 20. 5057 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 694/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5058 Witnesses testified that the houses in the camp were close together. This proximity

text: 5059 caused other homes within the camp to catch fire.

text: It is clear from the evidence that the scale of the damage to homes in Abok was enormous.

text: 5060 LRA fighter P-0340 testified that many of the huts got burnt. He noted that as the

text: LRA fighters started retreating from the camp, they turned back and saw that there was

text: 5061 fire and that houses had been set on fire. Even after they had gone far, the fire was

text: 5062 still raging.

text: As to the number of homes that burnt in Abok, the Chamber is unable to determine the

text: exact number of homes that were destroyed; however, the evidence shows that the

text: destroyed homes numbered in the hundreds.

text: Camp official Cyprian Ayoo testified that it was difficult to estimate the exact number of

text: 5063 destroyed homes because things were very chaotic. He stated that about 200 houses

text: 5064 in the camp were not burnt but all the others were burnt. Another camp official,

text: Douglas Obwor, testified that all the houses on the southern side of the camp were

text: 5065 burnt. Similarly, camp resident Gwentorina Akite testified that when she returned to

text: the camp the day after the attack, the huts that had been there before had all been

text: 5066 destroyed, only houses with ‘iron sheets’ survived. Gwentorina Akite stated that she

text: could not estimate the number of huts; there were so many and on the side of the camp

text: 5067 where she was living, there were no huts left.

text: 5058 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 70, lines 7-12 (the houses in the camp were very close together so he did not know if other houses also caught fire); P-0293: T-139, p. 14, line 11 – p. 15, line 1 (houses in the camp were built very close together) 5059 P-0286: T-131, p. 18, lines 11-18 (because the houses were so close, when one started burning it would automatically burn the others); P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 40 (the rebels burnt many huts because the huts were built close together). 5060 P-0340: T-102, p. 53, lines 17-24. 5061 P-0340: T-102, p. 40, line 23 – p. 41, line 5. 5062 P-0340: T-102, p. 53, lines 17-24; T-103, p. 56, line 20-24. 5063 P-0293: T-138, p. 41, line 24 – p. 42, line 4. 5064 P-0293: T-138, p. 41, line 24 – p. 42, line 3. 5065 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 31. 5066 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 32. 5067 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 695/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that in the radio communication between Dominic Ongwen and other

text: LRA members intercepted by Ugandan government forces, Dominic Ongwen stated that

text: 5068 only 30 out of 600 houses were left unburnt in the attack.

text: Reports from the Ugandan police force, signed by P-0126, then a police officer with the

text: 5069 Ugandan police, also report on the number of homes burnt. An information report

text: from the Ugandan police, dated 10 June 2004, reported on ‘rebel activities. Yesterday

text: 09/06/2004 around 0300 HRS in Abok IDP camp… Rebels overran Amuka militia detach

text: 5070 and set ablaze over 380 huts...’. A subsequent report dated the next day, 11 June 2004,

text: 5071 reported on ‘656 huts set ablaze’.

text: An intelligence report by the UPDF, dated 20 June 2004, with a field report on the Abok

text: 5072 attack gave an update on the attack and listed ‘285 huts burnt’. The Chamber also

text: notes that a UPDF report, dated August 2004, stated that 385 huts were burnt by the LRA

text: 5073 during the Abok attack.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that these are authentic reports from the Ugandan government

text: created in the days and months after the Abok IDP camp attack. However, given the

text: limited information about their creation, the Chamber declines to rely on them as primary

text: evidence of the number of huts burnt in the camp. The Chamber does consider that these reports corroborate the witnesses’ testimonies and the intercepted radio communication,

text: that the LRA burnt several hundred huts in the course of the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: 5068 See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0124; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0542; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0381. See 9 June 2004 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0324. 5069 P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01, at paras 47-48. 5070 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0308. This report is authenticated in P-0126’s prior recorded testimony as a 10 June 2004 information report concerning LRA activities on 9 June 2004. P-0126 was a retired police officer of the Ugandan police force and he signed the report. See P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP- 0264-0002-R01, at para. 48. The Chamber is satisfied that the report is the authentic information signed by P- 0126 and reports on what the Ugandan police knew of the attack on 10 June 2004. 5071 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0307. This report is authenticated in P-0126’s prior recorded testimony as an 11 June 2004 human intelligence report concerning the events of the Abok IDP camp attack. P- 0126 was a Retired Police Officer of the Ugandan Police Force and he signed the report. See P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002-R01, at para. 47. The Chamber is satisfied that the report is the authentic intelligence report signed by P-0126 and reports on what the Ugandan police knew of the attack on 11 June 2004. 5072 10 June 2004 Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0016-0434, at page 0439. 5073 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 696/1077 4 February 2021

text: In light of the foregoing, the Chamber is utterly unconvinced by the speculation that ‘laser bullets’ during the exchange of gunfire between the parties caused the huts to be torched.

text: In addition to the burnt huts, the LRA attack also resulted in large destruction of civilian goods and foodstuff. The Chamber particularly notes the testimony of one of the camp’s leaders, Cyprian Ayoo, who testified that when he came out of his hiding place, he saw 5074 a lot of destruction. Cyprian Ayoo saw houses burnt and things such as foodstuffs and 5075 clothes scattered all over the place, as well as chickens and goats that had been 5076 killed. Other witnesses, including Douglas Obwor, Charles Amodo and Dorcas Ayo, corroborate Cyprian Ayoo’s account. Douglas Obwor testified that many goats that were tied to houses were burnt as were some bicycles – only a few things remained in the 5077 houses with iron roofs and some cows were shot. Charles Amodo testified that the items in his house, including his and his family’s clothes, were scattered and destroyed 5078 by LRA fighters. Similarly, Dorcas Ayo testified that after the attack, the camp was all burnt up; she saw that the goats which had been tied to the verandas had all been burnt 5079 and cows were lying on the ground shot.

text: Charles Amodo’s testimony corroborates the evidence on the scale of the destruction. Charles Amodo testified when he returned to the camp, around three months after the 5080 attack, there were a lot of changes: people did not have clothes, people had lost goats 5081 and chickens and many other things.

text: In the light of the above, the Chamber finds that the LRA burnt several hundred huts, thus destroying the home of civilians in Abok IDP camp. The LRA also destroyed civilian household goods, including food stocks.

text: In the course of the attack, LRA fighters killed civilians by shooting, burning and/or beating them. The attackers killed at least 28 civilian residents of the camp. In other

text: 5074 P-0293: T-138, p. 41, lines 12-16. 5075 P-0293: T-138, p. 41, lines 12-19. 5076 P-0293: T-138, p. 41, lines 21-23. 5077 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 31. 5078 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 10-11, p. 18, lines 3-13. 5079 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 30. 5080 P-0304: T-133, p. 24, line 24 – p. 25, line 5. 5081 P-0304: T-133, p. 37, lines 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 697/1077 4 February 2021 instances, killings were not fully carried out by the LRA fighters because of independent

text: circumstances.

text: Survivors returning the next morning found bodies strewn throughout the camp, including children. Some bodies were burnt or had the backs of their heads smashed, others had been shot. Dead bodies were found inside houses, at doorsteps and among the remains of burnt huts. These civilians were killed by LRA fighters. One of Dominic Ongwen’s subordinate commanders intruded into a house with over 10 inhabitants, forced several to carry looted goods and then closed the door and set fire to the house

text: with the remaining inhabitants inside.

text: The following persons were amongst those killed by the LRA in the course of the attack: Albino Okal, Justina Akullu, Hatari Anyima, D.P. Okello, Simon Okello, Alex Ogweng, Barikia Adonya, Fabio Ogweng and two of Hatari Anyima’s children (Daniel Okite and

text: Monica Ayugi) and Evelyn Akello.

text: LRA fighters also attempted to kill civilians in the camp. The following persons were amongst those the LRA attempted to kill within the camp: Jacob Opio, Cyprian Ogola

text: and Robson Oper.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that during the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok,

text: LRA fighters specifically targeted civilians and killed them. On some occasions, murders

text: were not fully carried out because of independent circumstances. LRA fighters and camp

text: residents provided credible and consistent evidence in this regard.

text: P-0406, one of Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia fighters, testified that the LRA burnt down 5086 occupied houses during the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack. P-0406 testified that 5087 during the attack, LRA fighters went to collect food at a civilian’s house. P-0406 and

text: other LRA fighters came to this house and found approximately 10 or more people in the 5088 house. When the people refused to carry food for the LRA as requested, the LRA beat 5089 them with the butts of their guns at the order of the commander.

text: 5090 P-0406 testified that some of the people then came out and carried items for the LRA.

text: As to the rest of the people, the commander bolted the door of the house from the outside

text: 5082 Para. 197 above. 5083 Para. 197 above. 5084 Para. 198 above. 5085 Para. 199 above. 5086 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 68, lines 18 – p. 72, line 19. 5087 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 68, lines 19-24. 5088 P-0406: T-154, p. 70, lines 19-25. 5089 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 68, line 19 – p. 69, line 10 and p. 70, lines 19-25. 5090 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 71, lines 9-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 698/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5091 and set the house on fire with the people still inside. P-0406 testified that he did not

text: know whether the people who were in the house died or whether they were able to come 5092 out and flee. The Chamber found P-0406’s accounts of the actions of the LRA at this

text: house graphically detailed, clear and consistent. The Chamber is of the view that the

text: people in the houses were at least the victims of an attempted killing by LRA fighters.

text: 5093 P-0406 testified that the LRA fighters then left and went to another hut. P-0406

text: testified that there were a number of people within that house, a mixture of children and 5094 adults. Regarding the events at this house, P-0406 also testified ‘[t]he goat was

text: outside the house and people were in the house. And the house was set on fire. Everything 5095 burnt down, including the goat.’ The Chamber also found P-0406’s accounts of the

text: actions of the LRA at this house graphically detailed, clear and consistent. The Chamber

text: is of the view that the people in this house were killed by LRA fighters.

text: P-0330, also a fighter in Dominic Ongwen’s Sinia brigade, provides evidence consistent

text: with and corroborative of P-0406’s account that LRA fighters burnt people in their 5096 homes. P-0330 testified that some civilians died because they were burnt in their 5097 houses by the LRA fighters. P-0330 testified about why people stayed in their huts

text: when the huts were set on fire:

text: Sometimes the houses are locked, usually locked from the outside. Because once we decide to go and attack a camp, then we have to, we have to do the worst, commit the worst atrocities. Sometimes the houses are burnt starting from the door. And the person is also standing at the door, the person who set the house on fire is 5098 standing at the door until the whole house burns down.

text: P-0330 also offers evidence that the LRA targeted civilians in Abok IDP camp and killed

text: them. P-0330 testified that a seasoned LRA fighter 5099 gave an order to all soldiers to kill civilians and burn huts. According to P-0330, LRA

text: fighters stabbed civilians with bayonets and also used axes they got from the village to

text: 5091 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 71, lines 9-19. 5092 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 70, lines 1-4. 5093 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 71, lines 20-22. 5094 P-0406: T-154, p. 72, lines 10-15. 5095 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 72, lines 5-19. 5096 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 32, lines 22-24. 5097 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 32, lines 17-24. 5098 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 33, lines 20-25. 5099 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 699/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5100 beat people. The Chamber notes that P-0330

text: 5101 . P-0330 testified that many civilians were killed in the Abok 5102 centre. The Chamber finds this account detailed, coherent and consistent with other 5103 evidence discussed here about the LRA’s behaviour during their attack on Abok. As

text: such, the Chamber finds that P-0330’s testimony here is credible evidence that LRA fighters targeted civilians for killing.

text: Other witnesses also testified that the LRA killed civilians in Abok by burning, and

text: through other means. LDU officer D-0065 testified about the LRA’s actions during the attack:

text: [The LRA] had already burnt houses in the camp. Some people were being pushed in the fire that was burning; they would be shot and pushed in the fire. Others were being shot from the houses, others were abducted when – [the LRA] took them alive, but they were killed on the way. Others were abducted and taken into the 5104 bush and have never returned up to now.

text: Similarly, one of the camp’s leaders, Cyprian Ayoo, testified about how LRA fighters

text: killed people in the camp during the attack:

text: People were killed in various manners. Others were shot with a gun. Some of them were children who were abandoned in the house. They were burnt in the house. Some were battered on their heads with sticks. Some were cut with machetes … [W]hen you find a gun hole or a bullet hole or a number of bullet holes on a person, a small bullet hole, then you confirm that the person has been shot, has died from gunshot wounds. If you find somebody who has been burned or – and the person has been burned to death, that means that they were burned by fire. If you find somebody who has been chopped, sometimes the places are swollen, that means that the person has been beaten. And that’s how we determined the manner in which the person died. We decided that such and such a person died by being burnt because they were burnt, or being by gunshot wound because we found bullet holes, or by being beaten because their bodies were swollen…If the person had been chopped, then perhaps the person has been beaten on the skull and then the skull has been shattered, then it’s not a machete. Because sometimes the person is

text: 5100 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 7, p. 36, lines 10-17. 5101 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 36, lines 12-16. 5102 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 36, lines 18-21. 5103 Contrary to the Defence submission at para. 451 of the Defence Closing Brief, the Chamber is of the view that the fact that P-0330 only mentions this seasoned soldier once in his testimony is insignificant and does not undermine the credibility of the testimony. It is understandable and reasonable that P-0330, a low ranking LRA fighter, received orders mid-fight from a higher ranking fighter other than Dominic Ongwen or Kalalang. 5104 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 15-20 and p. 22, lines 11-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 700/1077 4 February 2021 clubbed on the skull and the skull shatters. There are some people who were beaten 5105 and their arms were broken.

text: The morning after the attack, camp residents found the bodies of the dead. These

text: residents who were witnesses before this court spoke of the many persons killed in Abok.

text: Cyprian Ogola testified that the morning after the attack, he and other camp officials

text: 5106 walked through the camp and found many dead bodies; children, women and men.

text: Some of the dead bodies were inside the houses, others were on the doorsteps as they

text: 5107 tried to run and others were in the remains of burnt huts. Tommy Obote’s testimony

text: corroborates this account; he stated that when he came to the camp the day after the attack,

text: 5108 he saw burnt huts and dead bodies. Similarly, Jacob Opio testified that when he came

text: out of hiding after the attack, he saw people who had been burnt or shot to death; some

text: 5109 people had been burnt to death in their houses. Robson Oper testified that when he

text: returned from the bush, he heard of a woman who was fleeing with her child when the

text: 5110 child entered a house and was burnt there. The child’s body was found the morning

text: 5111 after the attack. Dorcas Ayo testified to seeing the place where the government

text: 5112 soldiers had gathered the dead bodies after the attack. Among the dead, Dorcas Ayo

text: saw three people who had been hit on the head – she could see that the backs of their

text: 5113 heads were smashed. P-0280 testified that a three year old child was killed during the

text: 5114 Abok attack. Gwentorina Akite testified that among the persons injured in Abok she

text: 5115 saw a man who had been shot, he later died.

text: Douglas Obwor testified that three children were burnt in a grass thatched hut near his

text: 5116 home; the children were around two, three and four years old. Douglas Obwor also

text: testified that he and the others could see the entry and exit wounds of the bullet holes in

text: 5105 P-0293: T-138, p. 26, line 23 – p. 27, line 1, p. 39, lines 11-19, p. 39, line 23 – p. 40, line 1. 5106 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 36-37. 5107 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 37. 5108 D-0084: T-235, p. 29, lines 20-21. D-0084 testified that he personally saw about 20 dead bodies, and all had died from gunshots (T-235, p. 29, lines 21-23, p. 36, lines 20-22). He also testified that one of his relatives was burnt during the attack on the camp (D-0084: T-235, p. 36, lines 20-25). 5109 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 29. 5110 P-0286: T-131, p. 70, lines 3-7. 5111 P-0286: T-131, p. 70, lines 3-7. 5112 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 29. 5113 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 26. 5114 P-0280: T-83, p. 78, line 25 – p. 79, line 10. 5115 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 33. 5116 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 28; P-0306: T-130, p. 7, line 6 – p. 8, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 701/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5117 the bodies of many of the dead. Douglas Obwor testified that among the people shot and killed, he saw ‘one old man who was shot in the chest and he died. There was also another lady who was shot in the head and the bullet came through the back of her head. People were shot in different parts of the bodies […] [t]here was a boy who was shot in 5118 the stomach’.

text: The Chamber also recalls P-0280’s testimony that after being abducted by the LRA, he heard two LRA fighters quarrelling amongst themselves because the LRA had killed civilians in Abok and the LRA actually needed civilians alive to carry the items taken 5119 from Abok.

text: The Chamber found the accounts of the LRA fighters about the killings committed by the LRA credible, consistent and mutually corroborative. Other witnesses from the camp further corroborate these accounts and provide evidence that LRA fighters killed persons within the camp. The Chamber specifically notes the deaths of persons by burning or being beaten to death. The evidence is clear that the LRA were the only group beating people or burning them during the attack. The only other armed group in Abok, the government soldiers, quickly fled the centre of the camp. It would be mere speculation without any foundation in evidence to theorize that these fleeing soldiers stopped to beat or burn the very citizens they had been protecting in the days and months prior to the attack. In light of the aforementioned evidence, the Chamber concludes that these deaths were caused by LRA fighters.

text: The Chamber also finds that the evidence shows that the LRA were not able to carry out certain murders because of independent circumstances. The evidence shows that LRA fighters indiscriminately fired on civilians after the government soldiers at the camp centre had been defeated and fled. The Chamber recalls Cyprian Ogola and Robson Oper’s accounts discussed below, other witnesses provide evidence which corroborates these accounts of the LRA shooting at civilians in the course of the attack. Gwentorina Akite testified that she witnessed LRA fighters shooting a young boy named Ebong in 5120 the arm while he was hiding under a bed during the attack. In what may be in reference

text: 5117 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 28. 5118 P-0306: T-130, p. 66, line 23 – p. 67, line 4. 5119 P-0280: T-84, p. 45, line 21 – p. 46, line 4. 5120 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at paras 23, 35.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 702/1077 4 February 2021 to the same young boy, Charles Amodo (Gwentorina Akite’s close relative) testified that

text: 5121 his nephew, Ronald Ekut, was shot in the arm during the attack.

text: P-0281 also testified that she saw a man, who had been shot in the stomach, at the hospital

text: – she was told that the man was shot just before the attack on the camp because he had

text: 5122 seen the rebels hiding in the swamp. Similarly, D-0065 testified that at the start of the

text: attack, LRA rebels shot a man in the stomach, ‘his intestines were outside, but he ran

text: 5123 away.’

text: 5124 Government soldiers gathered the injured and took them to the Ngai health centre.

text: 5125 The people who were in critical condition were taken to Atapara hospital. Jacob Opio

text: testified that some of the injured had cuts on their heads and others had gunshot wounds

text: 5126 in their stomach and arms. Similarly, Cyprian Ayoo testified that some people

text: sustained injuries after being shot and that people with injuries were taken to the

text: 5127 hospital. The Chamber considers these testimonies credible evidence of the severity

text: of the injuries suffered by civilians as a result of the LRA’s behaviour in the course of

text: the Abok IDP camp attack.

text: In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber is convinced by the evidence and finds that

text: many unidentified persons were killed by the LRA in the course of the 8 June 2004 Abok

text: IDP camp attack. The Chamber is also convinced that the LRA attempted to kill other

text: civilians on some occasions during the attack and failed because of independent

text: circumstances.

text: The evidence before the Chamber does not support the suggestion that civilians were

text: killed during crossfire between the government forces and the rebels or that government

text: 5128 forces shot indiscriminately into the camp and killed civilians. The Chamber recalls

text: 5121 P-0304: T-133, p. 45, lines 15-25. 5122 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 32. 5123 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 1-10. 5124 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 30. 5125 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 31. 5126 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 30. 5127 P-0293: T-138, p. 42, lines 5-9. 5128 The Chamber does not accept the Defence submission in D-0084: T-235, p. 32, lines 15-22 (stating ‘one of the boys told [D-0084] that it was difficult to explain but they understood that, when the commander fled, the foot soldiers were shooting indiscriminately in the camp and that is what caused a lot of injuries in the camp […] ‘because they had no leadership, the foot soldiers were shooting anyhowly’). The Chamber understands D-0084’s reference to ‘one of the boys’ to be a reference to a UPDF soldier who also came to Abok after the attack. Thus,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 703/1077 4 February 2021 the above discussion on the course of the LRA’s attack on Abok IDP camp. Indeed, some

text: witnesses testified to gunfire between the government soldiers and the LRA fighters 5129 when the attack began. However, witnesses reported that either by the time the LRA

text: entered the camp or soon after, the government soldiers who were guarding the camp 5130 were already fleeing or had already fled. P-0280 testified that in the middle of the

text: camp, there was no more exchange because:

text: [W]hen the [LRA fighters] entered the camp, the soldiers who were in the camp were already fleeing because they had no bullets […] no one was shooting at [the 5131 rebels], but for the civilians [the rebels] would aim their guns at [them]’.

text: The evidence provided by D-0065 also undercuts any notion that civilians were killed in

text: crossfire between government soldiers and the LRA or by government soldiers shooting

text: indiscriminately. D-0065 testified to the government soldiers’ shortage of bullets, 5132 testifying that they generally had three to six bullets. This shortage of bullets implies

text: that the government soldiers would not have been given to indiscriminate shooting at

text: civilians. Further, D-0065 testified to the manner of death of the civilians of Abok,

text: indicating that the LRA pushed people ‘in the fire that was burning; [people] would be 5133 shot and pushed in the fire’, shot others in their houses and killed abductees. The

text: Chamber found the witness’s account credible, reliable and supported by the other

text: evidence discussed above.

text: There is no evidence that witnesses to the attack were cowered into avoiding the truth

text: that government soldiers perpetuated the attack on Abok IDP camp. The Chamber first

text: recalls its views on the lack of credibility of Sam Ojede, the witness testifying to an attack

text: D-0084 testified about a statement he heard from someone who heard it from someone else. This testimony is tenuous and even the statement itself is attenuated by language such as ‘difficult to explain but’. In this context, the Chamber recalls its view of the reliability of D-0084’s account. There is no reliable evidence corroborating his attenuated account of the course of the Abok attack. Further, as discussed in this section, there is ample and credible evidence that the LRA killed and attempted to kill civilians at Abok IDP camp during the 8 June 2004 attack. 5129 See section IV.C.9.iv, the Chamber’s discussion of the course of the attack. 5130 P-0280: T-84, p. 44, lines 10-16. Also see for the Chamber’s finding in this regard above. 5131 P-0280: T-84, p. 44, lines 10-19. See also P-0306: T-130, p. 55, lines 8-20 (based on the information that he received as the camp leader, he did not believe that the exchange of gunfire or the crossfire caused the deaths; he was informed that people were being shot directly); P-0293: T-139, p. 20, line 18 – p. 21, line 11 (the soldiers who were defeated fled the camp and instructed the rest of the people to flee and he did not know if they returned to come and fight again. P-0293 also said ‘when you are defeated and you are being pursued, I don’t know how you can turn back and come and keep on shooting at people’). 5132 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, 13-14, p. 22, lines 21 – p. 23, line 4. 5133 D-0065: T-211, p. 21, lines 16-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 704/1077 4 February 2021 on the camp by government soldiers and of Kenneth Opiyo, who testified to government soldiers shooting and causing the burning of the camp while fighting off the LRA. These witnesses were unreliable and not credible and their evidence cannot be relied upon by 5134 this Chamber. Further, the Chamber notes that these witnesses’ contention is not borne out by the other evidence in these proceedings discussed in detail above. Additionally, the government soldiers had no discernible motive for suddenly attacking the civilians they were protecting in the days and months prior to 8 June 2004.

text: The Chamber concludes that the ample credible and reliable testimony discussed above does not suggest that the civilians killed in Abok IDP camp were killed by crossfire, by indiscriminate fire of government forces, or because of a deliberate attack by the government forces. LRA fighters admit to killing civilians and witnesses saw LRA fighters killing civilians. Indeed, the above evidence shows that the LRA fighters were largely left to their own devices in Abok IDP camp. They personally beat, shot and burnt civilians in their homes.

text: The evidence is clear that the deaths in Abok IDP camp were directly related to the LRA. The Chamber has found many witnesses with credible, first-hand accounts of what happened at Abok – none ever mentioned seeing a government soldier kill a camp resident, even by accident. Had such a thing happened during an attack witnessed by so many, it would have been mentioned. In the absence of any believable evidence indicating that these civilians died as a result of crossfire, the Chamber concludes this is unreasonable speculation. The Chamber discusses the evidence related to the LRA’s killing and attempted killing of specific individuals within the camp.

text: Albino Okal and Justina Akullu: Jacob Opio testified that the morning after the attack 5135 he saw the dead bodies of his uncle, Albino Okal, and his uncle’s wife, Justina Akullu. 5136 Jacob Opio testified that the two were shot and killed in their house by the LRA. Jacob Opio testified that ‘Okal’s sister-in-law’ was in the house with the deceased and survived

text: 5134 See IV.B.2.ii.b.xxxv and IV.B.2.v.b.iv, the Chamber’s discussion of the testimony of these witnesses. 5135 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24. 5136 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 705/1077 4 February 2021

text: the attack. Jacob Opio described what he was told about the attack: ‘[She] told us that

text: when the rebels got into the house, they saw my uncle who was a bit fat and asked him

text: for money. They assumed because he was fat that he was a rich man. He did not have

text: any money so they shot him.’ The Chamber finds Jacob Opio’s testimony about the

text: death of Albino Okal and Justina Akullu credible; it was detailed and consistent with

text: other testimony. In this context, the Chamber also notes Gwentorina Akite’s testimony

text: that a man named Ewor Eriyazali Okal and his wife, Maria Amuge, were killed during

text: the attack. While the Chamber notes the divergence in the names of the deceased, the Chamber notes the similarities in the witnesses’ account, the last name of ‘Okal’, as well

text: as Gwentorina Akite’s testimony that Ewor Eriyazali Okal also had another name which

text: she could not remember. The Chamber considers that Gwentorina Akite’s testimony

text: is consistent with Jacob Opio’s evidence.

text: Further, the Chamber recalls that both Cyprian Ayoo and Douglas Obwor name Albino

text: Okal on their lists of persons killed during the 8 June 2004 attack, as does the UPDF

text: report. Cyprian Ayoo authenticated his list of deceased persons as one he created

text: immediately after the 8 June 2004 attack to record the persons found dead after the

text: attack. Similarly, Douglas Obwor authenticated another list of persons found dead

text: after the 8 June 2004 attack which he created immediately after the attack. In his list

text: of persons found dead after the attack, Cyprian Ayoo specifies that Albino Okal was

text: 5137 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24. 5138 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24. 5139 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. 5140 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. 5141 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201; P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271; UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5142 P-0293: T-138, p. 38, line 12 – p. 40, line 1 and p. 80, lines 13-20. See P-0293: T-138, p. 26, line 21 – p. 27, line 4, p. 33, line 22 – p. 34, line 7, p. 38, line 15 – p. 39, line 7, p. 40, lines 2-4 and p. 80, lines 13-20; T-139, p. 11, lines 7-18 (P-0293 explained that the morning of the attack, they started removing the bodies after Engola Okello arrived at the camp. P-0293 and a group of others identified the bodies, and he wrote a list of persons killed in Abok stating the manner in which they were killed. The list he compiled was based on the information that he received at the time. Because he did not know everyone who died and some people were burnt beyond recognition, P-0293 would ask people who lived in the area or with the deceased to identify the bodies). The Chamber is of the view that the list was created by P-0293 in the immediate aftermath of the attack. 5143 P-0306: T-130, p. 8, line 16 – p. 9, line 2. See P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 28; T- 130, p. 7, lines 16-21, p. 8, line 8 – p. 9, line 2 (P-0306 stated that after returning in the morning, people were found that had been shot dead. P-0306 was among the people who moved around to try and record the numbers of persons who were missing and the dead. He and the others ‘started collecting the dead bodies, put them together, and also to assess the damage that was caused. This included burning of houses, cattle were injured by bullets, and also items that were looted in the shops’. In the course of moving around together with the people to collect the dead bodies, they would ‘find, identify a person, a dead person and then we would get the name’). The Chamber is of the view that the list was created by P-0309 in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 706/1077 4 February 2021

text: killed by being ‘gunned’. Cyprian Ayoo lists Justina Akullo on the list of the dead and

text: specifies that she was also killed by being ‘gunned’. Douglas Obwor names Jasimta-

text: 5146 5147

text: Okal Akullu on his list of persons killed. The UPDF report lists Jasita Okal. Given

text: the overwhelming similarities in the names listed, the Chamber is of the view that the

text: evidence references the same person, whom the Chamber identifies as Justina Akullu.

text: Douglas Obwor’s testimony provides further corroboration of the accounts of the deaths

text: of Albino Okal and Justina Akullu. Douglas Obwor testified that the two lived next to

text: his father and that his father heard them being shot and also heard someone talking,

text: asking them ‘why are you still in the house’. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber

text: finds that Albino Okal and Justina Akullu were shot and killed in their home by LRA

text: fighters during the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: Hatari Anyima: The Chamber notes that several witnesses testified in relation to the

text: death of persons who had tried to hide in the latrine pit and were shot and killed by LRA

text: 5149 5150

text: soldiers, identifying D.P. Okello and Hatari Anyima. Regarding the identification

text: of Hatari Anyima as one of the persons killed near the latrine pit, P-0280 testified that

text: while fleeing from the LRA, he witnessed LRA fighters order Hatari Anyima out of the

text: latrine pit where he was hiding. P-0280 testified that after coming out of the ditch,

text: Hatari Anyima was immediately shot and killed by LRA fighters. Other witnesses

text: corroborate P-0280’s account of the death of Hatari Anyima. The Chamber notes

text: some discrepancies in the name the witnesses refer to. A Raymond Anyima is named in

text: 5144 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5145 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5146 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. 5147 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5148 P-0306: T-130, p. 55, lines 15-18. The Chamber notes that P-0306 refers to Alvino Okul and his wife Jacinta Okulu. Noting the use of phonetic spellings in transcripts of the proceedings as well as the Chamber’s determination above, the Chamber is convinced that P-0306 is referring to Albino Okal and Justina Akullu. 5149 P-0279, P-0280, P-0282, P-0284, P-0293, P-0304 and P-0306. 5150 The Chamber notes that P-0280 testified that Simon Okello and Hatari Anyima were killed by LRA soldiers in the latrine pit. See P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25; T-83, p. 51, lines 7-8, p. 54, lines 4, lines 10-19. 5151 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, line 14 – p. 44, line 7; T-83, p. 50, lines 2-23. 5152 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25; T-83, p. 51, lines 7-8, p. 54, lines 4-7, lines 10-13. 5153 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 37-38 (after the attack, he saw the dead bodies of two persons who had tried to hide in a latrine pit and were shot inside the latrine. According to the witness, David Peter Okello and Raymond Anyima were the two shot dead inside the latrine pit. P-0284 could tell they had been shot because he saw the bullet wounds. Raymond Anyima was shot in the back and it came through the stomach); P-0293: T-139, p. 17, lines 7-12 (David Okello and Raymond Anyima were hiding in the pits when they were pulled out and shot); P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. See also P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 29 (Jacob Opio saw the bodies of ‘DP Okello’ and Hatari Anyima).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 707/1077 4 February 2021

text: Cyprian Ayoo and Douglas Obwor’s lists of the deceased and referenced in Cyprian

text: Ogola and Cyprian Ayoo’s testimony about the persons whose dead bodies were found

text: 5154 in the latrine pit. Further, the UPDF Report lists Raimond Anyima among the

text: 5155 deceased. Cyprian Ayoo’s list of deceased persons specifies that Raymond Anyima

text: 5156 was killed by being ‘gunned’. Charles Amodo testified that a close family member

text: 5157 ‘Anyim Hatari’ was killed during the attack. Similarly, Gwentorina Akite, a close

text: relative of Charles Amodo, testified that people in the camp told her that ‘Anyima Atari’

text: 5158 was removed from the latrine pit and shot dead. Based on the overwhelming

text: similarities in the description of the manner and scenario in which the deceased died and

text: the fact that they all refer to a person with a last name akin to Anyima, the Chamber is of

text: the view that the evidence refers to the same person, Hatari Anyima. In light of the

text: credible and consistent testimonies of the witnesses and corroborating documentary

text: evidence, the Chamber considers that Hatari Anyima was shot and killed by the LRA

text: during the Abok attack.

text: D.P. Okello: As to identifying persons killed alongside Hatari Anyima, several witnesses

text: 5159 testified that D.P. Okello was also killed at the latrine. Cyprian Ayoo testified that in

text: the aftermath of the attack he was told that David Okello was hiding in the pits and was

text: 5160 pulled out and shot by the LRA. Similarly, Cyprian Ogola testified that after the attack,

text: he saw the dead body of David Peter Okello; he had a bullet wound on his waist and

text: 5161 side. Cyprian Ayoo’s list of persons killed during the 8 June 2004 attack corroborates

text: 5162 these accounts, stating that David Peter Okello was killed by being ‘gunned’.

text: 5154 See P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 38; P-0293: T-139, p. 17, lines 4-12; P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201; P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. 5155 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5156 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5157 P-0304: T-133, p. 37, lines 17-21. 5158 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. 5159 The Chamber notes that the evidence refers to ‘D.P.’/ ‘DP’, ‘David Peter’, ‘Peter’ or ‘David’ Okello. See P- 0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 37; P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201; P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271; UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037- 0153, at 0177. The Chamber considers it self-evident that the references are to the same person, whom the Chamber refers to as D.P. Okello. 5160 P-0293: T-139, p. 17, lines 4-12. 5161 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at paras 37-38. See also P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261- 0246-R01, at para. 29 (Jacob Opio saw the bodies of DP Okello and Hatari Anyima). 5162 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. The Chamber notes some slight discrepancies in the name the witnesses refer to. For example, the camp officials, Cyprian Ogola, Cyprian

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 708/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5163 Similarly, Douglas Obwor’s list states that D.P. Okello was among the persons killed.

text: The UPDF reports also lists David Okello among the persons killed during the

text: 5164 account. The Chamber notes that P-0280 testified that D.P. Okello was killed during

text: 5165 the Abok attack. Indeed, P-0280 testified that he saw D.P. Okello’s grave after he

text: 5166 returned to the camp. However, during his detailed description of witnessing the

text: killings at the latrine, the witness does not name D.P. Okello. The Chamber is of the view

text: that had P-0280 seen D.P. Okello killed by LRA soldiers in or near the latrine pit, he

text: would have discussed it during his testimony. In the context of the evidence given, the

text: 5167 Chamber considers that P-0280 references the deaths of two other separate persons.

text: The Chamber notes that it found P-0280’s testimony generally credible, rich in detail,

text: specific, coherent and internally consistent. However, the Chamber is convinced by the

text: consistent, mutually corroborative and credible evidence of the other witnesses who

text: testified that D.P. Okello was another person killed in or near the latrine pit by the LRA.

text: In light of the witnesses’ overlapping testimony and the documentary evidence, the

text: Chamber concludes that D.P. Okello was shot and killed by the LRA during the 8 June

text: 2004 Abok attack.

text: Simon Okello: The Chamber recalls that P-0280 testified to witnessing the killing of

text: Simon Okello, who he stated was ordered from the latrine pit and shot and killed by the

text: 5168 LRA. P-0280 testified that although Simon Okello was a UPDF soldier, he was on

text: 5169 leave, wearing civilian clothes and identified himself as a civilian. The Chamber finds

text: P-0280’s account of Simon Okello’s death detailed, comprehensive and internally

text: consistent. The Chamber is convinced of the credibility of his account. Further, along

text: 5170 with the UPDF Report, Douglas Obwor provides corroborative evidence that Simon

text: Ayoo and Douglas Obwor identified David Peter Okello, D.P. Okello or Peter Okello respectively. P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 37; P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5163 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. 5164 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. Given the great similarities in the names, the Chamber considers it self-evident that the references are to the same person, whom the Chamber refers to as D.P. Okello. 5165 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 78, line 24 – p. 79, line 10. 5166 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 78, line 24 – p. 79, line 10. 5167 Simon Okello and Hatari Anyima. 5168 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25, p. 50, line 3 – p. 51, line 8, p. 54, lines 4-19; T-84, p. 45, lines 15- 21. 5169 P-0280: T-83, p. 50, lines 15-18; T-84, p. 40, lines 11-21. 5170 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. The report lists Simon Okello on the list of the deceased.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 709/1077 4 February 2021

text: Okello was killed during the attack in his identification of Simon Okello on his list of

text: 5171 persons killed in the 8 June 2004 Abok attack. The Chamber considers that Cyprian

text: Ayoo’s lack of reference to ‘Simon’ on his list of persons killed does not undermine the

text: 5172 Chamber’s conclusion. In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that Simon

text: Okello was killed by the LRA during the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack.

text: Alex Ogweng: P-0280 testified that he witnessed the LRA killed Alex Ogweng on 8 June

text: 5173 2004. P-0280 testified that Alex Ogweng was among the persons hiding in the latrine

text: 5174 5175 pit. P-0280 testified that LRA fighters ordered Alex Ogweng out of the ditch. LRA

text: fighters walked with Alex Ogweng for a short distance and then forced him to lie down

text: 5176 and shot him while he was facedown. The Chamber also recalls Douglas Obwor’s

text: hearsay evidence about the death of a person called Nelson Ogweng. Douglas Obwor

text: testified that he heard from a woman ‘Filda Anyima’ about bodies recovered in the

text: 5177 latrine. Douglas Obwor testified that Filda Anyima said that Nelson Ogweng had hid

text: 5178 with her in the latrine before he was taken by the rebels to lead them to the barracks.

text: Douglas Obwor testified that according to Filda Anyima, Nelson Ogweng had returned

text: to the latrine to seek help after being shot by the LRA near the barracks and died by the

text: 5179 latrine. The Chamber recalls P-0280’s testimony that Hatari Anyima’s wife was

text: 5180 among the people hiding in the latrine, and the presence of Filda Anyima in this same

text: latrine is consistent with this evidence. Given the similarities in the names, the Chamber

text: considers it possible that Nelson Ogweng and Alex Ogweng is the same person.

text: 5181 The Chamber is of the view that had

text: 5171 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271; UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5172 See P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. The Chamber notes that Cyprian Ayoo’s list of persons killed refers to David Peter Okello, Ewoo Okello and Olem Okello, stating that all three were killed by being ‘gunned’. 5173 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25; P-0280: T-83, p. 50, line 6 – p. 51, line 8. See T-84, p. 45, lines 19- 21. 5174 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 6-9. 5175 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 6-9. 5176 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, line 8, p. 54, lines 16-19; T-84, p. 9, line 8-17, p. 10, lines 1-2. 5177 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 30. 5178 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 30. 5179 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 30. 5180 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25. 5181

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 710/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0280 seen Alex Ogweng go with the LRA to the barracks, he would have said so. The

text: Chamber also notes that Filda Anyima was not called as a witness in the trial. Further,

text: Douglas Obwor provided his testimony about Nelson Ogweng in his statement

text: introduced under Rule 68(3) and was not questioned about this death during his in-court

text: testimony. In light of the paucity of the information about Nelson Ogweng, the Chamber

text: puts more weight on P-0280’s testimony and makes no finding about Nelson Ogweng.

text: The Chamber also finds that the UPDF report is corroborative evidence that Alex

text: 5182 Ogweng was killed during the 8 June 2004 attack. Douglas Obwor also provides

text: corroborative evidence in his identification of Alex Ogweng on his list of persons killed

text: 5183 during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack. The Chamber considers that Cyprian Ayoo’s

text: failure to mention Alex Ogweng on his list of deceased persons does not undermine its

text: 5184 conclusion that Alex Ogweng was killed in the Abok attack. In light of the foregoing,

text: the Chamber finds that the LRA shot and killed Alex Ogweng during the 8 June 2004

text: Abok IDP camp attack.

text: Barikia Adonya: Charles Amodo testified that his close family member Barikia Adonya

text: 5185 was killed during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack. Regarding Barikia Adonya, the

text: Chamber notes that Douglas Obwor names a Barikia Adonyo on his lists of persons killed

text: 5186 during the 8 June 2004 attack, as does the UPDF report, while on his list, Cyprian

text: 5187 Ayoo names Barakia Adonyo. Similarly Jacob Opio testified about the death of

text: 5188 ‘Adonyo’. Given the great similarities in the names, the Chamber considers that all

text: name the same person, whom the Chamber refers to as Barikia Adonya. Cyprian Ayoo

text: 5189 states that Barikia Adonya was killed by being ‘gunned’. In testimony consistent with

text: this account, Jacob Opio testified that he was told by his wife that an elderly person called

text: 5190 ‘Adonyo’ was shot and burnt in his own house. Jacob Opio testified that he saw the

text: 5182 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. The UPDF report lists Alex Ogwen, age 18 years old, among the persons killed at Abok IDP camp. Noting the overwhelming similarities in the names, the Chamber concludes that this is a reference to Alex Ongweng. 5183 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. 5184 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5185 P-0304: T-133, p. 37, lines 17-21. 5186 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271; UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5187 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5188 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24. The Chamber notes that the UPDF report lists ‘Barikia Adonyo’ as 56 years old. UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. This is consistent with Jacob Opio’s characterisation. 5189 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5190 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 711/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5191 dead body the day after the attack. The context of Jacob Opio’s testimony makes it clear to the Chamber that the victim was killed by the LRA. In light of the consistent, corroborative and credible evidence before the Chamber, the Chamber finds that the LRA shot and killed Barikia Adonya during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack.

text: Fabio Ogweng: Cyprian Ayoo testified that his father, Fabio Ogweng, was killed during 5192 the 8 June 2004 attack. Cyprian Ayoo testified that Fabio Ogweng was clubbed on 5193 the skull and his brain spilled out. Cyprian Ayoo’s list of killed persons he prepared just after the 8 June 2004 Abok attack is consistent with his testimony. He lists Fabio Ogweng among the deceased and specifies that Fabio Ogweng was killed by being 5194 beaten. The Defence challenges Cyprian Ayoo’s account, recalling Douglas Obwor’s testimony that the father of the former Camp Leader was killed in 2003 going back to his 5195 village looking for maize. Cyprian Ayoo stood by his testimony and his account of 5196 Fabio Ogweng’s death. Given the Defence’s implication, the Chamber finds it significant that the list created by Douglas Obwor soon after the attack lists Phobio 5197 Ogweng among the dead. Given the overwhelming similarities between the names, the Chamber finds that they refer to the same person. As discussed above, the Chamber 5198 found Cyprian Ayoo to be a credible and reliable witness. The Chamber generally found Cyprian Ayoo’s account of Fabio Ogweng’s death credible. Further, the two camp’s leaders’ lists of the deceased further support Cyprian Ayoo’s account of Fabio Ogweng’s death on 8 June 2004. The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that Fabio Ogweng was beaten and killed during the attack on Abok IDP camp on 8 June 2004. The Chamber is also convinced that Fabio Ogweng was killed by the LRA. The Chamber notes that he was killed by being beaten during the attack. There is no evidence that anyone other than the LRA killed persons by beating them during the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp. There is no evidence, or even suggestion, that government soldiers, who were the only other armed forces present in Abok IDP camp at any time

text: 5191 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 29. 5192 P-0293: T-138, p. 40, lines 5-13. 5193 P-0293: T-138, p. 40, lines 5-13. See P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 20. 5194 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. See P-0293: T-138, p. 40, lines 5-13. 5195 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 20. 5196 P-0293: T-139, p. 28, lines 14-18. 5197 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. See P-0306: T-130, p. 8, line 16 – p. 9, line 2. 5198 See section IV.B.2.iv.a.v above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 712/1077 4 February 2021 during the attack, beat any civilian. Similarly, there is no evidence, or suggestion that government soldiers charged with protecting the camp would beat an elderly civilian to death during the attack. This is particularly true given the determination that during the attack, the government soldiers were themselves fleeing from the LRA. Rather, there is 5199 considerable evidence that the LRA beat civilians. This was the case for the attack on Abok IDP camp as well as for all other attacks relevant to the charges at issue in these 5200 proceedings. In light of the evidence, the Chamber finds that LRA fighters killed Fabio Ogweng by beating him to death during the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: Hatari Anyima’s children: Gwentorina Akite testified that one of Hatari Anyima’s children, who was one or two years, was removed from the latrine pit with Hatari Anyima 5201 and shot dead by the LRA. Gwentorina Akite did not witness this killing but was informed of the death after she returned to Abok a month after sustaining injuries in the 5202 attack. The Chamber notes that P-0280 indicated that Hatari Anyima’s child that hid 5203 with him in the ditch remained in the ditch. P-0280 did not testify to witnessing the death of the child. The Chamber is of the view that had P-0280 witnessed the child’s death he would have discussed it during his testimony. In light of the witnesses’ incongruous testimony, the Chamber makes no finding that Hatari Anyima’s child was killed in the latrine pit alongside him. However, other evidence corroborates Gwentorina Akite’s testimony that a child of Hatari Anyima was killed during the attack. Douglas Obwor’s list of the persons deceased during the Abok attack lists Daniel Okite and 5204 Monica Ayugi among the persons killed during the 8 June 2004 attack. Cyprian Ayoo references the death of Emanwel Okite and Monica Ayugi, detailing that they were killed 5205 by burning during the attack. Further, the UPDF report lists Daniel Okite (1 year old) and Monica Ayugi (2 years old) among the persons killed during the 8 June 2004 Abok 5206 5207 attack. Both are listed as children of Hatari Anyima. The Chamber notes that

text: 5199 See paras 1926-1941, 1982, 1987-1993. 5200 See sections IV.C.6.iii, IV.C.7.vi, IV.C.8.iv. 5201 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. 5202 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 36. 5203 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 43, lines 14-25. 5204 P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271. 5205 P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0244-1201. 5206 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. 5207 UPDF Report, Atrocities Committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177. The Chamber recalls its finding that Raimond Anyima is Hatari Anyima.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 713/1077 4 February 2021

text: Cyprian Ayoo listed the children as being killed by burning. There is no evidence that

text: anyone other than the LRA killed persons by burning them. There is no evidence, or even

text: suggestion, that government soldiers, who were the only other armed forces present in

text: Abok IDP camp at any time during the attack, burnt any civilian. Rather, there is

text: 5208 considerable evidence that the LRA burnt civilians. This was true in Abok IDP camp

text: 5209 and in other attacks at issue in these proceedings. In light of the evidence, the

text: Chamber finds that LRA fighters burnt Daniel Okite and Monica Ayugi to death. In light

text: of the totality of the evidence, the Chamber is of the view that Daniel (possibly first name

text: Emanwel) Okite and Monica Ayugi were both children of Hatari Anyima, and were burnt

text: to death by LRA fighters during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack.

text: Evelyn Akello: Several witnesses testified as to the death of Evelyn Akello, who was

text: abducted in Abok and killed during the retreat from the camp. Charles Amodo testified

text: 5210 that Evelyn Akello was his uncle’s daughter. He had been with her when they were

text: abducted during the attack and they became separated during the LRA’s retreat from

text: 5211 Abok IDP camp. When he returned from the bush, Charles Amodo was told by other

text: 5212 returned abductees that they witnessed Evelyn Akello being killed by the LRA.

text: Specifically, Oringa James, a returned abductee, also told him that Evelyn Akello was

text: 5213 killed by the LRA. Gwentorina Akite corroborates the account that Evelyn Akello

text: was killed by the LRA. Gwentorina Akite testified that Evelyn Akello was her step-

text: 5214 daughter and had been raised by her since infancy. Gwentorina Akite testified that

text: Evelyn Akello was also abducted the night of the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP

text: 5215 camp. Gwentorina Akite testified that at the time Evelyn Akello had a one year old

text: 5216 child who had started to walk. Gwentorina Akite testified that the child was injured

text: 5217 during the stampede in the camp on the day of the attack. Gwentorina Akite testified

text: 5218 that Evelyn Akello never returned from the bush. Douglas Obwor corroborates the

text: 5208 See paras 1927-1935 above. 5209 See paras 1500-1501, 1741-1745 above. 5210 P-0304: T-133, p. 43, lines 17-21. 5211 P-0304: T-133, p. 24, lines 9-15. 5212 P-0304: T-133, p. 24, lines 16-19. 5213 P-0304: T-133, p. 61, lines 2-6. See also p. 66, line 20 – p. 67, line 1. 5214 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 17. 5215 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 38. 5216 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 38. 5217 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 38. 5218 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 38.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 714/1077 4 February 2021 above accounts, testifying that returned abductees reported to him that Evelyn Akello,

text: 5219 one of the abductees, had been killed by the rebels. Douglas Obwor testified that he

text: was told that when the rebels had travelled far away from Abok, Evelyn Akello could no

text: longer move and so she was beaten to death with a big stick and then cut into pieces with

text: 5220 a panga. The Chamber found the above witnesses’ accounts consistent and mutually

text: corroborative. In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that Evelyn Akello was

text: killed by the LRA during the retreat from Abok IDP camp.

text: Shooting of Jacob Opio: Jacob Opio, a camp resident, testified that after the government

text: soldiers were defeated by the rebels, civilians ran past his house shouting that people

text: 5221 should flee because the government soldiers had told them to. Jacob Opio tried to run

text: out of his house but the gunfire in the camp was too much, so he returned to his house

text: 5222 and locked the door. The LRA fighters came to his door and started piercing it with a

text: 5223 bayonet, he tried to hold the door, but they eventually unhinged it with the bayonet.

text: 5224 Jacob Opio threw the door down on the outside and ran out past the rebels to escape.

text: He did not get very far from the rebels, just about 18 meters, before he was shot in the

text: 5225 leg. The rebels rushed into his house while he pulled himself into an unfinished house

text: – he realised that he was bleeding from a gunshot wound to his right kneecap where the

text: 5226 bullet went from the left to the right and came out. The Chamber recalls Cyprian

text: Ogola’s testimony which corroborates Jacob Opio’s account. Cyprian Ogola testified that

text: Jacob Opio was shot in the thigh during the attack and that the bullet came out through

text: 5227 the knee. Similarly, Gwentorina Akite’s testimony is consistent with and

text: corroborative of the other witnesses. She testifies that she saw a man who had been shot

text: 5228 in the thigh. While the witness testifies that this man was named ‘David Opio’, the

text: Chamber notes the similarity with the last name and given the specificity of her

text: description of the man’s injury concludes that Gwentorina Akite also refers to Jacob Opio.

text: The Chamber also notes that the UPDF report lists a ‘Jobik Opio’ among the persons

text: 5219 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 32. 5220 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 32. 5221 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 21. 5222 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 22. 5223 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 23. 5224 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 23. 5225 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 23. 5226 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 23. 5227 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 42. 5228 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 33.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 715/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5229 injured in the attack. Given the similarities in the name, the Chamber considers that this refers to Jacob Opio and corroborates his account. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that LRA fighters attempted to kill Jacob Opio by shooting him while he was trying to escape during the 8 June 2004 Abok attack.

text: Shooting at Cyprian Ogola and Robson Oper: Cyprian Ogola testified that people who 5230 tried to run were shot at by the rebels. In his own case, when he realised that the LRA 5231 fighters were attacking the camp, he told his family to run. As Cyprian Ogola’s family ran, the rebels fired in their direction, so he and his family changed course and ran in 5232 another direction; the rebels fired at them again. Cyprian Ogola testified that he knew it was the LRA fighters firing shots at them because the government soldiers would not fire at them and the few soldiers who were there were telling them to flee so that they 5233 would not be captured. Cyprian Ogola also testified that he knew the rebels were firing at them because the rebels were chasing a government soldier and when they failed 5234 to catch the soldier, they started firing at him and his family. The Chamber is convinced by Cyprian Ogola’s account of his experience. Similarly, Robson Oper testified that during the exchange of gunfire, most of the camp residents who had gone 5235 into their houses came out and ran away during the attack. Robson Oper testified that because he had a problem with his leg and could not run, when he came out of the house, 5236 the rebels caught him at the doorpost and fired three bullets. Robson Oper stated that 5237 he fell down and rolled and managed to dodge the bullets, thus surviving. The Chamber recalls its finding concerning Robson Oper’s credibility. The Chamber is of the view that while no other witness testified to witnessing LRA fighters shooting at Robson Oper, the other accounts of the LRA indiscriminately shooting at civilians corroborate Robson Oper’s account of what he experienced. The Chamber also considered that Robson Oper’s testimony about LRA fighters shooting at him was detailed, coherent, internally consistent and also consistent with other evidence of similar behaviour by the

text: 5229 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0178. 5230 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 31. 5231 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 31. 5232 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 31. 5233 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 34. 5234 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 34. 5235 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 11-12. 5236 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 13-16. 5237 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 15-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 716/1077 4 February 2021

text: LRA both in Abok IDP camp and the other locations relevant to the charges. The Chamber is convinced that LRA fighters attempted to kill Robson Oper by shooting at him and only failed to hit him because he managed to dodge the bullets. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the witnesses provide consistent, credible and reliable evidence that the LRA shot people purposefully during the attack and only failed to kill them because of independent circumstances. These people include Cyprian Ogola and Robson Oper. Robson Oper and Cyprian Ogola’s accounts of their experience being shot at by the LRA is mutually corroborative of the fact that the LRA shot at civilians in Abok 5238 IDP camp.

text: Regarding the number of persons killed by the LRA in Abok IDP camp, both Cyprian 5239 Ayoo and Douglas Obwor testified that 28 bodies were collected in total. Given these witnesses’ roles in the aftermath of the attack, their credible and reliable testimony, which was generally corroborated by the lists they prepared in the aftermath of the attack and the other witnesses’ accounts of killings in Abok IDP camp, the Chamber finds the witnesses’ testimony as to the approximate number of persons killed in the attack within the camp credible. The Chamber notes that Cyprian Ayoo and Douglas Obwor counted the bodies of the dead collected within Abok IDP camp. This does not include persons, like Evelyn Akello, whom the Chamber determined was killed by the LRA during their retreat from Abok IDP camp. While it is noted that the number of victims alleged in the 5240 charges is specified as an approximate number, the Chamber is of the view that the number of persons killed by the LRA actually exceeds the 28 bodies collected and denoted in the camp’s leaders’ count.

text: The Chamber recalls its findings above which named specific persons killed by the LRA in Abok and during their retreat from the camp. The Chamber found the accounts that

text: 5238 The Chamber also notes that the accounts of other witnesses of the LRA shooting indiscriminately at civilians, discussed further below, also corroborate P-0284 and P-0286’s accounts. 5239 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 28; P-0306: T-130, p. 66, lines 1-6; P-0306 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA-OTP-0247-1270-R01, at 1271; P-0293: T-138, p. 26, line 20 – p. 27, line 3, p. 38, lines 4-11, p. 39, lines 8-19; P-0293 List of persons killed in 8 June 2004 Abok attack, UGA- OTP-0244-1201. See the corroborating evidence of P-0280, who testified that he was told that about 28 people from Abok camp were killed during the attack. P-0280: T-83, p. 79, lines 9-10; T-84, p. 45, lines 16-18. While the Chamber notes that the UPDF report lists 24 persons killed in Abok, the Chamber places greater weight on the evidence given in court by the two camp officials who participated in the collection of the bodies and whose testimony was tested before the Chamber. The Chamber also notes that the lists prepared by P-0293 and P-0306 overlap significantly, particularly when noting the naming conventions in the region in which persons are known by multiple names. 5240 Para. 59 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p. 87).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 717/1077 4 February 2021 multiple other persons were killed in the attack credible, including: persons burnt in their homes and in the camp, people beaten and/or bayonetted to death, including three persons whose heads were smashed and people killed by gunshot, including a boy shot in his stomach. Further, the Chamber concludes that the killings were not perpetrated by the government forces – by crossfire or otherwise – as discussed above. In the light of the evidence, the Chamber is satisfied that at least 28 people were killed by LRA fighters in the course of the Abok IDP camp attack.

text: The Chamber is also convinced that the LRA purposefully shot at civilians, burnt down homes resulting in civilians trapped in burning buildings and severely beat others leaving them for dead.

text: Unable to dislodge the government soldiers who remained holed up in the new barracks,

text: the LRA eventually retreated from the camp.

text: The Chamber recalls that during this time in which the LRA committed numerous acts of violence and looting within the camp, government soldiers in the camp had fled and the LRA moved within the camp, there were still some government soldiers holed up at 5242 the barracks.

text: Witnesses reported that at some point during the attack, a group of LRA fighters went to 5243 the new barracks along with civilians they had abducted in Abok. The Chamber recalls that P-0280, one of the abducted civilians who accompanied LRA fighters to the barracks, testified that civilians fled away from the barracks as the LRA fighters 5244 approached.

text: Upon reaching the new barracks, the LRA fighters engaged with the government soldiers 5245 who had remained holed up in the barracks. Some witnesses testified to ‘extreme’ or

text: 5241 Para. 200 above. 5242 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 32 (there were only 15 soldiers left to guard the barracks as the others had left the barracks earlier to follow the rebels); P-0280: T-84, p. 43, lines 9-19 (some soldiers stayed to protect the barracks). 5243 P-0054: T-93, p. 34, line 23 – p. 35, line 8 (his group headed towards the government soldiers’ barracks. Kalalang was in the group that went to the barracks as were some sergeants); P-0280: T-84, p. 43, line 23 – p. 44, line 9 (the only people P-0280 saw who were going towards the barracks were LRA fighters and abducted civilians). 5244 P-0280: T-84, p. 43, line 24 – p. 44, line 9. 5245 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 16-17, p. 55, lines 7-13; T-84, p. 43, lines 9-19 (there was gunfire coming from the barracks towards the rebels); P-0286: T-131, p. 21, lines 1-2 (P-0286 heard gunshots from behind; the rebels had begun to shoot towards the barracks). See also P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 31, line 24 – p. 32, line 4 (when the LRA

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 718/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5246 ‘heavy’ gunfire. The Chamber recalls camp resident Robson Oper’s graphic, detailed

text: and credible description of the scene. Robson Oper, who was abducted by the LRA and

text: accompanied them to the new barracks, testified that when he heard gunshots he fell and 5247 lay down. While laying down, he saw that the rebels were firing towards the barracks and the government soldiers were firing back, he described seeing ‘grasses falling down

text: on me. I laid down [on the ground] and yet I was able to see those things. The bullets

text: 5248 were cutting grasses and the grasses were falling on me’.

text: Given its discussion of the LRA’s movement above, and its discussion of the crimes

text: 5249 committed by the LRA within the camp below, and noting D-0065’s testimony, the

text: Chamber is convinced that although the LRA also attacked the military barracks, their

text: primary target was the camp itself.

text: The evidence shows that the LRA fighters, unable to breach the barracks, retreated and

text: left Abok. The Chamber recalls camp resident P-0280’s testimony that because of the

text: heavy gunfire from the barracks, the LRA fighters did not go forward towards the 5250 barracks but rather ran back, retreating from Abok IDP camp. Sinia fighter P-0054

text: corroborates P-0280, testifying that after being overwhelmed at the barracks, the LRA 5251 fighters, the ones at the barracks and in the centre, started retreating. Similarly,

text: Robson Oper’s account corroborates the other witnesses, he testified that the LRA 5252 soldiers he accompanied pulled back into a house and spoke amongst themselves. He

text: overheard one of the soldiers say ‘Let us leave. If we continue lingering here, and

text: considering the exchange of the bullets and the fires that have burnt the houses, they will 5253 come and remove the things that we have looted’.

text: found out where the barracks were, they started shooting towards the barracks but they were unable to enter the barracks because there was a strong defence in the barracks and the government soldiers had big guns). 5246 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 14-15 (P-0054’s group of LRA fighters approached the barracks, there was ‘extreme gunfire’); P-0280: T-83, p. 55, lines 12-13, p. 57, lines 13-16 (there was heavy gunfire coming from the barracks). 5247 P-0286: T-131, p. 21, lines 3-4. 5248 P-0286: T-131, p. 23, line 22 – p. 24, line 4. 5249 D-0065: T-211, p. 25, lines 11-22 (while the LRA fighters did attack the barracks, their primary target was the camp and not the barracks). 5250 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 17-18, p. 55, lines 7-24, p. 57, lines 13-16. 5251 P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 17-19. 5252 P-0286: T-131, p. 21, lines 9-16. 5253 P-0286: T-131, p. 21, lines 12-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 719/1077 4 February 2021

text: With regard to the LRA fighter’s retreat from the camp, witnesses reported that the LRA

text: fighters and abducted civilians left the camp from where they were fighting at the new

text: barracks and headed towards the Lalogi/Gulu direction.

text: The Chamber is satisfied that the evidence shows that a mamba did arrive in the camp at

text: some point in the LRA’s retreat from the camp. The evidence does not show that

text: government soldiers in a mamba fired indiscriminately into the camp, including at

text: civilians.

text: 5254 P-0304: T-133, p. 19, lines 17-21 (P-0304 and a group of LRA fighters and abducted civilians went to Abok centre and then came out from the barracks. They exited the camp and went towards Lalogi); P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28 (when the rebels left the camp, they walked a long distance in the Gulu direction); P-0280: T-83, p. 54, line 20 – p. 55, line 1, p. 57, lines 17-20 (the LRA fighters P-0280 was with retreated towards Lalogi road); P-0286: T-131, p. 24, line 25 – p. 25, line 1 (the LRA fighters P-0286 was with retreated from the barracks and entered the bush); P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 20-22 (people entered the swamp and the LRA crossed the Opit road). 5255 The Chamber reaches this conclusion despite P-0293’s isolated insistence that no mamba arrived at the camp but rather an army truck that stayed in the camp during the night until the next morning. P-0293: T-139, p. 22, line 11 – p. 23, line 15. The Chamber also recalls that P-0293 indicated that the army vehicle had heavy weaponry on top. P-0293: T-138, p. 31, lines 1-8. The Chamber also notes that apart from P-0293, other witnesses, both LRA fighters and camp residents, testified as to the arrival of a mamba. See P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244- 1180-R01, at para. 32 (around 3:00, government soldiers arrived at Abok with a military vehicle called a mamba); P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 26 (the mamba arrived at the camp around 3:00); P-0304: T-133, p. 55, lines 21-23 (the mamba arrived after the rebels had left the camp and his group could hear gunshots from behind); P-0054: T-93, p. 33, lines 19-20 (as the LRA fighters were leaving the camp, mambas arrived and started shooting people). The Chamber notes that when P-0054 references ‘people’ here, he refers to fleeing LRA fighters. In light of the other witnesses’ testimony, the Chamber concludes that P-0293 – who had fled the attack by the time the mamba came – misidentifies the military vehicle that came to Abok. Several witnesses testified that the mamba arrived as the LRA were fleeing the camp. P-0406: T-155, p. 70, lines 13-16 (the LRA fighters heard the sound of a vehicle and heard some shelling. P-0406 saw a vehicle that approached the camp). Still other witnesses testified that the LRA had already left the camp when the mamba arrived. P-0306: T-130, p. 60, lines 18-24 (when the mamba arrived, the rebels had already left because they had heard the sound of the mamba moving in); P-0280: T-84, p. 39, lines 3-12 (P-0280 heard that an armoured vehicle came to the Abok camp but at the time the camp had already been burnt down and the LRA fighters and abducted civilians had already left the camp and entered a stream in a place called ‘Loka Akello Alyek’). 5256 P-0304: T-133, p. 57, lines 1-8 (when the mamba arrived, the rebels and their abductees had moved some distance away so the mamba was firing up in the air following the direction the rebels had taken); P-0306: T-130, p. 60, lines 24-25 (the mamba fired after the rebels but was not firing directly on the people); P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at paras 27-28 (the mamba fired in the air and the rebels fled. When things got quiet the UPDF called people to come out from hiding); D-0065: T-211, p. 22, lines 5-8 (the mamba fired twice in the air). The Chamber is convinced by the testimony of these witnesses, who corroborate each other in their testimony of limited fire not aimed at civilians. The Chamber notes P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at paras 24-25. The Chamber found this aspect of the P-0281’s testimony to be inconsistent with other more reliable evidence and untenable. The Chamber also notes that although D-0065 made a statement about indiscriminate shooting, the Chamber understood his statement to refer to the typical behaviour of mambas and not to the specific behaviour of the mamba that arrived in Abok IDP camp after the LRA attack. Additionally, the phrase ‘indiscriminate shooting’ as used by the witness also referred to shooting without ascertaining the identity of the subject and did not indicate that the mamba shot into the camp. D-0065: T-211, p. 22, lines 5-10. As to the actual behaviour of the mamba that came into the camp on the day of the attack, D-0065 testified that the mamba started shooting on some trees, shot twice and there was silence. T-211, p. 22, lines 5-8. Further, as described by D-0065, by the time the mamba arrived at the camp, the LRA had already burnt the camp and committed various crimes within the camp. T-211, p. 21, lines 1-16, p. 22, lines 5-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 720/1077 4 February 2021

text: As to the time the LRA spent in the camp, the Chamber recalls its earlier finding that the LRA attack began in the evening, sometime between 19:00 and 20:45. The Chamber notes that the witnesses’ testimonies diverge as to exactly when the LRA fighters left the

text: camp. Charles Amodo illustrated the witnesses’ difficulty of pin-pointing the exact time of the rebels departure, stating, ‘I am not able to say, because I didn’t have a watch and

text: at the time people were many, and also moving up and down, and then the gunshots and then with the fire burning all around. Even the most intelligent person would get confused, 5257 so at that time I was already confused’.

text: Both Charles Amodo, an abducted camp resident, and Cyprian Ayoo, one of the camp’s leaders, while noting their confusion in stating the exact time, estimated that the LRA 5258 fighters left the camp around 23:00 the night of the attack. Douglas Obwor, another one of the camp’s leaders, testified that the rebels took some time in the camp because

text: 5259 there was nobody that would come to disorganise them, he testified that the rebels left 5260 the camp between 1:00 and 2:00. From the evidence before it, the Chamber finds that the LRA fighters departed Abok IDP camp sometime in the late evening of 8 June 2004 or early morning hours of 9 June 2004.

text: LRA fighters abducted many civilians and forced them to carry heavy looted goods, and an injured fighter, for long distances oftentimes under the threat of beatings or death. Some of the abductees were tied to each other. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. LRA fighters beat abductees as a means of punishment for not being able to continue walking and to

text: intimidate other abductees to continue without stopping or resisting.

text: In the course of the retreat, LRA fighters forced an abductee to kill another abductee

text: with a club, as a lesson to others who were thinking of escaping.

text: The LRA attempted to kill abductee Gwentorina Akite, an elderly woman. They had abducted her from the camp and forced her to carry heavy loads, including at one point two goats. When she could no longer bear the weight, an LRA fighter beat and strangled

text: 5257 P-0304: T-133, p. 56, lines 11-17. 5258 P-0293: T-138, p. 30, lines 19-25; T-139, p. 27, line 18 – p. 28, line 5; P-0304: T-133, p. 55, lines 19-21. 5259 P-0306: T-130, p. 82, lines 13-14. 5260 P-0306: T-130, p. 65, lines 9-14. P-0284 testifies to an even later time. P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244- 1180-R01, at para. 32 (around 3:00, government soldiers arrived at Abok with a military vehicle called a mamba, after hearing the sounds of the approaching mamba, the rebels had fled). 5261 Para. 201 above. 5262 Para. 201 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 721/1077 4 February 2021 her and cut her with a machete. LRA fighters passing her on the road hit her. She was

text: left for dead but managed to crawl back home to the camp.

text: Among the civilians abducted and forced to work for the LRA were Charles Amodo, Gwentorina Akite, Evelyn Akello, Robson Oper, Witness P-0280, Thomas Okitte’s daughter, Ogweng, Ameny, Lucy Akello, Molly Ayugi, Monica Adur, Nighty Atim, Dilis

text: Awor and Witness V-0002.

text: The Chamber finds that the evidence shows that LRA fighters abducted civilians from

text: Abok IDP camp and under armed guard prevented their escape and forced them to work

text: for the LRA.

text: Both LRA fighters and civilian residents offered consistent, detailed and credible

text: evidence that LRA fighters abducted civilian residents from the camp and severely

text: mistreated them. P-0406, an LRA fighter, testified that the LRA fighters abducted people

text: 5265 during the attack. P-0406 testified that among the abductees taken at Abok were

text: 5266 children as young as 11 and 12 years old. P-0406 testified that older people, including

text: 5267 adults, were also abducted as were girls. P-0330 corroborates P-0406’s account of

text: civilian abductions, testifying that a civilian was made to carry the LRA fighter Bomek

text: 5268 who was wounded in Abok. P-0330 also testified that a civilian was forced to carry

text: 5269 another injured LRA fighter from Abok on a stretcher. The Chamber considers that

text: the evidence shows that abductees were forced to carry at least one injured LRA fighter.

text: Witnesses provided credible evidence that during the retreat from Abok, abducted people carried items that had been looted from people’s houses and shops, including beans, goats,

text: 5270 sesame, other edible items and merchandise.

text: Robson Oper testified that civilians who were abducted by the LRA included: Denis Omara, Charles Amodo, Gwerina (Gwentorina Akite), Eveline (‘Evelyn’) Akello, and

text: 5263 Para. 202 above. 5264 Para. 203 above. 5265 P-0406: T-154, p. 68, line 8 and p. 74, lines 11-13. 5266 P-0406: T-154, p. 75, lines 12-13. 5267 P-0406: T-154, p. 75, lines 12-17. 5268 P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 35, lines 1-3. 5269 P-0330: T-52, p. 37, lines 10-17. 5270 See P-0280: T-83, p. 53, lines 15-20 (the civilian abductees were given things to carry. He was given a sack of beans to carry on his head and P-0286 was made to carry cooking oil); P-0330: T-52-CONF, p. 35, lines 10-15 (younger civilians abducted from Abok were made to carry foodstuffs when they left Abok); P-0286: T-131, p. 33, line 6-12 (during the retreat from Abok, abducted people carried items that had been looted from people’s houses and shops, including goats, sesame, other edible items and merchandise).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 722/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5271 the daughter of Thomas Okitte. Charles Amodo corroborates Robson Oper’s

text: testimony, testifying that Charles Amodo, ‘Evalyn’ (‘Evelyn’) Akello, Robson Oper, and

text: 5272 ‘Gwerina’ Akite (‘Gwentorina Akite’) were abducted. Similarly, Douglas Obwor

text: 5273 testified Robson Oper, Nighty Atim and Dilis Awor were abducted.

text: Jacob Opio’s testimony is consistent with the other witnesses’ accounts of the LRA

text: abducting civilians and forcing them to work for the LRA. Jacob Opio testified that after

text: the attack, he was told about abductees, including Ogweng, Ameny, Lucy Akello and

text: 5274 others. Jacob Opio testified that Ogweng was 12 years old, Lucy Akello was 13 years

text: 5275 old and Ameny was 15 years old. Jacob Opio testified that Ogweng and Ameny never

text: 5276 returned from the bush but Lucy Akello returned in 2013. Jacob Opio testified that

text: 5277 Lucy Akello stated that she had been made to carry heavy load and made a ‘wife’.

text: Jacob Opio also testified that an abductee, Molly Ayugi, told him that people were

text: abducted and made to carry ‘loot’, she had been given luggage to carry but was released

text: 5278 by the rebels because she was an older person.

text: Similarly, Cyprian Ogola’s testified about civilians abducted by the LRA. Cyprian Ogola

text: 5279 testified that some persons escaped and came back. Cyprian Ogola testified that Jacob

text: 5280 Opio, Robson Oper and Monica Adur managed to escape that day and returned to the

text: 5281 camp. Cyprian Ogola testified that about eight children were abducted but about six

text: 5282 5283 came back. By children, the witness meant persons from age 13 to 20 years old.

text: Abductees were forced to kill people or to watch others being killed. P-0280 testified that

text: in the bush, if someone wants to escape or is tired, the LRA would ask if the person was

text: 5271 P-0286: T-132, p. 3, line 20 – p. 4, line 4. 5272 P-0304: T-133, p. 19, lines 2-6. 5273 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 23. 5274 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 34. 5275 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 34. 5276 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 34. 5277 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 34. 5278 P-0282 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0246-R01, at para. 35. 5279 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 44. 5280 The Chamber recalls its discussion of the attempted killing of Jacob Opio above. It is possible that P-0284 is discussing another Jacob Opio, but in the likelihood that the witness references the Jacob Opio whom the Chamber determined was the victim of an attempted killing by the LRA, the Chamber finds that the evidence shows that Jacob Opio (P-0282) escaped from the LRA during the attack and was not abducted by the LRA. 5281 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 44. 5282 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 44. 5283 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 44.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 723/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5284 tired and they would say ‘since the person is tired he wants to rest’. P-0280 testified

text: 5285 that this meant that the person should be killed, ‘making someone rest means death’.

text: 5286 An Abok abductee was ordered to kill, to ‘make some two people rest’. LRA fighters

text: ordered an abductee and two others to beat a girl and a man to death, they beat the victims

text: 5287 on the head with a club until they died. Corroborating the other witnesses’ account,

text: 5288 V-0002 testified that LRA fighters beat abducted civilians and threatened to kill them.

text: The evidence demonstrates that an Abok abductee was forced to beat another abductee

text: 5289 who tried to escape to death. They used a club like a stick to beat the abductee on the

text: 5290 head until he died. An LRA rebel armed with a gun watched while the beating

text: 5291 occurred to see if the abductee would carry out the task. The abductee was killed to

text: 5292 discourage others from escaping, ‘as a lesson to the others if they tried to escape’.

text: The Chamber heard a number of accounts about the experiences of specific civilians

text: abducted by the LRA in the course of the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: Robson Oper and P-0280: Robson Oper testified that after the government soldiers had

text: 5293 fled the camp, armed rebels belonging to Joseph Kony caught him and tied him.

text: Robson Oper testified that after he was caught by the LRA, the rebels asked him, ‘Do I

text: 5294 kill you?’. Robson Oper stated that he pleaded with the rebels and told them, ‘Please

text: leave me, let me go and work with you. I am still young. I can work with you. Please

text: 5295 don’t kill me’. Robson Oper testified that he pleaded to work with the LRA because

text: they had already shot at him three times and he survived the bullets; he knew that they

text: 5296 were going to kill him and thus he needed to plead with them. The rebels tied him

text: 5297 around his waist and moved with him. Right after he was abducted, Robson Oper had

text: 5284 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 75, lines 6-11. 5285 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 75, lines 6-11. 5286 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 75, lines 12-15. 5287 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 75, line 22 – p. 76, line 8. 5288 V-0002: T-171, p. 8, lines 7-12. 5289 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 77, line 1 – p. 78, line 15. 5290 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 78, lines 5-14. 5291 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 77, lines 9-12 and p. 78, lines 9-15. 5292 P-0280: T-83-CONF, p. 77, line 9 – p. 78, line 15. 5293 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 16-17, p. 16, lines 7-11. 5294 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 16-17. 5295 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 17-19. 5296 P-0286: T-131, p. 56, line 19 – p. 57, line 1. 5297 P-0286: T-131, p. 10, lines 21-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 724/1077 4 February 2021 told one of the LRA fighters that his foot was not well, the LRA fighter kicked his wound

text: 5298 until he lost ‘the feeling’. After that he walked as though he did not have a wound

text: 5299 because he feared that if he walked with a limp the LRA would possibly kill him.

text: Robson Oper testified that the rebels beat him in the course of the retreat, someone

text: 5300 slapped him on the face and asked him why he was looking at him. Robson Oper also

text: testified that he was beaten after he was asked where the rebels were; he stated that ‘[i]f

text: 5301 you mention, they say you are too intelligent, you might escape, and they beat you’.

text: Robson Oper testified that during the retreat from Abok, LRA fighters took him to an

text: 5302 injured rebel who had been shot in the knee in Abok. Robson Oper testified that he

text: 5303 was told, ‘[t]his is your luggage, carry it’. Robson Oper testified that he was initially

text: 5304 forced to lift up the roughly 80 kilogram man by himself, stating:

text: They held this person, one held the – one arm and another held the other arm and they let him bend and they told me to push my head through his thighs so that he sits on my shoulders… I tried to heave myself up but he was heavier than I was. My waist was stuck and I couldn’t raise myself up. One of them beat me in my buttocks with a gun. I continued to raise myself up. I tried my level best to get up and I got up and I was told to move. I moved up to where the people had gathered 5305 and I put him down.

text: 5306 Robson Oper testified that the commander of the group, Kalalang, stated that

text: ‘whoever fails to carry his luggage would stop, would end there, meaning that whoever

text: 5307 fails to carry his luggage would be killed there and then’. Robson Oper stated that

text: 5308 eventually another man helped him to carry the fighter. They carried the man for the

text: whole night and for the whole day until the fighter got worse and then they ‘left him

text: 5309 there’. While questioning Robson Oper, the Defence noted that in his victim’s

text: application form, Robson Oper wrote that he carried the injured fighter ‘with another

text: 5298 P-0286: T-131, p. 17, line 24 – p. 18, line 7. 5299 P-0286: T-131, p. 56, lines 2-11. 5300 P-0286: T-131, p. 26, lines 16-21. 5301 P-0286: T-131, p. 26, lines 19-23. 5302 P-0286: T-131, p. 28, lines 15-17. 5303 P-0286: T-131, p. 28, line 17. 5304 P-0286: T-131, p. 28, line 17 – p. 29, line 1 and p. 29, line 23. 5305 P-0286: T-131, p. 28, lines 17-25. 5306 P-0286: T-131, p. 30, lines 21-24. The Chamber considers that the credibility of P-0286’s account here is bolstered in that he correctly identified Kalalang as the LRA commander in charge. 5307 P-0286: T-131, p. 29, lines 2-4. 5308 P-0286: T-131, p. 30, lines 13-18. 5309 P-0286: T-131, p. 30, line 25 – p. 31, line 4; T-132, p. 13, lines 1-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 725/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5310 man who was also abducted for three days before [the fighter] died on the fourth day’.

text: In response, Robson Oper testified that they carried the injured man for two days and that

text: 5311 the fourth day refers to the day he was told that the man had died. The Chamber is

text: satisfied with Robson Oper’s explanation and further finds the inconsistency

text: insignificant. The Chamber recalls its earlier assessment of the credibility of the evidence

text: provided by Robson Oper. The Chamber notes first that it found Robson Oper’s account

text: of his capture, forced labour and beatings credible. The witness was graphic and detailed

text: in this testimony, providing information indicative of a person who witnessed the events.

text: Further, discrete details of his testimony are corroborated. Charles Amodo testified that

text: Robson Oper was given a ‘stretcher-like thing’ with an injured person on it and

text: 5312 participated in carrying this person. Charles Amodo testified that while moving with

text: Robson Oper, Robson Oper told him that he was in a lot of pain as a result of a beating

text: 5313 from the LRA. The Chamber also considers that the testimony provided by Robson

text: Oper as to the LRA’s behaviour towards civilians in Abok IDP camp is corroborated by

text: the other witnesses’ testimony.

text: P-0280, a camp resident also abducted by the LRA, offered detailed evidence of his own

text: interactions with the LRA and corroborates Robson Oper’s accounts. P-0280 testified to

text: 5314 seeing Robson Oper during the retreat from Abok IDP camp. After abducting P-0280

text: 5315 and killing people in front of him, armed LRA fighters made P-0280 walk towards

text: 5316 the barracks with beans on his head. P-0280 testified that he did not have the strength

text: 5317 to carry the load. Although the load on his head was very heavy, P-0280 was told that

text: 5318 if he threw the load he would be killed. P-0280 stated: ‘you have to bear the load

text: 5319 regardless of how heavy it is and walk with it’.

text: 5310 P-0286: T-132, p. 13, lines 22-25; Application for participation as victim, UGA-D26-0012-0349, at 0349- 0350. 5311 P-0286: T-132, p. 14, lines 1-9. See also p. 13, lines 1-17. 5312 P-0304: T-133, p. 23, line 18 – p. 24, line 6. 5313 P-0304: T-133, p. 23, lines 6-17 (P-0286 was beaten on his shoulders and back by the LRA). The Chamber notes that P-0286 testified that he was also beaten again by the LRA during the retreat from Abok IDP camp. 5314 Their interaction is discussed further below. 5315 See paras 1950-1953 above. 5316 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 9-13. 5317 P-0280: T-83, p. 51, lines 10-11. 5318 P-0280: T-83, p. 52, line 25 – p. 53, line 4. 5319 P-0280: T-83, p. 53, lines 3-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 726/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber is

text: convinced that Robson Oper and P-0280 were abducted by the LRA from Abok IDP

text: camp in the course of the attack and forced to work for the LRA.

text: Charles Amodo and Gwentorina Akite: Charles Amodo testified that on the night of

text: 5324 the attack, two LRA fighters entered his house and he was captured. One of the

text: 5325 soldiers had a gun. According to Charles Amodo, apart from his wife and his children,

text: 5326 there were no other persons in the house. Charles Amodo testified that he saw a lot of

text: 5327 civilians mixed together with armed LRA fighters. Charles Amodo testified that he

text: 5328 was put amongst the group, the fighters and the other captured people. Charles

text: Amodo testified that the rebels made the people abducted in Abok carry the things they

text: 5329 looted from the camp. Charles Amodo testified that he was given sesame to carry,

text: although the bag was weak and the items poured out in front of the house before he could

text: 5330 carry it. The rebels then started moving with the civilians trying to look for an exit

text: 5331 out of the camp. According to Charles Amodo, the movement of the group was

text: 5332 difficult because ‘very many’ people had been abducted. Charles Amodo testified that

text: 5320 5321 5322 5323 5324 P-0304: T-133, p. 7, lines 23-25, p. 15, lines 17-21, p. 18, lines 3-6. 5325 P-0304: T-133, p. 57, lines 9-16. 5326 P-0304: T-133, p. 43, lines 14-16. 5327 P-0304: T-133, p. 18, lines 14-19. 5328 P-0304: T-133, p. 19, lines 17-18. 5329 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 3-8. 5330 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 9-10, p. 19, lines 11-17. 5331 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 11-12. 5332 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 17-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 727/1077 4 February 2021

text: he was bound at his waist by a rope stained with blood and tied to other abductees.

text: Other abductees were tied at the waist as well. Charles Amodo testified that during

text: the retreat, he walked barefoot and shirtless in the bush. He was cold, hungry and it

text: was difficult to get water. Charles Amodo testified that the abducted people were

text: scared and were being told to move quickly. Charles Amodo testified that people were

text: forced to cross large bodies of water, a task difficult for short people like himself.

text: Charles Amodo testified that it was difficult to walk because there were so many people

text: abducted and ‘very many’ items to carry. Charles Amodo also testified that he was

text: forced to carry things such as a goat on his back. Charles Amodo testified that there

text: were a lot of beatings along the way. Charles Amodo testified that a rebel hit him on

text: the side of the head with a bayonet for moving too slowly. Robson Oper corroborates

text: Charles Amodo’s account, testifying that he saw Charles Amodo in captivity and that

text: Charles Amodo was made to carry luggage.

text: Similarly Gwentorina Akite testified that as gunshots were being fired in the camp, she

text: had hid inside her house behind some metal things when Joseph Kony’s rebels came and

text: broke down the door of the house. Gwentorina Akite testified that she did not know

text: the number of rebels that she saw but there were ‘very many’ and some were flashing

text: torches. Gwentorina Akite testified that they came into the house and spoke in Acholi in loud threatening voices, saying ‘Get up from where you are hiding! What are you still

text: 5346 5347

text: doing inside?’ Gwentorina Akite, who is also Charles Amodo’s close relative,

text: 5333 P-0304: T-133, p. 34, line 23 – p. 35, line 12. 5334 P-0304: T-133, p. 35, lines 10-12. 5335 P-0304: T-133, p. 35, lines 13-16. 5336 P-0304: T-133, p. 35, lines 13-24. 5337 P-0304: T-133, p. 20, lines 18-14. 5338 P-0304: T-133, p. 20, lines 18-15. 5339 P-0304: T-133, p. 8, lines 17-19. 5340 P-0304: T-133, p. 20, lines 15-18. See also P-0279, UGA-OTP-0283-1326, at para. 27 (P-0279 was forced to carry two goats, one on her head and the other in a piece of cloth tied around her neck and across her shoulder so that the goat was hanging in the piece of cloth on her side). 5341 P-0304: T-133, p. 20, lines 8-13. 5342 P-0304: T-133, p. 22, lines 19-23. 5343 P-0286: T-132, p. 4, lines 11-14 and p. 16, lines 3-6. 5344 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 24. 5345 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 24. 5346 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 25. 5347 Note that P-0279 referred to P-0304 as like ‘a nephew to me’. P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 23. P-0304 described their relationship in more detail, saying she is married into his clan and was his stepmother. P-0304: T-133, p. 43, lines 17-25. P-0304 also described ‘Evalyn’ Akello (P-0279’s step-daughter) as his cousin. The Chamber concludes that the two were close relatives.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 728/1077 4 February 2021 testified that she and Charles Amodo were taken from the same home and given things

text: 5348 to carry. Gwentorina Akite testified that although she did not count the abductees,

text: 5349 there were very many.

text: Gwentorina Akite testified that she was given heavy things to carry during the LRA

text: 5350 fighters’ retreat from Abok IDP camp, including beans and two goats. While she was

text: 5351 walking, a rebel behind her was poking her back with the butt of his gun. Gwentorina

text: 5352 Akite could not walk anymore and told him that she was too tired. As the group

text: walked some distance from the camp, the goats were taken from her and given to some

text: 5353 5354 girls to carry. She was given another heavy bag to carry. The group continued on

text: 5355 past swamps and forests, the bag felt too heavy to Gwentorina Akite and she could no

text: 5356 longer carry it. According to Gwentorina Akite, the rebel soldier behind her took the

text: 5357 bag from her and began to beat her with the butt of his gun. Gwentorina Akite

text: described the beating:

text: [The LRA fighter] started hitting me with the butt of a gun on my body indiscriminately, on my head, my back … everywhere. They cut me with the machete on the back of my head; on my left shoulder; above my right eye and on 5358 my back.

text: Gwentorina Akite testified that as an LRA fighter was beating her, others were passing

text: 5359 by and he continued to beat her. He held her neck and tried to strangle her with one

text: 5360 hand while with the other continued to beat her. Gwentorina Akite testified that she

text: did not hear anyone give him an express order to beat her or to kill her but she thought

text: 5348 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at paras 23-25. P-0279 testified that Charles Amodo and his heavily pregnant wife were sleeping in the same house at the time of their abduction. The Chamber recalls Charles Amodo’s testimony that there was no one in the house apart from he and his wife and children. He indicated that she lived close to him. P-0304: T-133, p. 43, line 24 – p. 44, line 4. The Chamber is of the view that the discrepancy in their accounts is minor and understandable in light of the events and the time that has elapsed. It does not adversely affect the Chamber’s view of the credibility of their accounts. 5349 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 24. 5350 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 27. 5351 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28. 5352 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28. 5353 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28. 5354 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28. 5355 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 28. 5356 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 29. 5357 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 29. 5358 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 29. 5359 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30. 5360 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 729/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5361 5362 he wanted to kill her. Gwentorina Akite testified that she became unconscious. By

text: 5363 the time she became conscious again, it was dawn and there was no one around.

text: 5364 Gwentorina Akite testified that she was bleeding from her nose, mouth and body.

text: Gwentorina Akite testified that she crawled and walked away from the place the rebels

text: 5365 and their abductees had gone. Gwentorina Akite testified that when she came across

text: some clothes left by the rebels, she put on a dress she found to replace the torn dress she

text: 5366 was wearing. Gwentorina Akite testified that when she arrived back in the village, the

text: 5367 owner of the dress saw her and said that was the cloth she had worn at her wedding.

text: The Chamber recalls Robson Oper’s testimony that during the retreat, the group he was

text: 5368 with came across an elderly local woman, ‘Gwerina’. Robson Oper testified that

text: 5369 Gwerina and Gwentorina are names for the same person. Robson Oper testified that

text: 5370 this elderly woman was near the roadside and was being slapped. Robson Oper

text: testified that he thought the luggage she was given to carry was too heavy for her age and

text: 5371 she was scared. Robson Oper stated:

text: I would see [the ones] who were leading…slap [her]. When I passed the people who were behind me also continued to slap her…The rebels who were moving [slapped her]. It was dark, they put her by the roadside and when people were passing they would […] push her and slap her…I saw the person who was in front

text: of me slapping her and then I also heard the person who was behind me slapping 5372 her. And she was crying that they should leave her alone.

text: Given the overwhelming similarities in the accounts, the Chamber considers that Robson

text: Oper’s account corroborates Gwentorina Akite’s testimony. Further, Charles Amodo also

text: corroborates the above accounts, testifying that he was told by other abductees that his

text: 5373 relative ‘Gwerina’ was beaten. Charles Amodo also testified that when he returned

text: 5361 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30. 5362 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30. 5363 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30. 5364 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 30. 5365 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at paras 30-31. 5366 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 31. 5367 P-0279 Statement, UGA-OTP-0258-0478-R01, at para. 31. 5368 P-0286: T-131, p. 25, lines 4-15. 5369 P-0286: T-132, p. 16, line 23 – p. 17, line 10. 5370 P-0286: T-131, p. 25, lines 8-15. 5371 P-0286: T-131, p. 25, lines 22-25. 5372 P-0286: T-131, p. 26, lines 3-15. 5373 P-0304: T-133, p. 21, line 13 – p. 22, line 2, p. 43, lines 22-25. The Chamber recalls P-0286’s testimony that Gwerina and Gwentorina is the same person. The Chamber also notes that the witnesses vary in the location they pinpoint as the site of the beating, mentioning Akello Alyek swamp, Akwanyo-gen stream, and some distance past Akello Alyek swamp. The Chamber places no weight on this point, finding that the difference is easily

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 730/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5374 from the bush, he spoke with ‘Gwerina’ about what happened to her. Charles Amodo

text: testified that ‘Gwerina’ was beaten until she was very weak and then she lost

text: 5375 consciousness. Charles Amodo testified that she did not know what time she regained

text: 5376 consciousness. Further, Dorcas Ayo reported seeing Gwentorina Akite in the hospital

text: after the attack. Dorcas Ayo testified that Gwentorina Akite’s head had been pierced by

text: 5377 a bayonet. The Chamber considers Charles Amodo and Dorcas Ayo’s testimony

text: credible and corroborative of the other witnesses’ account of what happened to

text: Gwentorina Akite. The Chamber also notes that UPDF report lists ‘Genenorina Okullu’,

text: 5378 age 60, amongst the people injured during the Abok attack. The Chamber notes the

text: difference in the name listed and the name the witness called herself. However, the

text: similarities in the name are significant enough that the Chamber find this evidence

text: provides further corroboration of Gwentorina Akite’s account that she was injured during

text: the Abok IDP camp attack.

text: The Chamber is convinced that Charles Amodo and Gwentorina Akite were abducted by

text: the LRA from Abok IDP camp in the course of the attack and forced to work for the LRA.

text: The Chamber also finds that LRA fighters attempted to kill Gwentorina Akite by severely

text: beating her and leaving her for dead during the LRA fighters’ retreat after the 8 June

text: 2004 Abok attack.

text: V-0002: V-0002 testified that in the course of the 8 June 2004 attack on Abok IDP camp,

text: 5379 an LRA fighter abducted him. V-0002 testified that after hearing gunshots the day of

text: 5380 the attack, he came out of his house and tried to flee. He testified that he was captured

text: 5381 by an LRA fighter and abducted. He and other abductees were guarded by four LRA

text: 5382 fighters, and forced to flee the camp with the LRA. He was beaten by the LRA in the

text: explained by the chaotic circumstances that the witnesses found themselves in, abductees of the LRA being forced to wander through the bush after their homes had been attacked. 5374 P-0304: T-133, p. 60, lines 3-24. 5375 P-0304: T-133, p. 60, lines 17-23. 5376 P-0304: T-133, p. 60, lines 17-24. 5377 P-0281 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0257-R01, at para. 31. 5378 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0178. 5379 V-0002: T-171, p. 7, line 16 – p. 8, line 2. 5380 V-0002: T-171, p. 7, lines 22-25. 5381 V-0002: T-171, p. 7, line 23 – p. 8, line 9. 5382 V-0002: T-171, p. 8, lines 1-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 731/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5383 course of this retreat. The Chamber is convinced that V-0002 abducted by the LRA

text: from Abok IDP camp in the course of the attack.

text: Some persons abducted by the LRA during the attack were rescued by a UPDF contingent that pursued the LRA fighters as they left Abok IDP camp. Some abductees were killed in captivity, at times for failing to keep up with their captors, others eventually escaped and returned home, some remained with the LRA, including in Dominic

text: Ongwen’s household.

text: While it is not clear whether it was the government soldiers with the mamba or another

text: contingent of government troops, credible and reliable evidence convinces the Chamber

text: that – in the vicinity of Lalogi or Opit – government soldiers intercepted some retreating

text: 5385 LRA fighters and succeeded in rescuing some abducted civilians. LRA fighters

text: 5386 managed to continue their retreat and returned to Atoo hills with abducted civilians.

text: Some civilians remained with the LRA. The evidence shows that the abductees who were

text: 5387 not rescued or managed to escape either became part of the LRA or were killed.

text: In this context, the Chamber recalls its discussion of Evelyn Akello, Gwentorina Akite

text: and the abductee who was forced to kill another abductee. Consistent with these accounts,

text: Robson Oper testified that a girl, about 12-13 years old was taken away by the rebels

text: 5388 because she was crying and he assumed that she was beaten and killed. Robson Oper

text: stated:

text: The girl was crying. They would push her to move and she did not accept, she was not able to move. In the bush when you are told to do something and you fail to do it, they would kill you. They would take you and they would move backwards with you and they would beat you there. When I hear you crying and you stop crying, you don’t come back to us. I assume you are no more. Someone would cry and go silent and you wouldn’t see that person. And even when you come back home later

text: 5383 V-0002: T-171, p. 8, lines 1-9. 5384 Para. 203 above. 5385 P-0280: T-83, p. 58, lines 14-20 (when the LRA crossed Lalogi, government soldiers commanded by Okello Engola rescued civilians); P-0054: T-93, p. 33, line 22 – p. 34, line 2 (after they crossed the Opit road, some of the LRA were left behind and came across government soldiers who fired upon them). See also P-0286: T-131, p. 29, lines 5-8 (in P-0286’s estimation around 2:00, after a long walk from Abok, there were gunshots being fired behind the LRA and he could hear a vehicle moving and heavy weaponry being shot from where the group he was with had come from); P-0286: T-132, p. 11, line 14 – p. 12, line 25 (they heard the UPDF bombardments once the LRA got to the place where they had encamped. P-0286 could only hear the gunfire from the distance and did not see the government soldiers). 5386 P-0286: T-131, p. 33, line 19 – p. 34, line 19 (the LRA moved on and eventually reached Atoo); P-0054: T- 93, p. 33, line 25 – p. 34, line 2 (the LRA fighters scattered and went back to Atoo hills); P-0252: T-87, p. 81, line 24 – p. 82, line 6 (the LRA soldiers that retreated fled back to Atoo hills). 5387 See also paras 1978-1979, 1988-1992 above. 5388 P-0286: T-131, p. 27, lines 7-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 732/1077 4 February 2021 you realise that when she left the bush she never reached home, so I assume she 5389 was killed in the bush. The Chamber also finds that Robson Oper’s account of what he witnessed during the LRA’s retreat from Abok is corroborated by P-0280’s testimony of having witnessed the killing of abductees.

text: Douglas Obwor, one of the camp officials, was in a position to have knowledge about what happened to the abductees after the attack. He testified that some of the abductees 5390 returned months later. According to Douglas Obwor, people realised later after the 5391 rescue operation that some people remained with the LRA. Douglas Obwor’s testimony is corroborated by P-0280’s account of his time in captivity with the LRA. The Chamber recalls its finding that P-0280 spent a brief period of time in captivity with the LRA. The Chamber found P-0280’s account of this period in captivity credible and reliable. P-0280 testified that the abducted civilians who were not rescued by the 5392 government soldiers continued on with the LRA.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0406 testified that girls who had been abducted in Abok, including girls as young as 12 years old, were taken to Dominic Ongwen’s house by a 5393 fighter called Korea, then Dominic Ongwen’s chief escort. P-0406 testified that some of the abductees taken from Abok joined his commander’s household and some of the 5394 boys were taken to the ‘dog adaki’. The Chamber finds this testimony credible and considers it evidence that some abductees from Abok remained with the LRA. Similarly, the Chamber finds credible V-0002’s testimony that he spent over two years with the 5395 LRA after being abducted in the course of the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: As to the number of civilians abducted from Abok IDP camp, the Chamber notes that in the charges it is alleged that the LRA abducted approximately 26 men, women and 5396 children in the attack. Other evidence also supports the witnesses’ account that many

text: 5389 P-0286: T-131, p. 27, lines 12-20. 5390 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 27. 5391 P-0306 Statement, UGA-OTP-0261-0277-R01, at para. 27. 5392 P-0280: T-83, p. 60, lines 3-5. 5393 P-0406: T-154, p. 76, line 8 – p. 77, line 8. See P-0231: T-122, p. 56, lines 9-14 (Opio Korea was one of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts); P-0309: T-60, p. 26, lines 19-25 (Korea was one of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts). 5394 P-0406: T-154, p. 77, lines 12-19. 5395 V-0002: T-171, p. 17, lines 18-19. 5396 Para. 62 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, p. 87).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 733/1077 4 February 2021 people were abducted in Abok. The Chamber notes that the witnesses in the proceedings did not specify the approximate number of civilians abducted. However, an intelligence report from the Ugandan police, dated 11 June 2004, reported that 26 persons were 5397 abducted but four escaped. A UPDF report, dated August 2004, states that the LRA 5398 abducted 36 people from Abok, but four were rescued by the UPDF. The Chamber notes the discrepancy in the number of abductees. In light of this discrepancy, and the evidence discussed above, the Chamber does not make a finding as to the approximate number of persons abducted by the LRA but concludes that many civilians were abducted from Abok IDP camp by LRA fighters.

text: In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber finds that the LRA abducted civilians from Abok IDP camp and placed them under military guard to prevent their escape; civilians were forced to work for the LRA and compelled to carry looted goods or injured fighters away from the camp under threat of death or beatings. These abducted civilians were severely mistreated by the LRA. Although the Chamber is unable to determine exactly how many persons were abducted, the Chamber is able to conclude that many civilians were abducted from Abok IDP camp.

text: v. Dominic Ongwen’s reporting on the attack

text: Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on the LRA military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters carried out an attack on Abok IDP camp, directing fire and burning everything that was there, including

text: huts in the camp.

text: A record of an intercepted radio communication involved Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Labalpiny, Joseph Kony and others speaking over the radio at some 5400 point in the period of 8-10 June 2004. In the radio communication, Dominic Ongwen reports that he was just ‘coming from warming the body of the boys’, meaning that he 5401 had been attacking a place or fighting. While discussing the attack, Dominic Ongwen

text: 5397 Police Intelligence Report, UGA-OTP-0256-0307. See P-0126 Second Statement, UGA-OTP-0264-0002- R01, at para. 47. 5398 UPDF Report, atrocities committed by LRA rebels in Northern and Eastern Uganda, UGA-OTP-0037-0153, at 0177; UPDF Report, some selected cases of atrocities committed by LRA rebels, UGA-OTP-0032-0038-R01, at 0057. 5399 Para. 204 above. 5400 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See the Chamber’s discussion of the intercepted radio communication, UGA-OTP-0235-0049 in section IV.B.3.ii.p above. 5401 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0124; P-0003: T-43, p. 35, lines 15-22; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0086, at 0087;

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 734/1077 4 February 2021 and other participants joked that Dominic Ongwen ‘made the commander over there run

text: carrying a black chicken on his side’. Dominic Ongwen confirms to Joseph Kony and

text: other LRA members that he carried out an attack ‘[y]esterday’. Dominic Ongwen

text: described the attack: ‘[w]e started directing fire, we burnt everything that was there

text: including all the huts even the camp and the barracks’. Dominic Ongwen stated that

text: he captured some ‘waya’, an LRA code word for civilians. Dominic Ongwen said that

text: he ‘started advancing […] on the soldiers’ and ‘the soldiers all ran away’. Dominic

text: Ongwen and Joseph Kony also discussed civilians raising alarm prior to the attack and

text: Joseph Kony’s urging the use of reconnaissance operations prior to an attack. It was

text: noted that only 30 out of 600 houses were left unburnt in the attack.

text: As discussed in detail in the Chamber’s above discussion of the intercepted radio

text: communications, former LRA signallers P-0016 and P-0440, as well as P-0003 and P-

text: 0059, respectively the UPDF and ISO radio interceptors who recorded the

text: communications and made the logbook entries discussed below, listened to the recording

text: P-0016: T-32, p. 65, line 7-19; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0542; P-0059: T-37, p. 17, lines 18-21; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0381; P-0440: T-40, p. 37, line 17-25. 5402 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0124; P-0003: T-43, p. 33, line 19 – p. 34, line 2; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259- 0086, at 0087; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0542; P-0059: T-37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 16, line 10; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0381. The Chamber recalls that witnesses testified that the UPDF commander in charge of the security of Abok IDP camp fled the LRA in the course of the attack carrying a chicken. See para. 1894, n. 5007 above. The Chamber is thus further convinced that this intercepted radio communication is a discussion of the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack. 5403 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0125-27; P-0003: T-43, p. 33, line 19 – p. 38, line 19; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0259-0086, at 0089-90; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0543-45; P-0059: T-37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 20, line 15, p. 21, lines 7-21, p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 18; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0383-84; P-0440: T-40, p. 36, line 15 – p. 39, line 9. 5404 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0125-27; P-0003: T-43, p. 33, line 19 – p. 38, line 19; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP- 0259-0086, at 0089-90; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0543-45; P-0059: T-37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 20, line 15, p. 21, lines 7-21, p. 22, line 20 – p. 23, line 18; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0383-84; P-0440: T-40, p. 36, line 15 – p. 39, line 9. 5405 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0524-R01, at 0544; P-0059: T-37, p. 18, lines 7-18; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0086, at 0089; P-0016: T-32, p. 66, lines 14-18; P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0126. 5406 See Enhanced audio recording, UGA-OTP-0235-0049. See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248- 0106-R01, at 0126; P-0003: T-43, p. 34, lines 15-21; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0086, at 0089; P-0016: T-32, p. 66, lines 23-25; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0543; P-0059: T- 37, p. 15, line 25 – p. 16, line 9; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0383; P-0440: T-40, p. 38, lines 6-9. 5407 See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0130-33; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0548-50; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0387-89. 5408 See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0124; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0542; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0381.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 735/1077 4 February 2021 before and during the proceedings and each confirmed that they recognised Dominic 5409 Ongwen’s voice reporting the attack. P-0016 also testified that at the time of the Abok attack, he was in the Gilva brigade and he heard Dominic Ongwen send a radio 5410 communication that Abok had been attacked.

text: The Chamber notes that Abok is not mentioned in the transcript of this radio communication.

text: However, the Chamber notes first that Dominic Ongwen’s description of the attack in the radio communication corresponds with its understanding of the attack on Abok IDP 5411 camp on 8 June 2004.

text: Second, the intercepted radio communication took place at some point in the period of 9-10 June 2004, just after the 8 June 2004 Abok IDP camp attack, which is when the LRA would naturally be discussing the attack. Further, in the radio communication, 5412 Dominic Ongwen is referring to an attack he carried out ‘[y]esterday’. Other LRA members, including Vincent Otti, discuss the same attack in the radio communication, also state that it occurred ‘[y]esterday’, and go so far as to say that the attack occurred at 5413 ‘8 pm at night’. The Chamber notes that there is no evidence or suggestion that another LRA attack took place that day. The intercepted radio communication correlates with the witnesses’ testimony to the effect that Abok IDP camp was attacked by the LRA in the early evening on 8 June 2004.

text: Third, logbooks, prepared by UPDF and ISO officers, contain contemporaneous written records of the radio communication connecting the attack discussed therein to the Abok attack. The content of the logbooks correlates to the intercepted radio communication and these logbooks identify Abok as the location of the attack. A UPDF logbook entry, dated 9 June 2004, contains the following:

text: 5409 See the Chamber’s discussion of the intercepted radio communication, UGA-OTP-0235-0049 in section IV.B.3.ii.p above. 5410 P-0016: T-34, p. 17, lines 2-21. 5411 See section IV.C.9.iv above. 5412 See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0125; P-0016 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0259-0086, at 0088; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0543; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0382. 5413 See P-0003 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0106-R01, at 0122-24; P-0059 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA- OTP-0248-0524-R01, at 0540-42; P-0440 Tape 837 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0363-R01, at 0379-81.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 736/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dominic came on air with OPN reports that he attacked Abok IDP camp […] yesterday 2100hrs. He overpowered UPDF running in disarray and later on they were reinforced by Mambas but he managed to recover the following items: 6 full magazines, 4 pairs of gum boots, 2 dust coats and 2 empty magazines. He further revealed that about 30 civs were burnt to death in their houses and 570 houses were set ablaze. He disclosed that on his side there were no loss to the UPDF. Vincent 5414 Otti encouraged Dominic to continue with such plans.

text: Another UPDF logbook, also with an entry dated 9 June 2004 and containing information in line with the radio communication, names ‘Aboke Centre’ as the location of the

text: 5415 attack. Similarly, an ISO logbook, dated 9 June 2004, containing information correlating to the radio communication also names ‘Aboke centre’ as the location of the 5416 attack.

text: Importantly, the UPDF and ISO logbooks from 9-10 June 2004 do not mention any other LRA attack occurring on 8 June 2004, apart from the attack on Abok IDP camp. Dominic Ongwen’s own words in the intercepted radio communications overwhelmingly match

text: the corresponding logbooks. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber, contrary to the 5417 Defence submission, concludes that the intercepted radio communication shows

text: Dominic Ongwen discussing the Abok IDP camp attack at issue in these proceedings. In his communication with other LRA members, including Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen himself reports that his troops attacked Abok IDP camp on or about 8 June 2004, causing great damage to the camp and its civilian population.

text: 5414 UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0324. 5415 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3078. The Chamber notes that the UPDF Logbook (Gulu) contains less detail than the UPDF Logbook (Lira) discussed above. For example, this logbook does not mention the claim that the UPDF was reinforced by mambas as does the UPDF Logbook (Lira). Further this logbook reports that 600 civilian homes were burnt as opposed to the 570 detailed in the UPDF Logbook (Gulu). However, the Chamber considers that variations in detail are to be expected from logbooks which contain the records made by different individuals at different interception locations, taking contemporaneous notes during radio communications. 5416 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0023. See also Police Logbook, UGA-OTP-0037-0002, at 0100 (naming ‘Abok’ as the location of the LRA attack on 8 June 2004). 5417 Defence Closing Brief, para. 465.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 737/1077 4 February 2021

text: Sexual and gender based violence directly perpetrated by Dominic

text: Ongwen

text: Dominic Ongwen faces 10 charges of directly perpetrating crimes of sexual and genderbased violence against seven women: (P-0099); (P- 0101); (P-0214); (P-0226); (P-0227); (P-0235); and (P-0236). These women all testified before the Pre-Trial Chamber and their testimony, collected and preserved pursuant to

text: Article 56

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , was subsequently introduced at trial. As stated above, the Chamber finds the 5418 testimony of these witnesses to be fully reliable. The Chamber notes that these witnesses testified to remarkably similar experiences which they all, at different times, were subjected to. However, the facts and circumstances described in the charges (and corresponding legal characterisation) are not identical with respect to all of them. This is primarily due to the Court only having jurisdiction over crimes committed as of 1 July 2002 and the Prosecution electing to bring charges against Dominic Ongwen only for 5419 crimes committed until 31 December 2005. In accordance with

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber is bound by the text of the charges as confirmed, and the judgment shall not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges. At the same time, reference to certain events concerning one or more of the seven witnesses – even if outside the parameters of the charges as such – may still be of relevance, as circumstantial evidence, to establish facts and circumstances described in the charges, or may otherwise be necessary to contextualise and fully articulate the facts of the charges, in particular as concerns the beginning and the end of the temporal scope of the charges. It is in these instances that the Chamber refers to evidence of conduct outside the parameters of the charges and makes the necessary corresponding findings as part of its determination on the facts described in the charges as underlying the crimes with which Dominic Ongwen is charged.

text: i. Abduction and ‘distribution’ to Dominic Ongwen

text: The Chamber will now set out the evidence of how: (i) each of the seven women was abducted by the LRA and (ii) how each of these women ended up being sent to Dominic

text: 5418 See section IV.B.2.iii.a above. 5419 In this regard, the Chamber notes the similar remarks made by the Pre-Trial Chamber in the present case at paras 105-107 of the Confirmation Decision.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 738/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen’s household. Other parts of this judgment set out the overall practice of

text: 5420 ‘distributing’ abducted women and girls within the LRA.

text: a. P-0099

text: (Witness P-0099) had been abducted by LRA fighters from Purongo, Northern Uganda in February 1998 and from there taken by the LRA to Sudan. By 1 July 2002, while in Sudan, she had been forced to become Dominic Ongwen’s so-called

text: ‘wife’.

text: 5422 In February 1998, (P-0099) was living in Purongo, Northern Uganda.

text: She was around 15 years old and living at home because her mother was not able to pay

text: 5423 for her to go to school. As she slept one night, LRA fighters suddenly entered her

text: 5424 house and told her to get up and leave without shouting. As she left the house, she

text: saw her uncle – an escort to Joseph Kony – as a member of the group of about 100 fighters

text: 5425 5426 who came to abduct her. Dominic Ongwen was also in this group.

text: 5427 The LRA fighters took P-0099 and a group of around 30 fellow abductees. Older

text: people were soon released, but she was kept in the remaining group which travelled to

text: 5428 meet Joseph Kony in Sudan. P-0099 lived at Joseph Kony’s house for seven months

text: 5429 as a ting ting. Joseph Kony wanted P-0099 to be his so-called ‘wife’, but P-0099 did

text: 5430 not want this and asked her uncle to speak with Joseph Kony. The uncle did so and

text: 5431 Joseph Kony agreed to transfer P-0099 to be another’s so-called ‘wife’. Three

text: 5432 commanders asked P-0099 to be their so-called ‘wife’, and she refused each one.

text: Dominic Ongwen was the fourth to ask – P-0099 testified she felt obliged to go and

text: 5433 5434 accepted. After a few days, Dominic Ongwen sent his escorts to come collect her.

text: 5420 See section IV.C.11.iii below. 5421 Para. 205 above. 5422 P-0099: T-14, p. 11, lines 11-14. 5423 P-0099: T-14, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 25, p. 13, lines 2-12. 5424 P-0099: T-14, p. 13, line 25 – p. 14, line 13. 5425 P-0099: T-14, p. 14, line 14 – p. 15, line 4, p. 17, line 24 – p. 19, line 4. 5426 P-0099: T-14, p. 17, lines 16-20. 5427 P-0099: T-14, p. 15, lines 5-12. 5428 P-0099: T-14, p. 15, line 21 – p. 19, line 19. 5429 P-0099: T-14, p. 20, line 22 – p. 22, line 4. 5430 P-0099: T-14, p. 24, line 10 – p. 25, line 7. 5431 P-0099: T-14, p. 25, line 11 – p. 26, line 8. 5432 P-0099: T-14, p. 27, line 22 – p. 28, line 10. 5433 P-0099: T-14, p. 28, lines 11-21. 5434 P-0099: T-14, p. 30, line 15 – p. 31, line 10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 739/1077 4 February 2021 b. P-0101

text: Dominic Ongwen had personally abducted (Witness P-0101) from Northern Uganda in August 1996. Dominic Ongwen immediately took her into his

text: household, where she stayed until her release in 2004.

text: 5436 In August 1996, (P-0101) was 15 years old. Her older brother

text: 5437 asked her to deliver a bicycle to someone very early in the morning. P-0101 delivered

text: 5438 it and was hurrying back to the fields. She was wearing her school uniform, which P-

text: 5439 0101 remembered as a pink skirt and white blouse with red stripes on the arms. On

text: her way back she encountered Dominic Ongwen leading a group of LRA soldiers who

text: 5440 then abducted her. Abudema – the superior commander of Dominic Ongwen’s group

text: – said that girls should be released, but Dominic Ongwen ‘did not accept, saying that he

text: 5441 had already found his wife and would not release his abductee’. After the abduction

text: Dominic Ongwen separated P-0101 from the other abductees and smeared her with water

text: 5442 and shea nut oil in order to mark her as his. As discussed below, P-0101 was

text: considered part of Dominic Ongwen’s household and his ‘wife’ until her release in July

text: 5443 2004.

text: c. P-0214

text: (Witness P-0214) had been abducted from Laliya, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters in June 2000 and from there taken to Sudan. In September 2002, she was

text: ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen.

text: On a day in June 2000 when (P-0214) was around 17 years old, she went to

text: sleep in an enclosed place because the security situation was not good near Laliya where

text: 5445 her family lived. She awoke to gunfire at the Laliya centre, but managed to go back

text: 5446 5447 to sleep. She had a dream that soldiers were coming to abduct her. When she woke

text: 5435 Para. 205 above. 5436 P-0101: T-13, p. 16, lines 6-20. 5437 P-0101: T-13, p. 49, line 21 – p. 50, line 14. 5438 P-0101: T-13, p. 49, line 21 – p. 50, line 14. 5439 P-0101: T-13, p. 18, line 21 – p. 19, line 1. 5440 P-0101: T-13, p. 16, lines 6-20, p. 48, line 5 – p. 49, line 6. 5441 P-0101: T-13, p. 50, lines 8-10. 5442 P-0101: T-13, p. 50, lines 4-13. 5443 See sub-sections IV.C.10.ii and IV.C.10.iii below. 5444 Para. 205 above. 5445 P-0214: T-15, p. 3, lines 10-16, p. 5, line 9 – p. 6, line 4. 5446 P-0214: T-15, p. 5, lines 14-21. 5447 P-0214: T-15, p. 5, lines 14-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 740/1077 4 February 2021 up the gate enclosing her had been broken and LRA soldiers from the Sinia Brigade were

text: 5448 5449 flashing torches in her room. They told her to get up and get out. P-0214 told the

text: soldiers she had a problem with her leg – a soldier then stepped on the injured leg and

text: 5450 told her she was lying. She got up and started moving with the LRA along with around

text: 5451 50 other abductees. They eventually travelled to Sudan – at a point along the way all

text: 5452 female abductees were released except P-0214 and one other. Upon reaching Sudan,

text: 5453 P-0214 met Joseph Kony. When Dominic Ongwen later arrived in the area, Joseph

text: 5454 Kony directed people to take P-0214 to the accused’s house.

text: In the course of P-0214’s testimony, the Chamber notes there was significant confusion

text: as to whether P-0214 was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen in 2002 or 2004. The witness

text: initially vacillated between these years, though in the course of the Defence questioning

text: 5455 she clearly stated she was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen in September 2002. The

text: Chamber considers that P-0214’s final statement on her ‘distribution’ year is the correct

text: one, given that: (i) P-0214 remembers seeing P-0226 and hearing from her about P-0099

text: and P-0101 as so-called ‘wives’ of Dominic Ongwen when she arrived at Dominic

text: 5456 Ongwen’s household – all three women were there for at least part of September 2002,

text: but neither P-0099 nor P-0226 were there in 2004, while P-0101 escaped in July 2004 at

text: a time at which she stated P-0214 to have been one of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called

text: 5457 5458 ‘wives’, and (ii) P-0214 recalls P-0226 leaving the bush after having been injured,

text: 5459 which happened in 2003. The Chamber also considers that mixing up 2002 and 2004

text: is the kind of ordinary mistake that can happen when testifying to events experienced

text: 5460 over a decade ago.

text: 5448 P-0214: T-15, p. 5, line 22 – p. 6, line 4, p. 6, line 24 – p. 7, line 2. 5449 P-0214: T-15, p. 6, lines 5-13. 5450 P-0214: T-15, p. 6, lines 5-13. 5451 P-0214: T-15, p. 7, lines 11-14. 5452 P-0214: T-15, p. 9, line 14 – p. 12, line 9. 5453 P-0214: T-15, p. 12, lines 8-9. 5454 P-0214: T-15, p. 15, line 13 – p. 16, line 6. 5455 P-0214: T-15, p. 16, line 7 – p. 18, line 10, p. 43, line 3 – p. 44, line 10. 5456 P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 18, line 11 – p. 19, line 5. 5457 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 12, lines 1-5, p. 15, line 21 – p. 16, line 3. 5458 P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 20, lines 19-23. 5459 See para. 2091 below. 5460 See especially P-0214: T-15, p. 16, lines 7-10 (conceding at the outset that P-0214 did ‘not recall the actual date because it’s been a while’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 741/1077 4 February 2021 d. P-0226

text: (Witness P-0226) had been abducted from her home at Patiko Cetkana, Lukome, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s command around

text: By 1 July 2002, she was a ting ting in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: 5462 In 1991, (P-0226) was born in Patiko Cetkana, Lukome. She lived there

text: 5463 with her parents, two brothers and four sisters. One day around 1998, she woke up

text: early in the morning and sat outside around a fireplace with one of her sisters and her

text: 5464 5465 uncle’s son. Her mother was outside peeling cassava.

text: 5466 P-0226 then saw about 50 LRA soldiers coming to her house. The soldiers arrived

text: 5467 and told her ‘[l]ittle girl, stand up’. P-0226 refused – the soldier took out a gun and

text: 5468 told her to get up. She got up to start walking with the soldiers, who were also taking

text: 5469 her sister and her uncle’s son. P-0226’s mother tried to stop the soldiers from taking

text: 5470 5471 her and her sister. The soldiers told her mother to keep quiet. P-0226 could hear

text: 5472 her mother crying as they were moving away. At the time, P-0226 was seven years

text: 5473 old.

text: P-0226’s sister did not travel with the soldiers very long before she was put in a house

text: 5474 and left there by the LRA. The explanation given to her sister on why she was not

text: 5475 held by the soldiers was that she was ugly.

text: 5476 P-0226 stayed with the soldiers and was forced to carry salt on their journey. The salt

text: 5477 leaked out of the bag and, when coupled with rain, gave her sores on her head.

text: Eventually their group stopped and P-0226 first met Dominic Ongwen, who at the time

text: 5461 Para. 205 above. 5462 P-0226: T-8, p. 8, lines 10-11, p. 9, lines 2-5. 5463 P-0226: T-8, p. 9, line 20 – p. 10, line 3. 5464 P-0226: T-8, p. 9, lines 6-7, p. 10, lines 14-22. 5465 P-0226: T-8, p. 10, lines 23-24. 5466 P-0226: T-8, p. 10, lines 4-6, p. 14, lines 1-17. 5467 P-0226: T-8, p. 11, lines 15-18. 5468 P-0226: T-8, p. 11, lines 15-18. 5469 P-0226: T-8, p. 10, lines 14-16, p. 11, line 19 – p. 12, line 9. 5470 P-0226: T-8, p. 11, line 22 – p. 12, line 2. 5471 P-0226: T-8, p. 11, line 22 – p. 12, line 2. 5472 P-0226: T-8, p. 11, line 22 – p. 12, line 2. 5473 P-0226: T-8, p. 9, lines 6-7, p. 27, lines 17-18; T-9, p. 8, lines 5-25. 5474 P-0226: T-8, p. 12, line 15 – p. 13, line 11. 5475 P-0226: T-8, p. 13, lines 9-11. 5476 P-0226: T-8, p. 14, lines 18-22. See also p. 14, line 18 – p. 18, line 20. 5477 P-0226: T-8, p. 15, lines 18-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 742/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5478 commanded the group abducting her. They continued travelling for about a month

text: until they reached Sudan, where P-0226 met Joseph Kony for purposes of being

text: 5479 ‘distributed’ along with other girls. Joseph Kony was the first to choose girls from P-

text: 5480 0226’s group. After he made his selection, Dominic Ongwen chose P-0226 and sent

text: 5481 his escorts to take her to his home.

text: P-0226 had not had a bath since her abduction and Dominic Ongwen arranged through

text: 5482 one of his so-called ‘wives’ for her to put a shabby dress over her school uniform.

text: She looked such that – despite being only seven years old – Joseph Kony asked Dominic

text: 5483 Ongwen during the distribution ‘[w]hy did you bring an old person here?’ P-0226

text: understood that Dominic Ongwen was disguising her beauty from Joseph Kony so she

text: 5484 would not be selected. When Joseph Kony realised what P-0226 actually looked like,

text: 5485 he sent his escort to collect her. Dominic Ongwen hid P-0226 by keeping her under

text: 5486 his bed for approximately one month. Ultimately, P-0226 remained in Dominic

text: 5487 Ongwen’s house – the witness did not see Dominic Ongwen beaten for this conduct.

text: P-0226 was initially a ting ting in Dominic Ongwen’s household and eventually

text: proclaimed by Dominic Ongwen as one of his so-called ‘wives’ at some point after

text: 5488 September 2002.

text: 5478 P-0226: T-8, p. 17, line 23 – p. 18, line 16, p. 23, lines 4-6. 5479 P-0226: T-8, p. 21, lines 12-19, p. 26, lines 6-12. See also p. 24, line 3 – p. 29, line 18. 5480 P-0226: T-8, p. 26, lines 6-12, p. 27, lines 12-14; T-9, p. 20, lines 18-25. 5481 P-0226: T-8, p. 29, lines 10-18. 5482 P-0226: T-8, p. 26, line 25 – p. 27, line 11. 5483 P-0226: T-8, p. 27, lines 12-19. 5484 P-0226: T-9, p. 20, line 18 – p. 21, line 19. 5485 P-0226: T-9, p. 32, lines 12-15. See also p. 32, line 12 – p. 36, line 12. 5486 P-0226: T-9, p. 32, lines 16-22. 5487 P-0226: T-9, p. 35, line 8 – p. 36, line 12. 5488 See paras 2036, 2051-2055 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 743/1077 4 February 2021 e. P-0227

text: (Witness P-0227) was abducted from Pageya, Northern Uganda by LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s command in approximately April 2005. She joined

text: Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: 5490 In April 2005, (P-0227) was around 19 years old and living in Pageya.

text: 5491 Very late at night, two uniformed armed LRA entered her house. P-0227 had been

text: 5492 reading earlier, but by this time had fallen asleep. The sound of the door being pushed

text: 5493 woke her up. The men shined a torch around, found some millet flour and ordered

text: 5494 P-0227 to put it in a sack. She was then told by the men to ‘[c]arry that millet flour

text: 5495 5496 and get out’. P-0227 complied. Her mother tried to cry – P-0227 testified that the

text: men said if her mother continued crying that meant ‘she wanted to see me die, so my

text: 5497 mother has to keep quiet’. Two of P-0227’s brothers were abducted at the same

text: 5498 time.

text: 5499 When P-0227 left her house she saw other soldiers outside. She saw her father lying

text: 5500 down on his stomach with some women next to him. P-0227 could not tell if her father

text: 5501 was alive or not. P-0227 was told to start walking with the millet flour, which she

text: 5502 did. Others from her town were also abducted – another Pageya girl was soon released

text: 5503 but P-0227 was not.

text: 5504 P-0227 was brought before the soldiers’ commander, Dominic Ongwen. The soldiers

text: told Dominic Ongwen that they got some food and girls and, though they had to release

text: 5489 Para. 205 above. 5490 P-0227: T-10, p. 2, lines 17-21, p. 5, line 25 – p. 10, line 10. P-0205 recalls P-0227 being present at Lukodi for the mid-2004 attack. P-0205: T-49, p. 72, line 24 – p. 73, line 4. P-0227 never mentions Lukodi. Given the distant events being recalled and how P-0227 is best placed to remember her own abduction year, the Chamber considers P-0205 to simply be mistaken on this point. 5491 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, lines 10-16. See also p. 5, line 25 – p. 10, line 10. 5492 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, lines 10-19. 5493 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, lines 10-19. 5494 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, lines 20-24. 5495 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, line 25. 5496 P-0227: T-10, p. 6, line 25 – p. 7, line 1. 5497 P-0227: T-10, p. 7, lines 2-4. 5498 P-0227: T-10, p. 8, lines 3-8. 5499 P-0227: T-10, p. 8, lines 18-24. 5500 P-0227: T-10, p. 8, line 25 – p. 9, line 2. 5501 P-0227: T-10, p. 9, lines 4-8. 5502 P-0227: T-10, p. 8, line 25 – p. 9, line 2. 5503 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 10, line 11 – p. 11, line 14, p. 14, lines 2-18. See also T-10, p. 16, lines 17-22. 5504 P-0227: T-10, p. 15, line 23 – p. 16, line 1. See also p. 15, line 23 – p. 17, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 744/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5505 one of them, they brought the rest. Dominic Ongwen laughed and said ‘Thank you.

text: 5506 You should have brought even the other girl. Why did you let her go?’ P-0227 was

text: 5507 then forced to join Dominic Ongwen’s homestead.

text: The Defence raises inconsistencies in P-0227’s date of abduction, alleging she testified

text: 5508 to being abducted in September 2002 and April 2005. P-0227 never testified to a 2002

text: abduction date – the Defence simply misstates the evidence. But there are discrepancies

text: 5509 between P-0227’s testimony and her GUSCO form, one of which is an abduction date

text: (April 2004) exactly one year earlier than the date given in her testimony. P-0227

text: explained that she provided the information in a state of exhaustion and simply made a

text: 5510 mistake in the completion of the form. The Chamber considers P-0227’s explanation

text: to be compelling, and notes that other evidence also points to what she said in her

text: 5511 testimony being true. The Chamber believes P-0227’s testimony on these points, and

text: not her GUSCO form.

text: f. P-0235

text: (Witness P-0235) was abducted by the LRA fighters in Kitgum town in

text: September 2002. After her abduction she was placed in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: 5513 (P-0235), born in 1987, lived in Kitgum with her mother. One night P-

text: 0235 was sleeping when the door to their house was broken open by LRA fighters from

text: 5514 5515 Sinia brigade. P-0235 was asked to leave the house. P-0235’s mother asked the

text: fighters to leave P-0235 – the soldiers threatened to beat her mother and made her

text: 5505 P-0227: T-10, p. 16, lines 17-22. 5506 P-0227: T-10, p. 16, line 25 – p. 17, line 2. 5507 P-0227: T-10, p. 17, line 19 – p. 18, line 11. 5508 Defence Closing Brief, para. 70, n. 64. 5509 P-0227 GUSCO rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0233-0730. 5510 Compare P-0227 GUSCO rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0233-0730, at 0732 with P-0227: T-10, p. 61, lines 5-19; T-11, p. 19, line 17 – p. 20, line 6. 5511 P-0101 and P-0227 mention other women considered as Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wives’, but not each other. This is consistent with P-0227 being abducted in 2005 as claimed in her testimony, noting that P-0101 escaped the LRA in July 2004. 5512 Para. 205 above. 5513 P-0235: T-17, p. 2, lines 6-10, p. 3, lines 17-21. While P-0245 explained how P-0235 was abducted from Lacani, not Kitgum (see P-0245: T-98, p. 15, line 7 – p. 17, line 12, p. 20, line 4 – p. 22, line 5; T-100, p. 34, lines 3-13), the Chamber recalls its conclusion that it does not rely on P-0245’s testimony (see paras 277-280 above). In any event, the Chamber considers P-0235 to be best placed to know where she was abducted from. 5514 P-0235: T-17, p. 3, line 25 – p. 4, line 9, p. 4, line 25 – p. 5, line 9. See also p. 3, line 25 – p. 6, line 16. 5515 P-0235: T-17, p. 3, line 25 – p. 4, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 745/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5516 5517

text: leave. P-0235 then left with her captors as her mother remained at the house. P-

text: 0235 travelled with the soldiers and other abductees until they reached Pader and met

text: 5518 5519

text: Dominic Ongwen. P-0235 was sent to live at Dominic Ongwen’s home.

text: P-0235 remembered being abducted in September, but was not positive about whether it

text: was 2001 or 2002. She initially testified she was abducted in September 2001, but

text: then vacillated between 2001 and 2002. P-0235’s prior statement also mentions both

text: years, saying that her mother remembered the abduction being in 2001. P-0235’s explanation for not remembering is that ‘I’d been in the bush for a really long time and

text: I’d – I was not very sure about the year. It was when I came back that I was told that I

text: was abducted in 2001’. Given the traumatic nature of her abduction and that P-0235

text: spent well over a decade in the bush, the Chamber can appreciate why she may not

text: remember the year of her abduction. This said, other evidence confirms that P-0235 was

text: abducted in September 2002 and not 2001. P-0235 suggests that there was an attack on

text: a place called Lanyatilo soon after her abduction, and this attack occurred in

text: 5525 5526

text: September 2002. P-0235 and P-0236 were abducted contemporaneously, and P-

text: 0236 unequivocally testified to being abducted in September 2002. P-0235 also

text: 5516 P-0235: T-17, p. 4, lines 7-8, p. 6, lines 10-13. 5517 P-0235: T-17, p. 6, lines 10-16. 5518 P-0235: T-17, p. 6, lines 10-16, p. 7, lines 7-15. 5519 P-0235: T-17, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 4. 5520 P-0235: T-17, p. 3, lines 17-21. 5521 P-0235: T-17, p. 14, lines 13-20, p. 50, lines 1-4, p. 67, lines 6-18. 5522 P-0235 Statement, UGA-OTP-0240-0003-R01, at para. 11. 5523 P-0235: T-17, p. 50, lines 1-4. 5524 P-0235: T-17, p. 14, lines 13-20, p. 67, lines 6-21 (see especially this excerpt, with emphasis added: ‘You mentioned an attack on Pot-Ogali. Was Dominic injured at the time of the attack on Pot-Ogali? A. No, not yet. It was at the time of Lanyatilo he was not yet injured. In 2002 I had just been newly abducted and that’s my recollection and that’s how I recall it.’). 5525 The Chamber notes that both P-0309 and P-0379 described an attack on UPDF barracks at Lanyatido (which is understood to be the same place as that mentioned by P-0235) led by Dominic Ongwen (P-0309: T-61, p. 14, line 7 – p. 16, line 1; P-0379: T-56, p. 37, line 16 – p. 43, line 12). While neither witness testifies to a specific date on which the attack occurred, an entry from the ISO logbook suggests that this attack took place in mid- September 2002 (see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0021). In this regard, the Chamber also notes its discussion on the general reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666. As discussed below, P-0309 was himself abducted in September 2002 in the area of Lanyatido (see para. 2345), while P-0379 was abducted in August 2002 (see para. 360) and testified that the attack on Lanyatido barracks was the first attack he participated in (P-0379: T-56, p. 37, lines 16-17). In addition, the Chamber takes note in this context that neither P-0309 nor P-0379 mentioned Dominic Ongwen having been impaired by any injury at the time (P-0309 only mentions that Dominic Ongwen suffered a small injury to the chest during the attack for which he did not have to go to sickbay; T-62, p. 34, lines 6-13); as regards the timing of Dominic Ongwen’s injury to his leg and his subsequent stay in sickbay, see paras 1021-1049 above. 5526 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 17, lines 5-11 (P-0236 abducted the week after her). 5527 P-0236: T-16, p. 6, line 19 – p. 7, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 746/1077 4 February 2021 testified that P-0214 was in Dominic Ongwen’s household when she arrived, and P-0214

text: 5528 was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen in 2002. In light of this, the Chamber concludes

text: that P-0235 was abducted no earlier than September 2002.

text: g. P-0236

text: (Witness P-0236) was abducted from Wang’yaa in Ogule, Pajule, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters in September 2002. She was ‘distributed’ to Dominic

text: Ongwen.

text: In September 2002, (P-0236) was 11 years old and staying in Wang’yaa in

text: 5530 Ogule, Pajule. P-0236 was at her father’s uncle’s house when three uniformed armed

text: 5531 LRA fighters entered. P-0236 was grinding food when a soldier told her ‘[c]ome here

text: 5532 young girl’. Her uncle’s wife made a sign to P-0236 not to go, but the soldiers

text: 5533 5534 insisted. P-0236 was brought back to a larger group of soldiers. P-0236 was with

text: 5535 Buk Abudema initially, but he then gave her to Dominic Ongwen.

text: ii. Coercive environment – Life as so-called ‘wives’

text: The seven women ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen were not allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. They were told or came to understand that if

text: they tried to escape they would be killed.

text: The Chamber will briefly discuss the overall coercive environment the seven so-called

text: ‘wives’ found themselves in after being distributed to Dominic Ongwen. It concerns the

text: coercive environment specific to them, though it is a microcosm of the coercive

text: environment all women and girls faced in the LRA. Specific elements of this environment

text: are discussed more in subsequent sub-sections, including sexual violence (and

text: 5537 5538 5539 5540 pregnancies), beatings, forced labour and orders to kill others. These

text: 5528 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 6, line 25 – p. 7, line 4, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 6; para. 2015 above. 5529 Para. 205 above. 5530 P-0236: T-16, p. 6, lines 13-24. See also p. 6, line 7 – p. 9, line 3. 5531 P-0236: T-16, p. 7, line 7 – p. 8, line 13. 5532 P-0236: T-16, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 7. 5533 P-0236: T-16, p. 7, line 25 – p. 8, line 7. 5534 P-0236: T-16, p. 8, line 23 – p. 9, line 17, p. 10, line 15 – p. 11, line 18; P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 65, line 9 – p. 66, line 12. 5535 P-0236: T-16, p. 11, lines 6-18. 5536 Para. 206 above. 5537 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.a below. 5538 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.b below. 5539 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.c below. 5540 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.d below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 747/1077 4 February 2021 elements are all part of – and the result of – the same coercive environment. By arguing

text: that Dominic Ongwen was also a victim of the LRA’s coercive environment concerning

text: the relationships between men and women, the Defence itself acknowledges that such an

text: 5541 environment existed.

text: 5542 All seven women were required to be ‘distributed’ to a male commander. Once

text: distributed to Dominic Ongwen, these women all joined his household and were not

text: 5543 5544 allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. They were

text: 5545 told or came to understand that if they tried to escape they would be killed. Some of

text: 5546 the women saw attempted escapees killed by the LRA. P-0235 recalled being severely

text: beaten after one of her escape attempts and testified that ‘[a]fter they had beaten me, I

text: decided that I was not going to attempt any further escapes because I knew that if I did

text: 5547 attempt another escape then I would definitely be killed’.

text: The fear Dominic Ongwen instilled to prevent escape is particularly supported by P-

text: 0227’s first interaction with him. When brought before Dominic Ongwen, he asked P-

text: 5548 0227 if she was a schoolgirl and whether living in Pageya was nice. He then asked

text: 5549 her if she was homesick. In addition to the two brothers abducted with her, P-0227’s

text: stepbrother had been abducted by the LRA and returned home before she was

text: 5550 abducted. Upon his return, he told P-0227 that the LRA badly beat those who wanted

text: 5551 to come home. With her stepbrother’s words in her mind, P-0227 said she was not

text: 5552 homesick.

text: 5541 Defence Closing Brief, paras 474-75. 5542 P-0099: T-14, p. 27, lines 9-12; P-0214: T-15, p. 13, line 19 – p. 14, line 8; P-0226: T-8, p. 33, lines 1-6. See also section IV.C.10.i above. 5543 P-0099: T-14, p. 23, line 5 – p. 24, line 9, p. 44, line 24 – p. 45, line 24; P-0101: T-13, p. 12, lines 6-19 (describing radio broadcast encouraging Dominic Ongwen to release ‘wives’); P-0226: T-8, p. 32, lines 12-19 (if selected women and girls refused to go where they were told, they would ‘either be beaten or killed’). 5544 P-0099: T-14, p. 41, line 21 – p. 42, line 7; P-0227: T-10, p. 27, line 24 – p. 28, line 5, p. 43, lines 8-18; P- 0235: T-17, p. 11, line 9 – p. 12, line 12. See also P-0226: T-8, p. 37, lines 8-15 (also describing male guard around women and children, but discussed in the context of protecting them from invading forces). 5545 P-0099: T-14, p. 24, lines 5-9, p. 45, line 19 – p. 46, line 17; P-0101: T-13, p. 44, lines 8-17; P-0214: T-15, p. 28, lines 12-18. 5546 P-0226: T-9, p. 3, line 19 – p. 5, line 7; P-0236: T-16, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 10, p. 34, lines 3-13. 5547 P-0235: T-17, p. 10, lines 15-21; para. 2079 below. 5548 P-0227: T-10, p. 17, line 19 – p. 18, line 2. See also p. 17, line 19 – p. 22, line 10. 5549 P-0227: T-10, p. 19, line 25 – p. 20, line 2. 5550 P-0227: T-10, p. 18, lines 15-21. 5551 P-0227: T-10, p. 18, line 22 – p. 19, line 11. 5552 P-0227: T-10, p. 19, line 17 – p. 20, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 748/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dominic Ongwen then had a further conversation with P-0227 and her two abducted

text: 5553 brothers. Dominic Ongwen said ‘[n]ow you have been arrested from the same

text: 5554 homestead. Should we release one of you?’ P-0227 asked for the release of her brother

text: 5555 who had recently had an operation and was not yet cured. Her two brothers told

text: 5556 Dominic Ongwen that P-0227 should be the one released.

text: Dominic Ongwen reacted by releasing none of them – the brothers were sent to where

text: 5557 the guards were staying while P-0227 remained with the women. Dominic Ongwen

text: then ordered his guards to beat P-0227’s brothers so that they may forget about their

text: 5558 homes. The guards were to beat the brothers so badly so that they would stop speaking

text: 5559 English, as one of P-0227’s brothers was shouting ‘Jesus, oh, God help me’.

text: After a while of P-0227 sitting with the other women, who included P-0214 and P-0235,

text: 5560 she was asked if she felt homesick. She said she was and was thinking about her

text: 5561 mother. The women told her ‘Just stay calm. Don’t think about any other thing.

text: 5562 There’s no going back. Just stay with us’.

text: P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were considered Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ and had to maintain an exclusive conjugal relationship with him. Being Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ did not cease until they escaped or were released from the

text: LRA.

text: Not all of the seven women became so-called ‘wives’ immediately, as some were so

text: 5564 young they initially joined Dominic Ongwen’s household as ting tings.

text: No traditional rituals of marriage were observed, and none of the women had any

text: effective choice in being conjugally associated with the accused. These seven women

text: identify different moments as to exactly when they became Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wife’:

text: 5553 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, line 4 – p. 22, line 3. 5554 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, lines 4-9. 5555 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, lines 4-14. 5556 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, lines 4-14. 5557 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, lines 15-19. 5558 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 1. 5559 P-0227: T-10, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 1. 5560 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 17, lines 3-12, p. 20, line 6 – p. 21, line 3, p. 22, lines 4-10. 5561 P-0227: T-10, p. 22, lines 4-10. 5562 P-0227: T-10, p. 22, lines 4-10. 5563 Para. 206 above. 5564 E.g. P-0226, P-0235, P-0236.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 749/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5565 (i) when Dominic Ongwen abducted them; (ii) when they felt obliged to accept

text: 5566 Dominic Ongwen’s request to stay in his household as a ‘wife’ or (iii) when they had

text: 5567 their first forcible sexual encounter with the accused. The circumstances of all starting

text: points identified were inherently coercive.

text: P-0099 and P-0101 were Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ at the beginning of the

text: temporal frame of the charges on 1 July 2002, while P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 became

text: 5568 Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ during the period of the charges. In addition,

text: both P-0235 and P-0236 became Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ after the time

text: 5569 relevant to the charges. In the case of all seven women, being Dominic Ongwen’s so-

text: 5570 called ‘wife’ did not cease until they escaped or were released from the LRA.

text: As so-called ‘wives’, these seven women had to maintain an exclusive conjugal and

text: 5571 therefore also sexual relationship with Dominic Ongwen. Punishment for having

text: sexual intercourse with anyone else was severe. P-0227 described what happened when

text: one of Joseph Kony’s so-called ‘wives’ was caught having sexual intercourse with one

text: 5572 of his guards. Both the so-called ‘wife’ – who had a baby girl – and the guard were

text: 5573 5574 brought before Joseph Kony. P-0227 saw them both promptly shot dead.

text: The exclusivity of Dominic Ongwen’s forced marriages is further supported by the fate

text: 5575 of an escort named Nyeko during 2007 in the Congo. Dominic Ongwen had a dream

text: 5576 that P-0236 was ‘sleeping with someone’. Dominic Ongwen told P-0214 the next day

text: 5577 that Nyeko was in love with P-0236 and Nyeko had sex with P-0236 three times. The

text: 5565 P-0101: T-13, p. 16, lines 9-16. 5566 P-0099: T-14, p. 28, lines 11-21; P-0226: T-8, p. 44, lines 11-25 (had been living previously with Dominic Ongwen as a ting ting). 5567 P-0214: T-15, p. 21, lines 15-20 (continues to discuss first sexual encounter); P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 8-16 (same). See also P-0235: T-17, p. 31, line 20 – p. 32, line 20 (same); P-0236: T-16, p. 20, line 19 – p. 21, line 10 (same). 5568 See sub-section IV.C.10.ii.a below. 5569 See P-0235: T-17, p. 31, line 20 – p. 32, line 20; P-0236: T-16, p. 20, line 19 – p. 21, line 10. 5570 See sub-section IV.C.10.iii below. 5571 P-0099: T-14, p. 39, line 25 – p. 40, line 3; P-0226: T-8, p. 53, lines 19-21; P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 51, lines 5-10, p. 52, line 1 – p. 54, line 1. 5572 P-0227: T-10, p. 51, lines 5-25. 5573 P-0227: T-10, p. 51, lines 5-25. 5574 P-0227: T-10, p. 51, lines 5-25. 5575 P-0236: T-16, p. 13, lines 4-10, p. 14, line 20 – p. 16, line 19; P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 52, line 1 – p. 54, line 1; P-0233: T-111, p. 61, line 22 – p. 64, line 1. 5576 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 52, lines 1-14. 5577 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 52, lines 1-14, p. 53, lines 2-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 750/1077 4 February 2021 evidence is a little unclear what exactly P-0236 said to Dominic Ongwen about this, but

text: P-0236 herself described being taken before Joseph Kony and denying that any sexual

text: 5578 relations with Nyeko occurred. When Joseph Kony said she would be killed if she did

text: 5579 not tell the truth, P-0236 said she had sex with Nyeko two times. Nyeko was

text: 5580 immediately arrested and shot dead. P-0236 was flogged so badly that she was unable

text: 5581 walk, but she was not killed. Dominic Ongwen’s security then took her and put her

text: 5582 before the accused. He told P-0236 ‘if [you] had actually done that, then that should

text: 5583 be the last time’.

text: As developed in later sub-sections, other conditions of being Dominic Ongwen’s socalled ‘wife’ were that they had to: (i) have sexual intercourse with him whenever he

text: 5584 5585 5586 wanted; (ii) bear children and (iii) perform domestic chores.

text: P-0101 – who ultimately spent eight years with Dominic Ongwen and knew most of

text: 5587 Dominic Ongwen’s other so-called ‘wives’ – discussed the horrors of being a young

text: girl in the LRA, and being one distributed to Dominic Ongwen in particular:

text: To my understanding and from my observation on what happened to me, when young girls are abducted, you are raped while you’re still young. If you’re 11 years old or 12 years old, if there is a high-ranking commander who is kind, then they will let you actually mature a little bit, but with the rest of them they will just abduct you and make you a wife at a very young age. This is – this is something extremely bad and culturally – in Acholi culture raping young girls is extremely bad.

text: […] Dominic was the worst when it came to young – when it came to young girls.

text: He referred to them as ting ting. But regardless of the fact that he refers to them as 5588 ting ting, he still has sex with them at a very young age.

text: 5578 P-0236: T-16, p. 15, lines 4-17. 5579 P-0236: T-16, p. 15, lines 4-17. 5580 P-0236: T-16, p. 15, lines 4-20; P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 52, lines 1-19; P-0233: T-111, p. 63, line 10 – p. 64, line 1. 5581 P-0236: T-16, p. 15, lines 4-23; P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 53, line 22 – p. 54, line 1; P-0233: T-111, p. 61, line 22 – p. 62, line 13. 5582 P-0236: T-16, p. 15, line 18 – p. 16, line 19. 5583 P-0236: T-16, p. 16, lines 15-16. 5584 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.a below. 5585 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.a below. 5586 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.c below. 5587 P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 40, lines 1-11. 5588 P-0101: T-13, p. 62, line 15 – p. 63, line 10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 751/1077 4 February 2021 a. Sexual violence

text: During the period relevant to the charges, Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with P-0101 (between 1 July 2002 and July 2004), P-0214 (between September 2002 and 31 December 2005), P-0226 (between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003) and P-0227 (between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005). This happened on a repeated basis

text: whenever Dominic Ongwen wanted.

text: P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen sometime between July 2002 and July 2004. In 2004, P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen. In 2005, P-0214 became pregnant and, in December

text: 2005, gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen.

text: The Chamber will now set out the first forcible sexual encounter that each of the seven so-called ‘wives’ had with Dominic Ongwen. Thereafter, the Chamber will turn to the evidence which shows that, over a long period of time, these women were subjected to sexual violence by Dominic Ongwen repeatedly and continuously. The Chamber will finally discuss the pregnancies these women had as a result of having sex with the accused. All pregnancies support the existence of a pattern of sexual violence, and three of them (two of P-0101 and one of P-0214) underlie the forced pregnancy charges in this case. In it analysis, as explained above, the Chamber will discuss evidence of facts which are not included in the charges as such. However, the Chamber emphasizes that it considers all the evidence discussed of great relevance for the findings of fact underlying the charges, due to the compelling picture created by the consistent and mutually corroborating accounts of the seven women.

text: i First forcible sexual encounter

text: In Sudan, before the time relevant to the charges, and a few days after P-0099 felt obliged to agree to become Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’, his escorts came to collect 5591 her. When they arrived at Dominic Ongwen’s house she found another woman who 5592 told P-0099 where she was to sleep. Dominic Ongwen told her to close the door and 5593 sit on the bed. Then he told her to remove her clothes – P-0099 removed them but

text: 5589 Para. 207 above. 5590 Para. 207 above. 5591 P-0099: T-14, p. 30, lines 22-24. See also p. 30, line 15 – p. 33, line 11. 5592 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 10-16. 5593 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 9-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 752/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5594 kept on her petticoat. Dominic Ongwen ordered her to lie on the bed and turn towards

text: 5595 5596 him. Dominic Ongwen then put himself on top of P-0099 and penetrated her.

text: 5597 During sex someone came by for Dominic Ongwen and he got out of her. P-0099 said

text: 5598 5599 ‘[y]ou have hurt me’. Dominic Ongwen did not respond.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0099, when asked if she wanted to have sex with Dominic

text: Ongwen, responded that she did because she was selected as his so-called ‘wife’ and had

text: 5600 come of age. She also refused to confirm the accuracy of her prior statement

text: 5601 indicating that she did not want to sleep in Dominic Ongwen’s house. The Chamber

text: also recalls that, with the assistance of an uncle working directly for Joseph Kony, P-

text: 5602 0099 had some limited agency as to who she was assigned to.

text: However, when considered against her account and the totality of her testimony, P-0099

text: only agreed to become Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ within the framework of the

text: coercive environment she found herself in. The Chamber does not consider P-0099’s

text: responses to call the true nature of this encounter into doubt, but rather to be a product of

text: not wanting to engage with sensitive Prosecution questioning. When the Single Judge of

text: the Pre-Trial Chamber asked a final follow-up question in relation to the nature of her

text: first sexual encounter with Dominic Ongwen, P-0099’s response makes its coercive

text: nature clear:

text: I said that it was time for me to become a wife. Now if I had refused and if he had ordered that I be killed, what would happen. That’s why I accepted to be his [wife] 5603 because he may say that I’m promoting prostitution among his soldiers.

text: 5594 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 9-25. 5595 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 9-25. 5596 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 9-25, p. 33, lines 9-11. 5597 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 9-25. 5598 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 24-25. 5599 P-0099: T-14, p. 32, lines 24-25. 5600 P-0099: T-14, p. 33, lines 12-17. See also p. 33, line 12 – p. 36, line 9. 5601 P-0099: T-14, p. 33, line 18 – p. 35, line 24, referring to P-0099 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0049-R01, at para. 56. 5602 See para. 2012 above. 5603 P-0099: T-14, p. 35, line 25 – p. 36, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 753/1077 4 February 2021

text: On the day of her abduction in 1996, P-0101 was taken by one of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 5604 5605 escorts to his tent. P-0101 was scared and did not want to go inside. She told

text: Dominic Ongwen ‘I’m not going to enter your tent’, as she left for another tent with tears

text: 5606 streaming down her face. Dominic Ongwen’s escorts roughly took her and told her to

text: 5607 kneel next to Dominic Ongwen’s bed.

text: Dominic Ongwen then asked P-0101 ‘[h]ave you seen this gun? If you refuse to sleep

text: 5608 here, then you’re going to face the consequences’. P-0101 – 15 years old at the time

text: 5609 – told him that she was young and had never had sexual relations with any man.

text: Dominic Ongwen’s escorts then held her hands as Dominic Ongwen held her by force

text: 5610 5611 and penetrated her. P-0101 cried and bled a lot. In her words: ‘[h]e violated my

text: 5612 rights. I was young and there was absolutely nothing that I could say about it’.

text: The Chamber is attentive to the fact that the witness, in a remark similar to the one of P-

text: 0099 discussed above, stated in court that ‘during the eight years, he did not force me. I

text: 5613 was with him as husband and wife’. But the coercion is clear from other parts of her

text: testimony. In addition to all the coercive elements of her first sexual encounter described

text: above, she also stated that a number of times Dominic Ongwen would beat her for

text: 5614 refusing to have sexual intercourse with him. P-0101 also stated that even though her

text: private parts were ‘extremely sore’ after the first night with Dominic Ongwen, he soon

text: 5615 thereafter ‘forced [her] to sleep with him again’. The above clearly shows that

text: Dominic Ongwen slept with P-0101 under threat and against her will.

text: 5604 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, lines 4-22. See also p. 16, line 9 – p. 18, line 9, p. 50, line 14 – p. 51, line 1. 5605 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, lines 4-22. 5606 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, lines 16-22. 5607 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, lines 16-22. 5608 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, lines 23-24. 5609 P-0101: T-13, p. 17, line 25 – p. 18, line 1, p. 50, line 23 – p. 51, line 1 (‘[s]o he raped me. I bled a lot and it was so painful and for the first time in my life I experienced a very great suffering’). 5610 P-0101: T-13, p. 18, lines 2-4. 5611 P-0101: T-13, p. 18, lines 4-9. 5612 P-0101: T-13, p. 18, lines 8-9. 5613 P-0101: T-13, p. 19, line 21 – p. 20, line 3. 5614 P-0101: T-13, p. 21, lines 4-10. 5615 P-0101: T-13, p. 19, lines 13-18.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 754/1077 4 February 2021

text: About a month after joining Dominic Ongwen’s household in Sudan during September

text: 2002, Dominic Ongwen told P-0214 he wanted her to be his ‘wife’ and to come to his

text: 5616 5617 room. She refused to go. She then saw three escorts with sticks in front of Dominic

text: 5618 Ongwen’s house and decided to obey. She entered Dominic Ongwen’s room, a grass

text: 5619 shed with canvas on top. Dominic Ongwen was lying on his mattress and instructed

text: P-0214 to take off her clothes – P-0214 complied, but was allowed to wear her blouse

text: 5620 due to the cold. Dominic Ongwen then got on top of her and put his penis into her

text: 5621 5622 vagina. P-0214 felt pain and fear because she had never slept with a man before.

text: When Dominic Ongwen finished, he moved away and they both lied still on the

text: 5623 5624 mattress. P-0214 started crying because she had slept with a man in the bush. She

text: had been told before her abduction that if a woman slept with a man in the bush she

text: 5625 would not have children or those children would die.

text: The Chamber notes that most of P-0214’s account of her first sexual encounter with

text: Dominic Ongwen was brought out by her confirming the accuracy of parts of her prior

text: statement. This affected the spontaneity of P-0214’s account, as most of her testimony

text: came via refreshing her memory. However, the Chamber does not consider this to be a

text: question of P-0214 forgetting what happened to her – this procedure, unobjected to by

text: the Defence, seemed rather to get P-0214 quickly through the most sensitive part of her

text: testimony. The Chamber does not consider that the extensive reliance on P-0214’s prior

text: written statement for this specific point casts any doubt on the veracity of her account.

text: 5616 P-0214: T-15, p. 21, line 15 – p. 22, line 1. See also p. 21, line 15 – p. 26, line 16. 5617 P-0214: T-15, p. 22, line 4 – p. 23, line 4. 5618 P-0214: T-15, p. 23, line 24 – p. 24, line 9. 5619 P-0214: T-15, p. 23, line 15 – p. 24, line 9. 5620 P-0214: T-15, p. 23, line 24 – p. 24, line 9. 5621 P-0214: T-15, p. 24, lines 10-21. 5622 P-0214: T-15, p. 24, lines 10-21. 5623 P-0214: T-15, p. 24, line 22 – p. 25, line 6. 5624 P-0214: T-15, p. 24, line 22 – p. 25, line 6. 5625 P-0214: T-15, p. 24, line 22 – p. 25, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 755/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5626 While in Sudan during 2001, Dominic Ongwen asked P-0226 – his ting ting at that

text: 5627 time – to bring him some water in his bedroom. When she brought it, Dominic

text: 5628 Ongwen grabbed P-0226’s arm and said he did not want the water. He said he wanted

text: 5629 to have sex with her. P-0226 dropped the water, which then fell onto the bed as she

text: 5630 ran outside. P-0226 said she felt disgusted because ‘every time I saw the ladies or

text: girls coming out of his house, they were always crying. So I was frightened and I was –

text: 5631 I was scared’.

text: 5632 Dominic Ongwen then called his escorts to get sticks and beat her. The escorts beat

text: P-0226 with bamboo sticks as she was on the ground of Dominic Ongwen’s residence as

text: 5633 Dominic Ongwen watched. He then ordered the escorts to stop, but in the week that

text: followed P-0226 was beaten other times for continuing to refuse to have sex with

text: 5634 Dominic Ongwen. Her hands and buttocks became swollen and she could not sit

text: 5635 properly – the beatings still cause P-0226 chest problems as of her 2015 testimony.

text: After this week, P-0226 could not take the beatings anymore and yielded to Dominic

text: 5636 5637 Ongwen. She came to his house and was asked to undress. P-0226 refused, at

text: 5638 which point Dominic Ongwen ripped off her clothes. Dominic Ongwen then lifted P-

text: 5639 0226 onto his bed, spread open her legs and put his penis into her vagina. Dominic

text: 5640 Ongwen told her if she cried he would kill her. P-0226 stopped herself from crying

text: 5641 by putting her hand over her mouth.

text: 5626 P-0226: T-8, p. 37, line 16 – p. 38, line 8. 5627 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, lines 6-14. See also p. 38, line 1 – p. 41, line 23. 5628 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, lines 17-22. 5629 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, lines 20-22. 5630 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, lines 20-22. 5631 P-0226: T-8, p. 39, lines 1-3. 5632 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, line 20 – p. 39, line 6. 5633 P-0226: T-8, p. 39, lines 4-14. 5634 P-0226: T-8, p. 39, line 15 – p. 40, line 5. 5635 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, lines 6-16. 5636 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, lines 17-20. 5637 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5638 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5639 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5640 P-0226: T-8, p. 41, lines 10-15. 5641 P-0226: T-8, p. 41, lines 10-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 756/1077 4 February 2021

text: Afterwards, Dominic Ongwen told P-0226 to go back to the house where she was

text: 5642 5643

text: sleeping. P-0226 could not get up. When she came back, one of the women asked

text: her why she was crying and she did not respond. P-0226 bled a lot and had to rest for

text: 5645 5646

text: a week following this incident. She was around 10 years old.

text: After this incident in Sudan, Dominic Ongwen did not have sex with the witness again

text: until they returned to Uganda in 2002. Back in Uganda – and at some point after

text: September 2002 – Dominic Ongwen told his other so-called ‘wives’ that P-0226 was

text: now his ‘wife’ and started forcing her to have sex with him again.

text: About a month after her abduction in April 2005, P-0227 was called over to Dominic

text: Ongwen’s tent. P-0227 was scared that Dominic Ongwen was calling her so late at

text: 5651 5652

text: night. When she arrived he was standing in the doorway.

text: Dominic Ongwen told her to take off her blouse. He then smeared something white

text: onto her and started speaking of God. Once he finished he told P-0227 to go into his

text: house. They lay down on the bed together and Dominic Ongwen told her to remove

text: the rest of her clothes. He asked P-0227 to spread her legs, put his penis in her vagina

text: and started forcibly having sex with her. Sex was very quick and very forceful – P-

text: 5642 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5643 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5644 P-0226: T-8, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 9. 5645 P-0226: T-8, p. 41, lines 8-23. 5646 P-0226: T-8, p. 38, lines 1-2. P-0101 believed P-0226 to be 12 years old at the time of this incident, but also remembered P-0226 being the youngest girl Dominic Ongwen had sex with. P-0101: T-14-CONF, p. 3, lines 8- 15. 5647 P-0226: T-8, p. 43, line 10 – p. 44, line 18. 5648 P-0099: T-14-CONF, p. 36, line 13 – p. 37, line 5 (P-0099 does not include P-0226 in the list of Dominic Ongwen’s ‘wives’, and she escaped the LRA in September 2002). 5649 P-0226: T-8, p. 43, line 10 – p. 44, line 18. 5650 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. See also p. 38, line 10 – p. 42, line 4. 5651 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. 5652 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. 5653 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. 5654 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. 5655 P-0227: T-10, p. 38, lines 10-25. 5656 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 1-14. 5657 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 1-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 757/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5658 0227 said Dominic Ongwen penetrated her anus as well. P-0227 said she could not

text: 5659 refuse to have sex with him ‘because I felt my whole life was in his hand’.

text: 5660 P-0227 started crying. Dominic Ongwen asked her why she was screaming like this

text: 5661 and whether she wanted everyone to hear her voice. P-0227 explained that Dominic

text: Ongwen then told her ‘that if I continued crying, he showed me his gun. The gun had

text: something sharp on top of it like a bayonet. When he showed me the gun, I started crying

text: 5662 more slowly, but I felt like my whole body was being torn apart’. After it was over,

text: 5663 Dominic Ongwen told her to get up and go to sleep where P-0214 was.

text: 5664 In the morning, P-0227 was told to collect Dominic Ongwen’s beddings. They were

text: 5665 5666 covered in her blood. P-0227 was then made to wash them and put them out to dry.

text: 5667 One day in 2006 in the DRC, P-0235 was called to see Dominic Ongwen. Dominic

text: 5668 Ongwen said she should spend the night with him. P-0235 was hesitant to go, but

text: Dominic Ongwen insisted:

text: Q. When you say you were hesitant, what did you say or do?

text: A. I told him that I did not want to go because I wasn’t – I did not want to get involved with any man in the bush. I told him I do not want to get involved with any man in the bush. He asked me what don’t you want? Do you know the rules that we apply in the bush?

text: Q. And what rules was he talking about?

text: A. Well, he said the rules there, once you’re grown up, once you’re mature enough,

text: then you should – you should have a husband. I’d seen this, I’d seen some of the

text: 5658 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 1-14. 5659 P-0227: T-10, p. 42, lines 1-4. 5660 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 1-14. 5661 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 1-14. 5662 P-0227: T-10, p. 39, lines 7-12. 5663 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 39, lines 15-16. 5664 P-0227: T-10, p. 40, line 18 – p. 41, line 5. 5665 P-0227: T-10, p. 40, line 18 – p. 41, line 5. 5666 P-0227: T-10, p. 40, line 18 – p. 41, line 5. 5667 P-0235: T-17, p. 32, lines 6-10. See also p. 31, line 25 – p. 32, line 24, p. 33, line 20 – p. 36, line 3. 5668 P-0235: T-17, p. 32, lines 6-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 758/1077 4 February 2021 girls being given to men and it was very painful and I did not want to have a 5669 husband or give birth to a child in the bush.

text: P-0235 had never slept with anyone before, but she was afraid of being beaten if she

text: 5670 refused. Dominic Ongwen had sexual intercourse with her three times that night and

text: 5671 she cried.

text: In 2007 in the DRC – Dominic Ongwen called P-0236 over and told her to go lie down

text: 5672 on his bed. As P-0236 described: ‘I did not have any right, so I went, I lay down on

text: 5673 the bed. He told me to undress, I undressed and I lay down’. Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 5674 escorts slept in trenches about 8-10 metres away from them.

text: 5675 5676 Dominic Ongwen then got on top of her and had sex with her. She had no choice.

text: P-0236 remembered thinking ‘if I had not been abducted I would – I would – by now I

text: 5677 would still be a virgin, I would still not have had sexual relations with a man’.

text: ii Subsequent sexual encounters

text: None of these women were subjected to sexual violence merely on one single occasion.

text: Rather this was the beginning of a pattern of sexual violence which the seven women

text: 5678 repeatedly endured until their escape. When P-0236 was asked if these subsequent

text: sexual experiences were significantly different than the first one she described, she

text: 5679 replied ‘[n]o, there was no difference. It was all the same thing’.

text: 5669 P-0235: T-17, p. 32, lines 11-20. 5670 P-0235: T-17, p. 32, lines 21-24, p. 33, line 20 – p. 34, line 3. 5671 P-0235: T-17, p. 34, lines 7-10. 5672 P-0236: T-16, p. 20, line 16 – p. 21, line 3. 5673 P-0236: T-16, p. 20, line 25 – p. 21, line 3. 5674 P-0236: T-16, p. 23, lines 14-25. 5675 P-0236: T-16, p. 21, lines 7-10. 5676 P-0236: T-16, p. 21, lines 13-21. 5677 P-0236: T-16, p. 21, lines 18-21. 5678 P-0101: T-13, p. 19, line 9 – p. 21, line 10; P-0214: T-15, p. 25, lines 15-21, p. 27, line 19 – p. 28, line 3; P- 0226: T-8, p. 44, line 11 – p. 46, line 10; P-0227: T-10, p. 42, lines 5-11; P-0235: T-17, p. 36, lines 4-14; P-0236: T-16, p. 24, lines 17-22. 5679 P-0236: T-16, p. 24, lines 17-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 759/1077 4 February 2021

text: When Dominic Ongwen was with his so-called ‘wives’, he had sex with them in a kind

text: 5680 5681 of rotation. P-0226 described this process in some detail. Dominic Ongwen would

text: call one of his so-called ‘wives’ – or send his escorts to get them – and the selected ‘wife’

text: 5682 would then go to his house that night. P-0226 said that she had no right to refuse when

text: 5683 Dominic Ongwen wanted to have sex. P-0226 estimated it would be her turn ‘[a]fter

text: 5684 a week or after a month, because there were many wives.’ P-0226 explained how

text: Dominic Ongwen kept having sex with her up until her escape and even when her vagina

text: 5685 was injured from prior incidents.

text: During her testimony, P-0236 briefly indicated that she sometimes refused to have sex

text: 5686 with Dominic Ongwen and nothing happened to her. The Chamber sees no reason to

text: doubt this evidence. However, for purposes of establishing the patterns of sexual violence

text: as charged – which are established throughout this sub-section – it is immaterial if

text: 5687 Dominic Ongwen declined to commit even further acts of sexual violence.

text: By considering the timing of each woman’s first sexual encounter and the date of their

text: 5688 escape or release from the LRA, the Chamber can determine who was a victim of this

text: pattern of sexual violence within the Court’s jurisdiction and the scope of the charges.

text: Following this method, it is clear that four of these seven women – P-0101, P-0214, P-

text: 0226 and P-0227 – were victims of sexual violence in Northern Uganda during the time

text: relevant to the charges.

text: That such a pattern of sexual violence existed during the relevant period is further

text: established by the fact that Dominic Ongwen fathered at least 13 children with the seven

text: 5680 P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 44, line 11 – p. 46, line 10, p. 54, line 9 – p. 55, line 10; P-0236: T-16, p. 24, lines 17- 22; P-0099: T-14, p. 31, lines 11-18; P-0205: T-51, p. 69, line 11 – p. 70, line 2; P-0379: T-57, p. 46, line 24 – p. 47, line 5 (‘[s]o Dominic’s sleeping place is usually set aside and usually there is a tent which is set for the girls and some mothers. Because in one day Dominic would not sleep with all his wives, so these other ones would sleep in that one big tent.’). But see P-0227: T-11, p. 28, lines 13-16 (not wanting to describe it as a rotation, but acknowledging that it was Dominic Ongwen ‘who called someone he wished to sleep with that day’). 5681 P-0226: T-8, p. 44, line 11 – p. 46, line 10. 5682 P-0226: T-8, p. 45, lines 11-23. 5683 P-0226: T-8, p. 45, lines 22-23. 5684 P-0226: T-9, p. 6, lines 14-16. 5685 P-0226: T-9, p. 6, line 10 – p. 7, line 16. 5686 P-0236: T-16, p. 42, lines 21-23. 5687 In this regard, the question/answer immediately before P-0236 made the statement in question is revealing. P- 0236: T-16, p. 42, lines 9-11 (‘[a]fter you became Dominic’s wife, were you allowed to say no to sexual intercourse? A. No, I wasn’t allowed to say no.’). 5688 Sub- section IV.C.10.iii below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 760/1077 4 February 2021 so-called ‘wives’. In addition to the seven women’s testimony, the Prosecution presented

text: 5689 the testimony of forensic reporting expert Ate Kloosterman. Professor Kloosterman

text: performed a DNA kinship analysis of children imputed to have been fathered by Dominic

text: Ongwen. The Chamber is fully satisfied that Professor Kloosterman is qualified to

text: perform these tests and did so accurately. As particular proof of the reliability of

text: Professor Kloosterman’s work, the Chamber notes that Professor Kloosterman’s testing

text: 5690 reveals that Dominic Ongwen fathered all children whom the parties agree he did.

text: P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen sometime

text: 5691 between July 2002 and July 2004. In 2004, P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth

text: 5692 to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen. Around December 2005, P-0214 gave birth to

text: 5693 a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen. The charge of forced pregnancy as presented by

text: the Prosecution is limited to these three pregnancies.

text: In addition, the Chamber notes that, while 10 of the 13 children fathered by Dominic

text: Ongwen were born outside the period relevant to the charges, they further support the

text: existence of a pattern of sexual violence with which Dominic Ongwen is charged, as well

text: as, more generally, the Chamber’s conclusions in respect to the facts of the charges. The

text: Chamber notes in this regard that: in June 2002, P-0099 gave birth to a boy fathered by

text: 5694 Dominic Ongwen; around 1999, P-0101 gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic

text: 5695 Ongwen; at some point after the period of time relevant to the charges and before her

text: 5696 escape in 2010, P-0227 gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen; in 2007 and

text: 2009, respectively, P-0214 gave birth to two more children fathered by Dominic

text: 5689 P-0414: T-137; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529; P-0414 Second Report, UGA-OTP-0265-0106; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160. P-0414’s reports contain various numbers, but the expert indicates that the most important data is the ‘posterior probability’. P-0414: T-137, p. 10, line 12 – p. 11, line 11. For all children fathered by Dominic Ongwen this posterior probability of paternity is 99.99%. 5690 Agreed Facts, C2-C4; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529, at 0536; P-0414 Second Report, UGA- OTP-0265-0106, at 0115-16; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160, at 0169. 5691 Agreed Facts, C2. 5692 Agreed Facts, C3. 5693 Agreed Facts, C4. 5694 P-0099: T-14-CONF, p. 42, lines 11-25; P-0414 Second Report, UGA-OTP-0265-0106, at 0116. 5695 P-0101 GUSCO rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0100-0383, at 0384; P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 43, lines 1-22 (describing this daughter as P-0101’s older child); P-0414 Second Report, UGA-OTP-0265-0106, at 0115. 5696 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 53, lines 18-21, p. 55, lines 16-19; T-11, p. 20, line 21 – p. 21, line 2; P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at para. 105; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529, at 0534.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 761/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5697 5698 Ongwen; in late 2007, P-0235 gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic Ongwen;

text: 5699 in 2010, P-0235 gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen; in late 2010, P-

text: 5700 0236 gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen; in 2014, P-0235 gave birth to

text: 5701 a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen; and in 2014, P-0236 gave birth to a boy fathered

text: 5702 by Dominic Ongwen.

text: b. Beatings

text: The seven women were subjected to beating at Dominic Ongwen’s command at any time. They were hit with canes and sticks. Some beatings knocked them unconscious, left them

text: unable to walk and left permanent scars.

text: The seven so-called ‘wives’ lived under threat of being beaten. In P-0236’s words: ‘[i]f

text: 5704 there is anything wrong, you’re beaten. If you do anything wrong, you are beaten’.

text: Many such beatings are described in this sub-section. They serve to further establish the

text: coercive environment these women lived in. Beatings also underlie specific charges

text: concerning P-0101, P-0214 and P-0226.

text: 5705 P-0099 and another woman refused to cook for Dominic Ongwen or go to the garden.

text: Dominic Ongwen called his escorts and instructed them to beat them, which they then

text: 5706 did.

text: When describing the conditions of her stay with Dominic Ongwen, P-0101 confirmed

text: that she was beaten by Dominic Ongwen multiple times for refusing to have sex with

text: 5707 him.

text: 5697 P-0214: T-15, p. 29, line 10 – p. 30, line 5 (speaking also of a pregnancy in the timeframe relevant to the charges in the present case and of a fourth pregnancy which ended in a miscarriage). 5698 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 37, lines 6-20; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160, at 0169. 5699 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 37, lines 21-24; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529, at 0537. 5700 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 24, line 23 – p. 25, line 8; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160, at 0169-70. 5701 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 37, line 25 – p. 38, line 5; P-0235 Statement, UGA-OTP-0240-0003-R01, at para. 156; P-0414 First Report, UGA-OTP-0278-0529, at 0538. This child’s name is not spelled consistently across the evidence, but it is nevertheless clear that P-0235 had two sons with Dominic Ongwen. 5702 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 25, lines 9-19; P-0414 Third Report, UGA-OTP-0267-0160, at 0170. 5703 Para. 208 above. 5704 P-0236: T-16, p. 13, lines 14-18. See similarly P-0226: T-8, p. 47, lines 1-5 (failing to follow Dominic Ongwen’s instructions would lead to being badly beaten or killed). 5705 P-0099: T-14, p. 40, line 4 – p. 41, line 2. 5706 P-0099: T-14, p. 40, line 4 – p. 41, line 2. 5707 P-0101: T-13, p. 21, lines 2-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 762/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0214 never testified to being beaten by Dominic Ongwen, but she also was never

text: squarely asked this question. P-0235 recalls an incident when P-0214 was beaten in

text: 5708 Uganda when two months pregnant. Given that P-0214’s evidence indicates that she

text: was only in Uganda while pregnant for the first time, while all her other pregnancies

text: 5709 occurred outside Uganda, the Chamber concludes that the incident described by P-

text: 0235 took place during P-0214’s first pregnancy in 2005.

text: P-0226 described many beatings at Dominic Ongwen’s command, saying at one point

text: 5710 ‘he was always beating me’. P-0226 also said that Dominic Ongwen ‘liked beating

text: 5711 people and he liked punishing people’. In addition to beatings surrounding her first

text: 5712 forcible sexual encounter, P-0226 describes an incident whereby Dominic Ongwen

text: ordered his escort to beat her after hearing that she had ‘eased [her]self’ in nearby

text: 5713 water. Dominic Ongwen watched as P-0226 was beaten with long sticks to

text: 5714 unconsciousness.

text: P-0226 described a further beating at Dominic Ongwen’s command in some detail. Two

text: 5715 of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts – aged 13-16 years old – liked P-0226 and P-0235.

text: 5716 These escorts would bring the women mementos back from battle. On one occasion,

text: 5717 these escorts were playing with a bag P-0226 was tasked to take somewhere. Dominic

text: Ongwen saw this happening and told P-0226 to ‘[w]ait for your canes. Wait for your

text: 5718 5719 beatings’. Dominic Ongwen then directed a third escort to beat P-0226. P-0226

text: 5720 grabbed this escort and threw him to the ground. Dominic Ongwen then beat up this

text: 5721 person, who afterwards beat P-0226 ‘really badly’. P-0226 explained that if a

text: 5708 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 43, line 23 – p. 44, line 14; para. 2070, n. 5697 above. 5709 P-0214: T-15, p. 28, lines 4-8, p. 28, line 23 – p. 30, line 5, p. 34, line 12 – p. 35, line 4. See also P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at paras 83-87. 5710 P-0226: T-8, p. 44, line 25 – p. 45, line 2. 5711 P-0226: T-9, p. 25, lines 21-23. 5712 Para. 2052 above. 5713 P-0226: T-9, p. 5, line 10 – p. 6, line 1; P-0379: T-57-CONF, p. 40, line 5 – p. 42, line 11, p. 43, line 20 – p. 44, line 4. 5714 P-0226: T-9, p. 5, line 10 – p. 6, line 1. 5715 P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 49, lines 10-17, p. 51, line 6 – p. 53, line 20. 5716 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 13-21. 5717 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 1-8. 5718 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 1-8. 5719 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 1-8. 5720 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 1-8. 5721 P-0226: T-8, p. 52, lines 1-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 763/1077 4 February 2021 commander’s so-called ‘wife’ were believed to show interest in another man who is not

text: 5722 her husband, ‘[t]hey would kill the both of us’.

text: P-0226 also describes an incident when Dominic Ongwen beat her personally. This

text: incident must have occurred after September 2002, as it concerns P-0226’s cooking

text: 5723 duties she only assumed upon becoming Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’. As

text: described by P-0226: ‘[t]he way I prepared some food, and the food which remained I

text: gave to the women with whom he used to eat. When he realised that, he beat me so badly

text: 5724 ‘til I was unconscious.’

text: P-0227 described a beating when, after having difficulty sleeping, she went to spend

text: 5725 some time with the so-called ‘wife’ of another commander. Dominic Ongwen started

text: 5726 asking where she was and sent P-0235 to look for her. P-0227 heard the commotion

text: and hurried back home, but it was thought she was being cunning and intending to

text: 5727 5728 escape. Dominic Ongwen ordered two of his soldiers to get sticks to beat P-0227.

text: 5729 He told them if one got tired during the beating the other one should take over.

text: 5730 Initially, P-0227 was not being beaten very hard. Dominic Ongwen then asked his

text: soldiers ‘why aren’t you using more force while hitting [P-0227]? Are you interested in

text: 5731 her?’ The soldiers then beat her harder as Dominic Ongwen went off to have his

text: 5732 5733 bath. The beating continued for a long time until another soldier stopped it. P-

text: 5734 0227’s body was swollen and it was difficult for her to walk.

text: P-0235 and P-0236 were also beaten following this incident because it was perceived that

text: 5735 they allowed P-0227 to try to escape. Two of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts beat them

text: 5722 P-0226: T-8, p. 53, lines 19-21. 5723 P-0226: T-9, p. 6, lines 2-9. See also T-8, p. 36, lines 14-16 (description of duties as ting ting did not include cooking). 5724 P-0226: T-9, p. 6, lines 2-9. 5725 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 54, line 2 – p. 55, line 15. 5726 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 54, lines 18-19. 5727 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 54, lines 21-24; P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 44, lines 5-12. 5728 P-0227: T-10, p. 54, lines 24-25. 5729 P-0227: T-10, p. 55, lines 1-2. 5730 P-0227: T-10, p. 55, line 3. 5731 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 55, lines 3-6. 5732 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 55, lines 5-6. 5733 P-0227: T-10, p. 55, lines 7-15. 5734 P-0227: T-10, p. 55, lines 7-15. 5735 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 41, line 13 – p. 42, line 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 764/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5736 both with canes. P-0235 also says that P-0227 was not beaten following this 5737 incident, but the Chamber considers her to be mistaken on this point. The evidence does not suggest that P-0227 and P-0235 were beaten by the same people, so P-0235 would not necessarily know with certainty what happened to P-0227. It also follows that if Dominic Ongwen wanted to punish P-0235 and P-0236 for P-0227’s perceived escape attempt, then P-0227 would be beaten also (even more so). From P-0227’s account, this is exactly what happened to her. On this isolated discrepancy, the Chamber considers P- 0227 and not P-0235 best placed to know what really happened.

text: P-0235 describes other times she was beaten. She testified to a beating in Sudan when P- 0227, another so-called ‘wife’ and P-0235 were personally caned by Dominic Ongwen 5738 for failing to properly make his bed. This resulted in P-0235 getting a scar on her 5739 breast. P-0235 was also beaten severely for an unsuccessful escape attempt, in 5740 Dominic Ongwen’s presence.

text: P-0236 speaks of other beatings as well, such as during her initiation into the LRA and another occasion when Dominic Ongwen instructed others to cane her five times for 5741 being dirty.

text: c. Forced labour

text: The seven women had to perform different domestic duties, including cooking, working in the garden, doing laundry, fetching and chopping wood, carrying Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 5736 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 41, line 13 – p. 42, line 13. 5737 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 41, lines 13-18. 5738 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 42, line 14 – p. 43, line 22. 5739 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 42, line 14 – p. 43, line 22. 5740 P-0235: T-17, p. 10, line 11 – p. 11, line 8. P-0352 remembers the unsuccessful escape attempt, but says that P-0235 was neither punished nor killed. P-0352: T-67, p. 17, line 25 – p. 18, line 22, p. 61, lines 5-15. P-0235 is clearly better placed to know what she personally experienced after the unsuccessful escape attempt and P-0352 gives the impression that she and P-0235 were not particularly close. P-0352: T-68, p. 9, lines 5-20. Given the voluminous evidence of the LRA’s ruthlessness with attempted escapees, the Chamber considers P-0235’s account to be believable and P-0352 to be unreliable on this discrete point. 5741 P-0236: T-16, p. 12, line 18 – p. 13, line 13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 765/1077 4 February 2021 dishes, fetching water, washing, nursing Dominic Ongwen when he was injured and

text: taking things to him. Failing to perform these tasks led to punishment by beating.

text: In the course of their time in Dominic Ongwen’s household, the seven women had to

text: 5743 5744

text: perform domestic duties. These duties included cooking, working in the garden,

text: 5745 5746

text: doing laundry, fetching and chopping wood, carrying Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 5747 5748 5749 5750

text: dishes, fetching water, washing, cutting grass, nursing Dominic Ongwen

text: 5751 5752

text: when he was injured and taking things to him. Failing to sufficiently perform these

text: tasks led to punitive beatings, as developed in the previous sub-section.

text: d. Orders to beat others to death

text: i P-0226

text: On 1 July 2002, Dominic Ongwen forced P-0226 to beat to death a captured UPDF soldier near Patongo, Northern Uganda. P-0226 hit him once, as did other girls. She had blood splattered on her clothes. P-0226 had never killed anyone before, and this was part of the reason given by Dominic Ongwen on why he selected her to do this. This experience

text: caused her severe anguish.

text: P-0226 was present at an attack in Patongo. As discussed in a previous section, this

text: attack occurred on 1 July 2002. Dominic Ongwen and Charles Tabuley led this attack,

text: which started around five in the morning. The LRA surprised the sleeping

text: government soldiers, who ultimately ran away. The LRA then found the government

text: 5742 Para. 208 above. 5743 P-0099: T-14, p. 40, line 4 – p. 41, line 2; P-0101: T-13, p. 38, lines 1-17; P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 18, lines 11-22 (describing P-0226), p. 20, lines 1-11, p. 27, lines 1-2; P-0226: T-8, p. 44, lines 19-22, p. 46, line 11 – p. 47, line 5; P-0227: T-11, p. 10, line 22 – p. 11, line 16 (describing cooking from ‘wives’ other than herself); P- 0235: T-17, p. 30, lines 10-16; P-0236: T-16, p. 14, lines 1-19. 5744 P-0099: T-14, p. 40, line 4 – p. 41, line 2. 5745 P-0099: T-14, p. 40, line 4 – p. 41, line 2; P-0235: T-17, p. 30, lines 10-16; P-0236: T-16, p. 14, lines 9-19. 5746 P-0101: T-13, p. 38, lines 14-17; P-0227: T-10, p. 34, lines 14-24; T-11, p. 10, line 22 – p. 11, line 16; P- 0235: T-17, p. 11, lines 9-19. 5747 P-0226: T-8, p. 44, lines 19-22, p. 46, line 11 – p. 47, line 5. 5748 P-0227: T-10, p. 34, lines 14-24; T-11, p. 10, line 22 – p. 11, line 16; P-0235: T-17, p. 11, lines 9-19. 5749 P-0214: T-15, p. 20, lines 1-11, p. 27, lines 1-2; P-0236: T-16, p. 14, lines 1-19. 5750 P-0227: T-10, p. 34, lines 14-24. 5751 P-0214: T-15, p. 20, lines 1-11, p. 27, lines 1-2. 5752 P-0235: T-17, p. 30, lines 10-16. 5753 Sub-section IV.C.10.ii.b above. 5754 Para. 209 above. 5755 P-0226: T-8, p. 56, lines 21-24. See also T-8, p. 56, line 21 – p. 59, line 8; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, line 21 – p. 21, line 6. 5756 See para. 1159 above. 5757 P-0226: T-8, p. 57, lines 11-16; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, line 21 – p. 21, line 6. 5758 P-0226: T-8, p. 56, line 21 – p. 57, line 23; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, line 21 – p. 21, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 766/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5759 commander sleeping in his room and captured him. The LRA started questioning the

text: 5760 captured soldier and hitting him with the butt of their guns. The LRA then left the

text: 5761 camp with him after tying his hands.

text: Around two in the afternoon, the group had stopped and P-0226 went to collect

text: 5762 5763 firewood. Dominic Ongwen’s escorts told her to come back quickly. P-0226 said

text: 5764 she was sent back to kill the abducted soldier. As Dominic Ongwen and the other

text: commander watched from chairs, a number of girls – P-0226 included – were selected

text: 5765 and given a heavy stick with which to beat the soldier in turn. Dominic Ongwen said

text: 5766 that if anyone refused to beat the soldier then they would be killed like the soldier.

text: 5767 5768 P-0226 hit him once, as did other girls. She had blood splattered on her clothes.

text: 5769 The captured soldier was beaten to death. P-0226 had never killed anyone before, and

text: this was part of the reason given by Dominic Ongwen on why he selected her to do

text: 5770 5771 this. At the time, P-0226 was 12 years old.

text: ii P-0235

text: In late 2002 or early 2003 in Northern Uganda, soon after P-0235’s abduction, Dominic Ongwen ordered her to, along with other abductees, beat people to death until their blood splashed on the abductees. Although she eventually did not have to carry out the killings,

text: this experience caused her severe anguish.

text: 5773 Soon after P-0235’s abduction, two men who escaped from the Sudan were captured.

text: 5774 Dominic Ongwen ordered P-0235 and another girl to kill them. Dominic Ongwen said

text: P-0235 and the other girl should go and beat these people until they had their blood

text: 5759 P-0226: T-8, p. 57, line 24 – p. 58, line 24. 5760 P-0226: T-8, p. 57, lines 15-24. 5761 P-0226: T-8, p. 57, lines 15-24. 5762 P-0226: T-8, p. 58, line 22 – p. 59, line 6. 5763 P-0226: T-8, p. 58, line 23 – p. 59, line 6. 5764 P-0226: T-8, p. 58, line 25 – p. 59, line 8; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, line 21 – p. 21, line 5. 5765 P-0226: T-8, p. 62, lines 9-19. See also p. 62, line 9 – p. 63, line 22. 5766 P-0226: T-8, p. 63, lines 20-22; T-9, p. 60, lines 19-25 (‘[t]he reason why I did accept was because I was forced to kill. I had no choice. I had no interest in killing anyone.’). 5767 P-0226: T-8, p. 63, lines 4-15. 5768 P-0226: T-8, p. 63, lines 4-15. 5769 P-0226: T-8, p. 63, lines 4-15; P-0205: T-47, p. 19, line 21 – p. 21, line 6. 5770 P-0226: T-8, p. 64, lines 6-21. 5771 P-0226: T-8, p. 43, lines 10-14. 5772 Para. 210 above. 5773 P-0235: T-17, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 3. See also p. 23, line 19 – p. 25, line 20. 5774 P-0235: T-17, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 767/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5775 5776 splashed on them. P-0235 and the other girl started to cry. P-0235 explained: ‘I

text: was crying because it was so painful to kill and I was not able to do that, and also ever

text: since I was at home I used not to see anyone being killed. I have never seen any dead

text: person, so that’s why I was crying because it was too painful for me and it was

text: 5777 horrifying’. P-0235 and the other girl were ultimately told they did not have to go

text: 5778 5779 through with the order. Other new abductees killed the two men instead.

text: iii. End of captivity

text: a. P-0099

text: From 1 July 2002 until her escape in September 2002, P-0099 was in Uganda. She was placed by Dominic Ongwen in a sickbay where she continued her life under identical

text: circumstances.

text: In September 2002, and after over four years in the bush, P-0099 had been sent by

text: 5781 Dominic Ongwen to the LRA sickbay. P-0099 had been sent to collect food with her

text: 5782 5783 three month old child. The child was extremely weak at this time. P-0099 decided

text: to try and escape doing the food collection, and as soon as she reached a civilian

text: 5784 homestead she did so. She was then taken to the government barracks, and soon after

text: 5785 to GUSCO. While at GUSCO her child started being fed formula, and P-0099 became

text: 5786 able to breastfeed the child shortly thereafter.

text: The evidence further suggests that, although P-0099 was in Uganda from 1 July 2002

text: 5787 until her September 2002 escape, Dominic Ongwen was not with her. However, she

text: 5775 P-0235: T-17, p. 24, lines 13-25. 5776 P-0235: T-17, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 3. 5777 P-0235: T-17, p. 25, lines 15-20. 5778 P-0235: T-17, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 3. 5779 P-0235: T-17, p. 23, line 23 – p. 24, line 3, p. 25, lines 1-14. 5780 Para. 211 above. 5781 P-0099: T-14, p. 44, lines 8-16, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10. 5782 P-0099: T-14, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10. 5783 P-0099: T-14, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10. 5784 P-0099: T-14, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10. 5785 P-0099: T-14, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10; P-0099 GUSCO rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0114-0211 (dated 23 September 2002). 5786 P-0099: T-14, p. 47, line 11 – p. 48, line 10. 5787 P-0099: T-14, p. 44, lines 2-23, p. 47, lines 11-21, p. 49, lines 10-16 (was initially with Dominic Ongwen when they left for Sudan in May 2002, but then he separated two days before their child was born and was in Kitgum when she escaped).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 768/1077 4 February 2021 continued in the role of Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ during this period and lived

text: 5788 in the same coercive environment.

text: b. P-0101

text: P-0101 was released from the LRA in July 2004.

text: 5790 In July 2004, P-0101’s group came under fire from two government gunships. P-0101

text: 5791 5792 was injured. Her one year old daughter was shot and taken by government soldiers.

text: P-0101 was scared to escape, remembering others who were killed by the LRA for

text: 5793 attempting to do so. But she decided that she could not stay in the bush without her

text: 5794 young child and decided to come home. P-0101 left shortly thereafter, ending her

text: 5795 eight years in the bush. It is unclear exactly how she left the LRA, but evidence

text: suggests that Dominic Ongwen released her after the government soldiers took her

text: 5796 child.

text: c. P-0214 and P-0227

text: P-0214 and P-0227 escaped in 2010 while in the DRC.

text: One day in 2010 in the DRC, Dominic Ongwen’s group came under heavy fire from pro-

text: 5798 government forces. The LRA fled, and at one point Dominic Ongwen directed P-0214,

text: 5799 P-0227 and their accompanying children to branch off from the rest of the group.

text: Once all the soldiers had gone past them, P-0214 and P-0227 walked until they got to a

text: 5788 P-0099: T-14, p. 44, line 24 – p. 45, line 24. 5789 Para. 211 above. 5790 P-0101: T-13, p. 43, line 1 – p. 44, line 17; Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002-R01, at 0003-05. See also P-0101: T-13-CONF, p. 7, lines 17-22, p. 10, line 17 – p. 12, line 19. 5791 P-0101: T-13, p. 44, lines 1-7; Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002-R01, at 0003-05. 5792 P-0101: T-13, p. 43, lines 4-5, 16-22. 5793 P-0101: T-13, p. 44, lines 8-17; Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002-R01, at 0003-05. 5794 P-0101: T-13, p. 43, lines 1-10; Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002-R01, at 0003-05. 5795 P-0101: T-13, p. 8, lines 23-25, p. 43, line 1 – p. 44, line 17; Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002- R01, at 0003-05. 5796 See Radio Show Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0002-R01, at 0007. 5797 Para. 211 above. 5798 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 57, lines 16-23. See also T-10-CONF, p. 57, line 16 – p. 59, line 12; P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at paras 104-06. See also P-0227 GUSCO rehabilitation centre file, UGA-OTP-0233- 0730, at 0731 (dated 2010). 5799 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 58, lines 13-21; P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at paras 104-06.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 769/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5800 5801

text: number of homesteads and stopped. They were eventually taken back to Uganda.

text: P-0227 had spent around five years in the bush. For P-0214, it was around 10 years.

text: When asked how she felt about what Dominic Ongwen did to her in the bush, P-0227

text: responded a follows:

text: When I think about it, it pains me because at the time I was a student, my education was interrupted. Right now I have sinus problems. At that time I did not have any problems. I got all of these problems from the bush. I did not have those problems

text: at the time. And it really pains me. I feel – I feel bad for my life.

text: d. P-0226

text: P-0226 was captured by government soldiers in 2003 in Koch.

text: At one point in 2003, P-0226 was in Koch. Her LRA group was being followed by

text: soldiers and helicopters. P-0226 was hit by fire and, heavily injured, fell to the

text: 5806 5807

text: ground. She got up and started running towards the forest. She then fell in the

text: forest and was unconscious for a while. P-0226 awoke next to an unexploded bomb

text: 5809 5810

text: and a big snake. She walked out of the forest and found a line of corpses. She

text: continued walking until she could overhear government soldiers talking. She heard

text: one of them say ‘[i]f I find anyone alive among them, I will rape them until they die’.

text: P-0226 then regained enough strength to run and hide in a banana plantation. One of

text: the government soldiers went to collect bananas. P-0226 was extremely scared and

text: 5800 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 58, line 22 – p. 59, line 5; P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at paras 107-14. 5801 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 59, lines 6-12; P-0214 Statement, UGA-OTP-0234-0026-R01, at paras 114-15. 5802 P-0227: T-10, p. 61, line 23 – p. 62, line 2. 5803 Para. 211 above. 5804 P-0226: T-8, p. 13, lines 6-8 (returned in 2003), p. 66, lines 16-25. See also p. 66, line 16 – p. 69, line 24. 5805 P-0226: T-8, p. 67, lines 1-9. 5806 P-0226: T-8, p. 67, lines 1-9; P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 20, lines 19-23; P-0309: T-61, p. 39, line 25 – p. 40, line 21. P-0205 recalls P-0226 suffering this same injury, but remembers P-0226 being present at Lukodi and thought that her injury was suffered after this mid-2004 attack. P-0205: T-49-CONF, p. 72, line 15 – p. 73, line 16. P-0226 never mentions Lukodi and, given the distant events being recalled and how P-0226 is best placed to remember the year of her own escape, the Chamber considers P-0205 to simply be mistaken on this point. 5807 P-0226: T-8, p. 67, lines 7-9. 5808 P-0226: T-8, p. 67, lines 7-9. 5809 P-0226: T-8, p. 67, lines 10-25. 5810 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, lines 8-17. 5811 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, line 18 – p. 69, line 1. 5812 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, lines 20-21. 5813 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, lines 22-23. 5814 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, line 22 – p. 69, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 770/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5815 breathing heavily, but the soldier did not see her. P-0226 soon moved and, evading

text: 5816 government soldiers along the way, walked in the direction she thought the LRA was.

text: Eventually she started walking towards a nearby road and encountered the government

text: 5817 soldiers. They started asking her questions, but she could not answer them due to her

text: 5818 injuries. She was then given medical attention and brought to the Gulu government

text: 5819 barracks. She had spent around 5 years with the LRA.

text: e. P-0235 and P-0236

text: P-0235 and P-0236 were released from the LRA in April 2015.

text: In September 2014, Dominic Ongwen told P-0235 and P-0236 that he was going to see

text: 5821 Joseph Kony and left them with another commander. They never saw him again, as

text: 5822 Dominic Ongwen left the LRA in January of 2015. In April 2015, they were informed

text: that Dominic Ongwen and Joseph Kony had sent instructions that they were to be

text: 5823 released.

text: Both had spent nearly 13 years in the bush. When asked to compare herself to her

text: schoolmates now that she had returned home, P-0236 responded as follows:

text: There is no comparison because right now they are much better off than I am. I’m back home. I’ve got – I have injuries. I’m weak. Maybe if I had not been abducted

text: I would have not been shot at, I would have not been injured, I would have not had any – I would not be suffering. Most of the people that – my peers are okay. They are not injured. They’re working. Some of them have finished their education. So 5824 they’re in a much better off position than I am.

text: 5815 P-0226: T-8, p. 68, line 22 – p. 69, line 1. 5816 P-0226: T-8, p. 69, lines 5-11. 5817 P-0226: T-8, p. 69, lines 12-22. 5818 P-0226: T-8, p. 69, lines 13-18. 5819 P-0226: T-8, p. 69, lines 19-24. 5820 Para. 211 above. 5821 P-0236: T-16, p. 36, lines 13-25; P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 60, line 21 – p. 61, line 8. 5822 P-0236: T-16, p. 36, lines 13-25; P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 61, line 9 – p. 62, line 4. 5823 P-0236: T-16, p. 36, lines 13-25; P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 61, line 16 – p. 62, line 4. 5824 P-0236: T-16, p. 37, lines 1-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 771/1077 4 February 2021

text: Sexual and gender based violence not directly perpetrated by Dominic

text: Ongwen

text: The charges of sexual and gender based crimes not directly perpetrated by Dominic 5825 Ongwen (Counts 61 to 68) are limited to facts occurring within the Sinia brigade. The Prosecution argues that the ‘evidence shows that [sexual and gender-based crimes] in Sinia Brigade were carried out in an institutionalised manner, essentially replicating the systematic pattern by which the LRA abducted, enslaved, forcibly married, raped, 5826 sexually enslaved, and tortured women and girls’.

text: In this regard, the evidence indeed indicates that there is no clear dividing line between the systemic victimisation of women and girls in Sinia brigade and that occurring in the LRA generally. The Chamber therefore understands that the limitation of the scope of the charges to the Sinia brigade finds its reasons in the scope of Dominic Ongwen’s authority rather than in any difference between Sinia and the LRA in general concerning this phenomenon.

text: In its analysis and findings, the Chamber is guided by the specific scope of the charges. At the same time, it is natural that some evidence received during the trial speaks more generally of the LRA rather than being limited to the Sinia brigade. This is in particular the case with some of the evidence provided by insider witnesses. Part of this evidence, to the extent that it is relevant for the Chamber’s findings, has been relied upon as explained below.

text: In addition to other evidence, the Chamber heard five witnesses whose individual stories are of particular relevance to the charges at issue: P-0351, P-0352, P-0366, P-0374 and P-0396. The Prosecutor specified already before the commencement of the trial that these particular witnesses were to be considered as ‘simply examples of a much larger group 5827 of women who are the victims of these crimes’. For the purpose of its analysis below, the Chamber is mindful of the difference between the individual facts related to each of those witnesses and the facts at issue of the charge under consideration, which is systemic in nature. At the same time, the Chamber agrees that the five witnesses are indeed particularly important for the determination of the charges and the Chamber’s findings.

text: 5825 See paras 119-120 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 99-100). 5826 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 114. 5827 Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, para. 615.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 772/1077 4 February 2021

text: Thus, under each specific heading below, as appropriate, the Chamber makes reference to their testimonies and combines that with the evidence of other witnesses (in particular insiders and other women testifying about analogous personal experiences within the LRA, albeit outside one or more of the parameters of the charges as formulated) as well as with any other relevant evidence.

text: i. Coordinated and methodical nature of the sexual and gender-based

text: violence

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct women and girls in Northern Uganda and force them to serve in Sinia brigade as

text: so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia brigade, and as domestic servants.

text: As laid out in detail below, the evidence received by the Chamber overwhelmingly demonstrates that an elaborate system of abuse of women and girls existed in the LRA, including the Sinia brigade. This system was consciously maintained by the LRA leadership through coordinated action.

text: This conclusion is sustained first and foremost by the systemic occurrence of abductions, forced marriage, sexual violence and other forms of abuse of civilian women and girls analysed in the subsequent sections. In addition, there is, as also discussed in the subsequent sections, evidence of regular orders by the LRA leadership, including Dominic Ongwen, in particular for the abduction of civilian women and girls. These factors indicate compellingly that the abduction and abuse of civilian women and girls were a consciously maintained and coordinated effort.

text: The Chamber also observes that there exists evidence indicating that the LRA system of abduction and abuse of women and girls was articulated in general policy terms to the LRA membership and, to a certain extent even to the public at large. In particular, the Chamber notes the testimony of P-0205 to the effect that, at some point in 2002, Joseph Kony convened everybody together and ‘then told us that whoever did not have a wife was going to get a wife’ and that ‘[t]here were going to be abductions, beautiful girls 5829 should be abducted’. Of relevance in this respect is also a radio broadcast on Mega FM radio station in December 2002 involving, inter alia, Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti,

text: 5828 Para. 212 above. 5829 P-0205: T-48, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 773/1077 4 February 2021

text: of which the audio recording and the written transcript/translation into English have

text: been submitted by the Prosecutor and which, according to their e-Court metadata, were

text: obtained from the UPDF. The Chamber considers that these items, the authenticity of

text: which has also not been objected to by the Defence at the time of their submission,

text: can be relied upon. According to the transcript, Vincent Otti stated at one point: ‘I want

text: to assure you that the girls whom we collect and send to the bush are our mothers. We

text: always collect the young ones who are not infected with HIV […]’.

text: That said, the Chamber has before it evidence indicating that this project was the result

text: of coordination among the LRA leadership, including Dominic Ongwen. In this regard,

text: the Chamber notes first the pattern in the radio intercept evidence.

text: In an ISO logbook entry of 1 September 2003, Joseph Kony is recorded as telling Charles Tabuley that one of his ‘wives’ escaped from Okot Odhiambo and that Charles Tabuley

text: should struggle and get for him ‘another beautiful one’. Charles Tabuley stated he

text: would work on Joseph Kony’s demand.

text: A radio communication intercepted by the ISO on 1 February 2004 provides further

text: evidence of specific coordination. Vincent Otti is recorded as informing Joseph Kony

text: that he was coming to him with three abducted girls to be given to him as his so-called ‘wives’, but that one remained in Uganda with Dominic Ongwen because her feet got

text: swollen.

text: 5830 Audio Recording, UGA-OTP-0023-0002; Transcript, UGA-OTP-0023-0011. 5831 See Confidential Annex A to Defence Response to “Prosecution’s request to submit 1006 items of documentary evidence”, ICC-02/04-01/15-701-Conf-AnxA, p. 2. 5832 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0023-0011, at 0020. 5833 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0347. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UDPF Gulu logbook entry. However, this entry clearly concerns the same radio communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0346-47 (Tabuley reporting ambush of bus and pick-up on Soroti-Lira road, killing many civilians and one senior UPDF officer whose pistol was taken) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 0944-45 (Tabuley reporting ambush of bus and pick-up on Lira Soroti road, killing more than 30 civilians and recovering one pistol from bus, indicating senior UPDF officer also killed)). The UPDF Achol Pii logbook does not contain an entry for 1 September 2003 (see UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6107-08 (entry for 31 August followed by entry for 2 September 2003)). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that the entry in the UPDF Gulu logbook is overall less detailed than the entry in the ISO logbook and that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 5834 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0347. 5835 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0037-38. The Chamber notes that this particular detail is not included in the corresponding UPDF logbook entries. However, these entries clearly concern the same radio

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 774/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 10 March 2004, a conversation is recorded in the ISO logbook in which Joseph Kony is recorded as complaining to Dominic Ongwen that he ‘had made almost all their senior

text: women with him to escape’. Dominic Ongwen is recorded as stating in response that

text: he ‘has many female recruits which can replace those ones who escaped’, to which

text: Joseph Kony replied with the argument that ‘female recruits can’t be compared with most

text: of their senior LRA women who knows how LRA behave’.

text: On 11 July 2004, both the ISO and the UPDF intercepted a conversation involving

text: Dominic Ongwen in relation to the escape of the so-called ‘wives’ of one Saidi.

text: Joseph Kony is reported as laughing at Saidi and saying that it seemed Saidi did not know

text: how to ‘take care of women’.

text: On 26 June 2005, Dominic Ongwen is recorded in the ISO logbook as reporting that the

text: so-called ‘wife’ of one Alit Santo and another woman, who were with Abudema, wanted

text: to escape. In response, Omona instructed Dominic Ongwen to collect the two women

text: and keep them in his unit.

text: communication (compare ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0038 (Otti telling Kony about capture of old hunter, Kony telling Otti to move with him to his location) with UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4221 (Otti telling Kony about capture of old hunter, Kony telling him to let that man be taken to him) and UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7361 (Otti telling Kony coming across old hunter, Kony telling Otti to keep him until further orders)). The UPDF Logbook (Soroti) does not include any entry for 1 February 2004 (see UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2491-97 (entry for 1 January followed by entry for 23 February 2004)). Bearing this in mind, and noting at the same time that interceptors at times would have focused on different details in summarising radio communications, the Chamber considers it appropriate to refer to this specific detail included in the record of the communication as prepared by ISO. 5836 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0137. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4277. 5837 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0137. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 4143, at 4277. The Chamber notes that the UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-2284, at 2569 instead records an exchange between an individual called ‘Odongo Anaka’ and Kony about the escape of troops. Given that both the ISO and UPDF (Gulu) logbooks include largely comparable entries, and considering that the UPDF (Soroti) logbook contains less detail regarding this radio communication, the Chamber is of the view that it is more appropriate to rely on the entries as reflected in the ISO and UPDF (Gulu) logbooks. 5838 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3135; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0096. The Chamber notes that the two logbooks diverge as to whether Dominic Ongwen reported the escape, or Buk Abudema told Dominic Ongwen about it. In the specific context of the present analysis, the inconsistency is immaterial. 5839 UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3135. 5840 ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0139. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1323. 5841 ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0139. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1323. It is noted that logbook evidence indicates that Omona Michael worked as signaller for Joseph Kony at the time, see ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0019, 0032, 0037, 0040, 0106, 0120, 0151.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 775/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to a communication intercepted by the ISO and recorded in a logbook, on 10 July 2005, Dominic Ongwen was asked on radio ‘if he has abducted young girls (ting 5842 ting) baby sitters for Joseph Kony’. Dominic Ongwen responded ‘not yet’ and stated 5843 that he was going to ‘work on that himself’.

text: In addition to the radio intercept evidence, P-0205 stated that he heard a report which 5844 was given by Dominic Ongwen to Joseph Kony at some point after the Lukodi attack, in which Dominic Ongwen provided information on the number of girls he had under his 5845 control. Among them were girls abducted in Omiya Pacwa, as well as girls abducted 5846 earlier. In the view of the Chamber, the reporting of abductions of women and girls and the number of them being ‘under control’ indicates that the abduction was considered to be part of ordinary LRA operations.

text: Furthermore, the evidence indicates that on regular occasions, women and girls who had been assigned to one male member of the LRA, in particular to a commander, were for practical reasons temporarily placed under control of another commander of the LRA. In that situation, the status of women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ or otherwise belonging to a man did not change, and continued to be respected. This is another specific indicator to the Chamber that the abuse of women and girls in the LRA, including forced marriage and sexual violence, were truly systemic and institutional.

text: Specifically, P-0205 testified that around the time of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp in May 2004, Dominic Ongwen was ‘taking charge’ of Buk Abudema’s so-called 5847 ‘wives’. He continued that after the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, picked up 5848 Buk Abudema’s so-called ‘wives’ and took them to Buk Abudema, who was in Pader.

text: 5842 ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0169. 5843 ISO Faxed Copy, UGA-OTP-0163-0007, at 0169. The Chamber notes that the UPDF recorded the details of the communication differently, but that the discrepancies are not such that would affect the reliability of the evidence as to the fact that the conversation took place, see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1346. 5844 P-0205: T-48, p. 4, line 24 – p. 6, line 12. 5845 P-0205: T-48, p. 6, lines 18-23. 5846 P-0205: T-48, p. 6, line 24 – p. 7, line 5. 5847 P-0205: T-47, p. 68, lines 1-4. 5848 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 68, lines 15-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 776/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0351, who stayed in Dominic Ongwen’s household, testified that there were ‘other mothers’ who sometimes stayed in Dominic Ongwen’s group, but who were the ‘wives’ 5849 of Raska or Lapaicho, even if their husbands were not there.

text: On 4 August 2004, the ISO logbook records an exchange between Dominic Ongwen and Labalpiny, where Dominic Ongwen confirms that Labalpiny’s ‘wife’ is still with him, 5850 and Labalpiny asks Dominic Ongwen not to allow her to escape. Finally, the Chamber turns to the Prosecution’s allegation that Dominic Ongwen ‘led by 5851 example’ as concerns the abuse of women and girls in Sinia. As established above, Dominic Ongwen indeed kept abducted women and girls in his household and under his personal control throughout the period of the charges, subjecting them to forced marriage, 5852 rape, physical and mental abuse, and forced labour. In the assessment of the Chamber, Dominic Ongwen’s personal acts prove his knowledge and conscious participation in the LRA system of abduction and abuse of women and girls. Moreover, the Chamber considers that by virtue of his position during the period relevant to the charges as first Oka battalion commander and subsequently Sinia brigade commander, his personal acts of abuse of women and girls, which could be observed by the LRA members under his control, had the effect of demonstrating the expected behaviour to the LRA membership. In the view of the Chamber, this was indeed an important element in sustaining the systemic nature of the abuse.

text: ii. Abduction

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership ordered Sinia brigade

text: soldiers to abduct civilian women and girls.

text: According to the evidence, orders to abduct civilian women and girls were given at various levels of the LRA hierarchy. Generally, more specific orders to abduct were issued on the basis of a standing order for abductions from Joseph Kony. The Chamber

text: 5849 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 59. 5850 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0164. The Chamber notes that the UPDF Logbook (Gulu) also includes the exchange between Dominic Ongwen and Labalpiny, recording Labalpiny as asking Dominic Ongwen to ‘take care’ of his ‘families’ (see UGA-OTP-0254-3833, at 3843). In the assessment of the Chamber, this is compatible with the ISO logbook entry. 5851 Para. 123 of the charges (Confirmation Decision, pp. 100-101). 5852 See section IV.C.10.ii. above. 5853 Para. 213 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 777/1077 4 February 2021 will analyse this standing order first, before turning to the evidence concerning more specific orders, in particular those issued by Dominic Ongwen.

text: Several witnesses testified about a standing order for abductions of women and girls emanating from Joseph Kony. P-0142 stated that at one point in Sudan, Joseph Kony 5854 gave a general order to ‘[g]o and abduct girls’, which the witness heard. P-0205 stated 5855 that in 2002, Joseph Kony issued an order to abduct ‘beautiful girls’. He testified that per Joseph Kony’s order, LRA soldiers were expected to abduct young girls, and that in execution of the order, girls from 12 years old up to 18 or ‘even’ 20 years old were 5856 abducted. The witness further stated that according to what he heard, young girls were preferred because they were expected to be healthy, and because there was a fear of 5857 sexually transmitted diseases. P-0070 similarly testified that for the mission in Teso, 5858 Joseph Kony gave the order, over radio, to abduct ‘young beautiful girls’.

text: By its nature, Joseph Kony’s standing or general orders for abductions of women or girls did not include operational particulars. Logically, for this, the input of LRA commanders was crucial. This is in line with the point generally made by the Chamber as concerns the relationship between Joseph Kony and high level commanders of the LRA, including 5859 Dominic Ongwen. It is also illustrated by the radio intercept of 10 July 2005, referred 5860 to above.

text: Hillary Daniel Lagen’s statement provides further information on the issue of this standing order. According to his statement, the order to abduct girls was related to the 5861 balance between the two sexes in the LRA. Also according to the witness, brigade commanders, or even the division or the army commander, could not abduct girls unless 5862 specifically asked to do so by Joseph Kony.

text: 5854 P-0142: T-71, p. 28, line 24 – p. 29, line 4. 5855 P-0205: T-48, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 4. 5856 P-0205: T-48, p. 27, lines 4-9. 5857 P-0205: T-48, p. 27, lines 10-15. 5858 P-0070: T-105, p. 86, lines 1-12. 5859 See paras 872-873 above. 5860 See para. 2107 above. 5861 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0798, lines 683-97 (referring, inter alia, to periods ‘when there would be too many boys and too a few girls’). 5862 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0799, lines 702-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 778/1077 4 February 2021

text: Indeed, there is evidence that the standing order was at some point withdrawn by Joseph

text: Kony. P-0205 testified that the standing order for abductions was revoked and that this

text: 5863 led to a reduction in abductions in 2003. His evidence finds corroboration in UPDF

text: logbooks of intercepted radio communications, which recorded a corresponding message

text: 5864 by Joseph Kony. Further according to P-0205, there was also no general order to

text: 5865 abduct in 2004, but a particular commander could do it ‘within his own initiative’. In

text: such a case, according to P-0205, a commander could abduct, ‘keep quiet about it and

text: 5866 then send the report after a period has elapsed’.

text: 5867 P-0233 testified that when there was an order for abduction, abductions took place.

text: However, similarly to P-0205, P-0233 clarified that even when this was not the case, if

text: soldiers saw ‘a very beautiful girl’ they would still abduct her ‘because even when the

text: 5868 senior commanders now will not approve of it […], we will have already taken’.

text: According to the witness, the superior would report to the senior commander, and the

text: 5869 latter ‘will say, okay, it’s okay, you can now keep them’. The witness concluded: ‘So

text: it doesn’t mean that when orders are given not to do abductions it will be strictly

text: 5870 followed; a few abductions will still take place’.

text: P-0264 testified about a specific incident of abduction at a time when abductions were

text: 5871 ‘prohibited’. As described in detail below, a young woman was abducted by Oka

text: 5872 soldiers. During examination by the Defence, P-0264 explained that, while at the time

text: ‘people had been prohibited from abducting people’ and that ‘this was something that

text: was done illegally’, the abduction occurred pursuant to the decision of the commander

text: of the specific operation and was later approved by Ben Acellam, who said he would

text: 5873 report on it on radio.

text: 5863 P-0205: T-48, p. 21, lines 5-10. 5864 UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6212; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3458 (entry for 10 February 2003). 5865 P-0205: T-48, p. 21, lines 19-24. 5866 P-0205: T-48, p. 21, line 24 – p. 22, line 4. 5867 P-0233: T-111, p. 56, lines 22-24. See also T-111-CONF, p. 11, lines 22-25, p. 25, line 20 – p. 26, line 5 (indicating that the orders came from Joseph Kony, but they could be very general, merely specifying that there should or should not be abductions). 5868 P-0233: T-111, p. 56, line 22 – p. 57, line 3. 5869 P-0233: T-111, p. 57, lines 3-7. 5870 P-0233: T-111, p. 57, lines 7-8. 5871 See para. 2134 below. 5872 See para. 2134 below. 5873 P-0264: T-66, p. 35, line 20 – p. 37, line 25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 779/1077 4 February 2021

text: On the basis of the evidence of P-0205 and P-0233 – who were both in position to observe and interpret facts related to the hierarchical organisation of the LRA – as well as of the specific evidence given by P-0264, the Chamber concludes that while Joseph Kony at some point withdrew the standing order for abduction of civilian women and girls, the practical impact of any such withdrawal was limited, as abductions in fact did not stop.

text: The Chamber notes that orders for abduction were also given at lower levels of the hierarchy within the Sinia brigade. At this juncture, and considering that further evidence of such orders is discussed in the following section, the Chamber finds it sufficient to refer to the testimonies of P-0054 and P-0205. P-0054 explained that instructions ‘to go and collect women, bring girls’ were given to Sinia soldiers when they were sent for an 5874 operation. According to the witness, such orders were ordinarily given by Dominic Ongwen as the brigade commander, but if a battalion commander separated from the 5875 main group, he could also issue such an order. The witness confirmed that he was 5876 present when such orders were given, including by Dominic Ongwen.

text: P-0205 testified that a group of LRA soldiers was sent to Onekgwok, ‘with the authority 5877 issued by Dominic on abduction of people’, and came back with two young girls. A week later, P-0205 received another order from Dominic Ongwen to continue abducting 5878 people. P-0205 also testified that Dominic Ongwen gave an order to the battalion to 5879 ‘abduct girls and boys’.

text: Sinia brigade soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted civilian women and girls in Northern Uganda between

text: 5874 P-0054: T-93, p. 37, lines 19-22. 5875 P-0054: T-93, p. 37, line 25 – p. 38, line 7. 5876 P-0054: T-93, p. 38, lines 8-11. 5877 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 47, lines 2-5. 5878 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 48, lines 13-20. 5879 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 13, line 13 – p. 14, line 4. P-0205 did not provide a specific time when this order was given, but stated that it happened at an RV at Koyo, where Kalalang was promoted to commander of Terwanga battalion to replace Loum Icaya who had escaped with Ojok Kampala. Logbook evidence suggests that Icaya Loum also escaped in mid-July 2004: ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0102, 0106. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-2982, at 3140, 3142-43. This allows for the conclusion that the order was given in or shortly after July 2004.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 780/1077 4 February 2021

text: 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. At any time during this period, there were over one

text: hundred abducted women and girls in Sinia brigade.

text: The Chamber allowed the introduction of the prior recorded testimony of and heard at

text: trial several women who themselves testified about having been abducted by Sinia

text: brigade soldiers.

text: P-0352 testified that she was abducted at age 12 in March 2003 from

text: 5881 village. She stated that she was brought by her abductors to a gathering at

text: , where she saw many people, including four other girls from her village who she

text: 5882 could recognise. At that location, the people who abducted her, to whom the witness

text: referred simply as ‘soldiers’, separated those who could walk and looked young from

text: 5883 ‘old people and people who could not move’. She stated: ‘Because I was a little girl

text: one soldier said “can she really move?” and another one replied “she will grow up

text: 5884 there”’. The witness then walked in the group for the whole day and the whole night,

text: 5885 until they met up with a ‘bigger group of the Holy’. She explained that the ‘overall

text: leader of the battalion’ that abducted her was named Buk, and that ‘[h]is battalion was

text: 5886 called Sinia’. Setting aside the error in referring to the Sinia brigade as a battalion, P-

text: 0352’s description of the unit that abducted her is consistent with other evidence, and the

text: Chamber considers it established that she was abducted by Sinia soldiers.

text: P-0374 stated that she was abducted in September 2003 at the age of almost 10 years by

text: 5887 an LRA soldier called . She was abducted in a group of about 30 civilians,

text: 5888 mostly women. The group moved away in line and walked overnight, before stopping

text: 5889 to rest in the morning. She saw stand in front of the assembled people and give

text: 5890 orders, and understood that he was the leader of the group that abducted her. P-0374

text: 5891 testified that was an officer in B-Coy of ‘Tarwanga’ battalion of Sinia, and that

text: 5880 Para. 213 above. 5881 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 11-12. 5882 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 18-19. 5883 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 21. 5884 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 21. 5885 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 23. 5886 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 25. 5887 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 13-31. 5888 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 26. 5889 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 32-34. 5890 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 35. 5891 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 44-45.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 781/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5892 he was also known as . This information is corroborated in detail by

text: 5893 , leaving no doubt that P-0374

text: was abducted by LRA soldiers of Sinia brigade. P-0374 continued that they moved again,

text: 5894 and in the evening they reached a place that was ‘like a camp’. P-0374 saw

text: 5895 approach and salute a group of people who were the leaders. It is noted that there is

text: slight confusion in the evidence as to the question whether P-0374 also remembers seeing

text: 5896 Dominic Ongwen at this gathering, and a firm conclusion cannot be drawn. After

text: some time in the bush, P-0374 learnt the names of some people who she saw often, like

text: 5897 Ojoko, Kobi and Kalalang.

text: P-0396 stated that she was abducted at the age of 13 years in December 2004 from her

text: 5898 home in village. An LRA soldier entered P-0396’s home, told her to get up and

text: 5899 held her by her hand. The next morning, P-0396 learnt that the name of this soldier

text: was Lapana and that the name of the commander of the unit who abducted her was

text: 5900 Kalalang. On the move away, the LRA unit including the new abductees was attacked

text: 5901 by government soldiers. Thereafter, they walked to a placed called Wii-Polo, where

text: 5902 there were about 100 LRA members. This is where, three days after her abduction, P-

text: 5903 0396 first saw Dominic Ongwen, although she did not yet know who he was.

text: 5904 The Chamber notes that P-0351 testified that she was abducted by ‘Raska’s group’,

text: and was later transferred to Sinia. This transfer demonstrates, as already stated, that the

text: abduction and abuse of women and girls was not limited to Sinia, but was a coordinated

text: characteristic of the LRA in general. In detail, P-0351 testified that she was abducted on

text: 5892 P-0374: T-150-CONF, p. 30, line 23 – p. 31, line 9. 5893

text: 5894 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 37. 5895 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 39. 5896 Compare P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 40; with para. 122, and with P-0374: T-150, p. 34, lines 8-9. 5897 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 39. 5898 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 13. 5899 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 16; P-0396: T-127, p. 11, lines 2-11. 5900 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 20. 5901 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 30. 5902 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 42. 5903 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 43; P-0396: T-127, p. 19, lines 4-7. 5904 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 13. The Chamber takes this to be a reference to Raska Lukwiya, which appears to be also the understanding of the Defence, see P-0351: T-129, p. 19, lines 19-25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 782/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5905 12 December 2002 from home in . At the time,

text: 5906 she was approximately 12 years old. More than ten civilians were abducted on that

text: 5907 occasion, including one boy and another girl whom the witness both knew by name.

text: They were taken away and, the next morning, were addressed by ‘Raska’, who stated that

text: 5908 everybody, except the witness, would be released. A woman smeared P-0351 with

text: shea butter on her forehead, back and chest, and told her that if she tried to escape she

text: would not be able to see where she was going and would get lost because of the shea

text: 5909 butter; she was told that they would catch her and kill her. The group then moved and

text: 5910 during the move P-0351 slept next to four girls who had also been abducted. P-0351

text: 5911 stated that there were ‘many’ girls in the group. Next, she explained that the group

text: she was travelling with met with other groups, where an escort of one of the leaders told

text: 5912 her to sleep with a group of girls that were new to her. The next day she realised that

text: 5913 she was in a new group, and later learned that this was ‘Odomi’s group’. In court, the

text: 5914 witness stated that the group was called Sinia and that she spent about three years in it.

text: In addition to these personal stories of abduction, other insider witnesses testified about

text: specific abductions of civilian women and girls by members of the Sinia brigade.

text: In this context, the Chamber refers to its findings in relation to the abductions of women

text: 5915 and girls during the attacks on Pajule and Odek IDP camps.

text: P-0205 described in detail the abduction of five girls by Sinia soldiers in Omiya

text: 5916 Pacwa. He stated that Dominic Ongwen gave the order to abduct people, so soldiers

text: 5905 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 12. In relation to the date of abduction, see section IV.B.2.iii.b above. 5906 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 12. See also section IV.B.2.iii.b above. 5907 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 19. 5908 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 24-25. 5909 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 26. 5910 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 29, 32. 5911 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 32. 5912 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 37. It is noted that the witness was not really able to estimate the period of time that passed between her abduction and her coming under ‘Ongwen’s group’, and that she gave, in what the Chamber deems to be very approximate terms, the estimation of three months; P-0351: T- 129, p. 20, line 12 – p. 21, line 3. 5913 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 38. 5914 P-0351: T-129, p. 21, line 24 – p. 23, line 24. 5915 See paras 1367-1368, 1611-1612 above. 5916 While P-0205 did not state when precisely this abduction took place, it is noted that it took place following an order by Dominic Ongwen also referred to by P-0205, which can be dated to or shortly after July 2004, see para. 2123 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 783/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5917 were sent to Omiya Pacwa where they abducted five girls. P-0205 provided the name

text: 5918 of the soldier who abducted the girls, as well as the names of the abductees. He gave

text: 5919 individual estimates for the ages of the girls in the range of 13 to 15 years old. P-0205

text: stated that a report was given to Dominic Ongwen at an RV, and that Dominic Ongwen

text: instructed that ‘two of the girls, the two beautiful girls should be taken good care of and

text: they should be taken to him to the next RV’, whereas the other girls should be sent to

text: 5920 Ben Acellam’s home and to Okeny. P-0205 stated that the two abducted girls were

text: indeed given to Dominic Ongwen as instructed, and that he kept them for Joseph Kony,

text: 5921 and additionally that two girls were given to Okeny and one to Ben Acellam.

text: As already observed above, P-0205 testified about another occasion when, ‘with the

text: authority issued by Dominic on abduction of people’, LRA soldiers abducted two girls

text: 5922 of about 12 years old in Onekgwok. P-0205 explained that after the girls were brought,

text: he reported to Dominic Ongwen, who said that the girls should be ‘kept well’ and should

text: 5923 not be allowed to escape. The girls stayed in P-0205’s household until they were given

text: 5924 to Dominic Ongwen at a later point. Dominic Ongwen took one of the girls to Buk

text: 5925 Abudema, and the other to Joseph Kony.

text: P-0205 also referred to yet another abduction of a girl, , in Paicho by

text: 5926 Terwanga soldiers. He stated that also this abduction was reported to Dominic

text: 5927 Ongwen, who instructed the abductors that ‘she should be kept well’.

text: P-0264 described the abduction by the Oka battalion of a young woman in Pader, near

text: 5928 Adilang or Patongo. P-0264 testified that the order had been given to abduct five

text: people, which was executed, and stated that ‘out of the abductees she was okay, the rest

text: 5929 were a bit very old’. The unit returned with the young woman to Ben Acellam, who

text: 5917 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 12, line 25 – p. 13, line 3. 5918 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 14, line 19 – p. 16, line 6. 5919 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 17, lines 7-10. 5920 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 16, lines 7-18. 5921 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 16, line 22 – p. 17, line 10. 5922 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 47, lines 1-7. 5923 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 47, lines 15-20. 5924 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 47, lines 20-23. 5925 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 47, lines 23-24. 5926 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 48, line 21 – p. 49, line 3, lines 10-11. 5927 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 49, lines 12-19. 5928 P-0264: T-65, p. 31, lines 13-20. 5929 P-0264: T-65, p. 32, lines 1-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 784/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5930 decided that she be ‘given out’ to Olwiko. P-0264 also stated that the young woman

text: was abducted with a child, and that the child was given to another civilian who was

text: 5931 initially abducted to go back with. P-0264 stated specifically that this happened at a

text: 5932 time when Dominic Ongwen was Sinia brigade commander. P-0264 did not know

text: whether Ben Acellam, Oka brigade commander, reported the abduction to Dominic

text: Ongwen, but stated that Ben Acellam gave a report to his officers saying he was going

text: 5933 to forward the issue to his superiors.

text: Evidence given by insider witnesses provides further corroboration for the proposition

text: that Sinia brigade, and more broadly the LRA, abducted civilian women and girls at the

text: relevant time period.

text: P-0070 stated that the LRA, including in Uganda in 2003-2004, abducted girls from the

text: 5934 ages of 12 years upwards. P-0233 stated that abductions of women and girls took

text: 5935 5936 place throughout his stay in the LRA from 2002 to 2013. P-0307 also confirmed

text: that abductions of women and girls took place in Sinia during the time period of the

text: 5937 charges.

text: 5938 P-0045 stayed in the LRA for a long period, from 1990 to 2004. Her own personal

text: experience of being assigned as so-called ‘wife’ is not as such within the charges brought

text: against Dominic Ongwen; however, due to that experience and the length of her stay in

text: the LRA, the witness was able to provide information which the Chamber finds relevant

text: and reliable. In particular, P-0045 testified that at the time she left the bush, ‘the

text: abduction of girls was still happening and they would be taken to the commanders and

text: 5939 they would be distributed out’.

text: 5930 P-0264: T-65, p. 32, lines 7-11. 5931 P-0264: T-65, p. 32, lines 11-19. 5932 P-0264: T-65, p. 34, lines 3-4. 5933 P-0264: T-65, p. 34, lines 5-9. 5934 P-0070: T-106, p. 35, lines 6-10. 5935 P-0233: T-111, p. 57, lines 9-12. 5936 P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 8, lines 5-6, p. 72, lines 13-18. 5937 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 63. 5938 See section IV.B.2.ii.a.iii above. 5939 P-0045: T-103, p. 77, lines 17-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 785/1077 4 February 2021

text: In this context, the Chamber also notes the testimony of P-0142, a Sinia officer during the relevant period, who stated: ‘There is no single woman who voluntarily joined. All 5940 were abducted.’

text: In conclusion, the Chamber turns to the question of approximately how many abducted civilian women and girls were in the Sinia brigade during the relevant time period. The Prosecution’s submission is that ‘hundreds of women and girls were abducted, forcefully 5941 kept, and further victimised in Sinia Brigade throughout the charged period’.

text: P-0205 testified that there were close to 50 women in the Oka battalion, more than 50 in 5942 the Terwanga battalion, and more than 30 in the Siba battalion. P-0374 estimated that 5943 there were 200-300 so-called ‘wives’ and ting tings in Sinia. P-0142 stated that in 2003-2004 there were around 100 so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia, and 30 to 70 ‘young girls 5944 who were not yet ready to marry’.

text: On the basis of this evidence, the Chamber considers that a safe estimate can be drawn that there were at any time during the time period of the charges over one hundred abducted women and girls in Sinia.

text: The Chamber notes at this point the submission of the Prosecution that the evidence from victims and former LRA fighters and commanders ‘gives rise to a powerful inference that almost all the abducted women and girls in Sinia Brigade (indeed in the LRA) had 5945 broadly similar experiences of victimisation’. The Chamber, having examined the evidence on record, shares this assessment. As explained in the following sections, abducted women and girls passed through what was an institutionalised system of ‘distribution’, assignment of roles and enforcement for the performance of these roles. The systemic nature of the treatment of women and girls in Sinia, and more broadly in the LRA, is evident from the way it was described by the witnesses, who overwhelmingly, as indicated below, spoke of it as a system.

text: 5940 P-0142: T-71, p. 40, line 24 – p. 41, line 1. 5941 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 111. 5942 P-0205: T-48, p. 27, line 16 – p. 28, line 9. 5943 P-0374: T-150, p. 7, lines 12-25. 5944 P-0142: T-71, p. 40, lines 3-10. 5945 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 115.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 786/1077 4 February 2021 iii. ‘Distribution’

text: Following their abduction, the abducted women and girls were ‘distributed’ to members of Sinia brigade. The ‘distribution’ of the abducted women and girls was the prerogative of Joseph Kony, or, in his absence, of the Sinia brigade commander or battalion commanders. In the exercise of his authority, Dominic Ongwen also personally decided

text: on the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls.

text: As established by the evidence, ‘distribution’ – a word used by many witnesses and for this reason also by the Chamber – refers to the assignment of abducted women and girls to a member of Sinia. From the moment of ‘distribution’, the abducted women and girls were subject to the authority of the man they were assigned to. It is opportune to note at the outset that for some abducted women and girls the ‘distribution’ to a man after abduction also meant being assigned to that man as a so-called ‘wife’. As explained below, young girls were assigned to men as so-called ‘wives’ based on a criterion of sexual maturity, but nevertheless girls as young as around 12 years old were assigned to men as ‘wives’. For even younger girls, the assignment to a man as so-called ‘wife’ occurred at a later point, and for that purpose they could also be ‘re-distributed’ to another man. These very young girls, until they became so-called ‘wives’, served in the households of the men they were ‘distributed’ to as ting tings.

text: Many witnesses testified before the Chamber about the system of ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls to senior soldiers in Sinia, or more broadly in the LRA. The Chamber will begin its analysis by referring to those testimonies which aid in understanding the features of the system of ‘distribution’, before assessing some firsthand personal testimony of witnesses who were themselves ‘distributed’ in this manner.

text: Several witnesses which were able to observe the system of ‘distribution’ during their stay in the organisation provided strikingly similar descriptions. Typically occurring features of this system were a waiting period following abduction – motivated, according to the evidence, by the need to establish that the abductee was healthy – and the performance of rituals.

text: P-0070 testified that abducted girls were ‘distributed’ to men as so-called ‘wives’ after 5947 about three months in the bush and after performance of certain rituals. He specified

text: 5946 Para. 214 above. 5947 P-0070: T-106, p. 35, lines 15-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 787/1077 4 February 2021 that the period of three months served to make sure that the girls did not have ‘some

text: 5948 charms or some sort of witchcraft or […] some kind of disease’. Asked whether the

text: girls had any choice, P-0070 stated:

text: No, they did not have a choice. They had no right to choose. They would just send instructions and say, ‘Pick this one, take her to that commander. Pick this one and 5949 take that to the commander’.

text: P-0085 testified that female abductees were not immediately ‘hand[ed]’ to a man, but

text: that there was a period that they were supposed to stay, after which a ritual using shea

text: 5950 butter and white ochre was performed. Afterwards, the girls were ‘distributed’ to men

text: 5951 ‘that have been selected as now being able to have wives’.

text: D-0006 similarly testified that anointment of abducted women and girls with shea oil was

text: 5952 a long standing ritual in the LRA. D-0118 mentioned that she underwent a version of

text: 5953 the same ritual shortly after her abduction in 1994. The Chamber notes the similar

text: finding made above in relation to the initiation of abductees who were to become LRA

text: 5954 fighters.

text: 5955 P-0406 testified that upon abduction, girls were ‘distributed’. Some of the girls were

text: 5956 given to Joseph Kony’s homestead, others were given to other LRA commanders. P-

text: 0054’s testimony also establishes that the prerogative of (higher) commanders to decide

text: on the ‘distribution’ of female abductees was enforced, by beating, detention or even

text: 5957 killing. P-0233 testified that upon abduction, the ‘fairly older ladies’ were ‘distributed’

text: 5958 to the men and the young ones were kept and sent to Joseph Kony.

text: There is also evidence of specific instances of ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls.

text: 5948 P-0070: T-106, p. 36, lines 10-16. 5949 P-0070: T-106, p. 36, lines 4-9. 5950 P-0085: T-158, p. 45, line 20 – p. 46, line 4. 5951 P-0085: T-158, p. 46, lines 5-9. 5952 D-0006: T-194, p. 17, lines 11-25. 5953 D-0118: T-216, p. 9, line 25 – p. 11, line 9. 5954 See section IV.C.2.ii.b above. 5955 P-0406: T-154, p. 21, lines 19-21. 5956 P-0406: T-154, p. 21, lines 21-23. 5957 P-0054: T-93, p. 39, lines 14-23. 5958 P-0233: T-111, p. 50, lines 2-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 788/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0352 testified that following her abduction by Sinia soldiers, she could see the ‘Holy

text: soldiers’ speaking among themselves, after which they sent the abductees to different

text: 5959 households. She observed: ‘I do not know who decided or how it was decided where

text: 5960 we would go because as an abductee you do not know these things’. The Chamber

text: finds this observation expectable and understandable, and in itself reflective of the

text: situation in which abductees found themselves. In any case, P-0352 then described: ‘I

text: was sitting there and a soldier, who I later learned was called , came and grabbed

text: 5961 my hand. I stood up and I walked with him to his household.’ She referred to

text: as the ‘second leader’ after Buk, which she based on the number of soldiers under

text: 5962 ’s command. The Chamber notes that the evidence otherwise establishes that

text: 5963 was a senior member of Sinia. P-0352 testified that after five or six months in

text: 5964 Buk’s group, she moved with s group to Dominic Ongwen’s group. P-0352

text: stated that at that point, Dominic Ongwen instructed her to continue staying with

text: 5965 and to work as a babysitter for another woman’s child. P-0352 also testified that on

text: the same day Dominic Ongwen ‘gave’ another girl called Sunday to Odoki, one of

text: 5966 ’s soldiers, to be his so-called ‘wife’.

text: P-0352 also testified that on another occasion, a girl who was being ‘given’ as a ‘wife’

text: 5967 was crying and making a lot of noise. The witness stated that the girl was crying

text: 5968 because she did not want to ‘marry’ this soldier. Dominic Ongwen asked the girl what

text: she would choose between going to this man or death, after which the girl accepted to

text: 5959 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 28. 5960 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 28. 5961 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 29. 5962 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 32. 5963

text: 5964 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 54-55. It is noted that in court, the witness spontaneously estimated this period to have been ‘four or five months’, see P-0352: T-67, p. 48, lines 4-7. Later, the witness stated that she met Dominic Ongwen for the first time in 2004, P-0352: T-67, p. 59, lines 17-20. Overall, the Chamber is of the view that the witness provided mere estimates of the period between her abduction and being moved to Dominic Ongwen’s group. The discrepancy in these estimates does in the Chamber’s view not affect the general reliability of her account relating to her abduction and transfer between different LRA groups. 5965 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 59. See also T-67, p. 19, lines 9-15, p. 21, lines 10- 19. 5966 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 60-61. See also T-67, p. 26, line 25 – p. 27, line 25. 5967 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 74. 5968 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 74.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 789/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5969 live with the man she had been assigned to. The Chamber notes that the witness

text: 5970 testified that she could observe these events unfolding only from some distance and

text: that some of the information may come from what the witness could gather in that context

text: 5971 from other people. Nevertheless, the Chamber does not consider that these factors put

text: into question the reliability of the witness on this issue.

text: P-0374 testified that on the day after her abduction, ‘distributed’ the abductees

text: among the houses of the different leaders; he pointed at each person and then an escort

text: 5972 came and took them to a house. P-0374 did not know what house she was being

text: assigned to, and it was on the morning after that she realised she had been ‘distributed’

text: 5973 to ’s house.

text: P-0205 described a specific instance of ‘distribution’ which was undertaken in Sudan at

text: the Imatong Hills. Sinia brigade soldiers, under the leadership of Dominic Ongwen, had

text: 5974 arrived to meet Joseph Kony and brought with them a number of abducted girls. He

text: stated that some girls were taken by Joseph Kony and went to his home, others were

text: 5975 ‘given’ to Dominic Ongwen and were ‘distributed’ to the officers of Sinia brigade.

text: P-0406 also testified about a time when abducted girls were sent to Dominic Ongwen

text: 5976 who ‘distributed’ them to the other commanders.

text: The issue of who in the LRA hierarchy held authority to ‘distribute’ abducted women

text: and girls arose as a major dispute between the parties. The question as framed by the

text: 5977 parties is whether Joseph Kony alone held that power, as is argued by the Defence, or

text: whether other high commanders of the LRA, in particular brigade and battalion

text: commanders, and including Dominic Ongwen, had it too, as argued by the

text: 5978 Prosecution.

text: 5969 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 74; P-0352: T-67, p. 28, lines 5-23. 5970 P-0352: T-67, p. 71, line 5 – p. 72, line 13. 5971 P-0352: T-67, p. 70, lines 15-19. 5972 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 41. See also P-0374: T-150, p. 37, line 13 – p. 38, line 6. 5973 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 42. 5974 P-0205: T-48, p. 9, lines 13-16. 5975 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 10, lines 9-14. 5976 P-0406: T-154, p. 35, lines 2-8. 5977 Defence Closing Brief, para. 472. 5978 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 127.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 790/1077 4 February 2021

text: This is a question of fact, but the relevance of this issue is also a question of law. In this regard, care must be taken to frame the issue correctly in light of the charges. In the view of the Chamber, whether LRA commanders on the ground, in particular Dominic Ongwen, autonomously decided on the ‘distribution’ of the abducted women and girls, or acted pursuant to general or specific orders from Joseph Kony, is not as such central 5979 to criminal responsibility as charged. The issue has therefore little relevance to the disposal of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen. A similar point is also made 5980 correctly by the Prosecution, albeit in the context of competence to order abductions.

text: Turning to the evidence, the following preliminary remark is warranted. It can generally be expected that lower level insider witnesses may observe the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls, but may not necessarily know whether the commanders acted on their own initiative, or on specific order from higher up in the hierarchy. This came out clearly 5981 5982 during the testimonies of P-0307 and D-0117.

text: Some witnesses testified confidently that Joseph Kony was the sole competent authority for ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls. Yet their testimonies indicate that this assessment was not based on personal observation, but rather on a general understanding of the LRA that they had developed based on their experience in the bush, and which may not be accurate, especially in case of persons who never held leadership 5983 positions. The Chamber does not attribute much significance to such testimony.

text: Still further, the question is not whether Joseph Kony himself ‘distributed’ women. There 5984 is clear evidence that he did, including directly to Dominic Ongwen. Rather, as stated, the question is whether Joseph Kony’s power to decide on the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls was exclusive.

text: 5979 See also section V.A.8.ii below. 5980 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 121. 5981 P-0307: T-153, p. 25, line 12 – p. 26, line 7. 5982 D-0117: T-215, p. 19, line 16 – p. 20, line 19. 5983 See D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 41. See also D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 44; D-0118: T-216, p. 21, lines 1-2. 5984 D-0032: T-201, p. 46, line 24 – p. 47, line 6; D-0118: T-216, p. 21, line 18 – p. 22, line 15; D-0119: T-196- CONF, p. 16, lines 8-14. See also section IV.C.10.i above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 791/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the assessment of the Chamber, the evidence demonstrates that the ‘distribution’ of the abducted women and girls was the prerogative of Joseph Kony, or, in his absence, of the Sinia brigade commander or battalion commanders.

text: The question of which commander was competent to decide on the ‘distribution’ of abducted girls was discussed with P-0205. He testified that on one occasion, Dominic Ongwen took abducted girls to Joseph Kony in Sudan, where they were ‘distributed’. P- 0205, asked why it was necessary to wait until Sudan, stated:

text: In – in the LRA the boss has first to agree before ladies are distributed. Sometimes your brigade commander may come up with a decision, but often it is Kony who 5985 makes the decision. Hillary Daniel Lagen testified that it was generally up to Joseph Kony to decide what to 5986 do with the abducted girls. He stated that while the LRA was in Sudan, all girls would first be brought to him for ‘distribution’, but when the LRA was dispersed in mobile units, 5987 this was done by way of radio communications.

text: P-0205 and Hillary Daniel Lagen’s evidence shows that the degree of Joseph Kony’s personal involvement in the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls varied and was dependent on his, and the concerned LRA units’ location at a given point in time. Indeed, as explained above in relation to the general functioning of the hierarchical structure of the LRA, Joseph Kony’ control over the organisation was tighter when LRA units were geographically close, and comparatively looser when there was a significant geographic 5988 distance between Joseph Kony and the units operating on the ground. This was regularly the case during the period of the charges, when Joseph Kony was in Sudan 5989 while various LRA operated in Northern Uganda. This variable level of control on the part of Joseph Kony dependent on his geographical proximity with the different LRA units was also a characteristic of the system of ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls within the LRA.

text: 5985 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 11, lines 5-8. 5986 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0799, lines 711-19. 5987 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0799, lines 727-31. 5988 See paras 866-873 above. 5989 See paras 866-873 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 792/1077 4 February 2021

text: The form of looser involvement of Joseph Kony in this regard is described in particular by P-0142 and D-0134. P-0142 testified that ‘the authority’ for ‘distribution’ came from Joseph Kony, and on that basis Dominic Ongwen as the brigade commander, together with his brigade intelligence officer, identified ‘who should be given a wife’, and ‘then 5990 they would give’. D-0134 testified that Joseph Kony had the authority to ‘distribute’ women, and that other commanders had to get authority from Joseph Kony to do so as 5991 well. He confirmed that once Joseph Kony’s green light had been given, commanders 5992 would ‘distribute’ women to fighters working under their command. He also confirmed that the commanders would choose which officer under their command should 5993 be given a woman. According to the evidence of P-0142 and D-0134 therefore, the final operational decision on the ‘distribution’ in an individual case came from the commander on the ground, and not from Joseph Kony.

text: The Chamber notes that Hillary Daniel Lagen stated that at some point in 2002, Buk Abudema broke ‘Kony’s rule about […] women’: he abducted ‘some girls’ as ordered, but instead of ‘keep[ing] them’ as told, he had sex with them and ‘distributed’ them, 5994 including to Dominic Ongwen. Hillary Daniel Lagen first purported that in punishment in particular for Buk Abudema, the girls were released, then stated that some girls were reassigned to other units whereas some were released, before concluding that 5995 he in fact did not know whether that happened or not. The witness also stated that at that time Joseph Kony was saying that all officers in Sinia were under arrest, and that as part of his punishment, Buk Abudema had to ferry ammunition from Sudan to Uganda 5996 as Vincent Otti went to Soroti. The Chamber places limited weight on this evidence, which at most indicates a disagreement in relation to the ‘distribution’ of abducted girls in a particular case. As to the punishment, Hillary Daniel Lagen’s evidence contains contradictions, but no satisfactory explanation as to his basis of knowledge.

text: 5990 P-0142: T-71, p. 27, lines 17-25. See also p. 31, lines 7-11. 5991 D-0134: T-240, p. 27, lines 2-9. 5992 D-0134: T-241, p. 5, lines 10-23. 5993 D-0134: T-241, p. 5, line 24 – p. 6, line 2. 5994 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0794, lines 515-48. 5995 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0795, line 562 – 0796, line 595. 5996 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0779-R01, at 0796, lines 596-616.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 793/1077 4 February 2021

text: 5997 D-0006 testified that Joseph Kony ‘distributed’ girls to commanders. Asked if anyone else could order that a woman be ‘distributed’ as a so-called ‘wife’, she stated that if 5998 somebody did it without Joseph Kony’s permission, they would be punished. She stated that these were ‘minor infractions’, so Joseph Kony would ‘take away’ the woman, and also take away some soldiers and weapons for about a week, and then he would give 5999 them back. The Chamber accepts D-0006’s evidence as truthful. At the same time, the Chamber notes that , D-0006 was in Joseph Kony’s proximity, and as such does not have knowledge of the ‘distribution’ of women and girls in the units which were geographically removed from Joseph Kony. Her testimony in proper context therefore does not have decisive value on this point.

text: D-0117 testified that when she was abducted in 1996, most of the orders for ‘distribution’ came from Joseph Kony, but after a while, she saw other commanders issue such orders 6000 too. She stated that at some point many commanders were involved in the 6001 ‘distribution’ of women and ‘Kony himself now also gave up on following up’. At that point, according to D-0117, ‘when a group abducts the girls, they would just ‘distribute’ the girls among themselves, they would only select a few that should be sent 6002 to Kony’.

text: The most radical interpretation of Joseph Kony’s authority in relation to ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls was provided by Daniel Opiyo, who stated that Joseph Kony alone had the power to ‘distribute’ abducted girls and that if anyone did it ‘without 6003 permission from above’ the person, i.e. ‘the receiver’ would be killed. However, in light of the abundant other evidence on the issue, which is also more nuanced and detailed, the Chamber does not accept Daniel Opiyo’s testimony on this point.

text: The Chamber also clarifies at this juncture that it does not attribute much value to P- 0070’s confirmation that Joseph Kony was the only one allowed to issue orders to 6004 ‘distribute’ so-called ‘wives’. Without further detail, in particular without specifying

text: 5997 D-0006: T-194, p. 25, lines 4-18. 5998 D-0006: T-194, p. 25, line 23 – p. 26, line 5. 5999 D-0006: T-194, p. 26, lines 6-12. 6000 D-0117: T-215, p. 22, line 21 – p. 23, line 6. See also p. 6, lines 17-18. 6001 D-0117: T-215, p. 23, line 21 – p. 24, line 2. 6002 D-0117: T-215, p. 24, lines 4-6. 6003 D-0056: T-228, p. 27, lines 13-17. 6004 P-0070: T-107, p. 43, line 21 – p. 44, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 794/1077 4 February 2021 whether these were individual orders or orders of a more general nature, this evidence does not assist in determining the matter at hand.

text: There is also considerable evidence demonstrating that, regardless of the hierarchical structure of the LRA with Joseph Kony at its top, brigade or battalion commanders, including Dominic Ongwen, did in fact ‘distribute’ abducted women and girls.

text: Several witnesses testified that they observed Dominic Ongwen ‘distributing’ abducted women and girls. P-0054 testified that the decision on the ‘distribution’ of a woman was in the hands of the brigade commander, and that Dominic Ongwen made such decisions 6005 when he was Sinia brigade commander. P-0054 stated that he saw Dominic Ongwen making such decisions several times, and described the process as follows:

text: When the girls are brought, when he sees that a particular officer is ready to have wives, then he would say, ‘You go with this girl, let her stay at your home. She is 6006 now your wife.’ P-0340 testified that abducted women or girls were taken to Dominic Ongwen to be 6007 ‘distributed’. The witness stated that he did not personally see Dominic Ongwen doing the ‘distribution’, explaining that ‘in most instances the girls and the women were taken to him and then would only realise when these people are coming back with the 6008 girls’. In the view of the Chamber, this evidence is in line with what could be expected from someone in P-0340’s position, and as such considers the statement to be reliable.

text: Other lower ranking insiders provided similar testimony. P-0252 testified that ‘[t]he girls 6009 were distributed by Odomi’, i.e. Dominic Ongwen, and that he saw this happen. P- 0314 testified that if girls were abducted, they were handed over to Dominic Ongwen 6010 and after he has ‘taken some of the girls’, the girls would be given to any other boy. P-0379 testified that after abduction, all girls were handed over to the ‘overall commander’, i.e. Dominic Ongwen, who was the one with authority over the girls and 6011 who decided on the ‘distribution’. P-0372 also testified that while he was in Sinia,

text: 6005 P-0054: T-93, p. 38, line 24 – p. 39, line 5. 6006 P-0054: T-93, p. 39, lines 6-13. 6007 P-0340: T-102, p. 42, line 10 – p. 43, line 10. 6008 P-0340: T-102, p. 43, lines 5-9. 6009 P-0252: T-88, p. 3, lines 5-9. 6010 P-0314: T-74, p. 57, lines 20-24. 6011 P-0379: T-57, p. 36, line 18 – p. 37, line 10. See also T-56, p. 52, lines 5-8; T-57-CONF, p. 15, lines 6-11.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 795/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6012 Dominic Ongwen had the authority to ‘distribute’ abducted girls. He stated slightly more generally that ‘the person who is overall in charge of the convoy is the one who has 6013 the authority to give those girls’. P-0330 also stated that it was Dominic Ongwen who ‘was the one giving women’, referring also to a specific instance of Dominic Ongwen 6014 ‘distributing’ an abducted girl to a soldier, which he saw.

text: P-0410 stands out among the Sinia insider witnesses, as he testified that in his unit, Okwee was ‘responsible for distributing the girls […] and he would bring the girls to the 6015 commanders’. He stated specifically that he was present and saw Okwee ‘give’ Awelo 6016 as ‘wife’ to his commander Komakech. The Chamber does not deem this to be an issue of significance, as the witness merely testified about the act of ‘distribution’ that he saw, without purporting that this meant that Okwee as a lower-level commander independently took the decision.

text: P-0233 stated:

text: [M]ost LRA commanders who are in charge of a particular group usually have these orders given to them and they will look at this girl and say that these particular girls are now of age and are ready […] to have husbands. So they would be given out. Even Dominic himself did that. Other commanders like Odhiambo did that. 6017 Several other commanders did that.

text: P-0233 further testified that the orders came from Joseph Kony down the chain of command to commanders like Dominic Ongwen and further down to commanders with 6018 smaller groups. In answer to the question how he knew that Dominic Ongwen was the one ‘distributing’ women as so-called ‘wives’, P-0233 stated that the men who 6019 received them would mention that.

text: 6012 P-0372: T-148, p. 55, lines 6-7. 6013 P-0372: T-148, p. 55, lines 4-5. 6014 P-0330: T-52, p. 63, lines 6-19. 6015 P-0410: T-151, p. 56, lines 1-8. 6016 P-0410: T-151, p. 56, line 23 – p. 57, line 2. 6017 P-0233: T-111, p. 51, lines 9-14. 6018 P-0233: T-111, p. 52, lines 11-18. 6019 P-0233: T-111, p. 52, line 23 – p. 53, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 796/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0097 testified that a soldier called Ogwal was ‘given’ a so-called ‘wife’, and that Ogwal told him that it was Dominic Ongwen who had ‘given’ Ogwal the girl to be his 6020 ‘wife’.

text: Speaking in more general terms, P-0264 stated that the decision on the ‘distribution’ of 6021 abducted women or girls came from the brigade commander. Asked how he knew, he 6022 stated that he witnessed this. Later he stated that Ben Acellam as Oka battalion 6023 commander was responsible for the ‘distribution’. The Chamber does not deem this to be a contradiction in the testimony of the witness, but merely a description on the facts that he observed.

text: P-0138 testified that a commander would make the decision for each LRA member, depending on how long he had been in the LRA, on ‘whether the person needs a wife’, 6024 and then ‘[t]hey take a girl and give it to that person’. P-0138 specifically stated that not only Joseph Kony, but also brigade commanders had the power to make that 6025 decision.

text: Also P-0085 was asked who made the decision that a man was ‘able to have a wife’, and 6026 responded that this was ‘the senior commander, perhaps the brigade commander’. P-0085 testified that the senior commander would ask the CO who in the battalion was able to receive a so-called ‘wife’, that the CO would then speak to the brigade commander, and that then a decision was made to take the girls and ‘give’ them to the people in the 6027 brigade.

text: In conclusion on the issue of authority to ‘distribute’ the abducted women and girls, the Chamber does not deem the two strains of the evidence, each emphasised by one party, to be in real conflict. It is established that Joseph Kony held the highest authority in the LRA, and as such also over Sinia. It is also established that he issued orders, mostly of a general nature as he was geographically removed, for the ‘distribution’ of abducted

text: 6020 P-0097: T-108, p. 26, line 24 – p. 27, line 3. 6021 P-0264: T-65, p. 3, lines 17-23. The Chamber notes that the witness differentiated this from the determination of whether a girl was considered old enough to be ‘given’ as a ‘wife’, see para. 2251 below. 6022 P-0264: T-65, p. 4, lines 2-4. 6023 P-0264: T-66, p. 38, line 16 – p. 39, line 9. 6024 P-0138: T-120, p. 27, lines 10-21. 6025 P-0138: T-120, p. 27, line 22 – p. 28, line 1. 6026 P-0085: T-158, p. 46, lines 10-15, p. 47, lines 10-14. 6027 P-0085: T-158, p. 46, lines 15-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 797/1077 4 February 2021 women and girls. This is, however, entirely compatible with other evidence which establishes clearly also that other high commanders of the LRA, namely the brigade and battalion commanders, and including Dominic Ongwen, decided on the ‘distribution’ of women and girls in Sinia. If anything, the Chamber considers the evidence of who decided on the ‘distribution’ of the abducted women and girls to further support the conclusion that the LRA system of abduction and abuse of women and girls was coordinated among the LRA leadership.

text: iv. Coercive environment

text: they were severely beaten. In addition, they were placed under heavy guard.

text: Before addressing the evidence in relation to the coercive environment into which the abducted women and girls were placed, it must be noted that this coercive environment is simply a more specific expression of the general system of control that existed in the 6029 LRA to ensure obedience by its members. The evidence discussed hereunder must therefore be understood also in that context.

text: P-0352 testified about the threats she received in relation to escaping. Her detailed account of the threat and its effect is of great value to the analysis of the Chamber:

text: The day I was smeared with shea butter, told me that if I tried to escape and the Holy caught me they would kill me. He said that if I was caught by government soldiers or any civilian they would also kill me. He said that if I did try to escape the shea butter he had smeared me with would confuse me until I was caught by the Holy and killed. also said that I should not think about home, and if I did my legs would swell and I would die. He also said that I should not talk to any person except for the ones I lived with. During the first month I stayed with my legs were injured and I could not really walk. One leg was swollen and the other one had wounds from the dry grass that had become septic. told me that my legs were swollen because I was thinking about home and that if they kept swelling I would be killed. I was worried 6030 and I did not want to be killed, so I continued walking.

text: 6028 Para. 215 above. 6029 See section IV.C.2.ii.e above. 6030 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 44-45.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 798/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0352 also testified that told her that if she broke the rules, she would be beaten, and that in ’s household, he would be the one to give the order for someone to be

text: 6031 beaten. She continued:

text: In my case, I was beaten once, around a week after I arrived at ’s household. I was approached by a boy called who was from my village. was around 16 years old. asked me if I knew the hill that we could see from where we were staying. I told him I did not know it, and he said it was our home. Even though I had not seen anyone around when we were talking, a soldier called Labeja called us and told us to come to him.

text: and I went there. Labeya was with Opige, Ojok and Opige asked what we were talking about, and we replied we were not talking about anything. He insisted and I explained that had asked me if I knew the hill that we could see from there and then told me it was our home. Opige sent someone to bring sticks. He told us to lie down and we lay on our stomachs. Opige told us they were going to cane us because we were thinking about escaping, and that with the beatings we would forget about home. After that, one soldier sat on my back and another sat on my legs so that I would not move. Then a third soldier started to beat me on the buttocks with a stick. The same thing happened to It was very painful. They 6032 gave each of us 50 strokes. While I was being beaten sat there watching.

text: P-0352 testified that whenever ting tings went to fetch water, an escort would accompany 6033 them ‘so that we did not escape’.

text: 6034 P-0374 stated that at one point, she was beaten on accusation of planning to escape. That same evening, she was summoned by who told her that ‘in the bush there 6035 was no escape’, and that ‘if someone tried to escape they would be killed’. She added

text: that not long after, the group passed an abductee who had been killed, and the group was 6036 told that if they tried to escape, they would be killed too.

text: P-0396 explained that after her abduction, at Wii-Polo, all abductees were brought to Dominic Ongwen, who asked the abductees to state their names, age and where they were 6037 coming from. P-0396 responded to Dominic Ongwen, and also heard another girl

text: 6031 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 49. 6032 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 50-51. See also P-0352: T-67, p. 53, line 20 – p. 55, line 16. 6033 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 41. 6034 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 76-77. 6035 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 77. 6036 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 78; P-0374: T-150, p. 45, lines 5-14. 6037 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 51.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 799/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6038 state she was 16, and another that she was 7 years old. After a few days, still at the

text: same location, the abductees were beaten with sticks by LRA soldiers on the order of

text: 6039 Dominic Ongwen, who stated that the ‘LRA have to remove the civilian from [them]’.

text: At a later occasion, still at Wii-Polo, Kalalang, Ocang and Dominic Ongwen addressed

text: 6040 the abductees. Dominic Ongwen introduced himself first, and said he was the

text: 6041 6042 commander of the group. Thereafter, Kalalang and Ocang introduced themselves.

text: 6043 They said that ‘whoever tries to escape, they will chase him until they kill him or her’.

text: They also said that ‘if you are given a husband and refuse to be his wife you will be

text: 6044 6045 killed’. Both Dominic Ongwen and Kalalang said this.

text: P-0396 further testified that on one occasion, a girl was brought to the commanders after

text: 6046 she was caught trying to escape. Everybody was called to see what was happening ‘so

text: 6047 that we know what will happen to us if we try to escape’. The witness stated that an

text: 6048 LRA soldier beat the girl with a stick until she died. P-0396 specified that Dominic

text: 6049 Ongwen was present when the girl was killed.

text: P-0351 also stated that some girls who tried to escape were killed, and that she thought

text: 6050 that if she tried to escape, she would be killed too.

text: The above evidence is corroborated by P-0379, who testified that he saw one instance

text: when a woman called Eva, who had been assigned as a ‘wife’ to Ot Ngec, attempted to

text: 6051 escape, and she was punished severely. He explained that Ot Ngec had died, so Eva

text: was staying in Odong Cow’s household, and it was Odong Cow who ordered Eva to be

text: 6052 6053 beaten. She was beaten with sticks. P-0379 also specified that at the time, Dominic

text: 6038 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 51. 6039 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 53. 6040 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6041 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6042 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6043 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6044 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6045 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 57. 6046 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 97. 6047 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 97. 6048 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 97. 6049 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 97. 6050 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 77. 6051 P-0379: T-57, p. 40, lines 10-12. 6052 P-0379: T-57, p. 42, lines 14-20. 6053 P-0379: T-57, p. 43, lines 4-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 800/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen was Odong Cow’s superior, although he was not physically present on this

text: 6054 occasion.

text: Abducted women and girls were also forced to beat or kill other abductees for attempting

text: escape or breaking rules.

text: 6056 As generally with all LRA abductees, the evidence indicates specifically that also

text: abducted women and girls were forced to beat or kill other abductees for attempting

text: 6057 escape or breaking rules. In the Chamber’s assessment, as argued by the Prosecutor,

text: this was a tenet of the coercive environment to which the abducted women and girls were

text: exposed.

text: P-0352 described being forced, on Dominic Ongwen’s orders, to take part in the killing

text: 6058 of another girl who had been accused of witchcraft. P-0351 similarly stated that she

text: 6059 was forced to step on a boy who had tried to escape but was caught, until he died. P-

text: 0351 stated that the ‘boys with guns’ who forced her to perform this act said that they

text: 6060 wanted the new abductees who had not killed people to come and kill someone.

text: 6061 P-0396 also testified about an instance when she was forced to kill.

text: The Chamber also notes in this context its findings with respect to similar experiences

text: 6062 suffered by P-0226 and P-0236. In addition, this is a phenomenon similar to that

text: experienced by male recruits, and in the view of the Chamber, the discussion there is

text: 6063 equally applicable to the situation of abducted women and girls.

text: Occasionally, abducted women and girls were released.

text: The Chamber considers the fact that women and girls were occasionally released as also

text: indicative of the status of the abducted women and girls in the LRA since it is a further

text: 6054 P-0379: T-57, p. 43, lines 8-13. 6055 Para. 215 above. 6056 See paras 916-930 above. 6057 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 118. 6058 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 100-04. See also P-0352: T-67-CONF, p. 33, line 6 – p. 34, line 4. 6059 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 35-36. 6060 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 35. 6061 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 99. 6062 See section IV.C.10.ii.d above. 6063 See paras 916-930 above. 6064 Para. 215 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 801/1077 4 February 2021 indication that they were constrained and could not leave of their own choice. In the view

text: of the Chamber, the specific incidents recounted by the witnesses below prove that such

text: releases were the exception and not the rule.

text: P-0352 testified about a woman called , whose so-called ‘husband’ had been

text: killed, and who was released a short time after P-0352 was instructed to take care of her

text: 6065 child. Specifically, P-0352 testified that ‘one night came with some soldiers

text: 6066 and told them to take her to a camp that we were moving by’, in Gulu. The Chamber

text: 6067 also notes that P-0352, who spent March 2003 until the end of 2004 in the LRA, stated

text: 6068 that was the only person she ever knew to be released.

text: P-0374 stated that and , the two women who were ’s so-called

text: ‘wives’ before her, were released following a government attack in which ’s

text: 6069 baby was killed and was injured herself. Moreover, she explained that after

text: drowned while attempting to cross the Aswa River, she was sent to stay at

text: 6070 ’s home, and released her shortly before Easter 2005.

text: P-0372 testified that abducted women and girls could occasionally be released after

text: giving birth, if they could not move with the group because of having to take care of the

text: 6071 baby.

text: An ISO logbook entry on 1 July 2004 records a conversation between Dominic Ongwen,

text: Joseph Kony and Kapere in relation to the release of one woman. Dominic Ongwen

text: requested permission from Joseph Kony to release her because she was a casualty and a

text: 6072 liability, as she could not move fast. Kapere warned Dominic Ongwen to be very

text: 6065 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 59, 62. 6066 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 62. 6067 P-0352 testified that after the attack on Odek, she escaped around October or November (P-0352: T-67, p. 70, lines 9-14), while a government survey form indicates that she escaped on 5 December 2004 (UGA-OTP-0270- 0166, at 0169) and a form signed on 13 December 2004 includes a photograph regarding which the witness testified that it was taken shortly after her escape (see UGA-OTP-0249-0293; P-0352: T-67-CONF, p. 37, lines 1-11). 6068 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 62. 6069 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 98-99. 6070 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 140-157. 6071 P-0372: T-148, p. 56, lines 14-21. 6072 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0077. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3118; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0348.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 802/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6073 careful when releasing such a person as she could reveal his position to the UPDF.

text: Joseph Kony advised Dominic Ongwen to select some soldiers to take the woman far 6074 from his position and release her there after one week.

text: Finally in this section, the Chamber makes reference to the finding above in relation to 6075 the release of P-0101 in July 2004.

text: v. Forced marriage and sexual violence

text: Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership designated abducted women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ of male members of Sinia brigade. Occasionally, ceremonies were performed to mark the so-called ‘marriage’. Frequently no such ceremony occurred, and abducted women and girls were considered so-called ‘wives’ from the time they were first forced to have sex with the man they had been assigned to. The abducted women and girls were not able to refuse. Dominic Ongwen personally assigned women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ and used his authority as LRA commander

text: to enforce the so-called ‘marriage’ in Sinia brigade.

text: So-called ‘marriage’ between male members of the LRA and abducted women and girls

text: was an important topic in many testimonies heard by the Chamber. The analysis of the

text: Chamber begins by laying out the evidence provided by the five women who testified

text: before the Chamber about their own experience as so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia. Thereafter,

text: the Chamber will refer to other insider evidence and reconstruct the features of so-called ‘marriage’ in the LRA as a quasi-institution regulated by a specific set of rules.

text: P-0351, who was abducted in December 2002 at the age of approximately 12 years 6077 old, testified that one day, one of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts told her that the 6078 commanders were calling her. She found Dominic Ongwen sitting ‘with the people 6079 that he liked to sit with, other commanders, including one called ’.

text: 6080 Dominic Ongwen told her that she ‘would become ’s wife’. The Chamber

text: notes that there is considerable evidence that was a prominent member of Sinia

text: 6073 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0077. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3118; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0348. 6074 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0078. See also UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255- 0228, at 0348. 6075 See section IV.C.10.iii.b below. 6076 Para. 216 above. 6077 See section IV.B.2.iii.b above. 6078 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 71. 6079 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 71. 6080 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 71.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 803/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6081 6082 at the time. P-0351 then ‘went with to the place that he stayed’. She

text: found that already had two so-called ‘wives’ when she arrived at his home: one

text: called or , who was more than 20 years old, and the other called Grace,

text: 6083 who was around 18 years old. P-0351 stated that she lived in ’s household

text: 6084 until she escaped and came back home in 2006.

text: P-0351 specifically stated that she did not choose to become ’s so-called ‘wife’:

text: In the bush women and girls have no choice. You cannot choose who your husband is. It is only after you have been given to someone that you realise it has happened. Most of the girls in the bush were given to men as wives. I think they were distributed the same way as it happened to me, they were just given. I did not see other girls been given as wives but when you would meet with the girls you would 6085 see that they had become the wife of so and so.

text: P-0352, who was abducted in March 2003 at the age of 12 years old and joined Dominic

text: 6086 Ongwen’s group around five to six months after that, testified that after a period as

text: ting ting in ’s household, about a month after they joined Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 6087 group, called her to his tent. P-0352 stated:

text: When I arrived he asked if I really knew what had brought me here. I said I did not know and he told me to make his bed and that now I was his wife.

text: I started crying and thought how could I become his wife, he was an old man, he had grey hair, and I did not want to be his wife. When I started crying he asked me ‘between death and life, what do you choose?’ He asked me this twice and then I 6088 said I choose life.

text: P-0352 also stated that she did not know of any girl who refused to become a ‘wife’, and

text: 6089 that ‘[i]f you refused that would mean that you would die’.

text: 6081 See para. 890 above. 6082 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 71. 6083 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 72-73. 6084 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 90, 94-96. 6085 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 78. See also P-0351: T-129, p. 7, line 21 – p. 8, line 6. 6086 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 11-12, 54-55. 6087 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 66. 6088 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 66-67. It is noted that when testifying before the Chamber, the witness reiterated the same sequence, with discrepancy in insignificant details only, see P-0352: T- 67, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 6. The ensuing rape of the witness by is discussed below at paras 2258-2259. 6089 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 71.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 804/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0366 testified that after a period as ting ting in Dominic Ongwen’s household, she was 6090 told to attend a gathering with Dominic Ongwen, several of his escorts and other girls. She stated:

text: We were told to remove our clothes and Odomi told us to go into the water. According to the ritual we had to go in and out of the water four times. After we had done this we came out of the water and Nyang put shea butter on each of us, the sign of the cross on our chests, our backs and our palms. Odomi watched to see if the ritual was done correctly.

text: Odomi told us that we should stay with the person we were given to and obey him. He said that if we disobeyed that person, we would be beaten. I do not know how it was decided which boy we would go with, or who decided this.

text: […] I was given to He told me to pick up his bag and after that we walked 6091 to the place where he lived.

text: Asked in court about ’s function in the LRA, P-0366 stated that she did not pay

text: attention to what he did exactly, but that he ‘would sit close to where Odomi was’, that

text: 6092 ‘[w]herever Odomi was, he would be close there’, and that he was ‘like an escort’.

text: While noting P-0366’s understandably limited ability to know and describe hierarchical features of the LRA, the Chamber deems P-0366’s evidence sufficient to establish that

text: was Dominic Ongwen’s subordinate in Sinia. Further, whereas there is 6093 uncertainty about the point in time when P-0366 was assigned to , it is noted that the witness was ’s so-called ‘wife’ at the time of Dominic Ongwen’s injury

text: 6094 and stay in sickbay in late 2002 and into 2003, and up until her escape in mid- 6095 February 2003. It is therefore beyond doubt that the facts described by P-0366 at least partly fall within the period of the charges. The Chamber notes that while the statement of P-0366 contains a contradiction in respect of her age, she was at most 13-14 years old 6096 in late 2002 and early 2003.

text: 6090 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 69-70. 6091 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 72-75. 6092 P-0366: T-147, p. 82, lines 14-18. 6093 See section IV.B.2.iii.c above. 6094 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 98-99, paras 121-127. See also section IV.B.2.iii.c above. 6095 See section IV.B.2.iii.c above. 6096 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at 0289 (recording the birthdate as 1992); at para. 13 (stating that she was 11 years old in December 2000).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 805/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6097 P-0366 stated that none of the girls could refuse to become a ‘wife’. She testified that

text: she saw some girls who tried to refuse but would be beaten, and gave the example of a girl called , who tried to refuse to become the ‘wife’ of Odong Kau, and another

text: called , who was beaten because she had tried to refuse to become the ‘wife’ of 6098 Otto George. P-0366 recalled that she had seen get badly beaten with sticks

text: two days before she was assigned to , and that, later on, before being beaten for

text: refusing to have sex with following her ‘distribution’, she had been asked by 6099 Dominic Ongwen if she knew what they had done to .

text: P-0374’s story is very similar. She testified that one day called her and told her: ‘you are going to be my wife. Like the women I released you are going to be with me

text: 6100 and have children. So you will stay with me here where I sleep.’ P-0374’s statement

text: continues as follows:

text: I became fearful and started shaking because I thought that he was going to start to sleep with me and I was just a child. was quite big, much older than me, maybe between 20 and 30 years old. I did not respond because I feared that if I replied he would beat me. I think he expected me to say that I accepted to be his wife. He told me that from that day I had to make his bed, wash his clothes and go to sleep with him. I did not want to be his wife because I was too young. I did not 6101 know what it was to be with a man and it was not my wish to be with him.

text: P-0374 stated that for two days she did not go to sleep with him but she washed ’s

text: 6102 clothes and prepared his bed as usual. Then one night called her to bring him 6103 his toothbrush, and finally forced her into sex. Whereas P-0374 understandably did

text: not provide a date for when she became the so-called ‘wife’ of , the Chamber notes 6104 that P-0374 was aged between 10 and 12 during the time of her stay with the LRA.

text: As to P-0396, she stated that while she was still in Wii-Polo, a short time after her

text: abduction at the age of 13 years old, one morning she and other girls were summoned by

text: 6097 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 93. 6098 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 94. 6099 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 94; P-0366: T-147-CONF, p. 12, line 3 – p. 15, line 19. 6100 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 101. 6101 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 101. 6102 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 102. 6103 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 103; this is analysed further below, see paras 2260- 2263 below. 6104 See P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 14, 157.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 806/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6105 Dominic Ongwen. When she arrived she saw Dominic Ongwen seated with Kalalang,

text: 6106 Ocii, Ocang and . Dominic Ongwen said he was going to give them to their

text: 6107 husbands. He said that if any of the girls refused she would be killed, and that if

text: 6108 someone tried to escape they would chase and kill them. After that, Dominic Ongwen

text: ‘distributed’ the girls by walking to collect a girl and bringing her to one of the

text: 6109 commanders. Dominic Ongwen then said to the girls: ‘This is your husband and you

text: 6110 are going to stay with him until we overthrow the government.’ P-0396 testified that

text: 6111 Dominic Ongwen ‘gave’ her to . also told P-0396 that she ‘would be

text: 6112 his wife until LRA overthrows the government’. also told P-0396 that she

text: 6113 would be killed if she tried to escape or if she refused to sleep with him. In court, P-

text: 0396 stated that she could not refuse, that she was fearing for her life and was also young

text: 6114 at the time.

text: P-0396 testified that she also saw that on the same occasion a girl called

text: 6115 was given to Ocang and a girl called was given to Ocii.

text: P-0396 stated that after she became ’s so-called ‘wife’, was with her most

text: of the time, and if he went to ‘work in the villages’ he would leave her with the so-called

text: 6116 ‘wives’ of Dominic Ongwen and with ‘other boys who remained behind to guard us’.

text: 6117 P-0396 finally managed to escape in April or May 2005.

text: The notion of ‘marriage’ and the role of ‘wife’ are further elucidated by an abundance of

text: evidence.

text: 6105 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at paras 13, 65. 6106 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 67. 6107 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 68. 6108 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 68. 6109 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 69. 6110 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 69. 6111 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 70. 6112 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 70. 6113 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 70. 6114 P-0396: T-126, p. 63, line 19 – p. 64, line 4. 6115 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 71. P-0396 testified that she heard the girls tell Dominic Ongwen previously that they were, respectively, seven and 16 years old. P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0267-0246-R01, at para. 51. 6116 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 84. 6117 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 102.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 807/1077 4 February 2021

text: First, the Chamber turns to the testimonies of those women whose personal experience, while not falling within the charges, nevertheless provides corroboration to the above testimonies.

text: P-0045 stated that there was a general practice for women and girls to become someone’s 6118 ‘wife’. She stated that under the ‘rules of the movement’, the woman or girl could not 6119 refuse. Due to the witness’s personal experience, and the length of her stay in the 6120 LRA, the Chamber deems this statement to have considerable probative value.

text: Evelyn Amony stated the following on the issue of consent to becoming Joseph Kony’s

text: so-called ‘wife’:

text: I had no choice because if you compare the distance from Sudan and you also look at somebody who has a gun, and I don’t have a gun, somebody who has soldiers and I who has nothing, I had no right to accept that. You know, when you are there, you stay with somebody, not out of love, but you stay with somebody because you 6121 need to protect your own life.

text: D-0119’s testimony of her own ‘distribution’ as ‘wife’ corroborates the testimony of several other witnesses that when attempting to refuse the so-called ‘marriage’, the 6122 women and girls were asked whether they choose life or death.

text: Several insider witnesses provided evidence concerning the institutionalised character of the so-called ‘marriage’ in the LRA.

text: P-0138 testified that girls were kept for about six months, ‘to get used to being in the LRA, maybe also to determine that they do not have any illness’, and then they were 6123 ‘given to a husband’. P-0138 categorically denied the possibility that the woman or

text: 6124 girl had the power to refuse being ‘given’ to a man as a ‘wife’. He stated:

text: If you refuse to go to a particular husband, that means that you do not want to live, that means that you will be killed and you will be killed immediately. So you make

text: 6118 P-0045: T-103, p. 77, lines 11-16. 6119 P-0045: T-103, p. 77, lines 3-10; T-104, p. 72, line 24 – p. 73, line 3. 6120 See section IV.B.2.ii.a.iii above. 6121 D-0049: T-243, p. 49, lines 6-11. Evelyn Amony stated that Joseph Kony told her that she had to choose between life and death, and that if she wanted to live, she had to be his ‘wife’. Joseph Kony also pointed a pistol to Evelyn Amony’s head (T-243, p. 49, lines 12-16). 6122 D-0119: T-196, p. 6, line 23 – p. 7, line 8. 6123 P-0138: T-120, p. 26, line 18 – p. 27, line 9. 6124 P-0138: T-120, p. 28, lines 9-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 808/1077 4 February 2021 the decision: Do I want to live or do I want to die? So you make that decision. If they give you to a particular man, if you decide to live, then you go to that man. 6125 That’s how it is.

text: 6126 P-0138 stated that he himself saw the ‘distribution’ of girls as so-called ‘wives’.

text: Moreover, he referred to a specific incident when, at Tegot Kilak, a girl refused her socalled ‘husband’ and in punishment a number of female recruits were made to kill the

text: 6127 girl.

text: P-0252 testified that a soldier could receive a ‘wife’ when he was aged about 14 years

text: 6128 and above and deemed ‘suitable’ by Dominic Ongwen.

text: P-0264 testified that in the LRA, there was a rule that ‘a mature woman, one deemed to

text: 6129 be mature enough to be able to have sex with a man should be assigned to a husband’.

text: P-0264 was asked whether the women had any choice in whether they became ‘wives’

text: or not, and responded as follows:

text: No, they did not have a choice. Whenever you are assigned to a husband you don’t have a choice whether or not to have children or not to stay with the husband. You 6130 did not have a choice. You just have to follow.

text: 6131 P-0264 also testified that Dominic Ongwen ‘gave’ women to soldiers ‘as a reward’.

text: P-0406 stated that among the girls who were abducted and ‘distributed’ to commanders,

text: 6132 ‘some of them [were] said to become their wives’. He recalled a specific instance in

text: Labwor Omor, when a girl was ‘given’ to an old man named Obol to become his

text: 6133 ‘wife’. P-0406 stated that the girl refused, whereupon she was beaten on Dominic

text: 6134 Ongwen’s order until she accepted.

text: P-0307 observed that based on what he saw during his time in Sinia, some ‘really young

text: 6135 [girls] were forced to have a husband’. He stated that they could not say no ‘because

text: 6125 P-0138: T-120, p. 28, line 21 – p. 29, line 3. 6126 P-0138: T-120, p. 29, lines 4-13. 6127 P-0138: T-120, p. 29, line 23 – p. 30, line 3. 6128 P-0252: T-87, p. 49, lines 11-19. 6129 P-0264: T-65, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 2. 6130 P-0264: T-65, p. 10, lines 17-20. 6131 P-0264: T-64, p. 87, lines 9-20. 6132 P-0406: T-154, p. 35, lines 8-9. 6133 P-0406: T-154, p. 35, lines 9-11. 6134 P-0406: T-154, p. 35, lines 11-14, p. 36, lines 14-20. 6135 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 65.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 809/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6136 they were afraid for their lives’. P-0307 did not see any girl refuse a husband but that he believed that refusing such an order could ‘cost a girl her life or result in serious beating’, because usually the punishment for disobeying orders could be beating or 6137 death.

text: The Chamber notes that there is a great volume of consistent evidence elucidating the special status of so-called ‘widows’ in the LRA, i.e. of women who had been assigned to men as a so-called ‘wife’ and where the men subsequently died. Essentially, the evidence is that so-called ‘widows’ were given a degree of choice in the sense that in addition to having a say in who their next so-called ‘husband’ would be, they could also remain 6138 without one, at least for some time. However, specific evidence also indicates that at 6139 least on occasions, so-called ‘widows’ were forcibly assigned to another man. In any case, the Chamber does not deem this evidence to have any bearing on its finding that so-called ‘marriages’ in Sinia, and the LRA more generally, were forced. At the same time, the almost identical reporting by several witnesses of the existence of a specific rule related to the treatment of ‘widows’ in the LRA is yet another factor indicating that the practices related to so-called ‘marriage’ in the LRA were institutionalised and were governed by a specific set of rules of general applicability broadly known to LRA members.

text: The Chamber also heard evidence on the issue whether men in the so-called ‘marriages’ 6140 in the LRA could refuse the arrangement. This issue is not directly relevant to the case, as it is without bearing on the relevant facts as concerns the coercion of abducted women and girls. In any case, the Chamber observes, on the basis of the witnesses’

text: 6136 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 65. 6137 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 65. 6138 See P-0045: T-104, p. 72, lines 8-23; P-0070: T-107, p. 44, lines 9-16; P-0085: T-159, p. 10, line 21 – p. 11, line 7; P-0205: T-49-CONF, p. 74, line 10 – p. 75, line 6; D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 43; D-0049: T-243, p. 54, line 20 – p. 55, line 9; D-0118: T-216, p. 21, lines 3-17. See also P-0172: T-113, p. 51, line 15 – p. 52, line 4 (notably stating that after a period of mourning a ‘widow’ could choose a man, but could not stay on her own). 6139 D-0119: T-196, p. 17, line 4 – p. 21, line 4 (testifying that she was assigned as so-called ‘wife’ against her will three times, after two of the men to whom she had previously been assigned, died). See also T-196, p. 22, lines 15-17; D-0049: T-243, p. 55, line 13 – p. 57, line 24. 6140 The Defence submits that ‘[e]ven in sexual relations, neither men nor women had a choice but to follow the rules’; see Defence Closing Brief, para. 475. See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 683.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 810/1077 4 February 2021

text: diverging and sometimes confused reactions to the question, that imposing so-called ‘marriage’ on men in the LRA was not an issue in the LRA.

text: Finally in this section, the Chamber provides an overview of the evidence demonstrating

text: that forced marriage was a common fact in Sinia at the time relevant for the charges, and

text: that commanders and other relatively senior fighters generally had so-called ‘wives’.

text: P-0142 estimated that there were more than 100 so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia in 2003-

text: In light of the witness’s long experience within Sinia, the Chamber finds this

text: estimate reliable.

text: P-0070 testified that ‘[m]ost of the LRA commanders in the bush had wives’, and that

text: ‘[s]ome people had 10 wives, some people had 20’.

text: In addition to the evidence of P-0351, P-0352, P-0366, P-0374 and P-0396 discussed

text: above, there is also abundant evidence of other specific cases of so-called ‘wives’ being

text: assigned to Sinia commanders and fighters.

text: First, the Chamber refers to the separate discussion of Dominic Ongwen himself having

text: so-called ‘wives’ during the period relevant to the charges. Second, two Sinia insiders

text: themselves testified to having had so-called ‘wives’ assigned to them.

text: 6141 P-0070 at first confirmed that neither the man or the woman could reject the arrangement, but stated that if the man did reject the ‘wife’, ‘then they might decide not to give that person a wife for a long time, because he’s rejected the woman that he’s been given’; P-0070: T-107, p. 42, lines 9-23. P-0085 testified that if a soldier refused a woman who has been ‘given’ to him, he would first be beaten and then required to give an explanation; P-0085: T-158, p. 51, lines 16-20. P-0264 was asked whether the male soldier had the right to reject that a so-called ‘wife’ be given to him, and answered: ‘In the bush it’s not easy to get a woman so it is not logical to reject the woman unless the woman is really ugly or repellent’; P-0264: T-66, p. 45, lines 1-5. D-0026 testified that a man could not refuse being assigned a ‘wife’, and that only the higher ranking commanders could turn down a specific person once; but when asked about the consequence of refusing a second time, his answer was that ‘you’re not given a wife on another occasion’; D-0026: T-191, p. 38, line 16 – p. 39, line 5. D-0027, while purporting that it was ‘unacceptable’ to say no, also stated that he never saw anyone reject ‘a woman given to them’ and that ‘[i]f you are given a woman, you do not have any ways of objecting to that’; D-0027: T-202, p. 42, lines 17-22. Finally, P- 0142 also testified that a man had the option of saying he did not want a ‘wife’ or be with a particular woman, but if a man refused three or four times, ‘then maybe there are questions, it raises questions’; P-0142: T-72, p. 49, lines 17-24. In light of this evidence, the Chamber does not consider decisive P-0028’s statement that if a man refused to ‘go with a woman’ in the LRA, he would be killed; P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217- 0218-R01, at 0224-26, lines 223-66. By the same token, the Chamber does not follow D-0032’s affirmation that ‘whoever is given a girl cannot refuse to accept that girl’; D-0032: T-201, p. 46, line 24 – p. 47, line 6. 6142 P-0142: T-71, p. 39, line 21 – p. 40, line 10. 6143 See section IV.B.2.ii.a.vi above. 6144 P-0070: T-106, p. 38, line 23 – p. 39, line 3. P-0070 stated that Joseph Kony himself had approximately 90 ‘wives’, see P-0070: T-106, p. 39, lines 3-4. 6145 See section IV.C.10 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 811/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6146 P-0142 stated that he had so-called ‘wives’ in the LRA. Asked about how many they

text: 6147 were in number, he testified that he had ‘quite a number of women’. He stated that he

text: could not recall the name of his first so-called ‘wife’, but gave the names of four

text: 6148 subsequent so-called ‘wives’ as . He also

text: 6149 mentioned that younger girls stayed with him as ting tings, including one . P-

text: 0142 testified that his so-called ‘wives’ were ‘powerless to refuse to stay with [him]’,

text: 6150 because as abducted people they could not refuse an order by the soldiers.

text: P-0205 also testified that he had so-called ‘wives’ in the bush, and gave their names as

text: 6151 .

text: Furthermore, insider witnesses testified about Sinia commanders or fighters having

text: ‘wives’.

text: P-0205 stated that in Oka battalion, Opoka, Okot Aliga, Ben Acellam, Okello Naptali,

text: 6152 Okeny, Opiyo and others had ‘wives’. He stated that in Terwanga, Loum, Ojok

text: 6153 Kampala, Kidega, Larit, Nyero, Kobi and some others had ‘wives’. For Siba, he

text: named Ocan George, Awere and Otto Olebe as having had ‘wives’, and stated that there

text: 6154 were others whose names he could not remember.

text: P-0054 mentioned Dominic Ongwen and Kalalang as Sinia commanders who had

text: 6155 ‘wives’.

text: P-0264 testified that Ben Acellam had three so-called ‘wives’, and gave their names as

text: 6156 Collin, also called Min Okonya, Ayero and Betty.

text: 6146 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 31, lines 21-22. 6147 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 31, lines 23-24. 6148 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 32, line 2 – p. 33, line 2, p. 36, lines 14-21. 6149 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 33, line 1, p. 35, lines 6-25. 6150 P-0142: T-71-CONF, p. 38, lines 13-20. 6151 P-0205: T-47-CONF, p. 13, line 10 – p. 14, lines 10. 6152 P-0205: T-48, p. 28, lines 16-21. 6153 P-0205: T-48, p. 28, lines 22 – p. 29, line 1. 6154 P-0205: T-48, p. 29, lines 2-5. 6155 P-0054: T-93, p. 37, lines 9-11. 6156 P-0264: T-65, p. 11, lines 13-23.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 812/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0309 was asked if any LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen had so-called ‘wives’,

text: and stated that there was a person under Dominic Ongwen called Richard who was ‘given

text: 6157 a wife’.

text: 6158 P-0314 stated that his superior officer Otto had a ‘wife’ by the name of Odong. He

text: also stated that ‘within our group’ Okello and Okot were commanders who had so-called

text: 6159 ‘wives’.

text: P-0410 testified that his commander, Komakech, had a so-called ‘wife’ named Awelo,

text: 6160 as did Okwee and Obol.

text: P-0352, who was a ting ting in ’s household, stated that had three other

text: 6161 ‘wives’. She also named three other Sinia soldiers who had ‘wives’: Ojok, Otto, and

text: 6162 Opige.

text: P-0374 testified that when she arrived at ’s house as a new abductee, she found

text: 6163 two of ’s so-called ‘wives’ there, called and . She later

text: realised that and would alternately sleep with in his

text: 6164 6165 temporary house. They were later released. She also found there a lady called

text: 6166 , whose so-called ‘husband’ had gone to Sudan and left her at ’s. There

text: were also three girls, one around P-0374’s age and two others of about 14-15 years old,

text: 6167 in P-0374’s estimation.

text: P-0372 testified that his sister was abducted in 1995 at the same time

text: as himself and was later in Sinia until 2004, during which time she had a so-called

text: 6168 ‘husband’ by the name of .

text: 6157 P-0309: T-60, p. 35, lines 14-22. 6158 P-0314: T-74, p. 56, line 21 – p. 57, line 1. 6159 P-0314: T-74, p. 57, lines 16-19. 6160 P-0410: T-151, p. 55, lines 6-10, p. 57, line 23 – p. 58, line 8. 6161 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 64. 6162 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 75. 6163 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 49-50. 6164 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 59. 6165 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 99. See also para. 2198 above. 6166 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 49, 53. 6167 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 51. 6168 P-0372: T-148-CONF, p. 8, line 20 – p. 9, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 813/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also recalls that, as discussed above, P-0275 testified that a girl named Ajok was abducted by LRA fighters during the attack on Odek IDP camp and made a so- 6169 called ‘wife’ of an LRA fighter.

text: Younger abducted girls were used as household servants, referred to as ting tings, until

text: they were considered mature enough to become so-called ‘wives’.

text: The evidence is ample and consistent as to the existence of a separate status of young 6171 girls in the LRA, referred to as ting tings.

text: P-0070 stated that younger girls of 11 or 12 years old were ‘given to a man’ at a later 6172 point, around the age of 17. Asked if there were any physical signs that would influence the decision, P-0070 stated that ‘[o]nce the girl has started sprouting breasts, and […] once the girl has started her menstrual cycle, then they would make that decision 6173 6174 as well’. He also stated that the ‘youngest girls’ helped as babysitters. The Chamber accepts P-0070’s evidence as a good general explanation of the LRA system of abduction and assignment to a male LRA member of very young girls, with the exception of his estimation that young girls were only ‘given to a man’ around the age of 17 years old. This estimation is overwhelmingly disproved by the evidence, referred to throughout this analysis and including first-hand testimony, that girls as young as around 12 years old were assigned to male LRA members as so-called ‘wives’.

text: D-0074 corroborated P-0070’s testimony to the extent that he stated that in the LRA girls who did not menstruate were considered under age, but those who did were considered 6175 ‘mature’.

text: P-0264 testified that if a girl was still very young, she was ‘nurtured’, ‘kept to grow until 6176 when she’s fit to be given out to a man’. He did not indicate a specific age, but stated that the decision that a girl was ‘old enough to be given to a man as a wife’ was sometimes

text: 6169 See para. 1573 above. 6170 Para. 217 above. 6171 Definitions of the term were provided by P-0016 (T-34, p. 8, line 18 – p. 9, line 9), P-0226 (T-8-CONF, p. 32, lines 20-24), P-0227 (T-11-CONF, p. 7, lines 19-23), P-0231 (T-122, p. 77, lines 2-6), P-0264 (T-65, p. 3, line 23 – p. 4, line 1), P-0374 (Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 62), D-0006 (T-194, p. 17, lines 1-10), D- 0049 (T-243, p. 24, lines 6-7), D-0085 (T-239, p. 12, lines 1-5). 6172 P-0070: T-106, p. 36, line 17 – p. 37, line 2. 6173 P-0070: T-106, p. 37, lines 4-8. 6174 P-0070: T-106, p. 35, lines 11-14. 6175 D-0074: T-187, p. 49, lines 7-12. 6176 P-0264: T-65, p. 2, line 22 – p. 3, line 4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 814/1077 4 February 2021 made by Joseph Kony, but ‘whenever he [was] far the decision [could] come from the

text: 6177 CO, it [could] also come from the brigade commander’. During examination by the

text: Defence, P-0264 also confirmed that he witnessed numerous times ting tings being made

text: ‘wives’, and that for this to happen, the person in charge of the ting ting would make their

text: request to the battalion commander, who would then offer to speak to the brigade

text: 6178 commander.

text: P-0233 also testified that younger girls were kept temporarily as babysitters until they

text: 6179 ‘mature[d]’, following which they were ‘given out to men’ as so-called ‘wives’.

text: P-0352 testified that in ’s household where she was, ‘the girls like me were called

text: 6180 ting-tings’. She testified that normally, girls who arrived would first be ‘given to a

text: leader to be taken care of’, and then after some time they would become ‘wives’,

text: 6181 sometimes staying with the same person and sometimes not. Ting tings had to cook,

text: 6182 fetch water and wash the clothes. They received instructions on what to do from an

text: 6183 escort in ’s household, called . She stated that if the girls did not cook

text: well, they were punished, and gave the example of a girl who was caned 50 times on the

text: 6184 order of Buk for preparing an unsatisfactory meal. As discussed above, P-0352

text: 6185 eventually became ’s so-called ‘wife’, and she testified about two ting tings

text: 6186 who became ’s so-called ‘wives’ before her.

text: P-0406 stated that girls who were deemed to be able to conceive were ‘distributed’ to

text: 6187 commanders, otherwise they were kept as ting tings.

text: P-0142 estimated that there were ‘from 30 upwards to 50 or 70’ young girls ‘who were

text: 6188 not yet ready to marry’ in Sinia in 2003-2004.

text: 6177 P-0264: T-65, p. 3, lines 13-16. 6178 P-0264: T-66, p. 42, lines 10-15. 6179 P-0233: T-111, p. 50, line 16 – p. 51, line 8. 6180 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 40. 6181 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 82. 6182 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 40. 6183 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 41. 6184 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 47. 6185 See para. 2205 above. 6186 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 64. 6187 P-0406: T-154, p. 21, lines 23-25. 6188 P-0142: T-71, p. 39, line 21 – p. 40, line 10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 815/1077 4 February 2021

text: Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse was specifically considered to be part of the role of the so-called ‘wives’. The women and girls were unable to resist, due to the physical force used by the Sinia brigade members and due to the threat of punishment for disobedience and their dependence on the Sinia brigade

text: members for survival.

text: P-0351 testified that the first night that she was in ’s household after being told by Dominic Ongwen that she was now ’s so-called ‘wife’, another of ’s

text: so-called ‘wives’ told her that was calling her and that she ‘should follow any instructions [she] was given because we have no relatives in the bush and we have no 6190 support and if we did not follow the rules we would be killed’. The witness continued:

text: I went to ’s tent. When I got there he said I was now his wife and I should sleep with him. I would say that what happened then was a rape. He removed my clothes and then he started sleeping with me. When I say sleeping with me I mean is a man and he put his male organ in my female organ. He did not say anything to me. I did nothing, I was only crying. I did not say anything nor refuse to sleep with him because I was fearful because he was a commander and if I said 6191 anything or refused I would be killed.

text: P-0351 stated that after that first night, would sleep with her and his other 6192 ‘wives’ alternately. P-0351 testified this was painful, and continued:

text: I would not share my pain with anyone in the bush. I thought that if I shared this I may be killed, because all the time I saw that girls who made mistakes were being killed. I was very scared because he was the man who raped me. I did not know the 6193 people I stayed with and I did not trust anybody.

text: P-0352 testified that on the day that told her that she was from then on his ‘wife’, 6194 he also told her to remove her clothes and lie down. She continued:

text: then told me that I should remove my clothes and lie down. I did it because I thought that if I refused I would be killed because he was a leader and had a gun.

text: removed his clothes and came to the bed. Then he put his male organ in my female organ. […] slept with me. He did not say anything. I did not say

text: 6189 Para. 218 above. 6190 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 74. 6191 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 75. 6192 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 76. 6193 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 76. 6194 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 66-67.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 816/1077 4 February 2021 anything. I was fearful because he was much older than me and I could not speak. 6195 When we finished he slept and I just stayed there, next to him.

text: P-0352 stated that after this time, would call her to sleep with him, and that she 6196 did not have any choice. P-0352 stated that she thought that if she refused, she would 6197 be killed because this was what had told her the first night he slept with her.

text: P-0374 testified:

text: One night called me and told me to bring him his toothbrush. When I was giving him the toothbrush it fell down. He then grabbed my hand and said: ‘Last time I told you to come and sleep with me. Why haven’t you come?’ I kept quiet. said that if I did not sleep with him he would kill me. I did not say anything and he started to forcefully remove my clothes. He was still holding my hand. I tried to resist but since he was stronger than me and a leader he overpowered me. When he removed all my clothes he forced me to lie on my back. He removed his clothes and put his penis in my vagina. Then he started to sleep with me. I cried. told me not to cry because I would make noise and people would hear. I kept crying silently because I could not stop crying.

text: I felt a lot of pain when he was sleeping with me. I tried not to show my pain because he was threatening me, slapping me, punching me and I was trying to keep quiet. was using a lot of energy while holding my hand and forcing me and I felt weak in my whole body.

text: After sleeping with me, told me that I had to stay next to him all night. He said that if I left he would kill me. He said that if I disrespected him he would kill me, meaning that I should not refuse what he did to me or told me to do. I did not 6198 say anything, I was just crying. I stayed there that night.

text: P-0374 stated that the following morning asked her ‘who was [she] to refuse him when other girls who were given as wives to other rebels would just go straight away 6199 with their husbands’. The witness commented that she thought said this to

text: convince her to accept him, and that in the bush most times people accepted things for

text: fear of being killed, but that she did not know any girl or woman who accepted willingly 6200 to become a so-called ‘wife’.

text: 6195 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at paras 67-69. See also P-0352: T-67, p. 21, lines 3-6. 6196 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 70. 6197 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 70. 6198 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 103-05. 6199 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 106. 6200 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 106.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 817/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0374 stated that on another night, after called her and she delayed because she did not want to go sleep with him, told her she was disrespecting him, and ordered 6201 an LRA soldier called Lagonga to cane her. Lagonga in fact beat her, and pointed his gun with a bayonet at P-0374’s head and said that if she kept misbehaving he 6202 would kill her. The statement continues:

text: I was very scared because of the beating and the threats with the bayonet, and even though I was crying I went to sleep with him. From that night I started to go sleep with him because I was afraid of being killed. I was expected to go to sleep with 6203 him every night except when he had gone away to loot.

text: In court, P-0374 further stated that she sustained ‘injuries on her private parts’ every time 6204 had sex with her. She stated the pain was ‘so much that every time I’m trying to walk, I would experience pain and I would not be able to walk freely. And I also had pain on my lower abdomen, but because I feared that he would eventually kill me, I 6205 would try and live with the pain just like that’. The Chamber recalls that P-0374 was 6206 aged between 10 and 12 during the time of her stay with the LRA.

text: P-0396 stated that in the evening of the day that she was ‘distributed’, came to 6207 her, took her hand, and said ‘let’s go to bed’. P-0394 followed to his tent, 6208 where told her: ‘you are my wife now and you have to sleep with me’. She continued:

text: removed my clothes and he removed his clothes. We were alone in the tent. had his gun with him and it was close to where we slept.

text: After he removed my clothes, told me to lay down. I tried to refuse but he pulled me down. I lay down on an empty bag used for storing maize and beans which was put on the floor. I was laying on my back and he lifted my leg and took his penis and pushed it into my private parts. It was very painful when he was inside me. I started crying, he told me he would kill me if I kept crying. While he was inside me, he said he will be with me forever. In that moment, I was thinking of escaping. It felt like he was on top of me for a long time. I felt his weight on me, he was heavy. He did not use a condom.

text: 6201 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 108. 6202 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 108. 6203 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 108. 6204 P-0374: T-150, p. 14, line 21 – p. 15, line 1. 6205 P-0374: T-150, p. 15, lines 1-4. 6206 See P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 14, 157. 6207 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 78. 6208 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 79.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 818/1077 4 February 2021

text: After he finished he fell asleep next to me. We slept together for the night. I was in so much pain and I was bleeding from my private parts. I had never seen my period when slept with me for the first time. […]

text: slept with me many times after that. It was always forced. I did not have a choice. He pushed me down and forced himself in me. If I refused, he would take 6209 his gun and tell me he would shoot me.

text: Insider witnesses corroborated the above testimonies. Considering the way that the witnesses spoke about forced sexual intercourse with their assigned ‘husbands’ being

text: part of the role of so-called ‘wives’, there is no doubt that this fact was commonly known in the LRA, including Sinia.

text: 6210 P-0070 testified that sexual relations were part of the role assigned to ‘wives’.

text: P-0233 stated: ‘When I’m talking about husband and wife, that includes sexual 6211 intercourse.’ He testified that the women and girls could not refuse to have sexual

text: intercourse with the men they had been assigned to, and mentioned killings and beatings 6212 as possible punishment for violation of this rule.

text: D-0134 also confirmed that so-called ‘wives’ were expected to have sex with their 6213 husbands.

text: P-0045 testified that as a ‘wife’ of an LRA soldier, she had to sleep with him, and that 6214 she could not refuse for fear of being beaten.

text: The above evidence – together with that provided by Dominic Ongwen’s own so-called 6215 ‘wives’ that the Chamber analysed in detail above – leaves no doubt to the Chamber

text: that the sexual intercourse to which LRA fighters regularly subjected their so-called ‘wives’ took place by force or threat of force exercised by the LRA fighters against their

text: so-called ‘wives’. Witnesses in particular testified that they were beaten by their so-called

text: 6209 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at paras 79-82. 6210 P-0070: T-106, p. 35, line 21 – p. 36, line 3. 6211 P-0233: T-111, p. 58, lines 11-14. 6212 P-0233: T-111, p. 58, line 15 – p. 59, line 15. 6213 D-0134: T-241, p. 6, lines 17-18. 6214 P-0045: T-103, p. 79, lines 7-11. The Chamber notes that the witness also indicated that the two people concerned would have to handle the matter ‘within the household’, but does not consider this to be a contradiction, but rather an additional specification of the way in which refusals were dealt with in practice, in particular since P-0045 clarified that the issue would be ‘handle[d]’ ‘until she accepts’. See P-0045: T-105, p. 15, line 25 – p. 16, line 20. 6215 See section IV.C.10.ii.a above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 819/1077 4 February 2021

text: ‘husbands’ so that they would submit to sexual intercourse. But the evidence equally makes very clear that the LRA fighters also relied on the fact that women and girls were held captive and under oppressive control and coercion, in order to require them to submit to sex. For the coercion, each LRA fighter relied on the organisation and its rules.

text: 6216 The Chamber notes that there is evidence that so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia bore children. However, apart from the specific instances for which Dominic Ongwen is charged as direct perpetrator under Count 58 – addressed above, no charges are based on the fact of these pregnancies and the Chamber does not examine the matter further.

text: Finally in this context, several witnesses testified to a prohibition of sexual relations with 6217 ting tings. P-0366, for example, stated that in the LRA, ‘there was a rule against boys 6218 sleeping with girls before they were initiated’. The manner in which the witnesses referred to this prohibition indicates that it was an important tenet of the LRA’s internal policy on the treatment of women and girls. In fact, this prohibition appears to be the crucial marker distinguishing the status of ting ting from the status of so-called ‘wife’.

text: However, the evidence, including from the same witnesses, indicates that ting ting status did not protect young girls from sexual violence. P-0264 stated that there were instances when men to whom ting tings were assigned to be taken care of ‘circumvented’ the 6219 prohibition. He named a commander Komakech Lutugu who was assigned a ting ting 6220 and had sex with her, infecting her with syphilis. P-0264 stated that the commander 6221 was not punished but only reprimanded by his superior Ben Acellam. In fact, later in his testimony, P-0264 testified that Komakech Lutugu made a request that a ting ting in his household become his so-called ‘wife’ on the ground that he had already had sex with 6222 her. The witness also testified about another commander called Olwiko in the Oka

text: 6216 See P-0264: T-65, p. 10, lines 9-15; P-0314: T-74, p. 56, line 21 – p. 57, line 1. See also section IV.C.10.ii.a above. 6217 P-0142: T-72, p. 50, lines 19-20; P-0264: T-65, p. 4, lines 11-15; D-0024: T-192, p. 48, line 14 – p. 49, line 10. 6218 P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at para. 87. See also P-0366: T-147, p. 39, lines 14-22. It is clear from the statement that the term ‘initiated’ is used to mean the same act more commonly referred to in the evidence as ‘being given as a “wife” to a soldier’, see P-0366 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0289-R01, at paras 78- 82. 6219 P-0264: T-65, p. 4, lines 14-25. See also T-66, p. 40, lines 3-16. 6220 P-0264: T-65, p. 5, line 16 – p. 6, line 1. 6221 P-0264: T-65, p. 6, lines 2-4. 6222 P-0264: T-66, p. 43, line 11 – p. 44, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 820/1077 4 February 2021 battalion, who also had sex with a ting ting, but was punished by Ben Acellam, and ‘[t]he

text: 6223 issue was also forwarded to Dominic Ongwen, who was the commander’. P-0264 stated that Olwiko infected the ting ting with syphilis, and confirmed that she was then 6224 assigned to him as a ‘wife’ while she was receiving treatment.

text: On the basis of the evidence, the Chamber finds that any prohibition of sex with ting tings did not protect them from sexual violence. The men to whom girls were ‘distributed’ as ting tings relied on the very same detention and coercion of the ting tings to force them into sexual intercourse. Even if it seemed that some LRA fighters were individually,

text: without the knowledge of, and even against the prohibition from their superiors, raping ting tings, they were in fact relying on the system. The prohibition was not genuine.

text: The abducted women and girls were not allowed to have sexual or romantic relations to

text: any man other than the so-called ‘husband’ assigned to them.

text: P-0264 testified that for a so-called ‘wife’ to have sex with a man other than her ‘husband’ 6226 was outlawed. He also testified that while ‘wives’ could cook also for men who were not their husbands, they could only do their husband’s laundry and only bring bathing

text: 6227 water to their husbands. P-0264 testified that punishment for violating these rules 6228 could be lashing or even death.

text: P-0227 testified specifically about the case of a girl called Aciro, who was a ‘wife’ to Joseph Kony. P-0227 stated:

text: [I]t was said she had slept with one of the guards of Kony, when Kony was aware of that, Aciro and the boy were arrested and they were brought to Kony and right there on the spot Aciro was shot. Both Aciro and the boy were shot dead. Aciro 6229 had a child, one child. The baby was actually a baby girl. She was called Lakot.

text: 6223 P-0264: T-65, p. 6, line 17 – p. 8, line 16. 6224 P-0264: T-65, p. 8, line 17 – p. 9, line 19. 6225 Para. 219 above. 6226 P-0264: T-65, p. 11, lines 6-8. 6227 P-0264: T-65, p. 11, lines 6-8. 6228 P-0264: T-65, p. 11, lines 9-12. 6229 P-0227: T-10-CONF, p. 51, lines 16-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 821/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0374 testified that , the man to whom she was assigned as so-called ‘wife’, told

text: her that in the bush, even if a girl had been ‘given as a wife’, some boys might try to be

text: 6230 with her, and that if she did that she would be killed.

text: P-0045 testified that ‘[e]ven when you are interested in another person, you have to stay

text: 6231 with that person that you were given to’, otherwise both would be killed. Asked if she

text: 6232 knew if anyone was killed for violating this rule, she gave two names.

text: Two successive entries in an ISO logbook of intercept evidence corroborate the witness

text: evidence on this point. On 1 April 2003, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as reporting that

text: one Obalim, a soldier ‘left to keep women in the camp (hideout)’ had sex with the ‘wives’

text: 6233 of Abudema and Otim Charles ‘and impregnated them all’. Dominic Ongwen

text: 6234 reported that he arrested and had Obalim ‘in custody’. Joseph Kony ordered that

text: Dominic Ongwen ‘should kill Obalim imm[ediately] and the two women should be put

text: in jail while they should also be pulled out f[ro]m that camp and they join mobile while

text: 6235 awaits their final judgements’. The next day, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as

text: reporting to Vincent Otti that he had ‘already killed Obalim whom he was ordered by

text: Joseph Kony y/day evening to execute because of having sex with LRA offrs wives in

text: 6236 the women’s camp here in Uganda’. Vincent Otti is recorded as replying that

text: 6237 ‘Dominic did wonderful job’.

text: The Chamber also heard evidence of the converse, i.e. of a prohibition for LRA members

text: to sleep with other members’ so-called ‘wives’. P-0070 testified that if someone in the

text: 6238 LRA slept with another man’s ‘wife’, that person ‘would be shot’. Daniel Opiyo

text: 6230 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 117. 6231 P-0045: T-103, p. 79, lines 12-17. 6232 P-0045: T-103, p. 79, lines 18-19. 6233 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0071-72. 6234 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0072. 6235 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0072. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3399, at 3548. It is noted that the Soroti UPDF logbook did not identify the person who reported the alleged infraction and recorded the order from Joseph Kony to kill Obal-Lim as having been given to Lapanyikwara (UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6257). The Soroti UPDF logbook also did not record the report on the execution of the order the following day. For these reasons, the Chamber considers the Soroti UPDF logbook less authoritative on this particular radio communication, and does not rely on it for the identification of speakers. 6236 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0073. The Chamber notes that while the entries in the corresponding UPDF logbooks do not seem to contain this detail, they appear overall less detailed than the ISO logbook entry for this specific communication time (see UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-3399, at 3548- 49 or UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242-6212, at 6257-58). 6237 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0073. 6238 P-0070: T-106, p. 41, lines 17-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 822/1077 4 February 2021 testified that he knew of a case in the LRA where a so-called ‘wife’ of Ocan Bunia had 6239 sex with another soldier; they were both killed in punishment.

text: In this context, and in addition to the evidence indicating the existence of a rule prohibiting a so-called ‘wife’ to have sex with a man other than her ‘husband’, the Chamber also notes the evidence relating to the purported general prohibition of any sexual relation outside so-called ‘marriage’. The Prosecution argues that the prohibition of sex outside so-called ‘marriage’ in the LRA ‘was primarily intended to ensure the exclusivity of commanders’ sexual access to their “wives” and to control the sexuality of 6240 abducted girls and women’. The Chamber shares this assessment. The rule against sexual relations outside so-called ‘marriage’ as it is apparent from the evidence cited hereunder is logically linked to the rules concerning ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls to senior members of the LRA, and to the imposition of so-called ‘marriage’ on these women and girls. Without a prohibition of relations outside this so-called ‘marriage’, these rules would remain ineffective. For this reason, the Chamber views the evidence cited in the following paragraphs as corroborative of its other findings.

text: Evelyn Amony provided a succinct and clear account of the prohibition of sexual relations outside ‘marriage’ in the LRA:

text: In the LRA there are rules. If you have not been given a woman as your wife, you are not allowed to sleep with that woman, to have sexual relations with that woman. If you do have sexual relations with that woman, two things would happen: One, you are either punished or you are told that the Holy Spirit would punish you. And if you are sent to battle and you are a man who has had sexual relations with a woman who is not your wife, then your private parts would be shot. And those 6241 are some of the things that they would tell us in the LRA. P-0374 testified that if there was a relationship without authorisation of the leaders, the 6242 transgressors would be beaten or killed. She stated that she saw a boy and a girl whose names she did not recall be beaten for this reason at Ogwal’s home in the presence of

text: 6239 D-0056: T-228, p. 27, line 23 – p. 28, line 3. 6240 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 141. 6241 D-0049: T-243, p. 15, lines 18-25. 6242 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 115.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 823/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6243 Ogwal, and Kalalang, and some other leaders. She also stated that the morning

text: 6244 after, told her that the girl had been killed.

text: P-0396 similarly testified that Dominic Ongwen called all so-called ‘wives’, boys and

text: girls together and told them that girls could not stay together with boys, unless they were

text: 6245 ‘going to work’. She also testified about an instance where a girl was killed and a boy

text: 6246 was beaten because they were ‘staying together’. She stated that Dominic Ongwen

text: 6247 ordered the killing of the girl and the beating of the boy and that beat him.

text: D-0117 testified that in the LRA, sexual relations outside of ‘marriage’ were not allowed

text: 6248 and punished severely. She said this rule originated from Joseph Kony and was widely

text: 6249 known in the LRA.

text: D-0118’s explanation of this is worded differently, but in fact the same. She stated that

text: if a girl was abducted, it was prohibited to ‘share a house’ with that girl unless she was

text: 6250 ‘given’.

text: P-0142 and P-0340 also confirmed that there was a rule in the LRA prohibiting sex

text: 6251 outside so-called ‘marriage’.

text: P-0379’s testimony indicates that this rule was strict: ‘If you are found having sexual

text: intercourse with any girl, a girl who has not been officially given to you as your wife, if

text: you are lucky you would be beaten, but if you are unlucky, the rules are that you should

text: 6252 be killed.’ Daniel Opiyo testified almost identically that ‘if any soldier or any

text: commander […] has sexual relations with a girl who has not yet been given to him […]

text: 6253 then that soldier has to be killed’.

text: 6243 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 115-16. 6244 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 118; P-0374: T-150, p. 60, lines 10-16. 6245 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 91. 6246 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 96. 6247 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 96. 6248 D-0117: T-215, p. 27, lines 10-15. 6249 D-0117: T-215, p. 27, line 23 – p. 28, line 1, p. 29, lines 1-6. 6250 D-0118: T-216, p. 16, lines 23-25. 6251 P-0142: T-72, p. 50, lines 21-23; P-0340: T-102, p. 44, lines 11-15. See also P-0330: T-52, p. 71, lines 11-14 (stating that ‘[t]he most important rule was not to have sexual intercourse with women’, not referring specifically to so-called ‘marriage’ in the LRA). 6252 P-0379: T-57, p. 37, lines 4-7. See also P-0330: T-52, p. 72, line 22 – p. 73, line 2. 6253 D-0056: T-228, p. 25, lines 10-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 824/1077 4 February 2021 vi. Forced labour

text: The abducted women and girls were forced to perform work, such as household work

text: and carrying items. Also this rule was strictly enforced by physical punishment.

text: The Chamber commences its analysis by reference to the personal experience of the witnesses who were abducted into the LRA and spent time as so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia, before turning to other evidence.

text: P-0351 stated that the girls, both so-called ‘wives’ and ting tings, used to do a lot of work: 6255 they were the ones to carry the food and cook. She stated that when the group stayed

text: somewhere, the commanders ate together in Dominic Ongwen’s household, and that after herself and the other so-called ‘wives’ had prepared the food at night they had to bring it 6256 to Dominic Ongwen’s household, and collect the dishes the following day.

text: P-0351 particularly mentioned having to carry food even if there was an attack, pointing 6257 out that ‘[t]he food could burn you or you would be beaten if you lost it’. She

text: explained her situation as follows:

text: I was beaten many times mainly because of dropping what I was carrying during attacks. I believed that if government soldiers caught me they would rape me so I would drop the food to be able to run.

text: I was ’s wife when these beatings took place. I was beaten with canes by two or three soldiers at the same time. would issue the order for the beatings to take place, he would say that the soldiers had to beat me because they were the ones who were risking their lives to go and loot the food and we could not 6258 even take care of it.

text: P-0352 testified that as a so-called ‘wife’ of she had to cook and fetch water, and 6259 carry food, saucepans and jerry cans. She stated that she and the other girls sometimes 6260 prepared food and took it to Dominic Ongwen’s home. When asked in court if she

text: 6254 Para. 220 above. 6255 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 57, 60, 77, 80. 6256 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 89. 6257 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at para. 80. 6258 P-0351 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0002-R01, at paras 81-82. 6259 P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 70. 6260 P-0352: T-67, p. 16, lines 21-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 825/1077 4 February 2021 could have refused to prepare that food, P-0352 stated: ‘No. If you refuse, you are killed.

text: 6261 You cannot refuse to do anything.’

text: P-0374 testified that in ’s household, women and girls had different tasks: the girls’

text: role was to cook, fetch water and wash the clothes, whereas the women had to collect

text: 6262 grass for beds and make the beds of all the people in the house. She stated that she

text: also took food to Dominic Ongwen’s home on one occasion when she was in ’s

text: 6263 homestead. She referred to several examples of women and girls, including herself,

text: 6264 being beaten for performing their tasks poorly.

text: P-0396 stated that told her what to do on a daily basis, such as to collect water

text: 6265 and to cook. She also had to carry saucepans for cooking and jerry-cans for fetching

text: 6266 water, and to wash ’s clothes, cook and to get water to bathing. When

text: was not there, P-0396 received instructions from those who were guarding her, from

text: 6267 Dominic Ongwen or from Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’. She stated that the

text: leaders would eat together, ‘so you would bring the food to Ongwen, and other

text: 6268 leaders’.

text: The Chamber also takes into account the testimony of P-0045, who described as follows

text: the tasks that a so-called ‘wife’ had to perform: ‘Once you have reached a position, you

text: have to begin preparing food, you have to prepare water for bathing and take him water

text: 6269 so that he would bathe, just as people live normally in a home.’

text: Evelyn Amony testified that in the LRA, ting tings were used as slaves, taking care of

text: 6270 babies, fetching water and firewood, cooking, cleaning and washing clothes.

text: 6261 P-0352: T-67, p. 16, line 25 – p. 17, line 2. 6262 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 62. 6263 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at para. 122; P-0374: T-150, p. 10, lines 3-13. P-0374 was in ’s homestead following the death of , see P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 142-43. 6264 P-0374 Statement, UGA-OTP-0263-0023-R01, at paras 64-67. 6265 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 85. 6266 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 86. 6267 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 85. 6268 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 92. 6269 P-0045: T-103, p. 79, lines 3-6. 6270 D-0049: T-243, p. 47, lines 3-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 826/1077 4 February 2021

text: D-0119 testified that women in the LRA carried ammunition and food during

text: 6271 movements.

text: Other insiders corroborate this evidence. P-0054, asked about the role of a ‘wife’ in the

text: LRA, testified that the ‘daily duty of a wife is to cook and also to stay and live with the

text: 6272 husband in the house’. As for ting tings, P-0054 mentioned as their duties carrying

text: 6273 saucepans, collecting firewood and collecting water.

text: P-0070 testified that once women were ‘distributed’ to men as ‘wives’, they performed

text: 6274 domestic work including cooking, laying the bed, and carrying luggage and food.

text: 6275 P-0231 stated that the young girls were ‘mostly responsible for babysitting’.

text: P-0264 stated that following the return of the LRA to Uganda in 2002, some ‘wives’ had

text: 6276 guns and served as fighters, and others did not. Those who did not have guns prepared

text: 6277 meals and did laundry for their ‘husbands’ and their children if they had any. P-0264

text: also stated that the young girls were put in the household of a woman who had a child,

text: 6278 and worked as babysitters, and sometimes carried bags.

text: P-0330 stated that the tasks of the so-called ‘wives’ included gathering grass to make

text: 6279 beds, cooking food, and carrying the clothes of the soldiers.

text: P-0379 stated that the tasks of women who became ‘wives’ were ‘carrying the

text: 6280 commander’s clothes, doing his laundry, cooking food, taking him water to bathe’.

text: P-0379 similarly stated that the ‘girls who were not wives’, if the commander in whose

text: household they were staying had a ‘wife’, helped the ‘wife’ cooking and carried the

text: 6271 D-0119: T-196, p. 27, lines 10-15. 6272 P-0054: T-93, p. 37, lines 5-8. 6273 P-0054: T-93, p. 38, lines 20-23. 6274 P-0070: T-106, p. 35, lines 21-25. 6275 P-0231: T-122, p. 77, lines 7-13. 6276 P-0264: T-65, p. 10, lines 1-5. 6277 P-0264: T-65, p. 10, lines 5-8. 6278 P-0264: T-65, p. 4, lines 5-10. 6279 P-0330: T-52, p. 62, lines 19-23. 6280 P-0379: T-57, p. 38, lines 14-17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 827/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6281 food. According to P-0379, the girls could not refuse this work for fear of being

text: 6282 beaten.

text: P-0233 testified that the tasks of so-called ‘wives’ were ‘household chores like cooking,

text: 6283 being a housewife’. If they attempted to refuse, they would be threatened with beating

text: 6284 or beaten until they accepted.

text: Daniel Opiyo stated that ting tings in the LRA would carry light things that were not too

text: 6285 heavy for them, do laundry, prepare food, and take care of children. Asked about the

text: tasks of the so-called ‘wives’, he mentioned first that some women went for battle, and

text: 6286 otherwise listed cooking, helping the injured and doing other domestic chores.

text: Further corroborative evidence was provided by P-0307, who stated that the main role of

text: the ‘girls’ was to babysit for the commanders’ ‘wives’, collect firewood, wash clothes

text: 6287 and cook. He notably observed that based on what he saw, the girls in the bush ‘did

text: 6288 not have an easy life’ as they were forced to work ‘so hard’. As for the so-called

text: ‘wives’, P-0307 described their role as ‘ensur[ing] that their husbands were

text: 6289 comfortable’.

text: The Chamber also notes a radio communication intercepted by the ISO on 18 December

text: It is reported that Joseph Kony wanted a certain woman to ‘release’ one young

text: 6290 child to his ‘wife’ as a baby-sitter, but that woman refused. According to the logbook,

text: 6291 Joseph Kony ordered that that woman be beaten 50 strokes for defying his order.

text: Although it must be noted that the incident did not happen in Sinia, it is indicative of the

text: coercion imposed on the abducted women and girls within the LRA, and therefore

text: corroborative of the other evidence on this issue.

text: 6281 P-0379: T-57, p. 39, lines 3-9. 6282 P-0379: T-57, p. 39, lines 10-20. 6283 P-0233: T-111, p. 57, lines 13-16. 6284 P-0233: T-111, p. 64, lines 11-22. It is noted that P-0233 stated that he saw such beatings on several occasions. 6285 D-0056: T-229, p. 19, line 20 – p. 20, line 2. 6286 D-0056: T-229, p. 20, lines 3-10. 6287 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 64. 6288 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 65. 6289 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 66. 6290 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0115. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 6291 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0115. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 828/1077 4 February 2021 vii. Extent of suffering

text: As a result of the sexual and physical violence, and the living conditions to which they were submitted, the abducted women and girls suffered severe physical and mental

text: pain.

text: The Chamber has made several findings that LRA soldiers, in execution of orders, including from Dominic Ongwen, inflicted violence on abducted women and girls. Physical violence was used as a mode of coercion to prevent escape, to rape, and to obtain labour. The Chamber, based on the evidence discussed above, determines that the physical pain caused was severe. At the same time, on the basis of the same evidence, the Chamber considers that the use of threatened or actual physical violence on the abductees for a protracted period of time, indeed throughout the entire period of abduction of the women and girls, also caused severe psychological suffering.

text: 6292 Para. 221 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 829/1077 4 February 2021

text: Conscription and use of children in armed hostilities

text: The abduction of children by the LRA in order to integrate them into its military structure and use them as fighters has been one of the LRA’s fundamental characteristic features over the course of its existence. The accused himself was abducted by the LRA at the age of under 15. The Chamber has heard the testimony of numerous witnesses describing this ongoing practice and its general devastating impact on the victims of this system. While conscious that this phenomenon was much larger and is not limited to the instances falling within the parameters of the charges in the present case, the Chamber’s findings, in keeping with

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , is confined to the facts and circumstances described in the charges. Accordingly, the Chamber will only discuss evidence that is relevant to such – more limited – findings.

text: In this section the Chamber will first assess how the LRA used abductions of children as a means to forcefully recruit them as new soldiers into its ranks. Then, the Chamber takes a look at how these children were integrated and trained in the Sinia brigade. And lastly, the Chamber discusses how children under the age of 15 actively participated in hostilities that the Sinia brigade was involved in.

text: i. Coordinated and methodical nature of the abductions of children

text: under the age of 15

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda and force them to serve as

text: Sinia fighters.

text: 6294 As discussed above, the LRA obtained new members through abductions. The coordinated and methodical nature of the abductions of boys and girls and the reliance by Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership on the LRA soldiers for the execution of the abductions are demonstrated by the factual analysis in the sections that follow, in particular as concerns evidence of orders for abductions and the evidence of abductions which occurred.

text: In the present section, the Chamber provides its analysis of the evidence which demonstrates that the LRA focused specifically on abducting children. Indeed, as

text: 6293 Para. 222 above. 6294 See section IV.C.2.ii.a above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 830/1077 4 February 2021 demonstrated by the evidence, the recruitment of children as soldiers into the LRA was not incidental or a result of disregard for the age of the recruits, but was a specific and methodically pursued organisation-wide policy. As a further introductory note, the Chamber observes that the evidence includes various estimates of the age targeted for abduction by the LRA, sometimes also merely referring to ‘young children’ or children. In fact, whereas several witnesses provided estimates of the minimum age which was suitable for abduction in the view of the LRA, these appear to be estimates based on practice. It may therefore be noted that even though the LRA practice of abducting children was discussed with a number of witnesses, including insiders, evidence of any mandatory minimum age for abduction, or of any form of a screening system based on age, did not transpire. Bearing this in mind, and on the basis of the evidence discussed hereunder, the Chamber has no doubt that the LRA leadership, including Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership, specifically targeted children under 15 years of age for abduction.

text: At this point, the Chamber notes the Defence’s general argument that the estimation of ages of persons who have not personally appeared before the Court is more susceptible to mistakes since the Chamber did not see the person in question, the witnesses were no 6295 experts and it is not known what standard a witness applies for the estimation. The Chamber finds that the Defence’s arguments are without merit. While it is true that the witnesses were not experts on the issue of age, this does not mean that a layman can never make a reliable estimation of a person’s age. Further, the witnesses routinely provided an explanation on what they based their estimate. For instance, asked on what he bases his assessment of age, P-0054 responded that he would compare the persons with the age he had at the time of his own abduction but also how they would comport themselves and 6296 execute the assigned work. P-0264, who was under the age of 15 during the period relevant to the charges, was simply asked whether there were other LRA fighters his age 6297 or younger, which he confirmed. It is therefore possible for the Chamber to evaluate how a witness arrived at his or her conclusion. The Chamber finds that there are no considerations generally speaking against the estimation of ages by witnesses and will consider and assess such evidence on an individual basis.

text: 6295 Defence Closing Brief, para. 508. 6296 P-0054: T-93, p. 22, lines 9-13. 6297 P-0264: T-64, p. 34, lines 17-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 831/1077 4 February 2021

text: Turning to the evidence, P-0233 testified that, in the context of a specific abduction event at Acet, only three abductees were kept, aged approximately 14-15 years old, while the 6298 rest were released. Asked why the rest were released, the witness stated:

text: The reason some people were released was because, at the time when I was still in the bush, I do understand that it was instructions were given that people, let’s say aged from 17 upwards, already know the good things or the good side of the government and so they cannot stay in the bush. So that is why they were released. […]

text: Good things, one of them include relationship between man and a woman, knowledge of things, of situation, knowing things and not being able to forget 6299 whatever you/she has gone through. More generally, P-0233 testified that persons ‘[f]rom the age 15, 14, even 13 years would be taken’, reasoning that this was because such persons could still be ‘mentored’ and 6300 ‘influenced to do what you want the person to do’. Considering that P-0233 spent more than 10 years in the LRA, including throughout the period relevant to the charges, his observations, based on long personal experience, are of value to the Chamber.

text: Similarly indicative is the testimony of P-0070, who recalled specifically that when Joseph Kony issued his order for the LRA to move into Teso, each brigade was tasked with increasing the number of soldiers, and there was the instruction to abduct ‘[s]mall 6301 children’. It is noted that P-0070 testified to personally having heard Joseph Kony 6302 giving this order over the LRA radio. In P-0070’s testimony, Charles Tabuley then transmitted the order downwards, ordering that ‘children aged 14 to 18, or maximum 19, 6303 should be abducted’, and saying that ‘those young ones can still be trained’. Asked what he meant by this, P-0070 explained that ‘it’s easy to indoctrinate them so that they cannot escape’ and that ‘[w]hen they are taken far away from the place where they were abducted from, they can be trained to become very good fighters of the LRA as 6304 soldiers’.

text: 6298 P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 21, lines 13-20. 6299 P-0233: T-111, p. 24, line 17 – p. 25, line 2. 6300 P-0233: T-111, p. 25, lines 9-13. 6301 P-0070: T-105, p. 86, lines 3-10. 6302 P-0070: T-105, p. 86, lines 11-15. 6303 P-0070: T-105, p. 86, line 16 – p. 87, line 22. 6304 P-0070: T-105, p. 87, lines 9-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 832/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0330 testified that the LRA abducted young people ‘because they would say the children would not be able to escape because they will fail to trace their way back home’ 6305 and because ‘the young people could be able to carry out any kind of atrocity’. He defined the age range of young people falling under this category as between 13 and 18 6306 years of age. He stated that he heard Dominic Ongwen give an order not to abduct any ‘elderly person’, because such persons ‘are really mature and they know their way back home, they will be able to escape, but the young people will not be able to escape 6307 an go back home’.

text: 6308 Further, when discussing Dominic Ongwen’s orders for the attack on Odek IDP camp, P-0205 stated that Dominic Ongwen gave the instruction that ‘[b]oys should also be abducted when found’, and that ‘[t]hose who were not fit to be in the army, those who 6309 were above 18 should not be brought, they should be killed instead’. It is significant that P-0205 referred to ‘boys’, and that he did not report any lower age limit as having been given by Dominic Ongwen to LRA soldiers as part of the instruction for abduction. P-0314 corroborated P-0205’s evidence, testifying that Dominic Ongwen’s order before 6310 the attack on Odek IDP camp was to ‘go and abduct some children’.

text: Finally, the Chamber notes P-0231’s testimony to the effect that the focus of LRA units looking to abduct persons to increase LRA ranks was on finding ‘capable’ persons without regard to minimum age. P-0231 stated:

text: You know, at the time when we were in the bush during the period of abduction, as I stated earlier, even when you’re on the move, for example if we are leaving one location going across some road, at the time when people were still at home, before the camps were established, whoever you come across, whoever you think is able to fight you abduct that person. You abduct that person. And the abduction means an initiation into the army, starting from 10 or – if you estimate that the person is older, so anybody from between the ages of 10 to 30. But there are certain times when some operations are organised and you’re sent to collect food, you’re sent to fight, when you fight if you overran the soldiers, if you

text: 6305 P-0330: T-52, p. 58, lines 15-19. See also p. 60, lines 3-14. 6306 P-0330: T-52, p. 59, lines 14-16. 6307 P-0330: T-52, p. 59, lines 17-24. 6308 See also section IV.C.7.iii above. 6309 P-0205: T-47, p. 44, lines 3-9. 6310 P-0314: T-75, p. 4, lines 7-12.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 833/1077 4 February 2021 find anybody who is capable of joining the ranks of the LRA, that person is 6311 abducted and put in the LRA. It is observed that P-0231 did not articulate in as clear terms as some other witnesses the specific focus on younger abductees, speaking instead of capability. But the lower limit of the age range given by the witness nevertheless supports the same finding.

text: Records of intercepted radio communications corroborate the witness testimony on this issue. The Chamber also notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks 6312 above.

text: On 18 August 2002, an ISO logbook records Raska Lukwiya reporting that he had 6313 abducted a good number of ‘young children’ who were undergoing training. Joseph Kony responded by telling Raska Lukwiya to ‘keep them well’, because they were ‘their 6314 fresh fighters’.

text: On 21 November 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in an ISO logbook as stating that no 6315 LRA should abduct people over 15 years of age ‘because they are problems’.

text: The ISO logbook entry for 26 November 2002 records Joseph Kony ordering that all ‘mature p[eo]ple who are with them in the bush should be checked properly’, and commented that it was ‘very difficult to deal with such p[eo]ple who already know the use of money and material goods’ and that it was ‘far much easier to work with children’ 6316 because ‘they don’t mind about material goods’.

text: Further, an ISO logbook entry dated 29 November 2002 records Joseph Kony as instructing Vincent Otti to concentrate on abducting only young children who are easy 6317 to control. Vincent Otti’s response is also recorded, stating that ‘this time’ he had only young people because Joseph Kony had told them earlier to concentrate on children other 6318 than mature people ‘who know what the world is’.

text: 6311 P-0231: T-122, p. 73, lines 11-21. 6312 See para. 666 above. 6313 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0049. 6314 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0049. 6315 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0049. 6316 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0065. 6317 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0073. 6318 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0073.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 834/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 9 May 2003, an ISO logbook reported a radio conversation between Raska Lukwiya and Joseph Kony, where Raska Lukwiya reported that he had abducted ‘14 young 6319 children of the size LRA needs so much’. Joseph Kony responded that Raska Lukwiya should ‘keep them well’, and instructed Raska Lukwiya to embark seriously on abduction 6320 and only to ‘pick the right size LRA are in need’.

text: Finally, it is also relevant that according to the evidence, a specific term – kadogo – was used in the organisation to refer soldiers of young age. P-0379 defined ‘kadogo’ (or 6321 ‘kadoge’ in plural) as ‘small boys’ aged downward of 15 or 16 years old. P-0330 stated that the ‘kadoge’, who were children between 13 and 15, were ‘people who were abducted while still very young, but grew up in the bush and they were very dangerous 6322 people’ adding that ‘that is why they insisted they should abduct young people’. It is also noted that P-0236 testified that she heard Dominic Ongwen use the word ‘kadogi’ 6323 to refer to children.

text: ii. Abduction into Sinia brigade

text: Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership ordered Sinia soldiers

text: to abduct children to serve as Sinia soldiers.

text: The evidence indicates that the orders for abductions generally, as well as specific orders for abduction of children, originated from Joseph Kony. P-0231 testified that the orders to abduct people came from Joseph Kony and then trickled down the hierarchical 6325 structure of the LRA. P-0138 almost identically stated that the orders for abductions ‘normally’ came from Joseph Kony to Vincent Otti, who then relayed them to the 6326 brigades.

text: The Chamber also recalls its discussion of Joseph Kony’s order to abduct small children 6327 during the LRA operation in Teso.

text: 6319 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0151. See also UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0242- 6212, at 6320-21. 6320 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0146, at 0151. 6321 P-0379: T-57, p. 56, line 18 – p. 57, line 4. 6322 P-0330: T-52, p. 60, lines 3-14. 6323 P-0236: T-16-CONF, p. 33, lines 22-24. 6324 Para. 223 above. 6325 P-0231: T-122, p. 74, lines 10-16. 6326 P-0138: T-120, p. 23, lines 4-6. 6327 See para. 2317 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 835/1077 4 February 2021

text: There is also intercept radio communication evidence demonstrating that Joseph Kony regularly ordered the abduction of children. First, as singled out just above, in some orders Joseph Kony specifically explained the reasons behind the focus on children. In addition, there are further records of orders for abduction of children.

text: On 16 November 2002, an ISO logbook records Joseph Kony ordering all commanders in Uganda to abduct boys of 10 years of age and below, adding that each commander 6328 must abduct at least 50.

text: On 9 September 2002, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook that all young children found in the villages, ‘when their parents run and leave them behind’, should be ‘collect[ed]’ and taken to him, and adding that ‘these children will grow as their 6329 soldiers’.

text: Still further, there are records of Joseph Kony’s orders for ‘abduction’, without further specification, which the Chamber nevertheless makes reference to as relevant in the 6330 context of the totality of the evidence on the issue.

text: In addition to specific orders, the notion that Joseph Kony issued general orders for abduction was brought up by P-0231, who stated that during the ‘period of abduction’, 6331 ‘whoever you come across, whoever you think is able to fight you abduct that person’. P-0205 similarly testified that in 2002, Joseph Kony convened everyone together and ordered, inter alia, that ‘boys should be abducted, boys who are able to participate in the army’ and that ‘[e]ach brigade should ensure that they increase or they boost the number 6332 of their units or their soldiers’.

text: P-0231 testified that on certain occasions Joseph Kony issued orders to stop 6333 abductions. Corroborating this, P-0233, whose testimony was generally that ‘fighting

text: 6328 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0034-35. It is noted that the order is first logged as relating to boys aged 15 and below, but the entry is then corrected, see UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0035, bottom of page. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 6329 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0121. The Chamber notes that the date of the intercept does not appear written on the logbook, but that it can be discerned conclusively from the sequence of the entries. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 6330 See ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0002, at 0006; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0068-0002, at 0027, 0042. The Chamber notes its discussion of the reliability of the 2002 ISO logbooks at para. 666 above. 6331 P-0231: T-122, p. 73, lines 9-15. 6332 P-0205: T-48, p. 20, line 24 – p. 21, line 4. 6333 P-0231: T-122, p. 74, lines 15-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 836/1077 4 February 2021 and abduction go hand in hand’, stated that sometimes the order was that people should

text: 6334 not be abducted.

text: This is confirmed by the evidence of P-0205, who stated that the general order for 6335 abductions was revoked in 2003. In fact, such a revocation was recorded in an ISO logbook of intercepted radio communications, which noted on 18 August 2003 Vincent Otti as sending a message to all units ‘that starting f[ro]m today onwards no LRA should continue abducting more recruits any more’ and that ‘abduction should generally stop at

text: 6336 the moment with LRA’.

text: However, P-0205, whose testimony on this point bears high value on account of his position within the LRA, testified that the revocation of the general order for abductions did not in fact stop abductions; he stated:

text: There were no general orders to abduct, unless a particular commander decides to take his – to do it within his own initiative. If the commander comes across somebody that he or she thinks he can abduct, then you abduct the person, keep quiet about it and then send the report after a period has elapsed.

text: If you go to this – if you go with that person, if you go with that person openly they’ll know that this person has been abducted. So you hide the person, wait after 6337 a period and then re-introduce the person to your group.

text: As concerns Dominic Ongwen’s orders for abduction, the Chamber notes that P-0231

text: testified in general terms about orders for abduction being passed by Dominic Ongwen 6338 onto the junior officers. P-0205 testified about a gathering in Koyo at which Dominic Ongwen organised the soldiers under his control, and also gave the order to ‘abduct girls 6339 and boys’. In addition, the Chamber notes the evidence discussed below in the context of specific abductions.

text: Sinia soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted a large number of children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. Children under the age of

text: 6334 P-0233: T-111-CONF, p. 11, lines 17-19, p. 26, lines 1-4. 6335 P-0205: T-48, p. 21, lines 5-10. 6336 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0281. 6337 P-0205: T-48, p. 21, line 20 – p. 22, line 4. 6338 P-0231: T-122, p. 75, lines 2-21. It is noted that the witness specified that in the one example of abductions which took place pursuant to Dominic Ongwen’s order, there were ‘no children among the abductees’. 6339 P-0205: T-48-CONF, p. 13, line 22 – p. 14, line 4. As discussed above, this order was given in or shortly after July 2004, see para. 2123 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 837/1077 4 February 2021

text: 15 were also abducted during the four attacks relevant to the charges. Dominic Ongwen

text: also abducted children himself.

text: The witnesses testifying before the Chamber provided ample reliable evidence about the

text: ongoing practice of abductions of children into the Sinia brigade. The Chamber will first

text: discuss the cases of abductions outside the context of the four attacks relevant to the

text: charges, and then assess the evidence related specifically to such four attacks.

text: A story of abduction which is exemplary of the LRA is provided by P-0097, who testified

text: about his abduction into the Sinia brigade. The witness was abducted

text: 6341 6342 in February 2005, when he was still under the age of 15. When the LRA

text: fighters arrived, they fired shots and set the houses on fire: P-0097 ran away but was

text: 6343 found by a group of four or five LRA fighters. When they found him, he did not resist

text: 6344 coming with them out of fear of death. P-0097 had heard stories about people refusing

text: 6345 and being shot.

text: 6346 P-0097 testified that they were ‘Kony’s rebels’ who abducted him. He stated that he

text: was not the only abductee, but there were others, boys and girls who were abducted with

text: 6347 him. The rebels led the abductees to a predetermined meeting place where they met

text: 6348 up with other LRA fighters. P-0097 stated that the youngest of the other abductees

text: 6349 was about 12 or 13 years old, stating that ‘I was even taller than them’. After being

text: attacked and chased away by government soldiers, the rebels convened at a different

text: 6350 meeting point where P-0097 met ‘Odomi’. The witness and another new abductee,

text: 6351 , were given to Dominic Ongwen. P-0097 remained with Dominic Ongwen for

text: 6340 Para. 223 above. 6341 P-0097: T-108-Conf, p. 6, line 23 – p. 7, line 7. 6342 See para. 299 above. 6343 P-0097: T-108, p. 7, line 8 – p. 8, line 11. 6344 P-0097: T-108, p. 8, line 23 – p. 9, line 3. 6345 P-0097: T-108, p. 9, lines 4-7. 6346 P-0097: T-108, p. 6, lines 23-24. 6347 P-0097: T-108, p. 9, lines 11-18, p. 10, lines 13-15. 6348 P-0097: T-108, p. 11, line 18 – p. 12, line 3. 6349 P-0097: T-108, p. 12, line 18 – p. 13, line 2. 6350 P-0097: T-108, p. 14, lines 3-18. 6351 P-0097: T-108-Conf, p. 15, lines 13-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 838/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6352 the entirety of his time in the LRA. During this time he was assigned to a soldier under

text: 6353 Dominic Ongwen’s command.

text: 6354 P-0264 testified that he was abducted in 2002. The Chamber recalls its assessment of

text: this witness’s credibility, in particular as concerns the witness’s age at the time of

text: 6355 abduction. As discussed, while the witness stated that he was 11 at the time of his

text: 6356 abduction, there is documentary evidence which indicates that he was born in 1989

text: 6357 and thus would have been 12 or 13 year old at the time of abduction. The Defence

text: submits that these ‘apparent contradictions’ should lead to the Chamber to disregard the

text: 6358 witness’s evidence. The Chamber repeats that this discrepancy has no influence on

text: the witness’s general credibility. Since the Chamber is unable to establish the witness’s

text: precise date of abduction in 2002 it cannot determine whether it occurred after 1 July

text: However, with respect to the facts under consideration at this juncture, the

text: Chamber notes that the fact whether the witness was 11, 12 or 13 is immaterial, since in

text: any case he was under the age of 15 at the time of his abduction.

text: P-0264 testified that he was abducted by a soldier belonging to the Oka battalion and

text: 6359 6360 became an escort to . During his initiation ceremony,

text: 6361 P-0264 saw many other people of his age – that is to say, other abductees under the

text: age of 15.

text: 6362 P-0309 was abducted in September 2002 in the area of . The Chamber

text: repeats again that it is aware of the contradicting evidence with regard to P-0309’s

text: 6363 age. However, the Chamber notes that even taking 1987 as the witness’s

text: date of birth – that is the date which would make him the oldest – he would still have

text: 6364 been under the age of 15 at the time of his abduction in September 2002, even if it

text: 6352 P-0097: T-108, p. 16, lines 3-6. 6353 P-0097: T-109, p. 21, line 22 – p. 22, line 10. 6354 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 9, lines 20-22; T-65, p. 84, lines 12-14. 6355 See paras 330-331 above. 6356 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 10, lines 8-9; T-66, p. 13, lines 16-18. 6357 National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0270-1382. 6358 Defence Closing Brief, para. 527. 6359 P-0264: T-64, p. 27, line 21 – p. 28, line 8. 6360 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 10, lines 12-18, p. 12, lines 22-23. 6361 P-0264: T-64, p. 25, line 25 – p. 26, line 9. 6362 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 12, lines 17-24. 6363 See paras 344-346 above. 6364 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 12, lines 17-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 839/1077 4 February 2021 was not for a long time. Importantly, P-0309 was integrated into Dominic Ongwen’s

text: home immediately after he was abducted, which means he would still have been under

text: 6365 the age of 15 at that time.

text: P-0309 described that the day after his abduction he was taken to a compound where a

text: 6366 large number of people were gathered. One of the senior commanders, named

text: 6367 6368 ‘Dominic’, came and talked to the group. He also asked people for their age – P-

text: 6369 0309 replied that he was 14 – and separated them into groups according to their

text: 6370 age. The witness was distributed into Dominic Ongwen’s household, while others

text: 6371 were taken to the homes of other commanders.

text: Witness P-0142 referred to different general categories of people abducted by the LRA.

text: Besides girls or grown-ups to carry luggage, he referred to the order ‘to abduct young

text: 6372 children from 10, 11, or 12 years old’. Witness P-0307 equally stated that ‘[m]any

text: young children were abducted in Teso, boys and girls of my age group and even those

text: 6373 above my age group.’ As discussed above, P-0307 was under the age of 15 at that

text: 6374 time. When describing another attack, P-0307 called abductions a ‘standard practice’

text: and explained more generally that ‘abducting new recruits was part of routine activities

text: during attacks so that there was no need for any commander to order you to abduct

text: 6375 because this was part of the job.’

text: 6376 Further, P-0307 – who was an escort to one of Dominic Ongwen’s officers – testified

text: 6377 that in the context of an attack on Pajule IDP camp in which he participated the LRA

text: abducted ‘many males and females including young people’, some of whom were even

text: 6365 P-0309: T-60, p. 18, line 22 – p. 19, line 15, p. 20, line 14 – p. 21, line 4. 6366 P-0309: T-60, p. 14, line 22 – p. 15, line 2. 6367 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, lines 3-6. 6368 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, line 7. 6369 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, lines 12-16. 6370 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, line 8. 6371 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, lines 8-10. 6372 P-0142: T-71, p. 25, line 22 – p. 26, line 4. 6373 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 28. 6374 See paras 334-338 above. 6375 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 36. 6376 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 39. 6377 In this regard, the Chamber recalls that the attack on Pajule IDP camp in which P-0307 took part was a different attack from the attack on the same camp which forms the basis of some of the charges brought against Dominic Ongwen in the present case (see para. 333 above).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 840/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6378 younger than him or slightly older. He explained that the elderly ones were released

text: after the attack once they had carried away the booty and the young ones were kept in

text: 6379 the LRA. In his live-testimony before the Chamber, the witness specified that he

text: could not recall the exact age of the young abductees, but stated that some ‘were almost

text: 6380 my size’. The Chamber takes this to mean that the children were younger than P-0307.

text: P-0406, who was an escort to a soldier in Sinia brigade, described how in early 2003 they

text: were sent into the area of Soroti with the order to, inter alia, abduct people between 10

text: 6381 and 17 years old.

text: 6382 6383 P-0314 testified that he was abducted in September 2002, when he was 14. At that

text: 6384 time, his family had already fled from a previous LRA attack and was in . The

text: witness was told not to sleep in the houses, but in the bush since the LRA might come

text: 6385 and abduct him. When he spent the night , two LRA fighters came

text: into the house and took him and about eight others –

text: 6386 6387 . They were all given booty to carry and left with

text: 6388 the LRA group (other fighters had waited outside). The witness later learned that he

text: 6389 was abducted by soldiers who belonged to the Terwanga battalion in Sinia.

text: In addition to having ordered the abduction of children and their distribution, including

text: into his own household, Dominic Ongwen was also personally involved in abductions.

text: P-0205, in particular, recalled an occasion when Dominic Ongwen, who, at that time,

text: was still commander of Oka battalion, abducted six girls and a number of boys from

text: 6390 6391 Laliya. P-0205 stated that the age of the boys ranged between 12 and 15 years.

text: 6378 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 39. 6379 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 39. 6380 P-0307: T-152, p. 67, lines 22-25. 6381 P-0406: T-154, p. 28, lines 1-7. 6382 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 7, lines 12-15; T-74, p. 18, lines 14-18. 6383 National ID Card, UGA-OTP-0258-0869-R01; P-0314: T-74, p. 19, line 21 – p. 20, line 3; T-75, p. 5, lines 9- 14. See para. 348 above for a discussion on the witness’s age. 6384 P-0314: T-74, p. 6, lines 3-6, p. 7, lines 18-22. 6385 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 7, lines 18-25; T-75, p. 60, lines 7-16. 6386 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 8, lines 1-15. 6387 P-0314: T-74, p. 9, line 24 – p. 10, line 3. 6388 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 8, lines 4-5, p. 9, lines 5-12. 6389 P-0314: T-74, p. 10, line 20 – p. 11, line 9. 6390 P-0205: T-47, p. 18, lines 6-18. 6391 P-0205: T-47, p. 18, lines 21-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 841/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6392 The Chamber recalls its findings on the attack on Pajule IDP camp. P-0309, who

text: 6393 participated in the attack when he was no older than 15, stated that there was a large

text: 6394 number of abductees from Pajule IDP camp, ‘well over 100 people’. According to the

text: witness, they were of different age groups: ‘there were older people, there were young

text: 6395 people, some of whom were early teens’. He stated that there were abducted children

text: 6396 that were younger than him.

text: P-0309 described how, at the meeting point after the attack, some abductees were

text: 6397 released. When asked why some were released and not others, P-0309 explained:

text: 6398 ‘[t]he ones who were released were adults.’ One of the abductees

text: 6399 .

text: 6400 Dominic Ongwen

text: 6401 . Later on,

text: 6402 .

text: P-0015, herself abducted into the LRA, did not participate in the attack on Pajule IDP

text: 6403 camp. However, she saw the LRA fighters returning from the attack. P-0015

text: described how the fighters also brought abductees with them, among them little boys and

text: 6404 girls. While P-0015 could not remember the number of persons abducted, she stated

text: 6405 that the youngest of them were about 8 years old. P-0015 corroborates P-0309 that

text: 6406 the older abductees were released, while the LRA kept the younger ones.

text: 6392 See paras 1172-1383 above. 6393 See para. 2345 above. 6394 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 15-17. 6395 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 18-20. 6396 P-0309: T-60, p. 63, lines 21-23. 6397 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 68, lines 22-25. 6398 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 69, lines 14-16. 6399 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 70, lines 1-2. 6400 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 69, lines 18-21. 6401 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 69, lines 21-25. 6402 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 69, lines 24-25. 6403 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 92. 6404 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at paras 92-93. 6405 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 93. 6406 P-0015 First Statement, UGA-OTP-0043-0131-R01, at para. 93.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 842/1077 4 February 2021

text: Similar evidence was provided by P-0144. During his testimony, the witness stated that

text: 6407 around 200 of the abductees were released after the attack. Asked what happened to

text: the remaining civilians, P-0144 replied:

text: They selected the younger abductees. From about the age of 11 to about 15 to 17 were the ones who remained behind, as they were taken in as newly recruited 6408 members of the force.

text: P-0138 provided general corroborating evidence, stating that children under the age of

text: 6409 15 were abducted during this attack.

text: 6410 The Chamber recalls its findings on the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: 6411 P-0252, who was 11 at the time of the attack, testified that during the attack an LRA

text: fighter, Onen Kamdulu, tied children between the age of 11 and younger together to

text: 6412 abduct them. P-0252 was tied together with these children, whose number P-0252

text: 6413 estimates between six and seven. At a later point in his testimony, P-0252 testified

text: that there were many other children who were between 10 and 14 years old, who were

text: 6414 abducted that same day and who were taken to ‘recruit them as fighters’. Hilary

text: 6415 Kilama, a boy of 13 or 14 years of age, was abducted during the attack but

text: 6416 subsequently killed because he could not keep up walking.

text: 6417 P-0406, who was an escort to a commander named in Sinia, testified that he

text: saw a group of children, boys as well as girls, abducted from Odek IDP camp after the

text: 6418 attack and stated that they were between 11 and 12.

text: 6407 P-0144: T-91, p. 49, lines 1-11. 6408 P-0144: T-91, p. 49, lines 12-15. 6409 See paras 1331 and 1369 above. 6410 See paras 1384-1642 above. 6411 See paras 322-323 above. 6412 P-0252: T-87, p. 17, line 22 – p. 18, line 16. 6413 P-0252: T-87, p. 18, lines 17-18. 6414 P-0252: T-87, p. 38, lines 9-16. 6415 P-0269: T-85, p. 47, line 25 – p. 48, line 2. 6416 See paras 1596 and 1598 above. 6417 P-0406: T-154-CONF, p. 16, lines 15-17, p. 19, lines 19-24. 6418 P-0406: T-154, p. 50, lines 5-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 843/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6419 P-0275 was abducted himself during the attack on Odek IDP camp. The Chamber

text: recalls its assessment with regard to the age of the witness and its conclusion that the

text: 6420 witness was nine years old at the time of the abduction.

text: 6421 The Chamber recalls its findings regarding the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. P-0406

text: 6422 was an LRA rebel who participated in this attack. He testified that during the retreat

text: after the attack, an older man was killed by ‘the new abductees’, ‘because he couldn’t

text: 6423 walk fast enough’. When asked about the age of these ‘new abductees’, P-0406 stated

text: 6424 that they were ‘mostly’ 12 to 13 years old. The witness also testified that in the

text: morning after the attack he saw that children of approximately 12 or 14 years had been

text: 6425 abducted.

text: Lastly, the Chamber also recalls its findings with regard to the attack on Abok IDP

text: 6426 camp. Several witnesses testified that children under the age of 15 were also abducted

text: during this attack.

text: When P-0286 – a camp resident who was abducted during the attack – described the

text: 6427 assault, he stated that the rebels were ‘abducting children and adult people’.

text: P-0406, who participated in the attack on Abok IDP camp, indicated that they abducted

text: 6428 children, a mix of boys and girls, the youngest of them being 11. Some of these

text: 6429 abducted boys became escorts to P-0406’s superior, like P-0406 himself. Others were

text: 6430 sent to serve in the dog adaki.

text: This evidence provided by the LRA fighters is also corroborated by the victims of the

text: attack on Abok IDP camp. P-0284, one of the camp leaders, stated that there was a list

text: 6419 P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-3398-R01, at paras 23-30. 6420 See para. 487 above. 6421 See paras 1643-1857 above. 6422 P-0406: T-154, p. 54, lines 7-9. 6423 P-0406: T-154, p. 58, lines 8-21. 6424 P-0406: T-154, p. 59, lines 19-21. 6425 P-0406: T-154, p. 63, lines 1-12. 6426 See 1858-2008 paras above. 6427 P-0286: T-131, p. 6, line 25. 6428 P-0406: T-154, p. 75, lines 9-15. 6429 P-0406: T-154, p. 77, lines 9-17. 6430 P-0406: T-154, p. 77, lines 12-19. The dog adaki were a sub-group of soldiers in a battalion, also charged with the security and served as standing guards to be look outs at the perimeter of the LRA camps (P-0379: T-56, p. 26, lines 9-14, p. 29, lines 12-19; P-0330: T-51, p. 67, lines 1-6).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 844/1077 4 February 2021 of abductees; he remembers that about eight persons between the ages of 13 to 20 were 6431 abducted during the attack, of which two did not come back.

text: iii. Presence, integration and training of children under the age of 15 in

text: Sinia

text: Following their abduction, children under the age of 15 years were integrated into Sinia with the aim of using them in hostilities. Dominic Ongwen knew that children under 15 years of age were integrated into Sinia as soldiers. The abducted children were trained, in some cases received guns, and were assigned to service in Sinia. In some cases, Dominic Ongwen himself assigned abducted children to service within the Sinia brigade. The children served as escorts in Sinia brigade in general and specifically in Dominic

text: Ongwen’s household.

text: a. Presence of children under 15 in Sinia brigade

text: Following the abductions and distribution, children under the age of 15 were present in all parts of the LRA, also in Sinia brigade. P-0142 described that the distribution of the 6433 children in Sinia was done by Dominic Ongwen and his ‘operation room’.

text: However, not on all other occasions was the distribution of children so centralised. P-0054 recounts an occasion where he was ‘given’ a ten year old child by a lieutenant in 6434 Sinia headquarters. The boy, whose name was , had been brought in by Sinia after an attack on Kitgum and was given to P-0054 to ‘take care of him’, since he 6435 was very young.

text: P-0233 stated in relation to the abduction policy in general that, when going on abduction missions, the age group the LRA was looking for was 13 years and older. P-0233 explained that the reason for this was that ‘the person can still the kept, can be mentored, 6436 can be influenced to do what you want the person to do.’

text: P-0372, when describing the attack on Labwor Omor, stated that a lot of people were 6437 abducted but the older ones were let go, while the young ones were kept. He stated that up to 40 younger abductees, whose age he estimated to be between 12 and 15

text: 6431 P-0284 Statement, UGA-OTP-0244-1180-R01, at para. 44. 6432 Para. 224 above. 6433 P-0142: T-71, p. 57, line 21 – p. 58, line 9. 6434 P-0054: T-93, p. 25, lines 6-11. 6435 P-0054: T-93, p. 25, lines 1-8. 6436 P-0233: T-111, p. 25, lines 9-13. 6437 P-0372: T-148, p. 38, lines 4-7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 845/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6438 6439 years, stayed in the LRA. When asked more generally about why the LRA kept

text: the younger abductees, P-0372 replied:

text: The reason they would keep the younger ones, was because these young ones could get confused and indoctrinated and would not think about returning home. It was very easy to change their mindsets so that they could be part of the soldiers. 6440 Children could also easily forget.

text: P-0372 stated that all the abductees from the attacks on Labwor Omor and Odek stayed

text: 6441 in Sinia brigade. The abductees from the attack on Pajule partly went on to other

text: 6442 brigades.

text: 6443 P-0264, who was 11 at the time of the attack, testified that three girls and boys

text: younger than himself were distributed to Ben Acellam in the aftermath of the attack on

text: 6444 Odek IDP camp.

text: P-0379, who was abducted during an attack on Pajule IDP camp different from the attack

text: relevant to the charges in the present case, and distributed into the Oka battalion and the

text: 6445 household of Okot Ot Ngec, stated that there were many young boys of the age of 11

text: 6446 and 12 in the household of Dominic Ongwen.

text: b. ‘Beating out the civilian’

text: The Chamber recalls its discussion that abductees were regularly beaten shortly after

text: 6447 their abduction. One aspect, as explained above, was to ensure compliance with

text: 6448 orders and create a climate of fear. Another aspect was that it was impressed upon

text: these newly abductees that they were part of a military organisation from then on. Several

text: witnesses recalled that there was an almost initiation-like flogging, caning or hitting of

text: the newly abducted to ‘beat out the civilian’.

text: 6438 P-0372: T-148, p. 38, lines 10-17. 6439 P-0372: T-148, p. 38, lines 8-9. 6440 P-0372: T-148, p. 51, lines 5-8. 6441 P-0372: T-148, p. 54, lines 18-19. 6442 P-0372: T-148, p. 54, lines 16-17. 6443 See para. 330 above. 6444 P-0264: T-64, p. 65, lines 13-22. 6445 P-0379: T-56, p. 18, lines 20-22. 6446 P-0379: T-56, p. 21, lines 12-21. 6447 See paras 907-915 above. 6448 See para. 906 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 846/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6449 P-0252, who was 11 at the time of his abduction, stated that on one of the ceremonies

text: after his abduction he was told to think as a soldier now, not as a civilian and added ‘I

text: 6450 was beaten for that’. He described how he was beaten with canes and a machete and

text: 6451 explained this was done so that he would leave his civilian life behind.

text: 6452 Similarly, P-0097 – who was 15 or younger at the time of his abduction – recalled

text: that, when arriving at the LRA camp after his abduction, he was beaten:

text: When we arrived at the position, they told us, they told them to welcome us. When they say they should welcome us, we thought they were going to greet us. Later on we realised that we were supposed to be whipped, and we were indeed whipped. 6453 That was our welcome.

text: P-0097, like all other new abductees that day, received 50 strokes on his back and

text: 6454 buttocks with canes that had been freshly cut.

text: 6455 P-0307, who was either 13 or 14 years old at the time of his abduction, stated that one

text: of the initiations for new abductees was that they were caned. He explained that the LRA

text: 6456 called it ‘recruiting people in the army’; ‘[t]hey will pick you and cane you

text: 6457 uncountable strokes of the cane.’ When they caned P-0307, he was told it was ‘to take

text: 6458 away the civilian life from me’.

text: 6459 P-0330, who was abducted as a child under the age of 15, testified:

text: They took me to a trench, took off my shirt and I was told that they had to recruit me into the army. I was told that I had to be recruited into the army. I was told to kneel down and touch my nails and I was beaten with a wire lock. And that was the 6460 initiation, the recruitment into the army.

text: 6449 See paras 322-323 above. 6450 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 7-8. 6451 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 8-11. 6452 See para. 299 above. 6453 P-0097: T-108, p. 13, lines 7-10. 6454 P-0097: T-108, p. 13, lines 11-21. 6455 See paras 338-339 above. 6456 P-0307: T-153, p. 23, lines 3-10. 6457 P-0307: T-153, p. 23, lines 9-10. 6458 P-0307: T-153, p. 23, lines 10-11. 6459 P-0330: T-51, p. 50, line 16 – p. 51, line 9; UGA-OTP-0269-0697. 6460 P-0330: T-51, p. 57, lines 6-9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 847/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0314 recalled that during his time in the LRA he would see new abductees and testified

text: 6461 that ‘the younger ones would be beaten, initiated into the army’. P-0314 called it

text: 6462 brainwashing in order to ‘taking that civilian aspect of your life from you.’

text: c. Training

text: P-0406 described how two persons belonging to the Sinia Brigade, Ooki and Denis,

text: 6463 conducted military training in Sudan, in November or December 2002. The training

text: included how to march and parade, how to dissemble and reassemble a gun, how to clean

text: 6464 a gun and a limited shooting practice. P-0406 himself was already 16 years old when

text: he received the training, but with him were three other persons amongst whom one was

text: 6465 younger, around 12 years old. Besides this first-hand experience, P-0406 testified that

text: 6466 there was also training of other groups, with boys of 11, 12 years of age being trained.

text: D-0068 confirmed that there was shooting practice in Sudan for young boys of the age

text: 6467 of 10, 11 or 12 years old – which was not done during the training in Uganda.

text: Otherwise the same things were taught as in the training provided in Uganda: recruits

text: 6468 were taught how to parade, how to dismantle and reassemble a gun.

text: The Chamber notes that P-0142 testified that he did not train any persons under the age

text: 6469 of 15 in Sudan. However, considering the abundance of contrary available evidence,

text: the Chamber does not rely on the evidence provided by P-0142 that no children under 15

text: were trained in the LRA and more specifically in the Sinia Brigade.

text: Several witnesses provided evidence to the more ad hoc way the children were trained in

text: 6470 Uganda. P-0252, an abductee in Dominic Ongwen’s group, testified that, while there

text: 6471 was not a lot of time, he did receive training after his abduction. According to P-0252,

text: training was done in between walks when there was time, and in a more individualised

text: 6461 P-0314: T-74, p. 28, lines 11-14. 6462 P-0314: T-74, p. 28, lines 14-16. 6463 P-0406: T-154, p. 20, lines 10-14, p. 22, lines 6-14. 6464 P-0406: T-154, p. 22, line 22 – p. 23, line 5. 6465 P-0406: T-154, p. 23, lines 6-14. 6466 P-0406: T-154, p. 23, lines 15-24. 6467 D-0068: T-223, p. 18, lines 10-11. 6468 D-0068: T-223, p. 18, lines 2-13, p. 19, line 13 – p. 20, line 1. 6469 P-0142: T-70, p. 15, line 19 – p. 16, line 1. 6470 P-0252: T-87, p. 41, lines 13-17. 6471 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 12-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 848/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6472 6473 manner. Training was done ‘in short bursts and intensively’. P-0252 testified that

text: he was trained theoretically and practically – marching or how to handle a gun, for

text: 6474 instance dismantling, reassembling or cleaning it, how to behave during battle, how

text: 6475 to take cover, crouch or fight while standing up. He stated that during practice no guns

text: 6476 were fired, since the LRA did not want to waste any bullets. P-0252 testified that boys

text: and girls were trained alike, the focus was put on whether the older fighters considered

text: 6477 someone capable. However, the preferred age to train fighters was from six, seven

text: 6478 years upwards.

text: P-0264 also testified to the ‘ad hoc’ character of the training provided to children. Being

text: 6479 abducted in 2002 and first serving as an escort to , he was re-assigned after

text: ’s death and, when serving as an escort to Ben Acellam, he received training from

text: 6480 him. Ben Acellam would not only train P-0264 but all the escorts in his service.

text: Additionally, P-0264 received training in Teso on how to use a gun, how to operate and

text: 6481 6482 dismantle it. The witness was 12 years old at the time. Afterwards, the witness

text: 6483 6484 received some target practice in Sudan and tactical training.

text: P-0410 also provided evidence on this kind of training, adapted to the specific situation

text: the recruit was in. He testified that this training lasted for two to three weeks, taking place

text: 6485 in the wilderness. The informal character of the training was due to the fact that they

text: 6486 were chased by government soldiers and helicopter gunships at that time.

text: 6487 Accordingly, he was taught how to evade a helicopter gunship and how to avoid being

text: 6488 spotted, even though he had not received a weapon yet. This training was provided in

text: 6472 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, line 23 – p. 51, line 4. 6473 P-0252: T-87, p. 51, lines 21-22. 6474 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 15-16, p. 51, lines 5-9. 6475 P-0252: T-87, p. 51, line 23 – p. 52, line 3. 6476 P-0252: T-87, p. 50, lines 16-22. 6477 P-0252: T-87, p. 52, lines 5-6. 6478 P-0252: T-87, p. 52, lines 4-8. 6479 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 9, lines 20-21, p. 12, lines 14-16; T-65, p. 84, lines 6-11. 6480 P-0264: T-64, p. 28, lines 9-13. 6481 P-0264: T-64, p. 28, lines 20-25. 6482 P-0264: T-64, p. 29, lines 9-12. 6483 P-0264: T-64, p. 29, lines 18-21. 6484 P-0264: T-64, p. 29, line 24 – p. 30, line 2. 6485 P-0410: T-151, p. 26, lines 1-4. 6486 P-0410: T-151, p. 26, lines 9-10. 6487 P-0410: T-151, p. 25, lines 23-24. 6488 P-0410: T-151, p. 26, lines 10-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 849/1077 4 February 2021 addition to the more ‘standard’ repertoire which was generally taught: how to march,

text: how to assemble and disassemble a gun and how to operate it, how to set an ambush and

text: 6489 attack. The training was provided by Komakech, who was serving in Sinia under

text: 6490 6491 Dominic Ongwen, to a group of more than 20 people. Many in the group were 12,

text: 6492 13 or 14 years old.

text: This is supported by P-0309, who testified that the training he received was done by two

text: 6493 senior soldiers in Dominic Ongwen’s household. He learned how to operate,

text: 6494 dismantle and clean different types of guns. He was not trained for a specific duration,

text: but explained rather that ‘they would only show me how to operate at moments when we

text: 6495 are stationed somewhere and when we are trying to rest.’ P-0309 also stated that he

text: 6496 was taught to be respectful ‘to the commanders like Dominic’.

text: P-0379 recounted an episode where Dominic Ongwen saw the members of Ot Ngec’s

text: household parade and said that the members of his own household – who comprised boys

text: 6497 as young as 11 and 12 years old – should do the same, which was done.

text: P-0307 testified that he and four other boys, who were all between 12 and 16 years old,

text: received training at the Go Atoo foothill on how to march, stand attention and salute, by

text: 6498 an officer called Ogwal. He stated that this training was not very long and lasted only

text: 6499 for two days. He also named another soldier who trained him on how to dismantle

text: and reassemble a gun – this was done while the group he was with was mobile and

text: 6500 moving between different places. Finally, Ogwal also taught the witness how to cock

text: 6501 a gun, pull the trigger and lastly P-0307 trained with live ammunition. When the group

text: 6489 P-0410: T-151, p. 25, lines 17-23. 6490 P-0410: T-151, p. 25, lines 8-15. 6491 P-0410: T-151, p. 26, lines 15-19. 6492 P-0410: T-151, p. 26, lines 20-25. 6493 P-0309: T-61, p. 32, lines 1-6. 6494 P-0309: T-61, p. 32, line 7 – p. 33, line 2. 6495 P-0309: T-61, p. 33, lines 15-18. 6496 P-0309: T-61, p. 34, lines 1-4. 6497 P-0379: T-56, p. 21, lines 6-21. 6498 P-0307: T-153, p. 20, lines 21-23; P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 69. 6499 P-0307: T-153, p. 20, line 18, p. 21, lines 19-22. 6500 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 70. 6501 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 71.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 850/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0307 was with entered into an ambush and one of the rebels carrying a gun was killed,

text: 6502 P-0307 received this gun from his commanding officer.

text: P-0307 also stated that when he was trained how to march, he saw Dominic Ongwen one

text: 6503 time coming to observe the training. The Chamber does not agree with the Defence’s

text: 6504 suggestion that the witness might have been mistaken in the identity of the person,

text: since – at that point in time – P-0307 did not yet know who Dominic Ongwen was. The

text: witness later met Dominic Ongwen personally and the Chamber is convinced that the

text: manner in which this happened ensured that P-0307 was certain about Dominic

text: Ongwen’s identity. The witness recounted an incident where he forgot to salute Dominic

text: Ongwen properly. The accused then put a knife he held in his hand on P-0307’s chest

text: and told him that, since this was not a civilian place, the witness should have saluted his

text: commander. Dominic Ongwen then made the witness believe for a moment that he would

text: 6505 be killed for this infringement. In his statement P-0307 concluded: ‘From that day I

text: 6506 knew who Dominic Ongwen was and never forgot him’. The witness remained

text: 6507 equally adamant in the courtroom that he saw Dominic Ongwen.

text: 6508 P-0314 described that a month or two after his abduction he received training in the

text: Sinia brigade. He was taught the same things as most other abductees: how to march and

text: 6509 salute, how to dissemble, reassemble and clean a gun and how to use it. At one

text: occasion the group got chased by government soldiers during the training and since P-

text: 6510 0314 had a gun at that time, he also fired at them. P-0314 was trained by an escort of

text: 6511 the same signaller the witness himself was serving.

text: P-0054 confirmed that training such as how to dismantle a gun, how to fire a gun, how

text: to behave in case of an attack and how to parade was done in Sinia brigade after operation

text: 6512 Iron First. The witness stated that this training was given to the ‘new recruits’ who he

text: 6502 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 72. 6503 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 69. 6504 P-0307: T-153, p. 22, lines 9-10. 6505 P-0307: T-153, p. 12, line 7 – p. 13, line 1; P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 20. 6506 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, para. 20. 6507 P-0307: T-153, p. 22, line 17-20. 6508 P-0314: T-74, p. 18, lines 8-18. 6509 P-0314: T-74, p. 18, line 9 – p. 19, line 5. 6510 P-0314: T-74, p. 19, lines 6-8. 6511 P-0314: T-74, p. 20, lines 7-13. 6512 P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 4-13.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 851/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6513 estimated to be 10 or older. P-0054 came to the conclusion about the age of the new

text: recruits because he remembered the time when he was abducted himself as a child and

text: 6514 stated that he also observed how they would execute their assigned tasks.

text: P-0372 provided general evidence regarding the issue of guns: children as young as 8 to

text: 6515 10 would be trained with a gun in Dominic Ongwen’s group. A child would get a gun

text: after having spent a certain amount of time in the LRA, but that also depended on the

text: 6516 individual and his capabilities. P-0372 concluded by confirming that after this

text: 6517 training, the children with the guns would join the other soldiers on their attacks.

text: Similarly, with regard to the fact that the distribution of guns to the ‘new recruits’ would

text: also depend on the individual, P-0054 stated:

text: For instance, you, you are lazy; you are lazy, you will take long without a gun. But if you are liked by your boss, yes, maybe after two/three months, when there is a 6518 gun they will give it to you.

text: 6519 Other factors for this distribution were how mature or strong a person was. The

text: commanding officer had to assess and determine whether he would give a child a gun: a

text: consequence was that the commanding officer would be punished in case he gave a gun

text: 6520 to a child and the child escapes with the gun afterwards.

text: d. Use of children under the age of 15 as escorts

text: With regard to the tasks that children aged under 15 had to perform in the Sinia brigade,

text: P-0264 provided evidence about the roles of escorts. Besides being tasked to ‘be close’

text: 6521 to the person he was serving, carrying his commanders chair and making his bed, an

text: escort was also responsible for the security. This meant they had to be on the lookout

text: while the group encamped, living on its edges and reporting if government soldiers or

text: 6513 P-0054: T-93, p. 22, lines 5-8, 18-20, p. 23, lines 4-11. 6514 P-0054: T-93, p. 22, lines 9-13. 6515 P-0372: T-148, p. 52, lines 3-10. 6516 P-0372: T-148, p. 51, line 17 – p. 52, line 1. 6517 P-0372: T-148, p. 52, lines 11-13. 6518 P-0054: T-93, p. 22, line 25 – p. 23, line 3. 6519 P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 14-18. 6520 P-0054: T-93, p. 23, lines 18-20. 6521 P-0264: T-64, p. 26, line 14 – p. 27, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 852/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6522 other people would approach. They would also catch civilians approaching the camp

text: 6523 so that they could be questioned for reconnaissance purposes.

text: P-0252 described the role and function of being an escort to Dominic Ongwen:

text: Q: What was the role of the escorts? What did the escorts do?

text: A: Odomi’s escorts, first they have to pay respect to the commander and listen to him and his orders that he gives to them. They are supposed to guard the commander to ensure he is not wounded, that nothing touches the commander. That is what I can say about the role of the escort.

text: Q: And you, when you talk about the commander, who are you referring to again?

text: 6524 A: The commander is Odomi.

text: P-0252 further testified that Dominic Ongwen’s escorts would follow him and guard

text: 6525 him. The witness named several other people serving for Dominic Ongwen as

text: 6526 escorts.

text: This is corroborated by P-0309, who also listed escorts working in Dominic Ongwen’s

text: household and confirmed some of the names mentioned by P-0252, while also providing

text: 6527 6528 additional ones. P-0309 was himself an escort for Dominic Ongwen and under 15

text: 6529 years old at the time of his abduction. According to P-0309, some of these escorts

text: were older but he also remembered some who came from the same group of abductees

text: 6530 as himself and were younger than him or of the same age. The evidence also

text: 6531 contradicts the Defence’s assertion that there is no reliable evidence that there were

text: children younger than 15 years in Dominic Ongwen’s proximity.

text: 6522 P-0264: T-64, p. 27, lines 9-15. The Chamber notes that the witness describes duties of the escorts which others attributed to the dog adaki. However, due to the fact that both, escorts and dog adaki, were roles which were fulfilled by children in the LRA, the Chamber considers that it is possible that there was an overlap in the tasks. 6523 P-0264: T-64, p. 27, lines 15-19. 6524 P-0252: T-87, p. 45, lines 6-13. 6525 P-0252: T-87, p. 42, lines 3-7. 6526 P-0252: T-87, p. 42, line 8 – p. 43, line 4. 6527 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 26, lines 19-25. 6528 P-0309: T-60, p. 24, line 21 – p. 25, line 4. 6529 See para. 2345 above. 6530 P-0309: T-60-CONF, p. 26, lines 19-24, p. 27, line 16 – p. 28, line 21. 6531 Defence Closing Brief, para. 509.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 853/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6532 P-0314, who was an escort for an LRA commander, , testified that there

text: were numerous escorts in Dominic Ongwen’s household, and that Dominic Ongwen

text: 6533 would ‘constantly’ change them or alternate between them. While some of them were

text: 6534 6535 adults, 20 years and older, the young ones were 12 or 13 years old. The witness

text: knew this as he was an escort himself and used to meet the escorts of Dominic Ongwen’s

text: 6536 household in his day-to-day routine. For instance, P-0314

text: 6537 .

text: P-0226, one of the so-called ‘wives’ of Dominic Ongwen, testified that there were many

text: 6538 6539 escorts in his household. She stated that the youngest was 13 years old and that,

text: 6540 besides other duties such as protecting him, ‘[t]hey were also soldiers’. Witness P-

text: 0226 explained that, when Dominic Ongwen’s group was back in Uganda from Sudan,

text: 6541 these escorts would put the training they had received ‘into use’. Upon request, P-

text: 0226 clarified that she meant that they would go kill someone, if ordered to do so by

text: 6542 Dominic Ongwen.

text: P-0352, an abductee who was the so-called ‘wife’ of

text: , stated that the youngest of Dominic Ongwen’s escorts, Michael, was 15 years

text: 6543 old. She testified that other young children she saw were not abductees but born in

text: 6544 6545 the bush. The Chamber recalls its assessment of the witness’s credibility. It does

text: not find that P-0352 testified untruthfully when saying that the youngest of Dominic

text: Ongwen’s escorts was 15. However, considering the witness’s position in the LRA and

text: length of time spent with the LRA, the fact that she did see persons younger than 15, but

text: did not consider them to be escorts and – most importantly – the abundance of direct

text: evidence cited above which indicates the contrary, the Chamber does not consider that

text: 6532 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 51, lines 7-9, 15-17. 6533 P-0314: T-74, p. 50, lines 8-11. 6534 P-0314: T-74, p. 50, lines 16-17. 6535 P-0314: T-74, p. 50, lines 21-23. 6536 P-0314: T-74-CONF, p. 51, lines 7-14. 6537 6538 P-0226: T-8, p. 49, lines 10-11. 6539 P-0226: T-8, p. 49, lines 16-17. 6540 P-0226: T-8, p. 49, lines 18-24. 6541 P-0226: T-8, p. 50, lines 4-9. 6542 P-0226: T-8, p. 50, lines 10-20. 6543 P-0352: T-67, p. 81, lines 4-7. 6544 P-0352: T-67, p. 81, lines 8-11. 6545 See paras 404-405 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 854/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0352’s statement is credible in this regard and does not affect the Chamber’s conclusion that children under the age of 15 served as escorts for Dominic Ongwen.

text: The Chamber is aware that P-0231 also stated that there were no escorts under the age of 6546 15 in Dominic Ongwen’s household. The Chamber recalls the witness’s credibility 6547 assessment and the fact that the witness was in the Oka battalion. However, taking into account the plentiful evidence to the contrary, which is credible, consistent and corroborative, the Chamber is of the view that there were numerous escorts under the age of 15 in Dominic Ongwen’s household. The Chamber emphasizes that it reaches this conclusion on the basis of all evidence before it. e. Dominic Ongwen’s knowledge of the age of the abductees In this section, the Chamber lays out its analysis of evidence of several specific events during which the age of children under 15 years old serving in Sinia was specifically brought to Dominic Ongwen’s attention. Such evidence is directly linked to the conclusion that at the time relevant for the charges Dominic Ongwen knew that children under 15 years old were integrated in Sinia. But also beyond such specific evidence, due consideration must be given to the facts, all discussed above, that children under 15 years old were objectively present in Sinia, that Dominic Ongwen also interacted with children under 15 years of age, and that Dominic Ongwen was a battalion or brigade commander with control over his unit. In the assessment of the Chamber, these facts are not reasonably compatible with the proposition that Dominic Ongwen would not know of the presence of children under 15 years of age in Sinia, and as such they further support the conclusion of the Chamber on this fact.

text: The Chamber heard evidence about a particular meeting involving two government soldiers and Dominic Ongwen in September 2006. Whereas it is acknowledged that this meeting took place outside of the temporal scope of the charges, the Chamber nevertheless considers that the evidence of the witnesses who testified is relevant as indicative of Dominic Ongwen’s intent and knowledge with respect to the presence of children in LRA soldier ranks.

text: 6546 P-0231: T-122, p. 72, lines 4-19. 6547 See paras 275-276 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 855/1077 4 February 2021

text: Irumba Tingira testified that he met Dominic Ongwen in his capacity as UPDF division

text: intelligence officer in the morning of 4 September 2006 at a location in the general area

text: 6548 Lacekokot, on the Kitgum – Gulu road. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was for ‘UPDF members who were ex-LRA members to give a positive sign to the LRA

text: members, and recent defector[s], three of them, also to give a positive sign and to be a

text: 6549 leaving symbol for the LRA members’.

text: Irumba Tingira stated that when he met Dominic Ongwen, in the group of around 60

text: fighters who were with him, he saw around 10 who were children he estimated as

text: 6550 between 9 and 14 years of age. According to the witness, the children were ‘as a

text: 6551 matter of fact loaded with luggage and they literally looked like loaded donkeys’.

text: Irumba Tingira testified that he raised the matter with Dominic Ongwen in the following

text: words:

text: Okay, what of these children? They don’t make their own decisions. These people I regard as children and whom I see as under age, they are at your mercy. You make your own decisions as a grown up. You have just indicated to me that you cannot defect whatsoever, although you are fully in charge here and your boss Kony is so many kilometres hiding inside Sudan, and in any case, we could support you to defect. You have told me you cannot defect. That’s your decision. So what of these children for whom you are making decisions, so why don’t you, okay, make your decision, hand me the children? I see them heavily laden. They seem to be forming your logistics train. I could receive them on behalf of their distraught parents, who 6552 have missed them for perhaps a while.

text: 6548 P-0189: T-95, p. 24, line 20 – p. 25, line 23, p. 27, line 13 – p. 28, line 7. See also Photograph, UGA-OTP- 0260-0140. 6549 P-0189: T-95, p. 26, lines 2-11. 6550 P-0189: T-95, p. 40, line 14 – p. 41, line 12. The Presiding Judge asked the witness to explain how he assessed the ages of the children, to which the witness stated: ‘Your Honour, first of all, I recognise that I appear before this Honourable Court not as an expert witness, but on the other side, perhaps by community diagnosis and very much used to the situation in Africa and in Uganda and particularly in northern Uganda, I could look at a kid, I mean, I could look at a group, a group of humans and I could segregate them in terms of estimated ages. So the particular group I’m talking about was really tender, small and you could simply look at them, you could simply look at them as a mature person, because I have kids too, and you could really grade them as children by observation.’ P-0189: T-95, p. 41, lines 13-22. This answer indicates that the witness’s estimate was serious and considered, and it can for this reason be accepted by the Chamber. In addition, the Chamber notes that one of the children appears on a photograph, and that Irumba Tingira testified that he estimated the child to be approximately 13 years old. See Photograph, UGA-OTP-0260-0147; P-0189: T-95, p. 48, lines 7-10. Although the face of the child is poorly visible, the photograph and the related testimony of Irumba Tingira further support the conclusion that Irumba Tingira’s estimates of the ages of the approximately ten children in Dominic Ongwen’s company are reliable. 6551 P-0189: T-95, p. 40, lines 19-20, p. 47, lines 2-12. 6552 P-0189: T-95, p. 43, lines 6-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 856/1077 4 February 2021

text: According to the witness, Dominic Ongwen then laughed sarcastically and turned down

text: the request:

text: You call those kids children, but I call them my soldiers. So we are talking about 6553 my soldiers. We are not talking about the children you are talking about.

text: Irumba Tingira testified that he responded to Dominic Ongwen by ‘lowering the bar’ and

text: pleading for just one boy, who was standing in close proximity of Dominic Ongwen

text: 6554 carrying a Kalashnikov and with luggage on his back, without putting anything down.

text: Irumba Tingira testified that he said the following to Dominic Ongwen:

text: Okay, Dominic, the world will always remember you for this at least, get me that young boy there, who is standing without turning, give him to me. And I will also 6555 thank you for that.

text: Irumba Tingira testified that he saw Dominic Ongwen’s facial expression changing and

text: 6556 could see that he was getting irritated. According to the witness, Dominic Ongwen

text: 6557 said in response: ‘[i]f that’s the case, I’m getting my soldiers ready to move’.

text: As explained by Irumba Tingira, the meeting then turned into a larger group

text: 6558 discussion. Irumba Tingira also stated that ‘the civilians tried to repeat the same plea,

text: 6559 but one of my soldiers told me that Dominic shot them down in the same style’.

text: Joseph Balikudembe testified that he was also present at the same meeting between the

text: 6560 UPDF and Dominic Ongwen in Lacekocot in 2006 during ceasefire and peace talks.

text: 6561 Notably, he also confirmed the presence of Irumba Tingira at the meeting. Joseph

text: Balikudembe estimated the number of people in Dominic Ongwen’s group at more than

text: 80, and stated that 15-20 of them were children, the youngest being, in his estimation, 14

text: 6553 P-0189: T-95, p. 43, lines 16-19. 6554 P-0189: T-95, p. 43, line 23 – p. 44, line 3. See also Photograph, UGA-OTP-0260-0147. Irumba Tingira testified that this was the boy for whom he pleaded with Dominic Ongwen. P-0189: T-95, p. 47, line 22 – p. 48, line 6. He also testified that the boy told him that his name was Suker. P-0189: T-95, p. 45, lines 2-6. 6555 P-0189: T-95, p. 44, lines 5-7. 6556 P-0189: T-95, p. 44, lines 8-10. 6557 P-0189: T-95, p. 44, lines 10-11. 6558 P-0189: T-95, p. 44, line 25 – p. 45, line 2. 6559 P-0189: T-95, p. 44, lines 21-24. 6560 P-0359: T-109, p. 68, line 22 – p. 69, line 9, p. 83, line 23 – p. 84, line 2. 6561 P-0359: T-109, p. 81, lines 9-12. The fact that the name is given as ‘Tingira Ruhumba’ in the transcript is immaterial, as it is clear that this is the same person.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 857/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6562 years old. Joseph Balikudembe testified that during the meeting ‘some NGOs, maybe

text: the Red Cross’ tried to talk ‘about the children’ with Dominic Ongwen, who seemed not

text: 6563 to have wanted to discuss the issue with them.

text: P-0309 testified that following his abduction he was brought before Dominic Ongwen in

text: a group of abductees and that Dominic Ongwen asked the abductees to state their names

text: 6564 and ages. P-0309 testified that he responded to the question stating that he was 14

text: 6565 years old. Other abductees who were also asked about their ages stated that they

text: 6566 were ’13, 12, 15, 16’, while ‘[o]thers were even older, maybe 20 or 30’.

text: P-0396 also testified that following her abduction she was brought before Dominic

text: 6567 Ongwen in a group of abductees. She stated that Dominic Ongwen asked the

text: 6568 abductees to state their names, ages and where they were coming from. P-0396 stated

text: she was 14 years old, two other girls stated they were 16 and 7 years old respectively,

text: 6569 and a boy stated that he was 10 years old. As discussed above, the girls became ting

text: 6570 tings and so-called ’wives’ in Sinia brigade, whereas P-0396 stated that the boy also

text: 6571 remained in the LRA.

text: iv. Use of children under the age of 15 to participate actively in

text: hostilities

text: Children under 15 years of age serving as soldiers in Sinia brigade took part in fighting. They further facilitated LRA attacks by raising alarms, burning and pillaging civilian houses, collecting and carrying pillaged goods from attack sites and serving as scouts.

text: 6562 P-0359: T-109, p. 71, line 12 – p. 72, line 3, p. 75, lines 2-5. Asked how he estimated the age, Joseph Balikudembe answered: ‘Because I estimate the age because I’m also an adult. I have eyes. […] I can estimate any age and the size itself can tell.’ P-0359: T-109, p. 75, lines 6-8. In addition, earlier during his testimony, he had already explained that as a father himself, he was able to estimate the age of children compared to that of his own children (P-0359: T-109, p. 57, lines 12-17). 6563 P-0359: T-109, p. 81, lines 18-22. 6564 P-0309: T-60, p. 13, line 24 – p. 15, line 7. 6565 P-0309: T-60, p. 15, lines 12-16. 6566 P-0309: T-60, p. 20, lines 7-13. 6567 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 51. 6568 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 51. 6569 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 51. 6570 See para. 2188 above. 6571 P-0396 Statement, UGA-OTP-0267-0246-R01, at para. 64.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 858/1077 4 February 2021

text: During all four attacks relevant to the charges, children under the age of 15 participated

text: in the hostilities.

text: The abduction and training of children under 15 years of age had one clear aim: to use them as fighters in fighting with groups which were perceived as enemies of the LRA. The Chamber heard numerous witnesses who testified to the fact that children under 15 actively fought in the LRA.

text: P-0054 left no doubt why those children were in the LRA: ‘If people are going to battle, children would also go. If one of them has been in the bush for a long time and has a gun, 6573 then the person would go as well.’ He made clear that, in case the children had guns 6574 ‘they will fire their arms’ and in other cases would look for food.

text: The Chamber first discusses the active participation of children under the age of 15 in hostilities other than the four attacks relevant to the charges and then turns to their participation in the context of such four attacks.

text: P-0252 testified that he was given a gun by one of the more senior fighters in Sinia, Onen 6575 Kamdulu, and participated in a confrontation with government soldiers in Binya. The Chamber recalls that the witness was under 15 during his entire time with the LRA, as 6576 6577 he was born in 1993 and remained with the LRA until sometime around June 2004. The witness described that the LRA set up an ambuscade against government soldiers 6578 and stated ‘I used the gun against soldiers’. Further explaining the LRA tactics regarding ambushes, the witness explained that he was ‘not only part of ambushes, I was 6579 also part of […] battles’. He further stated that he was also part of another ambuscade 6580 in Wii-Aceng.

text: 6572 Para. 225 above. 6573 P-0054: T-93, p. 28, lines 17-21. 6574 P-0054: T-93, p. 28, line 24 – p. 29, line 1. 6575 P-0252: T-87, p. 52, lines 9-15, p. 53, lines 5-6. 6576 See paras 322-323 above. 6577 See para. 327 above. 6578 P-0252: T-87, p. 52, line 24 – p. 53, line 1. 6579 P-0252: T-87, p. 53, line 20 – p. 54, line 1. 6580 P-0252: T-87, p. 54, lines 2-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 859/1077 4 February 2021

text: After being presented with a sketch of another attack, P-0252 recalled another fight with

text: 6581 government soldiers he participated in. The witness was injured in this attack and lost

text: 6582 consciousness for about one and a half days.

text: 6583 P-0252 also recalled another attempted attack on a camp in Acet. The attack did not

text: succeed, because government troops noticed the presence of the LRA and the rebels had

text: 6584 to flee. P-0252 stated that the plan was that one group of fighters would attack the

text: barracks in Acet, shoot the soldiers and burn down the barracks, while another group

text: 6585 would then attack the camp. ‘They told us that when you go to the camp you are going

text: to determine whether you live or you will die. […] If you choose to be kind, you are

text: 6586 going to remain there as a dead body’. The witness described how he was selected by

text: 6587 a soldier under Dominic Ongwen’s command to participate in the attack on Acet.

text: Asked about his specific role for the attack, the witness explained that he was assigned

text: 6588 to carry luggage and ‘commit any atrocity that I am told to commit’. P-0252 explained

text: further that this meant to beat civilians, while being supported by fighters armed with

text: 6589 6590 guns. The witness was armed with a rope and a machete for this specific attack.

text: He testified that other children were ordered to beat jerry cans during the attack so that

text: 6591 the number of rebels would seem large and the government soldiers would get scared.

text: P-0252 was afraid when he was told to go to Acet as he thought that ‘whatever happened

text: 6592 in Odek’ would take place in Acet too, but he also testified that one could not refuse

text: 6593 to go or otherwise would be killed.

text: Lastly, P-0252 also described that a further aspect of his duties was to be an ‘OP’. The

text: 6594 witness explained that this was a person on the lookout when the LRA camped. In

text: this manner the LRA soldiers would be aware if there was activity by government

text: 6581 P-0252: T-87, p. 54, line 11 – p. 55, line 13, p. 55, lines 20-21. 6582 P-0252: T-87, p. 55, lines 14-19. 6583 P-0252: T-87, p. 57, lines 15-20. 6584 P-0252: T-87, p. 58, lines 5-7. 6585 P-0252: T-87, p. 60, lines 6-11. 6586 P-0252: T-87, p. 58, lines 2-5. 6587 P-0252: T-87, p. 58, lines 8-12. 6588 P-0252: T-87, p. 58, lines 20-25. 6589 P-0252: T-87, p. 59, lines 1-6. 6590 P-0252: T-87, p. 59, lines 17-20. 6591 P-0252: T-87, p. 60, line 20 – p. 61, line 3. 6592 P-0252: T-87, p. 60, lines 1-5. 6593 P-0252: T-87, p. 61, lines 4-13. 6594 P-0252: T-87, p. 55, line 6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 860/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6595 soldiers in the area. P-0252 explained that one would usually be an OP before being

text: 6596 trained as a soldier, in order to know how to ‘survey’.

text: 6597 P-0307, who was under 15 during the entire time he was in the bush with the LRA,

text: 6598 described how he carried a gun during an attack on Pajule IDP camp. The LRA

text: attacked the camp in order to loot foot items and the witness himself broke into a

text: 6599 house. P-0307 testified that during his time in the bush he killed six persons, including

text: 6600 the ones he shot with his gun during attacks.

text: 6601 P-0264 described how he participated in several attacks in Teso during his time in the

text: 6602 LRA with the Sinia brigade. He recalled numerous places where these attacks took

text: 6603 place: Abalanga, Muringato, Dital, Kaberamaido. The witness recounted a specific

text: episode when he took part in an ambush in which the LRA defeated the government

text: 6604 soldiers. P-0264 was 12 at the time and stated that together with him, ‘several people’

text: 6605 of his age, with some even younger than him, also took part in that ambush, which

text: 6606 occurred when Buk was still in charge of Sinia. The witness also specified that during

text: 6607 that ambush, he carried a gun. On this topic, he further explained, in more general

text: terms, that in the LRA the ‘younger ones’ would be given a gun depending on their

text: ‘strength’: ‘if you’re strong enough you’ re given a gun. But if you look weak then they

text: do not arm you, they do not give you a gun because you cannot then be made to carry a

text: 6608 bag on top of the gun that you’re supposed to hold’. The witness testified that those

text: who were too weak to carry a gun did not go to the frontline, especially where there was

text: 6595 P-0252: T-87, p. 55, lines 8-10. 6596 P-0252: T-87, p. 56, lines 10-12. 6597 See paras 334-338 above. 6598 P-0307: T-152, p. 67, lines 7-8. The Chamber recalls its finding that this was a different attack from the attack on Pajule IDP camp which forms the basis of several of the charges brought in the present case. See para. 333 above. 6599 P-0307: T-152, p. 67, lines 9-13, 16-18. 6600 P-0307 Statement, UGA-OTP-0266-0425-R01, at para. 61. 6601 The Chamber recalls that the witness was between 11 and 13 years old at the time of his abduction. See para. 2343 above. 6602 P-0264: T-64, p. 33, lines 1-4. 6603 P-0264: T-64, p. 33, lines 5-12. 6604 P-0264: T-64, p. 33, line 20 – p. 34, line 6. 6605 P-0264: T-64, p. 34, lines 15-20. 6606 P-0264: T-64, p. 33, lines 20-21. 6607 P-0264: T-64, p. 34, lines 11-14. 6608 P-0264: T-64, p. 34, lines 20-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 861/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6609 battle, but were employed as lookouts, to climb in trees and signal the presence of 6610 civilians, for instance.

text: 6611 P-0264 confirmed that he saw other children his age also participating in battle. He knew they were his age, since they had the same size as him and all of them were called 6612 ‘kadogis’. The witness stated that the participation of children in battle was not the exception but the rule in the LRA: ‘it continued throughout the time that I was in the 6613 LRA till I became a veteran with a gun.’

text: The Chamber further takes note of the testimony of P-0352 who stated that the persons who were sent to fight were about 20 years old and that the 14, 15 year old would only 6614 6615 be escorts. The Chamber again recalls its assessment of the witness’s credibility. It is of the view that P-0352’s statement is truthful and that the witness is reliable. However, regarding this aspect of her testimony, the Chamber does not conclude from this evidence that no person under the age of 15 participated in attacks. Notably, the witness makes a differentiation between ‘fighters’ and ‘escorts’ or ‘kadogos’ who, in her opinion, would not fight. However, considering the evidence above the Chamber finds that there are numerous examples of escorts under the age of 15 actively participating in attacks. Given the plentiful, consistent and corroborative evidence on this matter, the Chamber does not follow P-0352’s testimony in this aspect.

text: The Chamber recalls its assessment of evidence with regard to the attack on Pajule IDP 6616 camp. There are numerous testimonies that children under the age of 15 participated in the attack. P-0372, when asked whether children participated in the attack on Pajule 6617 IDP camp, stated that ‘[t]here were very many young people.’ He then specified that 6618 the youngest boys in Dominic Ongwen’s group were between 12 and 14 years old.

text: 6609 P-0264: T-64, p. 34, line 25 – p. 35, line 2. 6610 P-0264: T-64, p. 35, lines 2-6. 6611 P-0264: T-64, p. 35, lines 13-15. 6612 P-0264: T-64, p. 35, lines 7-10. 6613 P-0264: T-64, p. 35, lines 16-18. 6614 P-0352: T-67, p. 80, lines 14-19; P-0352 Statement, UGA-OTP-0260-0315-R01, at para. 90. 6615 See paras 146-146 above. 6616 See paras 1233-1369 above. 6617 P-0372: T-148, p. 52, lines 14-16. 6618 P-0372: T-148, p. 53, lines 1-4.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 862/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0144, an LRA fighter who took part in the attack, stated that the youngest soldiers

text: 6619 participating in the attack were around 13 or 14 years old. The witness came to the

text: conclusion with regard to the age, because he knew what age the boys abducted by the

text: 6620 6621 LRA normally are, the physical features of the boys and the comparison with his

text: 6622 own age (the witness was 17 at his abduction).

text: The Chamber further recalls the testimonies of P-0249, P-0006 and John Lubwama (P-

text: 6623 0047) about the participation of attackers under the age of 15. When talking about the

text: age of the LRA soldiers attacking the camp, P-0249 described that some were so young,

text: they were simply too small for the guns they were carrying: ‘the young soldiers, had guns

text: but the guns were dragging on the ground. That means that that person is small, is very

text: 6624 young.’

text: The Chamber recalls its discussion of the evidence with regard to the attack on Odek IDP

text: 6625 camp. Especially, the Chamber cited to evidence of witnesses P-0314, P-0410,

text: P-0275, P-0054 and P-0269 that there were children younger than 15 years old among

text: the LRA forces that attacked Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004.

text: Additionally to that evidence, the Chamber notes that P-0252, who was abducted during

text: the attack, stated that children were participating in the attack: the older ones would even

text: have guns, while the younger ones had jerry cans on which they would bang to make

text: 6626 noise.

text: P-0410 saw other children under 15 years participate, he himself carried a gun during the

text: 6627 6628 attack and was additionally put in charge of a heavier weapon, called a ‘12’. The

text: 6629 Chamber recalls its conclusion above that the witness was born on 5 May 1989.

text: Accordingly, he was 14 at the time of the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: 6619 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 5-7. 6620 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 8-13. 6621 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 13-14. 6622 P-0144: T-91, p. 33, lines 15-19. 6623 See paras 1237-1238 above. 6624 P-0249: T-79, p. 46, lines 11-12. 6625 See paras 1429-1614 above. 6626 P-0252: T-87, p. 32, lines 20-24. 6627 P-0410: T-151, p. 43, lines 14-21. 6628 P-0410: T-151, p. 31, lines 13-15. 6629 See para. 374 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 863/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0264, who was himself under 15 at that time and participated

text: 6630 in the same attack, stated that he was armed with a gun and used it during

text: 6631 6632 6633 the attack, shooting at soldiers and civilians. His commander told him to be

text: careful of government soldiers and the witness and other attackers shot at the houses until

text: 6634 the government troops were defeated.

text: 6635 P-0309, who also participated in the attack as an LRA fighter, stated that the LRA

text: 6636 fighters selected for the attack ranged from 10 to 30 years old.

text: 6637 , the 10-year old boy given into the care of P-0054, also participated in

text: 6638 6639 the attack on Odek IDP camp. He was released one or two weeks after the attack.

text: During the attack on Odek IDP camp and until his release, the child’s task was to carry

text: 6640 jerry cans and smaller items of food ‘because he was still very young’.

text: Several witnesses testified that the purpose of the jerry cans and the noise made with

text: them was to confuse the government troops and targeted camp residents, to pretend that

text: 6641 the group of attackers was actually larger and to simulate gun shots.

text: The Chamber recalls its assessment of evidence with regard to the attack on Lukodi IDP

text: 6642 camp. P-0410, P-0142 and P-0406 all provided evidence to the participation of

text: children under the age of 15 in the attack.

text: P-0142, who also participated in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, stated that amongst the

text: 6643 group of rebels that were armed – the ‘fighters’ – there were children as young as 11.

text: There was also another group that was not armed and not in the front, comprising children

text: 6630 P-0264: T-64-CONF, p. 49, line 24 – p. 50, line 4. 6631 P-0264: T-64, p. 53, lines 2-5. 6632 P-0264: T-64, p. 54, lines 12-17. 6633 P-0264: T-64, p. 55, lines 10-20. 6634 P-0264: T-64, p. 53, line 19 – p. 54, line 6. 6635 P-0309: T-60, p. 74, lines 10-12. 6636 P-0309: T-60, p. 76, lines 21-23. 6637 See para. 2367 above. 6638 P-0054: T-93-CONF, p. 24, lines 10-15. 6639 P-0054: T-93, p. 26, lines 14-16. 6640 P-0054: T-93, p. 26, lines 6-8, 23-25. 6641 P-0252: T-87, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 7; P-0410: T-151, p. 43, lines 6-13; P-0275 Statement, UGA-OTP- 0244-3398-R01, at para. 25. 6642 See paras 1700-1845 above. 6643 P-0142: T-71, p. 6, lines 18-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 864/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6644 as young as 11, who took part in the assault. The tasks of these children were

text: 6645 supporting activities such as carrying away the booty.

text: P-0406, an LRA fighter who took part in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, corroborates

text: the information regarding the tasks of the children. When asked about the age of the

text: youngest person participating on behalf of the LRA, P-0406 stated that their age as from

text: 6646 12, 13 and 14 upwards. He explained that they had several roles: they were supposed

text: 6647 to hit on jerry cans in order to make some noise during the attack and they were also

text: supposed to carry away the looted goods, in case the LRA could not abduct enough

text: people to carry. In case there were enough abductees for this task, these fighters would

text: 6648 take care of the fresh abductees.

text: P-0410 also participated in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp and described that there were

text: 6649 many who were 14 years old. From P-0410’s statement it becomes clear that these

text: children were an integral part of the LRA’s fighting force during the attack: ‘The younger

text: 6650 people were brave and they fought without fear’. They were armed and sent to the

text: 6651 barracks.

text: 6652 P-0018 was abducted in June or July 2003 at the age of 12. The witness was

text: 6653 6654 selected and went to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. She received instructions to

text: 6655 6656 carry food and abduct civilians and took a 10 litre jerry can during the attack. `

text: P-0018 also described how, after being looted, houses of the civilians were set on fire

text: 6657 during the attack with people being locked inside the houses. As to the age of the

text: persons who did this, the witness initially answered first they were between 15 and 20

text: 6644 P-0142: T-71, p. 6, lines 6-17. 6645 P-0142: T-71, p. 6, line 22 – p. 7, line 2. 6646 P-0406: T-154, p. 59, lines 11-13. 6647 P-0406: T-154, p. 54, lines 12-14. 6648 P-0406: T-154, p. 59, lines 13-18. 6649 P-0410: T-151, p. 64, lines 1-2. 6650 P-0410: T-151, p. 64, line 2. 6651 P-0410: T-151, p. 64, lines 5-19. 6652 See also para. 294 above. 6653 P-0018: T-68, p. 54, lines 10-17. 6654 P-0018: T-69, p. 8, lines 19-21. 6655 P-0018: T-69, p. 8, lines 22-25. 6656 P-0018: T-69, p. 11, lines 23-25. 6657 P-0018: T-69, p. 12, lines 2-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 865/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6658 6659 years old, and upon further questioning replied that they were 15. After having

text: been confronted with her prior statement from 2005, P-0018 stated that the boys setting

text: 6660 the houses on fire were 10 years old.

text: The Chamber notes that the witness changed her statement twice – and only testified

text: upon suggestion by the Prosecution that the attackers were 10 years old. However, the

text: Chamber still believes the witness’s final answers. The Presiding Judge put to her that

text: she changed her narrative and explicitly asked her whether she was sure that the answer

text: she provided in her prior statement was true. The witness again confirmed that her former

text: 6661 statement was correct. The manner of testimony by the witness and the Chamber’s

text: impression of her convince the Chamber that the witness provided truthful information.

text: In this regard, the Chamber also notes that, on another occasion during her testimony, P-

text: 0018 resisted agreeing with information from her prior statement with which she was

text: 6662 confronted, stating that she could not recall it. Accordingly, the Chamber is convinced

text: by P-0018’s statement that the age of the boys was 10.

text: The Chamber recalls its consideration of the evidence with regard to the attack on Abok

text: 6663 IDP camp. Several witnesses testified to the participation of children under the age of

text: 15 in the attack.

text: 6664 P-0252 – who was 11 at the time of the attack – testified that before the attack he was

text: 6665 selected with other young children to participate in the attack. This is corroborated by

text: P-0054, who testified that there were fighters which were 13 years old, who participated

text: 6666 in the attack.

text: P-0252 also testified that the ‘guns were not enough for everybody’ and so people would

text: 6667 be doing other things, like hitting on jerry cans or carrying pangas in order to attack.

text: 6658 P-0018: T-69, p. 12, line 23 – p. 13, line 1. 6659 P-0018: T-69, p. 13, lines 4-14. 6660 P-0018: T-69, p. 13, line 21 – p. 14, line 4. 6661 P-0018: T-69, p. 14, lines 18-22. 6662 P-0018: T-69, p. 58, line 25 – p. 59, line 22. 6663 See paras 1877-2000 above. 6664 See para. 2356 above. 6665 P-0252: T-87, p. 76, lines 10-12. 6666 P-0054: T-93, p. 35, lines 9-12. 6667 P-0252: T-87, p. 76, lines 16-21.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 866/1077 4 February 2021

text: During the attack he waited, as ordered, at the edge of the camp until the ‘soldiers were

text: 6668 defeated’ to go attack afterwards.

text: P-0406 similarly testified that there were rebels going to the attack, who had not been

text: 6669 provided with guns, but had other functions, like to blow whistles or hit on jerry cans.

text: 6670 The witness stated that those people were between 13 and 16 years old.

text: P-0293, who lived at the Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack, recounted that he heard

text: the voices of children, who he estimated to be between 10 and 15 years old, during the

text: 6671 attack. The witness explained that these children would remove grass from a hut, light

text: 6672 it up and start burning civilian houses. P-0293 also saw them breaking into a house

text: 6673 and loot the medicine they found in there and then move on to other houses. He stated

text: 6674 that they were armed with ‘sticks and machetes’.

text: D. Grounds excluding criminal responsibility

text: The Defence has raised two grounds for excluding criminal responsibility: mental disease

text: or defect and duress. In the following two sections, the Chamber will address each in

text: turn.

text: As a preliminary issue before turning to these grounds, the Chamber notes that the

text: 6675 Defence also raises an alibi in relation to the attack at Pajule IDP camp. Raising an

text: alibi argues for the physical impossibility of an accused’s guilt by placing him/her in a

text: 6676 location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time. However, an alibi is

text: 6677 not a ground for excluding criminal responsibility as such. This is why alibi does not

text: appear in

text: Article 31

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: , and the statutory texts only reference the possibility

text: 6668 P-0252: T-87, p. 78, lines 3-7. 6669 P-0406: T-154, p. 67, lines 11-17. 6670 P-0406: T-154, p. 67, lines 18-20. 6671 P-0293: T-138, p. 23, lines 2-15. 6672 P-0293: T-138, p. 23, line 15 – p. 24, line 3. 6673 P-0293: T-138, p. 24, lines 8-11. 6674 P-0293: T-138, p. 24, lines 5-14. 6675 Defence Closing Brief, para. 308, referring to Defence Notification Pursuant to Rule 79(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 9 August 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-519-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC- 02/04-01/15-519-Red2). 6676 th ‘Alibi’, in Black’s Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner, ed., 11 2019). 6677 ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Judgement, 30 January 2015, IT-05-88-A, para. 343; ICTR, Appeals Chamber, Protais Zigiranyirazo v. The Prosecutor, Judgement, 16 November 2009, ICTR-01-73-A, paras 17-19; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Judgement, 20 February 2001, IT-96-21-A, para. 581.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 867/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6678 of an ‘alibi’ in the context of the Defence’s disclosure obligations. In any case, the 6679 substance of the matter is discussed in the appropriate context above.

text: Mental disease or defect

text: i. Introduction

text: The Defence contends that the criminal responsibility of Dominic Ongwen is excluded 6680 by reason of mental disease or defect under

text: Article 31

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . As the principal basis for this submission, the Defence refers to the conclusion of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena that Dominic Ongwen suffered from ‘severe depressive illness, post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and dissociative disorder (including depersonalization and multiple identity disorder) as well as severe suicidal ideation and high risk of committing suicide’, and from ‘dissociative amnesia and symptoms of obsessive compulsive 6681 disorder’.

text: The Prosecution submitted in its closing brief that ‘there is no reliable evidence from which the Trial Chamber can determine that Mr Ongwen was suffering from any of the five mental health conditions identified by the Defence Experts at the time of the conduct constituting the charged crimes, let alone that those symptoms had destroyed his statutory capacities’, and that ‘[t]he evidence shows that, on the contrary, he was in full possession 6682 of all those capacities’.

text: Pursuant to

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , a person is not criminally responsible if, ‘at the time of that person’s conduct […] [t]he person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person’s capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law’. Destruction of either of these capacities is enough to exclude criminal responsibility.

text: Importantly, under the applicable law, a finding of a mental disease or defect is indispensable to conclude that there is a ground excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: 6678 Rule 79 of the Rules. 6679 See sections IV.C.3, IV.C.6.ii.a. 6680 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 674. 6681 Defence Closing Brief, para. 536. 6682 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 372.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 868/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further, the Chamber emphasises that the fact to be determined is the possible presence of a mental disease or defect, and the effect of such mental disease or defect on the relevant mental capacities of the accused, at the time of the relevant conduct. The determination does not concern the accused’s mental state during the course of these proceedings. There is no rule preventing inferences from the latter to the former, but such inferences must be clearly explained and reliable.

text: The Chamber notes that there has been a considerable amount of litigation on the issue 6683 of burden and standard of proof. As already stated above, there is no specific provision in

text: the Statute

text: related to the burden and standard of proof as concerns grounds excluding criminal responsibility under Article 31, and for this reason, the general 6684 provisions of

text: the Statute

text: apply. Under

text: Article 66

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , the onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused, and, under Article 66(3), in order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

text: It may also be noted that

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: requires a judicial finding and that the Chamber is exclusively competent to make such a finding, including on the question of the presence of a mental disease or defect. In making its findings, the Chamber is assisted by the relevant evidence. Most importantly, such evidence was presented by five experts, i.e. Professor Gillian Mezey, Dr Catherine Abbo, Professor Roland Weierstall-Pust, as well as, jointly, Professor Emilio Ovuga and Dr Dickens 6685 Akena. All this evidence is discussed in detail below. As also discussed in detail below, the evidence presented generally during the trial is also a crucial foundation of the Chamber’s findings, in particular because it allows important conclusions as to the 6686 mental state of Dominic Ongwen at the time of his conduct relevant for the charges.

text: 6683 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 380; Defence Closing Brief, paras 529-34; Defence Request for the Chamber to Issue an Immediate Ruling Confirming the Burden and Standard of Proof Applicable to

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: Articles 31

text: (1)(a) and (d) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (ICC-02/04-01/15- 1423)”, 7 February 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1439. 6684 See section IV.A above. 6685 For ease of reference, Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust may be jointly referred to as the ‘Prosecution experts’, and Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena as ‘Defence experts’, although it may be added that this does not imply any difference in the procedural status of the experts or their evidence before the Chamber. 6686 See section IV.D.1.iii below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 869/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the following sections, the Chamber will in turn address: (i) the expert evidence and conclusions of Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust; (ii) the corroborating evidence from the trial; (iii) the expert evidence and conclusions of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, on which the Chamber – as explained below – does not rely; (iv) the other evidence discussed by the parties; and (v) the Chamber’s conclusion.

text: ii. Expert evidence of Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor

text: Weierstall-Pust

text: a. Preliminary issues Before entering into the substance of the evidence given by Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust, the Chamber considers it necessary to provide its conclusions in relation to two issues which were discussed between the parties and which have a general bearing on the consideration of the evidence at hand. First, the Defence argues that ‘[t]he Prosecution did not disprove beyond a reasonable 6687 doubt that culture impacted on the conclusions of Mr Ongwen’s mental health’. It submits that ‘[w]hile the psychiatric profession recognizes the importance of cultural 6688 factors, the Prosecution experts repeatedly minimized and even dismissed them’. On the other hand, the Defence states that ‘[t]he Defence Experts addressed cultural issues throughout their testimonies, but they explained that mental health symptoms are not 6689 solely determined by cultural factors’.

text: As concerns the latter point, the Chamber observes that whereas Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena evoked cultural factors on several occasions, they did not provide any real explanation of what these factors were, how they impacted the analysis, and how their consideration was to take place according to the standards and practices of mental health 6690 expertise.

text: But more importantly, the Defence argument misrepresents the evidence of Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust. The Defence does not provide any

text: 6687 Defence Closing Brief, p. 176. 6688 Defence Closing Brief, para. 661. 6689 Defence Closing Brief, para. 662 (footnote omitted). 6690 See D-0041: T-248, p. 18, lines 5-9, p. 23, lines 8-14, p. 46, line 1 – p. 47, line 5; D-0042: T-250, p. 19, line 24 – p. 20, line 21; T-251, p. 95, lines 1-21. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26- 0015-0948, at 0970.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 870/1077 4 February 2021 reference for its claim that Prosecution experts ‘repeatedly minimized’ and ‘dismissed’ cultural factors. In fact, there was general agreement among all experts that the cultural context must be taken into account in assessments of mental health, but that at the same time the standard criteria to determine mental disorders were universally accepted. Professor Weierstall-Pust addressed this issue directly in his rebuttal report. He stated that whereas cultural factors needed to be acknowledged, ‘[t]his, however, doesn’t 6691 change the core characteristics of the diagnosis’. Professor Mezey made the observation that ‘PTSD is one of the few diagnos[e]s that has been very much studied across different cultures because of its utility in relation to victims of war trauma and terrorist attacks, and therefore it has been validated across many different cultures and 6692 languages’. Dr Abbo acknowledged that culture can influence diagnostic instruments but explained that this does not affect the standardisation of such instruments or 6693 internationally valid criteria, such as ‘impairment of functioning’. Dr Akena also 6694 stated that the core symptoms of mental illnesses are similar across cultures.

text: Also, Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust have explained the process by which they came to their conclusions, and the Chamber does not see any indication that in doing so, they ignored cultural factors.

text: The Defence pointed to five specific issues which – it appears – would indicate the superiority of the Defence experts’ assessments over those of Prosecution experts in this context. Two of these, i.e. the interpretation of Dominic Ongwen’s request for termites as a serious food request rather than a joke and the absence of the word ‘blues’ in ‘many 6695 African languages’, are trivial and without any serious link to the issue under consideration. The other three points, i.e. that Professor Ovuga stated that symptoms of mental illness are somatised, that they could be interpreted as spirit possession, and that 6696 symptoms of mental illness would not be described as illness ‘in an African context’, are addressed below in the context of the discussion of the corroborative evidence of witnesses who observed or interacted with Dominic Ongwen during the period of the

text: 6691 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0079. See also P-0447: T-253, p. 41, lines 8-11. 6692 P-0446: T-162, p. 25, lines 7-12. 6693 P-0445: T-167, p. 4, line 21 – p. 5, line 21. 6694 D-0041: T-248, p. 46, lines 9-11. 6695 Defence Closing Brief, para. 663. 6696 Defence Closing Brief, para. 663.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 871/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6697 charges. Finally, the Chamber notes further reference to ‘cultural considerations’ in 6698 the Defence Closing Brief, but any link between those and the validity of the methodology or the conclusions of the Prosecution experts is not apparent.

text: Second, the Defence states that while it is ‘not faulting the Prosecution for not being able

text: to interview the client when he had refused their requests: he agreed only to be interviewed by the Defence Experts and the Court-appointed expert Dr de Jong [,] […] none of them [i.e. Prosecution experts] acknowledged this as a shortcoming in the 6699 preparation of their Reports, nor included a caveat in their Report’.

text: The Defence submission is factually incorrect. Professor Mezey wrote in her report: ‘As Mr Ongwen has declined to allow myself or my colleagues (…) to conduct a full

text: psychiatric examination, this opinion is necessarily focused on an analysis of the material 6700 (written and video) that I have been sent’. She explicitly addressed the issue of

text: whether this affected her conclusions, and stated:

text: It is unfortunate that Mr Ongwen has been unwilling to allow myself, or my colleagues within the Chamber of Experts, to psychiatrically examine him. […] I am nevertheless confident of the conclusions I have reached in the report on Mr Ongwen’s mental health, based on the extensive documentation and material that I 6701 have been provided with, for the purpose of preparing this report.

text: Dr Abbo noted in her report that a ‘[f]ace to face interview was not carried out as DO

text: 6702 declined a request by OTP to be interviewed’. She also stated:

text: One major limitation [o]f this report is the fact that CA did not clinically interview DO and therefore Mental State Examination section of this report is missing. However, the opinions throughout this document was based on the materials that were provided by OTP, in addition to other materials sourced from the internet 6703 (these are referenced).

text: 6697 See section IV.D.1.iii. below. 6698 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 666. 6699 Defence Closing Brief, para. 657. 6700 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0791. 6701 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0814-15. 6702 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0733. 6703 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0755.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 872/1077 4 February 2021

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust also acknowledged in his report that ‘[a] face-to-face 6704 examination […] was requested by RW but declined’. He also explicitly discussed this as a limitation of his report:

text: The present forensic report is solely based on the files that were provided to RW. A face-to-face interview in which RW had the chance to prove all the aspects outlined in the present report would have been the preferable option, as this could 6705 have helped to dissolve the outlined contradictions. In addition, the Chamber notes that Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall- Pust made use of the information provided by Dominic Ongwen to mental health experts to whom he did agree to speak, as reflected in the reports of those experts, in particular 6706 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, and Professor De Jong.

text: In these circumstances, considering that the clinical interview was not possible due to circumstances beyond the control of the Prosecution experts, that the Prosecution experts addressed this fact in their reports and used the information provided by Dominic Ongwen to other experts to whom he did agree to speak, and that they clearly laid out the bases for their reports they otherwise did rely on, the Chamber has no related methodological concerns with regard to the reports in question.

text: b. Professor Gillian Mezey Professor Gillian Mezey, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at St Georges University of London in Tooting, United Kingdom, and an Honorary Consultant in Forensic Psychiatry at Springfield Hospital, United Kingdom, prepared a written report and testified before 6707 the Chamber.

text: It is noted that the report of Professor Mezey lays out comprehensively the instructions given to her and thereby the scope of the report, as well as the sources of her information, which included documents from the present proceedings, prior expert reports, and other 6708 evidence relevant to the case. The report considered ‘unfortunate’ that Dominic

text: 6704 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0676. 6705 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0701. 6706 See Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0795-810; Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280- 0732, at 0735-43, 0752; Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0683-84, 0689, 0693. 6707 See Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786; P-0446: T-162; T-163. 6708 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0789-95. The Chamber notes that the Defence made certain arguments in relation to the formulation of the report as concerns the use of sources, Annex XI to the Registry’s Third Report on the Evidence recognised as formally submitted to the Chamber, 24 July 2018, ICC-

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 873/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen was not willing to be psychiatrically examined by Professor Mezey or the other 6709 Prosecution experts. The report engaged critically with the preceding psychiatric reports, i.e. that of Professor De Jong and the first report of Professor Ovuga and Dr 6710 Akena, before presenting Professor Mezey’s own conclusions. The principal conclusion of Professor Mezey reads as follows:

text: Based on a review of all the material I have been provided with, I do not consider that there is evidence to show that Mr Ongwen is currently, or has at any time, suffered from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Depressive Disorder (although he has ‘mild’ transient depressive symptoms during his incarceration), Dissociative 6711 Disorder or any other significant mental illness or disorder.

text: Professor Mezey noted that exposure to trauma, which she did not question in Dominic Ongwen’s case, does not automatically result in the development of PTSD, and that ‘the

text: 6712 majority of individuals exposed to trauma do not go on to develop [PTSD]’. She also added that PTSD was not ‘generally associated with repeated and persistent aggression

text: 6713 and violence’.

text: The Chamber also notes Professor Mezey’s point that ‘the presence of […] severe and

text: incapacitating mental disorders would have been incompatible with Mr Ongwen not only 6714 functioning adequately, but actively thriving within the LRA for over twenty years’.

text: Professor Mezey also considered the evidence in the case as provided to her by the Prosecution, which consisted of witness testimonies during trial, and testified that she ‘found no evidence from the transcript that you sent me of, of any, any suggestion of

text: mental instability or behaviours that might amount to instability being reported in any of 6715 6716 the abstracts’. Referred specifically to P-0231’s evidence, she stated that it suggested that Dominic Ongwen was ‘functioning normally’ and that there was ‘no

text: obvious impairment in his ability to engage, to make decisions, to process information,

text: 02/04-01/15-1313-AnxXI, page 4. However, the Chamber considers that the basis of Professor Mezey’s report is clear and therefore the points raised have no bearing on the report’s probative value. 6709 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0814. 6710 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0795-810. The points raised by Professor Mezey in this regard are noted below wherever relevant to the Chamber’s analysis. 6711 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0811. 6712 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0811. 6713 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0811-12. 6714 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0813. 6715 P-0446: T-162, p. 51, lines 1-14. 6716 See para. 2507 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 874/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6717 or to interact with other soldiers’. In relation to Dominic Ongwen’s report after the 6718 attack on Odek IDP camp, she stated that ‘if Mr Ongwen had been dissociating, or indeed was affected by any severe mental condition, he would not have been able to recall or to relate the detail of what happened or very much, if any, detail of what happened at 6719 the time’.

text: Professor Mezey also noted as factors underlying her conclusion that Dominic Ongwen has ‘repeatedly stated that he knows now, and knew at material time, what he was doing and that his actions were wrong, for example when talking about the murder of civilians’ and that ‘[h]e has also stated that he feels guilty about what he did (indicating awareness and insight of the wrongfulness of his actions), in spite of the fact that he feels he should 6720 not be held responsible for his actions’.

text: Professor Mezey provided clear, detailed and logical explanation of why she found the evidence of Dominic Ongwen’s behaviour during the relevant time incompatible with a mental disorder. In relation to PTSD, she elaborated:

text: [F]or a diagnosis of PTSD to be made, the criterion also require that the individual has to experience what’s called either significant clinical distress associated with the symptoms, because if they are not distressed, in a sense, there’s no significant disorder, or they must manifest significant functional impairment. So these symptoms aren’t just there and the person can get on with their life and their day-to-day activities in the normal way. These symptoms are so severe and so intrusive that they stop the individual from being able to carry on with their normal day-to-day functioning. They cannot work. They cannot study. They cannot lead normal family lives. They don’t interact with their friends. All their – all their functioning is significantly impaired. So put together or when one puts that 6721 together, that would allow one to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder.

text: Asked to discuss the depressive disorder, Professor Mezey stated:

text: A depressive disorder is a disorder of mood, characterised by a persistent severe lowering of mood, sadness, hopelessness, despair, often associated with an inability to see any future, or to feel hope about the future. There is often a high risk of suicide associated with the disorder.

text: 6717 P-0446: T-162, p. 51, lines 15-24. 6718 See section IV.C.7.vii above. 6719 P-0446: T-162, p. 51, line 25 – p. 53, line 10. 6720 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0813-14. 6721 P-0446: T-162, p. 21, lines 9-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 875/1077 4 February 2021

text: The more severe conditions will be associated with disruptions in the individual’s physical health and functioning, so symptoms would include a reduction of appetite, loss of weight, disruption to sleep, particularly inability to go off to sleep and waking early in the morning. One would generally see a diurnal variation in the mood, with more severe symptoms earlier in the day.

text: The individual would become socially withdrawn. They tend to lose their interest in engaging in former activities or interacting with other people. There is often a disruption to the individual’s cognitions so that they are unable to concentrate well. They are thinking more slowly than usual. You often see, in fact, what we call a retardation, so that the person’s speech is slowed down, their movements are slowed down, they lack spontaneity in terms of both expressing themselves, but also in terms of their facial expressions or ability to verbalise or vocalise.

text: They often express unreasonable feelings of worthlessness, low self-esteem and guilt, sometimes to an extreme extent so that they feel guilty about the wars in the world, or the fact that people are starving. They feel guilty about things that they 6722 cannot possibly be held responsible for.

text: In relation to dissociative identity disorder, Professor Mezey explained:

text: What dissociation means, essentially, is that dissociation is a disruption to the person’s identity, to their sense of self, their sense of agency. A dissociative disorder essentially represents a fragmentation to the individual’s ordinary psychological processes, so their memory, their consciousness, their perceptions, their feelings. […]

text: Dissociative identity disorder characteristically involves a disruption to the person’s identity, and what you see are two or more distinct personalities operating, essentially, side by side. Neither personality knows of the other person’s existence. Now that is classic dissociative identity disorder. Where that occurs one sees marked discontinuities in the person’s sense of self and in their sense of agency. And you typically see alterations in memory, in perceptions, in consciousness, in their motor functioning associated with the disorder.

text: Not surprisingly, because the two personalities are almost operating independently and in different worlds, different universes from each other, very often the person is not aware that they have the disorder, but it is noticed by other people.

text: And to make a diagnosis, again, one generally sees marked problems in the individual’s social functioning or their occupational functioning or functioning on a day-to-day basis. Or they are very severely clinically distressed.

text: It is an enduring condition. It doesn’t really remit, or you don’t relapse or remit in the way that other illnesses might do, because it’s the individual’s identity, it’s 6723 stable, static and enduring.

text: 6722 P-0446: T-162, p. 32, lines 1-23. 6723 P-0446: T-162, p. 41, line 21 – p. 42, line 20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 876/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber finds Professor Mezey’s report clear and convincing, and her testimony in the courtroom impressive. Professor Mezey’s evidence also concords entirely with the 6724 corroborating evidence from the trial, discussed below. As such, the evidence of Professor Mezey is of great assistance to the Chamber in making its findings.

text: c. Dr Catherine Abbo

text: Dr Catherine Abbo, Senior Lecturer and Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist at Makerere 6725 University, Uganda, prepared a written report and testified before the Chamber.

text: Dr Abbo’s report provided an explanation of its sources, which included ‘medical reports, clinical notes, video and audio recordings provided and some materials sourced from the 6726 internet’, and its methodology. It acknowledged the limitation represented by the absence of a clinical interview with Dominic Ongwen, due to the latter’s refusal of 6727 consent. Dr Abbo found that ‘[i]t appears like up till the time of [Dominic Ongwen’s] abduction, the complex interactions between individual, societal, and ecological factors 6728 over the course of his life had gone on satisfactorily well’. She discussed Dominic Ongwen’s ‘impress[ion] as above average intelligence’ and ‘bush socialisation’ as 6729 factors which could have helped Dominic Ongwen to cope with his situation. She went on to state that Dominic Ongwen ‘would seem to have matured developmentally against all odds with flexibility of moral reasoning which seem to have been not fully 6730 exercised before he becomes top commander’.

text: Dr Abbo evaluated the moral development attained by Dominic Ongwen and concluded 6731 that he attained the highest level of moral development, the post conventional level. Dr Abbo’s report explained that this level of moral development is ‘characterized by the pursuance of impartial interests for each member in society as well as the establishing of 6732 self-chosen moral principles’.

text: 6724 See section IV.D.1.iii. 6725 See Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732; P-0445: T-166; T-167; T-168. 6726 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0732-34. 6727 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0755. See also P-0445: T-166, p. 12, line 10 – p. 13, line 3. 6728 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0735. 6729 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0741-44. 6730 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0753. 6731 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0740-41. 6732 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0740.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 877/1077 4 February 2021

text: While noting the previous reports of other authors indicating that Dominic Ongwen suffered from mental disorders, she stated that ‘there is hardly any evidence of which particular symptoms of these disorders lead to [Dominic Ongwen] committing of which alleged crimes’, and concluded that ‘[Dominic Ongwen] was likely motivated by his 6733 existential situation rather than his symptoms of mental illnesses’. It is noted that Dr Abbo stated in her report that she wrote her assessment of the relationship between the diagnoses of mental illnesses and criminal responsibility ‘from the point of view that [Dominic Ongwen] suffers from the three disorders documented in the professional reports’ of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, and of Professor De Jong, with reference to 6734 her not having been able to examine Dominic Ongwen in person. For this reason, the Defence argument that the Prosecution experts ‘were divided on the diagnosis of PTSD’ 6735 is ill-founded.

text: As a general conclusion in her report, Dr Abbo found that there was no evidence from the materials provided that the illnesses identified by the other experts were directly 6736 linked to the crimes Dominic Ongwen allegedly committed.

text: In court, Dr Abbo was asked some questions in relation to the mental disorders identified in the reports that preceded hers, and provided some clarification useful for the findings of the Chamber. In relation to dissociative identity disorder, Dr Abbo testified that a dissociative state, especially in its severe forms, would be apparent even for a layperson, and that it was ‘[u]nlikely’ that a person would be in dissociative state for months or even 6737 years. She also stated, in the specific context of a discussion of dissociative flashbacks as a symptom of PTSD, that a planned premeditated action would not be consistent with 6738 a dissociative state.

text: The Chamber finds Dr Abbo’s expert report and testimony pertinent and valuable for use in its findings. This holds true in particular in relation to Dr Abbo’s assessment of the level of Dominic Ongwen’s moral development. In addition, even though Dr Abbo

text: 6733 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0739. See also Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0744-51; P-0445: T-166, p. 21, lines 2-25. 6734 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0745. See also Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0732. 6735 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 659. 6736 Dr Abbo’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0732, at 0756. 6737 P-0445: T-166, p. 33, lines 15-22. 6738 P-0445: T-166, p. 36, lines 6-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 878/1077 4 February 2021 assumed for her report the prior diagnoses made by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, and by Dr De Jong, and focused on the relationship between these diagnoses and the conduct of Dominic Ongwen which represented the commission of the crimes charged, the considerations expressed by Dr Abbo nevertheless assist the Chamber in the understanding of the mental disorders in question.

text: d. Professor Roland Weierstall-Pust Professor Roland Weierstall-Pust, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at the University of Applied Science and Medical University, Hamburg, Germany, 6739 prepared a written report and testified orally before the Chamber. It is noted that following the testimony of Dr Akena and Professor Ovuga, Professor Weierstall-Pust 6740 also prepared a rebuttal report, and testified for a second time.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust explained that as a psychologist he had not studied medicine, but that he had obtained the additional qualification to ‘diagnose and treat people with 6741 mental disorders or with disorders that need psychotherapeutical assistance’. He testified that there was no reason why a psychiatrist, who had studied medicine, and a psychologist, when they do a proper assessment in line with international standards, 6742 would not come to the same conclusion. Based on Professor Weierstall-Pust’s testimony, the Chamber does not consider that there are any limitations to his expertise due to the fact that he is a clinical psychologist and not a psychiatrist.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust’s main report detailed the information which served as its basis, which included psychiatric experts’ reports, the Prosecution pre-trial brief, audio-visual 6743 material and Detention Centre documentation. The report also noted that a face-toface examination and access to assessment protocols of Professor De Jong were requested 6744 but declined. As concerns the rebuttal report, the Chamber notes that it was based on

text: 6739 See Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674; P-0447: T-169; T-170. 6740 See Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072; P-0447: T-252; T-253. 6741 P-0447: T-169, p. 5, line 4 – p. 6, line 11. See also P-0447: T-253, p. 5, line 13 – p. 7, line 7. 6742 P-0447: T-170, p. 4, line 7 – p. 5, line 1. 6743 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0676. 6744 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0676.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 879/1077 4 February 2021 the reports and testimonies of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, and additionally also on 6745 trial transcripts and excerpts of evidence from the trial.

text: In his main report, Professor Weierstall-Pust noted that the diagnosis of a traumaspectrum disorder required that the individual was exposed to at least one potentially traumatic event, but emphasised that trauma is of subjective nature and that it need not 6746 necessarily lead to a trauma-related mental disorder. On this point, the report reads:

text: A person that experiences a potentially traumatic event could therefore 1) process this event as traumatizing and develop a trauma-related mental disorder later in life, 2) process this event as traumatizing but not develop a trauma related mental disorder later in life due to factors of resilience, 3) not process this event as traumatizing and not develop a trauma-related disorder later in life, 4) not process this event as traumatizing but develop some other type of mental disorder later in life, 5) process this event as appealing and rewarding and not develop a traumarelated mental disorder later in life, 6) process this event as appealing/positively rewarding and develop a trauma-related mental disorder later in life due to other traumatic experiences, 7) process this event as appealing/positively rewarding and develop some other type of mental disorder later in life, 8) etc. etc. Thus, the relation between the experiences Mr. Ongwen might have made and potential mental health symptoms must be specified, as there doesn’t necessarily have to be a relation between the exposure with violence and trauma and the development of 6747 impairments.

text: Furthermore, Professor Weierstall-Pust stated in this report ‘[t]hat Mr. Ongwen experienced at least one traumatic event and suffers from a trauma-related disorder is not sufficient to draw any conclusions about his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of 6748 his actions’. He also noted that every mental disorder fluctuates over time, which he

text: discussed in the context of the fact that the charges in the present case cover a period of 6749 several years.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust finally found that Dominic Ongwen was exposed to potentially traumatic events that could have preceded a psychopathological development and a later 6750 manifestation of a mental disorder. He also found it ‘plausible’ that Dominic Ongwen 6751 ‘showed some signs of a mental disorder’ during the period of the charges. However,

text: 6745 See Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0074. 6746 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0678-79. 6747 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0679-80. 6748 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0680. 6749 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0681. 6750 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0697; P-0447: T-169, p. 18, lines 8-13. 6751 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0698.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 880/1077 4 February 2021

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust concluded that ‘there is not sufficient evidence to justify the 6752 diagnosis of a manifest mental disorder during the period between 2002 and 2005’.

text: Importantly and convincingly, in particular in light of the evidence available from the 6753 trial, Professor Weierstall-Pust also wrote:

text: Even if Mr. Ongwen suffered from some of his experiences, it is highly unlikely that his level of functioning was severely impaired, at least not for a longer period of time. He must have adapted to the war scenario in order to make the achievements he himself describes and which are not only limited to promotion in the armed force but also include his support of other people and his psychosocial 6754 abilities.

text: In court, Professor Weierstall-Pust convincingly explained the relation to PTSD and

text: trauma-related avoidance:

text: [P]eople that suffer from PTSD tend to avoid trauma reminders. […] So if I suffer from PTSD and have bad memories from seeing people being killed, then I would try everything to avoid more trauma reminders. And this means that this also impairs my ability to fight.

text: People that suffer from PTSD, they are not functioning properly. Also in the military, if you have someone who suffers from PTSD, you wouldn’t send him to the front line because he will make mistakes, he will suffer from hyperarousal, which means that he is not able to follow orders, which means that he is not even able to control a weapon when you have a shaking hand because of your anxiety symptoms and this means, for me, my conclusion was that when he – and there are some other quotes where it was said that he, Mr Ongwen, was a good fighter and this was also the reason for promotion, then this means that or for me the consequence or my conclusion was that then he couldn’t have suffered from severe PTSD symptoms or severe depression because this would have prevented him from 6755 acting out this behaviour.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust also stated that being fearless ‘completely contradicts the 6756 diagnosis of a fear-related disorder like PTSD’. Professor Weierstall-Pust wrote that

text: 6752 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0698; P-0447: T-169, p. 19, line 17 – p. 20, line 12. 6753 See section IV.D.1.iii. 6754 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0698. The Chamber notes that Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report refers to several statements of Dominic Ongwen describing his success in the LRA given in particular to Professor De Jong. See Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0684-86; Professor De Jong’s Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0058 (‘R asks again how he got to higher ranks. DO answers that it happened through fighting. […] He fought well against the soldiers. […] He was a very good shot.’), 0059 (‘He was also good at using different types of ammunition, in being a diplomat […]’). 6755 P-0447: T-169, p. 35, lines 2-23. 6756 P-0447: T-169, p. 37, lines 9-19. The Chamber notes that the description of Dominic Ongwen as ‘fearless’ originated in the ‘collateral interviews’ conducted by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena and was included as such in their First Report, see Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0010.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 881/1077 4 February 2021 being a ‘good administrator’ and ‘likeable’, as well as ‘hard-working’– descriptions equally taken from Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report – contradicts the 6757 diagnosis of a severe depressive disorder. The Defence refers to the testimony of Professor Ovuga, who said that ‘[t]he presence of a mental disorder does not necessarily negate the ability of someone to execute activities or functions that are given to him or 6758 her’. It also points to Professor Weierstall-Pust accepting during examination by 6759 Defence counsel that some functioning is possible in an individual with PTSD. However, during the same exchange, Professor Weierstall-Pust also provided a fuller explanation:

text: One thing I wanted to add is that I don’t want to say that it’s not possible to function at all, but I mean the high level of functioning is not possible in the way it was 6760 described in the report, as I read it from the material that is available to me. The Defence argument that Professor Weierstall-Pust did not qualify the level of 6761 functionality in his original report is incorrect, as Professor Weierstall-Pust’s report plainly stated that ‘rather severe mental disorders (at least PTSD, MDD and dissociative disorders) are usually associated with a significant impairment of psycho-social 6762 functioning’. It may be added that, as discussed below, the Chamber has not found in the evidence any indicia of such impairment.

text: As such, the Chamber does not accept the Defence interpretation that Professor 6763 Weierstall-Pust ‘clearly backtracked’ and took ‘the opposite view’ as before. Conversely, the Chamber finds Professor Weierstall-Pust’s evidence on this particular topic consistent and coherent. His evidence is also in line with the corroborating evidence from the trial, laid out just below.

text: The Chamber finds Professor Weierstall-Pust’s evidence entirely convincing and his testimony in the courtroom impressive in its clarity and comprehensibility. As such, his evidence is of great assistance to the Chamber in the determination of the issue, including

text: 6757 P-0447: T-169, p. 37, line 20 – p. 38, line 18. These descriptions of Dominic Ongwen are likewise based on the ‘collateral interviews’ conducted by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena and included in their First Report, see Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0010. 6758 D-0042: T-251, p. 73, lines 12-21. 6759 P-0447: T-253, p. 41, lines 21-23. 6760 P-0447: T-253, p. 40, lines 7-10. 6761 Defence Closing Brief, para. 641. 6762 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0685. 6763 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 639.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 882/1077 4 February 2021 in the determination of the relevance and significance of other evidence in the case, in particular witness evidence, in relation to the behaviour of Dominic Ongwen during the period of the charges.

text: iii. Corroborating evidence from the trial

text: Guided by the testimonies of the experts, the Chamber has assessed the evidence in the case, which relates to the events during the period of the charges, for indication of any symptoms of mental health disorders in Dominic Ongwen. As pointed out by the experts, an assessment of mental health cannot be made in the abstract, but only on the basis of the facts and evidence relating to the period under examination. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence the Chamber, assisted by the experts, makes its own conclusions on the issue.

text: Professor Mezey emphasised that a serious mental illness would have manifested itself in ‘hallucinations, delusions, loss of weight, loss of appetite, an inability to function, 6764 which would include an inability to function as a soldier, as a fighter’. She stated that she ‘would expect his comrades to pick up on that and to have noticed it and commented 6765 on it’. As is clear from the analysis of witness testimony below, such evidence did not transpire during the trial.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust stated that evidence otherwise available at trial is ‘absolutely important, because we meet other people that have lived with the – in this case with the 6766 accused person to report their impression of the client’. In his rebuttal report, Professor Weierstall-Pust further elaborated that ‘[t]he psychosocial consequences of mental disorders are in fact a direct consequence of a disorder’s recognizable 6767 manifestations in daily life’. He stated that ‘if [Dominic Ongwen] suffered from a severe mental disorder, people in his environment would have clearly noticed at least “strange” or “unexplainable” signs’, and also that ‘[m]any of the relevant symptoms are objectively observable and in fact frequently noticed by family members and friends of 6768 persons suffering from mental health disorders’. Yet, the Chamber observes that, as

text: 6764 P-0446: T-163, p. 86, lines 23-25. 6765 P-0446: T-163, p. 86, line 25 – p. 87, line 1. 6766 P-0447: T-169, p. 57, lines 14-25. 6767 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0079. 6768 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0079.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 883/1077 4 February 2021 laid out below, no such testimony was given by witnesses who were in position to observe Dominic Ongwen’s behaviour at the time relevant for the charges.

text: The evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena also indicates that they agreed that albeit lay persons could not make a diagnosis, they would have noted at least some symptoms 6769 of the mental disorders in question. The Chamber addresses separately below the failure of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena to properly consider corroborating information, which is an important methodological shortcoming, and notes that in fact the evidence 6770 from the trial contradicts the findings of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena.

text: 6771 Contrary to what is implied by the Defence, the Chamber is not looking in this evidence for diagnoses of mental disease or defect. It is clear that, save for the experts within the scope of their expertise, the witnesses in the case are not qualified to make such diagnoses. Rather, the exercise consists of assessing whether any descriptions in particular of the conduct of Dominic Ongwen correspond to symptoms of mental 6772 disorders. Further, as correctly pointed out by the Prosecution, the possibility that witnesses may regard symptoms of mental disorders as spirit possession is immaterial, insofar as they would still describe certain symptoms, irrespective of the cause attributed 6773 to them.

text: The Defence submits that holding that a ‘[m]ental illness, including severe mental health illness is visible 24/7 to anyone observing but especially those closest to the person 6774 affected’ is a myth, and that the symptoms of mental disorders fluctuate over time. First, the Defence misconstrues the issue. The proposition that persons close to the individual under examination may recognise symptoms of mental disorders is not the same as stating that mental illness would necessarily be visible at all times. Second, whereas the Chamber accepts that fluctuation of symptoms may indeed be the reason for contradictions in evidence in cases where there is in fact a mental disorder present, it is

text: 6769 See D-0041: T-249, p. 91, line 9 – p. 92, line 22; D-0042: T-251, p. 52, lines 2-16. 6770 See paras 2545-2557 below. 6771 Defence Closing Brief, paras 634-35. See also D-0041: T-249, p. 90, lines 19-21. 6772 It is for this reason that the Defence submission that there exists corroborative testimony in relation to ‘LRA’s forced abductions’ and in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s abduction and early years in the LRA is flawed; see Defence Closing Brief, paras 617-621. 6773 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 439. See also Rejoinder Report, UGA-D26-0015-1574, at 1577; D-0042: T- 251, p. 52, lines 9-16; Defence Closing Brief, paras 630, 663. 6774 Defence Closing Brief, paras 622-27. See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 643.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 884/1077 4 February 2021 an unconvincing explanation in the case of a complete absence of evidence of facts which could be seen as symptoms of mental disorders.

text: The possibility of masking symptoms of mental disorders, also raised by the Defence in 6775 6776 this context, is discussed below. The Chamber also rejects as entirely unsupported in light of the analysis which follows the Defence submission that ‘any signs of resiliency were temporary and sporadic, and should not be interpreted as indicative of 6777 functionality’.

text: In addition, the Defence suggested that former LRA members are unreliable witnesses on the issue because of their own victimisation in the same coercive and hostile 6778 environment of the LRA. This argument is overwhelmingly proved wrong by the fact that a large number of former LRA members, called by the Prosecution and the Defence, testified before the Chamber reliably, credibly and in detail about their experiences in the LRA, including their observations of Dominic Ongwen. There is no indication that they are, as a class, unable to observe, perceive or accurately recount Dominic Ongwen’s behaviour in the bush.

text: Thus, the Chamber considers it absolutely necessary to examine the evidence presented during the trial in order to identify information relevant to the issue.

text: First, the Chamber notes that a number of witnesses were asked general questions about their observations of Dominic Ongwen. P-0142 stated:

text: When I joined the bush, the LRA, when I was abducted and I was amongst them, first Dominic Ongwen wasn’t a bad person. He was a people’s person. I would talk to people and stay amongst people, hid together with people. You would share laughters and jokes. He was a person who cared about people. But that was when he was still having a lower rank. When he, when he was promoted and he started climbing through the ranks there were changes. You know, when you, you are promoted and you leave the ranks of a private you also change the way you behave, you need to start behave like a commander. Like for me, I would not go close to him, he was already a commander. I cannot go and familiar him all the time. A commander is having a different responsibility than an ordinary gap – an ordinary soldier. There was a gap now between him and the ordinary soldiers, but he was still good to his soldiers. I did not notice anything which was strange. But when he was in operation room he was tough. He was tough because by nature of being a

text: 6775 Defence Closing Brief, paras 627-28. 6776 See paras 2555-2557 below. 6777 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 644. 6778 Defence Closing Brief, para. 630.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 885/1077 4 February 2021 commander he thought easy to control the soldiers. He was tough on the rules and he always wanted things done according to the schedule. For example, going to collect food he would come up with tough orders to go and collect food. That, according to me, is how a leader is changed because of the responsibilities that he 6779 has. That’s what I know about Dominic.

text: P-0231 testified:

text: I lived with Dominic for quite a long time. I know a lot about him. He also knows a lot about me. In terms of relations to people, talking to people, command in the army, Dominic is very well acquainted. He is very well – he is very good at it and he knows how to speak to his soldiers. I have to speak openly without fear that Dominic, when it comes to military matters, he is very knowledgeable.

text: My stay with him for the time I was with him, even when government soldiers learned that this is Dominic’s group, they know very well if you follow them, there will be fierce battle. That is what was – that is what was happening when I was with Dominic. So for that matter, the government soldiers would rarely follow us. If they want to fight us, they would ambush us.

text: Dominic is one person who does not give out arbitrary orders. Even when his superior gives an order, for the time that I was with him, if any message comes to him for an operation, he would invite all the officers and will explain to them the 6780 particular nature of the operation.

text: P-0205 testified that Dominic Ongwen was ‘nice’, ‘straightforward’ and that he ‘cared 6781 about people’.

text: P-0264 testified that among the LRA commanders that he met, Dominic Ongwen was a 6782 ‘good person’. He stated that Dominic Ongwen ‘always encouraged his soldiers’, that ‘[e]ven a soldier who was frightened [would] be able to participate’, and that ‘whenever

text: 6783 he gives instructions, people work accordingly’.

text: Daniel Opiyo gave the following answer when asked to explain his opinion of Dominic Ongwen as a caring and empathetic leader:

text: When I was in the sickbay, or when I was in the convoy moving together with him in Uganda, Dominic was not segregative. He would eat freely, dine together with the young officers. Unlike other senior commanders who would not dine with other lower ranking officers, he would do that very freely. He would chat very freely with his people, unlike the other commanders.

text: 6779 P-0142: T-73, p. 16, lines 2-22. 6780 P-0231: T-123, p. 81, line 22 – p. 82, line 18. 6781 P-0205: T-51-CONF, p. 35, lines 2-8. 6782 P-0264: T-64, p. 86, lines 18-21. 6783 P-0264: T-64, p. 87, lines 4-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 886/1077 4 February 2021

text: If you are walking in the convoy he would also share – eats with his ordinary soldiers. That’s why he was highly loved by his people and he was also a very loving person. He was a simple commander, very relaxed and easy to work with. Those are the kind of things I observed.

text: You know, children, including myself, I loved that kind of life because it made life 6784 easier.

text: When questioned about Dominic Ongwen’s bravery, Daniel Opiyo stated that ‘not just him but many other commanders had the same skills and braveness’, but that Dominic Ongwen distinguished himself as being one who ‘would only do what he knew he could accomplish’, and that ‘if he knew something was going to bring problems for his soldiers,

text: 6785 he would not engage in, and that’s why his soldiers loved him’.

text: Joseph Okilan described Dominic Ongwen’s personality as follows:

text: Ongwen was a happy man, talkative, never got angry and he was always joking. He was also a very easy man to deal with and he was very playful, always wanting 6786 to play around.

text: D-0026 testified:

text: What I can say about the character of Dominic Ongwen, I’m basing on my interactions with him and how I used to observe him lead his life, he was a person who loved to joke. He was a carefree person. Even at that time when he was at that rank, he would take his time to come and sit down with the other junior people, people who were not at his rank. He would enact with them, interface with them and joke with them a lot of times. He would even play games, would play cards with them, together with the young ones instead. That was what I witnessed when he was there, that was his character. He – he led a kind of childish life. He had a lot of jokes and fun making. That was what I saw about him. […]

text: I mean to say that he was a very simple person, who was down to earth. For instance, if he was in the position of a BM, going down to sit with the people at the coy, if it’s not for a person who love other people, would not come down to that level, but because of his love for the people, that is why he would come down to 6787 that level and stay with those people as well.

text: D-0027 stated:

text: Dominic was liked by so many people. And just like I told you earlier, his lifestyle didn’t change. He was easily likeable, everyone liked him, the young, the old. Even

text: 6784 D-0056: T-229, p. 32, line 22 – p. 33, line 11. 6785 D-0056: T-229, p. 33, lines 17-23. 6786 D-0019: T-236, p. 32, lines 3-7. 6787 D-0026: T-191, p. 33, lines 6-24.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 887/1077 4 February 2021 personally, when I met him the last time, he was a bigger commander. But when I met him we stayed together, we chatted and spent a lot of time together, we talked about so many things. And what I know is his life didn’t change, his lifestyle didn’t 6788 change. He loved people and people liked him as well. D-0118 described Dominic Ongwen as a person who ‘used to talk to everyone very freely’ 6789 and for this reason referred to him as a ‘loving person’.

text: D-0032 also described Dominic Ongwen as a skilled fighter, emphasising that Dominic 6790 Ongwen ‘really, really knew how to take good care of his soldiers’.

text: The Chamber considers that the above witnesses, who spent a considerable period of time in close proximity of Dominic Ongwen, living and fighting alongside him, were well placed to make these observations. These witnesses, when prompted by general, even very broad questions about Dominic Ongwen or his personality, did not provide answers indicating any particularity which could represent a symptom of the mental disorders under discussion. As a result of the very general questions put to them, the answers of the witnesses were spontaneous and, thus, reliable. The testimonies of many witnesses are also all strikingly coherent, and as such they weigh heavily in the Chamber’s assessment.

text: Furthermore, as discussed above, Professor Mezey testified that she considered the evidence from the trial presented to her by the Prosecution, which consisted of witness testimonies during trial, and found no suggestion of mental instability or behaviours that 6791 might amount to instability. Professor Weierstall-Pust, who also reviewed witness testimonies on record, also opined that they presented a coherent picture contradicting the clinical picture he ‘would expect on a severely – for example, depressed or 6792 traumatised individual’. A strong link of corroboration therefore exists between the witness evidence from the trial, and the expert evidence relied on by the Chamber.

text: The Chamber further notes that nothing in the testimonies of P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P- 0226, P-0227, P-0235 or P-0236 indicates that these women, who were, as discussed above, held as so-called ‘wives’ or otherwise captive in Dominic Ongwen’s immediate

text: 6788 D-0027: T-202, p. 46, lines 3-11. 6789 D-0118: T-216, p. 31, line 25 – p. 32, line 6. 6790 D-0032: T-201, p. 5, lines 5-17. 6791 P-0446: T-162, p. 51, lines 1-14. See also para. 2473 above. 6792 P-0447: T-252, p. 34, line 24 – p. 35, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 888/1077 4 February 2021 proximity at various times over the course of around 20 years, observed behaviour on the part of Dominic Ongwen suggestive of a mental disease or defect. P-0214 testified that Dominic Ongwen ‘was taking care of us properly’, and that he used to treat ‘us’ ‘equally’ 6793 6794 and ‘well’. P-0235 described Dominic Ongwen as cooperative and a ‘good man’. Finally in this regard, the Chamber notes that no indication of a mental disease or defect come out during the testimony of Florence Ayot, who described Dominic Ongwen as 6795 ‘nice’, ‘sociable’ and ‘just’.

text: Moreover, and equally importantly, above in its analysis of the evidence relating to the charged crimes, the Chamber also assessed the evidence and made numerous conclusions 6796 in relation to the conduct of Dominic Ongwen. This evidence is of great importance also for assessing whether there is a possibility that, at the time, Dominic Ongwen suffered from a mental disease or defect. The Chamber finds it significant that the large number of witnesses who described Dominic Ongwen’s actions and interactions with others, at various times relevant to the charges and in numerous contexts, did not provide any testimony which could corroborate a historical diagnosis of mental disease or defect.

text: The Chamber notes in particular that many of the actions undertaken by Dominic Ongwen, as found by the Chamber, involved careful planning of complex operations, which is incompatible with a mental disorder. Indeed, Professor Mezey stated:

text: [B]ehaviour that is planned, behaviour that appears to be motivated and premeditated is highly unlikely to represent the sort of automatic motiveless actions that are typically associated with a dissociative state or other severe mental health conditions. And referring back to the attacks, all four of the attacks, and confirmed by many of the extracts from the transcripts, appear from the accounts to have been determined and carried out through the instructions of Mr Ongwen. So they appear to have been planned and premeditated, rather than impulsive and out of the blue, 6797 if I can put it that way.

text: 6793 P-0214: T-15-CONF, p. 41, lines 18-23. 6794 P-0235: T-17-CONF, p. 70, line 15 – p. 71, line 6. 6795 D-0013: T-245, p. 4, lines 14-21. 6796 See section IV.C above. 6797 P-0446: T-163, p. 9, line 21 – p. 10, line 6. Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust provided similar testimony, see P-0445: T-166, p. 36, lines 6-8. See also P-0445: T-166, p. 32, lines 12-24, p. 35, line 23 – p. 36, line 5; P- 0447: T-169, p. 36, line 14 – p. 37, line 3; T-252, p. 24, lines 8-10.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 889/1077 4 February 2021 iv. Expert evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena

text: The Chamber turns now to the evidence provided by Professor Emilio Ovuga, of Gulu University, Uganda, and Dr Dickens Akena, Lecturer at Makerere University, Uganda. 6798 Their evidence includes a joint first undated report, a joint second report dated 28 6799 6800 June 2018, as well as testimony provided in court.

text: The Chamber notes that Professor Weierstall-Pust prepared a rebuttal report in relation 6801 to the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena and gave testimony in court, 6802 whereupon Professor Ovuga prepared a rejoinder report and also testified again. There exists a dispute between the parties as to the validity of the diagnoses put forward by Dr Akena and Professor Ovuga.

text: The first report was based on a series of interviews Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena held with Dominic Ongwen at the Detention Centre of the Court, a meeting with the clinical psychologist, clinical notes, and on ‘in-depth interviews with four of Mr Ongwen’s close 6803 associates’. It provides conclusions on the ‘prevailing mental state of Mr Dominic Ongwen’, adding that, in the opinion of the authors, the mental state described ‘dated 6804 back from the time when [Dominic Ongwen] was abducted’. The report states that ‘[t]he predominant mental state of Mr Dominic Ongwen is characterized by depressed mood and intense suicidal feelings, urges and verbalizations as well as features of dissociative disorder’, and then devotes a short section each to ‘depressed mood’, ‘posttraumatic stress disorder’, ‘dissociative disorder’ and ‘suicidal thoughts, urges and attempts’, without, however, clearly articulating any diagnosis of a mental disease or 6805 defect. The diagnoses appear then in the concluding section of the report (‘Recommendations’), where it is stated: ‘Mr Ongwen suffers from severe depressive 6806 illness, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and dissociative disorder.’ A structured

text: 6798 See UGA-D26-0015-0004. Based on the dates of interviews with Dominic Ongwen given in the report, it can be concluded that it was written sometime after 4 November 2016. 6799 See UGA-D26-0015-0948. 6800 T-248; T-249 (Dr Akena); T-250; T-251 (Professor Ovuga). 6801 See UGA-OTP-0287-0072; T-252; T-253. 6802 See UGA-D26-0015-1574; T-254; T-255. 6803 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0004-05. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0020-23. 6804 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0013. 6805 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0013-14. 6806 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0017.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 890/1077 4 February 2021 examination of the criteria for each diagnosis is not present. Further, in what is prima facie manifestly beyond the scope of the role of experts in criminal proceedings, the report states: ‘In our considered opinion, Mr Dominic Ongwen is not criminally liable 6807 for his actions while he was in the bush’. The report states to base this conclusion on ‘the clinical findings of significant episodes of dissociation, depression and post- 6808 traumatic stress disorder’. The report concludes by providing a series of 6809 recommendations for treatment.

text: The second report of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena was exclusively based on interviews 6810 with Dominic Ongwen, and was, according to the report itself, ‘prepared for 6811 consideration alongside our first report’. Following two sections devoted, respectively, to ‘psychiatric history’ and ‘mental status examination’, the report schematically presents five diagnoses: (i) ‘Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple episodes)’; (ii) ‘Dissociative Amnesia’, (iii) ‘Posttraumatic Stress Disorder’; (iv) 6812 ‘Depressive Disorder’; and (v) ‘Symptoms of obsessive compulsive Disorder’. A 6813 diagnosis as to these five mental conditions is also the main conclusion of the report. At the end of the report, recommendations are again listed ‘in order to facilitate [Dominic 6814 Ongwen’s] rehabilitation into a useful adult post-conflict’.

text: Prior to the two formal reports, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena also prepared a ‘Brief 6815 Medical Report for Dominic Ongwen’, dated 9 February 2016. It is noted that the report is accompanied by an ‘[i]mportant notice’, stating that it is ‘written in medical 6816 language, and is only suitable for medical and not legal purposes’. It is also stated in the introduction that the aim was to ‘report the history of the presenting complaints in the 6817 last one year, for the sole reason of getting the client to access medical help’. However, it is noted that the scope of the report partly overlaps with the two formal reports prepared

text: 6807 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0015. 6808 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0016. 6809 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0018. 6810 See Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0973-74. 6811 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0949. 6812 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0971-72. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0951-70. 6813 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0974. 6814 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0980. 6815 See Brief Medical Report for Dominic Ongwen, UGA-D26-0015-0154. 6816 Brief Medical Report for Dominic Ongwen, UGA-D26-0015-0154, at 0154. 6817 Brief Medical Report for Dominic Ongwen, UGA-D26-0015-0154, at 0154.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 891/1077 4 February 2021 by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena. Similarly, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena prepared 6818 a ‘Supplemental Report’, dated 25 January 2019. This report, according to the information contained therein, was prepared following a request by the Defence of Dominic Ongwen to ‘assess Mr. Ongwen’s current mental status’, ‘determine if Mr. Ongwen is able to participate in the proceedings of his trial at the International Criminal Court’, and ‘make recommendations based on the results of mental status 6819 assessment’. Accordingly, also this report had a substantially different purpose than the two formal reports prepared for determination of the issue at hand.

text: A number of issues, in particular as concerns the methodology employed, affect the reliability of the evidence provided by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, to the extent that the Chamber cannot rely on it. These issues were discussed extensively during the trial, including, as already stated above, through rebuttal and rejoinder reports and testimony.

text: First, the Prosecution correctly submits that the ‘blurring of [Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s] role as both treating physicians and forensic experts has led to a loss of 6820 objectivity on their part’.

text: That Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena concerned themselves not only with a forensic examination to assist the Chamber in its determination under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , but also with identifying recommendations for the treatment of the current mental conditions of Dominic Ongwen which they identified, is manifest from the face of their reports, as summarised above. Moreover, Dr Akena stated that he and Professor Ovuga 6821 established a ‘therapeutic alliance with the client’. He also accepted the suggestion by Prosecution counsel that as a treating physician, it is his duty to the person he is treating to attempt to secure for them the treatment which will be of greatest benefit to their 6822 health.

text: In his rebuttal report, Professor Weierstall-Pust wrote that he suspected ‘fundamental confusion, as between the role of treating physicians and forensic experts’, which in his

text: 6818 Supplemental Report of 25 January 2019, UGA-D26-0015-1219-R01. 6819 Supplemental Report of 25 January 2019, UGA-D26-0015-1219-R01, at 1219. 6820 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 374. 6821 D-0041: T-248, p. 87, line 17 – p. 88, line 9. 6822 D-0041: T-249, p. 29, line 24 – p. 30, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 892/1077 4 February 2021 opinion may have been one reason for what he termed ‘the vast amount of shortcomings 6823 in the report of [Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena]’.

text: In the assessment of the Chamber, there is an inherent incompatibility between the duties of a treating physician and the duties of a forensic expert. The duty of a treating doctor is primarily towards the patient, whereas an expert engaged by a court for a forensic examination is primarily in the service of the court. It is not in the role of a forensic expert to sustain a relationship of trust and confidence with the person to be examined for the court, and the expert must in fact take care to remain as objective and detached as possible. The blurring of these roles in the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena is a factor which as such negatively affects the reliability of the reports they prepared as evidence in this case.

text: Second, Professor Weierstall-Pust identified in his rebuttal report a number of issues where, in his opinion, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena failed to apply scientifically 6824 validated methods and tools for use as a basis for a forensic report. He criticised Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s use of open-ended questions and stated that their approach of avoiding giving clues about the nature of information they were interested in was inadequate and not supported by scientific literature as a method to rule out 6825 malingering. He similarly criticised the decision by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena not to use structured rating scales, stating instead that their use is recommended in 6826 scientific literature. The essence of Professor Weierstall-Pust’s opinion in this regard is his criticism of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s exclusive reliance on the clinical interview, and the failure to ‘make use of the wealth of assessment recommendations from the scientific literature [and to] utilize multiple sources of information as 6827 recommended in guidelines and publications’. Separately, Professor Weierstall-Pust also identified as problematic the lack of a clear distinction between data on the one hand, 6828 and inferences and opinions on the other hand.

text: 6823 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0097. 6824 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0076-77. 6825 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0076. See Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA- D26-0015-0948, at 0950. 6826 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0077. 6827 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0077. 6828 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0077-78.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 893/1077 4 February 2021

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust also criticised the work of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena on the ground that they used diagnostic labels from an outdated international classification 6829 system, i.e. DSM-IV, rather than DSM-5. In this context, the Chamber notes that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena explained their choice in the Second Report by stating that they ‘present the summary of diagnoses using DSM-IV-TR to ease understanding of 6830 the psychiatric problems we identified’.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust further explained that the DSM provides a ‘syndromal model’ to categorise mental disorders, meaning that each disorder is defined by clusters of relevant symptoms: a diagnosis is made when a patient demonstrates a certain number of 6831 symptoms within the criteria of the syndrome. He took issue with Dr Akena’s statement that ‘the diagnosis of mental illness doesn’t rely squarely on the core 6832 symptoms’. Additionally, Professor Weierstall-Pust provided detailed critique of 6833 each of the diagnoses put forward by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena.

text: Noting also some of the alleged deficiencies in the reports which are discussed specifically below, the Chamber considers that major doubts exist as to the validity of the methods employed by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena. The heavy reliance on the clinical interview, disregarding the evidence from the trial, is striking, as is the scepticism expressed by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena towards other methods, which Professor Weierstall-Pust sufficiently demonstrated to be standard. Furthermore, the explanation provided in the Second Report for the use of DSM-IV rather than DSM-5 is entirely unconvincing as it is illogical to use an outdated system merely on the ground that it may arguably be easier to understand. As experts, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena had the opportunity, and the role, to provide all necessary explanation.

text: Third, and relatedly, there are unexplained contradictions in the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena between the various statements and observations made, or between such statements and observations and the conclusions finally drawn. In this regard, the Chamber accepts the submission of the Prosecution that the symptoms recorded in the

text: 6829 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0078. It is noted that the commonly used acronym DSM stands for ‘diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders’. 6830 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0971. 6831 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0078, referring directly to scientific literature. 6832 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0079. See D-0041: T-248, p. 46, lines 10-11. 6833 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0082-96.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 894/1077 4 February 2021 reports of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena are ‘sometimes incoherent’ and the diagnoses 6834 ‘inconsistent’. The Chamber also notes that this was also the general assessment of 6835 Professor Weierstall-Pust.

text: Turning to particulars, there are a number of internal contradictions in Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report. Dominic Ongwen is recorded as ‘report[ing] persistent sadness to an extent that he says he forgot to be happy or smile for many years’, but his mood is assessed as ‘happy’ during the clinical interview on 17 April 2018, and generally during Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s interactions with Dominic Ongwen as ‘subdued 6836 […] alternating with happiness, excitement and sense of satisfaction’. Similarly, the same report states that Dominic Ongwen ‘suffered severe distress and psychosocial impairment to the extent that his depressed mood and split personality interfered with his ability to follow court proceedings and appreciate the significance of the trial’, as well as that ‘Mr. Ongwen seemed to have been well informed about our visit, and was positive 6837 about it’. Professor Ovuga stated in the Rejoinder Report that Dominic Ongwen was 6838 ‘masking symptoms’ when presenting happy, but given that this is not specifically explained in the original report, the ex-post explanation is unconvincing. The Chamber is also entirely unpersuaded by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s contradictory claim that they identified suicidal tendencies in Dominic Ongwen, 6839 including referring to the occurrence of ‘8 suicide attempts with the intention to die’, and that, at the same time, many of Dominic Ongwen’s actions were motivated by 6840 survival instinct. Whereas the Chamber does not exclude in principle that a person may simultaneously have suicidal tendencies and a strong survival instinct, the contradiction lies in the fact that in expert evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena they are put forward as the reason for essentially the same type of acts. Indeed, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena claimed in their first report that Dominic Ongwen went to battle

text: 6834 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 374. 6835 P-0447: T-252, p. 15, lines 9-24. 6836 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0951, 0961-62. See also Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0081. 6837 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0950, 0970. See also Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0081. 6838 See Rejoinder Report, UGA-D26-0015-1574, at 1578. 6839 See Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0009. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0957. 6840 See D-0042: T-250, p. 37, lines 18-19.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 895/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6841 with the intent to get killed by enemy forces, while Professor Ovuga also testified that, due to his obsessive-compulsive disorder, ‘Mr Ongwen would feel or experience the smell of blood, gun powder and then a premonition that they were being attacked’, as a 6842 result of which ‘he would organise his forces to ward off an attack’. It is nowhere clarified whether Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena ever tried to explore with Dominic Ongwen at what time or on which occasions he acted out of one or the other motivation.

text: Furthermore, in court Professor Ovuga gave contradictory evidence on the issue whether the presence of a mental disorder does or does not militate against careful planning, 6843 saying first that it did and subsequently that it did not necessarily. He also simultaneously claimed both that Dominic Ongwen’s psychological and cognitive development was arrested at a sensitive period in his development and growth, at about between 8 and 10 years, and that he possessed cognitive ability that allowed him to 6844 discuss with other people important tactical matters. The wholly unsubstantiated claim of the Defence that Dominic Ongwen’s cognitive abilities were ‘uneven’, made in the context of discussion whether mental illness leads to dysfunctionality, does not solve 6845 this contradiction.

text: Turning to the contradictions between the statements and observations made by the Defence experts and their conclusions, the Chamber notes, as pointed out by the 6846 Prosecution, that there is a contradiction between the finding that Dominic Ongwen had good long term memory and ‘had no amnesia of the events that happened while in 6847 the LRA ranks’, which appears in the Brief Report of February 2016, and the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. This is because one of the symptoms of the latter is amnesia in the form of ‘gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal 6848 information and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting’.

text: 6841 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0009. 6842 D-0042: T-250, p. 37, lines 13-16. 6843 D-0042: T-251, p. 72, line 25 – p. 73, line 5, p. 76, lines 1-7. On this point, see also para. 2520 above. 6844 D-0042: T-255, p. 7, lines 15-23, p. 14, lines 12-17. 6845 Defence Closing Brief, para. 643. 6846 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 417. 6847 Brief Medical Report for Dominic Ongwen, UGA-D26-0015-0154, at 0155. 6848 Book extract, UGA-OTP-0287-0032, at 0033. See also Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0802; Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0083.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 896/1077 4 February 2021

text: This statement also directly contradicts the diagnosis of dissociative amnesia, also put forward by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena.

text: Further, Professor Weierstall-Pust also noted that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s statement that Dominic Ongwen appeared for the clinical interview ‘dressed smartly’, ‘in a happy mood’, and was able to follow the interview for three hours, ‘contradicts the 6849 clinical picture of a person suffering from a severe mental disorder’.

text: Specifically in relation to dissociative identity disorder, Professor Ovuga stated that other persons around Dominic Ongwen not noticing any manifestation of the disorder may be 6850 explained by Dominic Ongwen’s ‘cop[ing]’ and disguising one of the two identities. However, Professor Weierstall-Pust explained that it has been described in scientific literature that ‘the ability to initiate and end dissociative states is one of the core features 6851 to differentiate between health and pathological states’. The first diagnostic criterion under the DSM-5 also states that the two or more identities of personality states must ‘involve a marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behaviour, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, 6852 and/or sensory-motor functioning’. As is evidenced from the analysis above, there are 6853 no indicia for such discontinuity in the evidence obtained during the trial.

text: Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report diagnosed, inter alia, PTSD and dissociative amnesia, a symptom of the former being re-experience of the traumatic 6854 events, and a symptom of the latter the loss of memory. In court, Dr Akena acknowledged that the two were in contradiction, and stated that this was ‘the beauty of 6855 mental health’ and ‘the beauty of psychiatry’. He also stated that the symptoms of 6856 mental disorders needed to be interpreted in context. The Chamber accepts that, in principle, there may be symptoms that at first sight appear incompatible, but can be

text: 6849 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0081. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0961. 6850 D-0042: T-251, p. 30, line 3 – p. 31, line 8. 6851 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0084. 6852 Book extract, UGA-OTP-0287-0032, at 0033. See also Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0083. 6853 See section IV.D.1.iii. 6854 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0971. 6855 D-0041: T-249, p. 99, lines 9-25. 6856 D-0041: T-249, p. 100, lines 4-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 897/1077 4 February 2021 explained. Such interpretation in context is, however, not found in the Second Report, which presents the two contradictory findings in isolation of each other.

text: The Chamber appreciates that mental health assessments may ordinarily have to process contradictory information, and that the presence of contradictory information as such does not invalidate any conclusions. However, in the present case, the identified contradictions are major and readily apparent. Yet, they are not sufficiently, or at all, acknowledged and explained by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena. This represents a further factor militating against relying on their conclusions.

text: Fourth, it is the assessment of the Chamber that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, in their work for the purposes of this trial, failed to take into account other sources of information about Dominic Ongwen which were readily available to them. This is an unjustifiable and fundamental failure that in itself invalidates the conclusions put forward by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena. As observed above, the failure to consider corroborative sources is also in contradiction with the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena to the effect that others interacting with the person under examination at the relevant time would have 6857 noted at least some symptoms of the mental disorders in question.

text: The Chamber notes at this juncture that there is no dispute in the case as to the usefulness of a clinical interview in diagnosing a mental disease and effect. The Defence argument that Professor Mezey ‘not only failed to acknowledge it as a “missing” element in her conclusions, [but] claimed that this was an “advantage”’ is premised on an obvious 6858 misrepresentation of the evidence of Professor Mezey in court. During her testimony, Professor Mezey first testified that ‘[i]t would have been desirable to assess Mr Ongwen because there are a number of matters that I would have wanted to put to him’ and noted 6859 that this could not be done. Only after having stated this, Professor Mezey continued that she however, ‘had the advantage of being provided with an enormous bundle of 6860 documentation’. This statement cannot be interpreted as meaning that Professor Mezey found the absence of the interview with Dominic Ongwen to be an advantage in itself.

text: 6857 See para. 2500 above. 6858 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 656. See also paras 872-873 above. 6859 P-0446: T-162, p. 17, lines 11-14. 6860 P-0446: T-162, p. 17, lines 15-16.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 898/1077 4 February 2021

text: However, an interview with the concerned person, while being important, does not make any further additional information superfluous. Professor Weierstall-Pust stated in his rebuttal report that ‘[i]t is widely accepted that especially in the case of an insanity defence, collateral information is required to adequately assess potential 6861 impairments’. He takes issue with Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s claim that they were unable to access any source of collateral information, stating that ‘there would have been a sufficient amount of collateral information from testimonies of victims, close 6862 associates or other court examination available’. Moreover, Professor Weierstall-Pust stated that ‘[t]hese documents reveal a vast amount of inconsistencies that would have 6863 had to be considered and thoroughly discussed’.

text: As a general consideration, Professor Ovuga accepted that it is important to corroborate the account given by the accused person, and that one of the ways to do so is by accounts 6864 of people who were close to them at the time of the alleged crime. Already on this basis, the failure of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena to consider the corroborating material reveals itself as striking. Dr Akena claimed that he and Professor Ovuga sought corroborative sources ‘to the best 6865 of [their] abilities’, an assertion that the Chamber finds entirely unconvincing, based on the evident failure to consider the available material. Indeed, despite this assertion, Dr Akena readily conceded that the narrative of Dominic Ongwen having attempted suicide eight times was based exclusively on what Dominic Ongwen told him and Professor 6866 Ovuga. They did not seek to verify the claims against the evidence of witnesses who interacted with Dominic Ongwen at the time, and could have observed pertinent facts. Both Dr Akena and Professor Ovuga also explicitly confirmed that they did not look for any sources of corroboration for Dominic Ongwen’s own reports of how his colleagues 6867 interpreted his behaviour related to his experience of two different personalities. In relation to another specific fact, which is Dominic Ongwen’s reporting of the words he said to Professor Mezey during an incident in the courtroom, Dr Akena stated that they

text: 6861 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0080. 6862 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0080. 6863 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0080. 6864 D-0042: T-251, p. 3, line 18 – p. 4, line 5. 6865 D-0041: T-249, p. 34, lines 2-6. 6866 D-0041: T-249, p. 34, line 9 – p. 35, line 10. 6867 D-0041: T-249, p. 96, line 21 – p. 97, line 4; D-0042: T-251, p. 27, lines 12-20.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 899/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6868 asked the Defence for the transcript of the hearing but did not obtain it. The Chamber is not persuaded by this explanation, which, in any event, is also not included in the report where it should have been recorded.

text: The Prosecution also submitted that the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena is affected by their failure to engage seriously with the clinical notes of the Detention Centre 6869 psychiatrist. Professor Weierstall-Pust similarly stated that ‘[t]he DC experts were the treating mental health experts and to dismiss their qualified professional views formed 6870 over time without discussion is inappropriate’. Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena indicated in their first report having been informed of the content of the clinical notes and having had the ‘impression’ that what they heard was ‘to a large extent similar’ to 6871 the information they had. Yet the report itself does not include any further discussion of the information contained in the clinical notes. More importantly, having been confronted with some of the clinical notes the content of which seemed to contradict the diagnoses made by the Defence experts, Dr Akena suggested that ‘clinical notes are written differently from notes that are written for other purposes’, and that they record the patient’s state at a given moment, without ‘point[ing] too much towards how well the 6872 patient was functioning per se’. The Chamber finds this explanation, and in fact deviation from what seemed to be the initial position on the clinical notes in the First Report, unpersuasive. In the view of the Chamber, the failure of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena to engage in a detailed discussion of the content of the clinical notes is not justifiable.

text: But even more importantly, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena did not consider, or seek to consider, for their examination the evidence obtained during the trial. The crucial character of that evidence for the conclusions on the issue of the purported presence of 6873 mental disorders in Dominic Ongwen is explained above. In this regard, it is noted that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena themselves conducted ‘in-depth interviews with four

text: 6868 D-0041: T-249-CONF, p. 36, line 3 – p. 40, line 4. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0953. 6869 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 393. See also D-0041: T-249, p. 50, line 12 – p. 58, line 10. 6870 Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0081. 6871 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0005. 6872 D-0041: T-249, p. 12, lines 15-24. See also p. 57, line 5 – p. 58, line 10. 6873 See section IV.D.1.iii.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 900/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6874 of Mr Ongwen’s close associates’ before the production of their first report. This means that they accepted that persons who interacted with Dominic Ongwen could provide relevant collateral information.

text: In this context, the Chamber finds entirely unpersuasive Professor Ovuga’s explanation in the Rejoinder Report to the effect that ‘[a] number of psychiatrists practice mental health in settings where collateral history is difficult to get’, given that during the trial in this case relevant information was collected from witnesses under oath, or the further self-contradictory assertion that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena attempted to obtain the clinical notes of the treating psychiatrist but their request was ‘declined, at least 6875 initially’.

text: It is noted that prior to the preparation of their first report, Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena conducted four ‘collateral interviews’ with persons identified by the Defence as having 6876 been close to Dominic Ongwen while he was in the LRA. However, this is not determinative, as the issue at hand, as explained, is in their failure to take into account other sources of information and evidence about Dominic Ongwen which were readily available to them. In any case, the corroborative character of this information is questionable. Indeed, the report refers to ‘witnesses’, which the Chamber understands to be a reference to the collateral interviews, for their description of Dominic Ongwen as a diligent fearless fighter, and also kind, likable and being a good administrator, and someone who ‘liked to counsel those in trouble and […] was not a vicious person toward 6877 his colleagues’. Other than that, a ‘witness’ is cited in the first report only one other time, for the proposition that brutal measures were implemented in the LRA to prevent 6878 escape. The second report does not refer to the collateral interviews.

text: Whereas the methodological shortcomings of the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, in the sense that they did not properly consider corroborative sources, is an issue affecting the reliability of their evidence in and of itself, the Chamber also notes that, as

text: 6874 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0005. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0020-23; D-0041: T-248, p. 37, lines 15-21. 6875 See Rejoinder Report, UGA-D26-0015-1574, at 1576. 6876 See Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0020-23. 6877 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0010. See also Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0022. 6878 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s First Report, UGA-D26-0015-0004, at 0012.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 901/1077 4 February 2021 explained above, various sources of reliable information, each within their specific context, overwhelmingly establish a picture incompatible with the conclusion that Dominic Ongwen suffered from a mental disease or defect at any time relevant to the 6879 charges.

text: This was discussed with Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena. In particular, Professor Ovuga pointed to the phenomenon of masked depression as the reason why ‘there should be no surprise that people close to or in his – under his control could not tell the difference 6880 between what is normal and what is not normal’. Dr Akena’s evidence was more nuanced, as he stated that ‘it’s possible to mask symptoms of psychological distress, 6881 although not for long’.

text: Indeed, the Chamber finds the possibility that Dominic Ongwen was able to successfully hide from the persons around him the symptoms of his mental disorders, and that he was able to do so for a long period of time, throughout the period of the charges and possibly throughout, or almost throughout, his entire stay in the LRA, impossible in practice and purely theoretical. This is surely the case considering that per the diagnoses of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, Dominic Ongwen would have had to hide over a long period of time a large variety of complex symptoms, including hiding/suppressing depressive mood, his alter personality, dissociative states, anxieties and hyperarousals. Dr Akena’s own evidence, cited just above, provides the first basis for this conclusion. Furthermore, Dr Abbo acknowledged that masking of symptoms of depression can occur, but also stated that from her experience, severe depression is ‘easily picked, and the 6882 masking I think would be for me as a far second, in my opinion’. Professor Mezey testified that ‘[i]n practice it is very difficult for people to either mask their symptoms because they – in severe mental illness you do not have control over your thought processes and behaviours and feelings. You often don’t have insight into the fact that you

text: 6879 See section IV.D.1.iii above. 6880 D-0042: T-251, p. 40, line 8 – p. 41, line 17. It is noted that Professor Weierstall-Pust stated in his rebuttal report that Professor Ovuga’s description of masked depression was a ‘fundamental misunderstanding’, stating that rather than a description of ‘someone being depressed without showing any signs and appearing to be normal, this term refers to “a clinical picture where symptoms of depressed mood are less obvious than dominant somatic ones”’; Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0091. 6881 D-0041: T-248, p. 110, lines 18-21. 6882 P-0445: T-167, p. 67, line 7 – p. 68, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 902/1077 4 February 2021 have a problem with your feelings and behaviours and so you therefore don’t feel the 6883 need to control them’.

text: Fifth, the Prosecution submits that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s ‘failure to meaningfully address the possibility of malingering renders their conclusions 6884 unreliable’. The Defence submits that the Defence experts considered, assessed and 6885 then rejected that possibility.

text: The experts who gave evidence before the Chamber generally agreed that malingering, also referred to as dissimulation, or ‘faking bad’, is a known risk in mental health assessments. Professor Mezey wrote in her report that exaggeration and malingering are ‘very common in forensic populations’ and criticised for not considering the possibility of malingering or exaggeration the report of Professor De Jong and the first report of 6886 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, which had been provided to her. In court, Professor Mezey stressed ‘the importance of not being too credulous, the need to be critical and challenging, and the need to cross-reference what you are being told with other sources 6887 of information and what you see before you’. She noted that at the time of her testimony Dominic Ongwen had been in detention for two years and had been seen by a number of mental health experts, and stated that repeated contact with mental health experts can place a person in a situation where they ‘learn over a period of time what responses are likely to result in secondary gain for them and what responses are perhaps 6888 less desirable’.

text: Professor Weierstall-Pust wrote in his report that dissimulation is a ‘major issue in 6889 forensic assessments’. He testified that standardised psychometric assessment tools and the accounts of third parties with direct contact with the person can be used to control against malingering, and that there is a duty on forensic experts, according to commonly 6890 accepted professional standards, to use such methods. Specifically in relation to

text: 6883 P-0446: T-163, p. 44, lines 21-25. 6884 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 398. 6885 Defence Closing Brief, para. 668. 6886 Professor Mezey’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0786, at 0800, 0804, 0806. 6887 P-0446: T-162, p. 24, lines 2-5. 6888 P-0446: T-163, p. 60, lines 10-24. 6889 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0681. See also P-0447: T-169, p. 55, line 15 – p. 56, line 6. 6890 P-0447: T-169, p. 56, line 7 – p. 58, line 5; Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0682. See also Rebuttal Report, UGA-OTP-0287-0072, at 0081, 0087-88.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 903/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dominic Ongwen, Professor Weierstall-Pust asserted that a ‘reputable forensic assessment would also have to follow all traces that falsify this hypothesis [of disassociations], also considering dissimulation or fraud, decidedly discussing the 6891 strengths and limitations of the applied methods’.

text: The Second Report of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena contains a brief section titled ‘Malingering’, in which they wrote that ‘[w]hile the possibility of malingering existed, 6892 this was unlikely in [their] opinion’. They explained that they did not ask leading 6893 questions, and were keen not to suggest any clues to Dominic Ongwen. They also noted Dominic Ongwen’s ‘lack of insight and interest in the outcome of his trial and 6894 eventual death’.

text: In court, Dr Akena stated that he found it ‘a bit difficult to appreciate the role of malingering in this particular case simply because there – there did not seem to be a direct 6895 gain, at least when we assessed him, that would accrue from that’. During examination by the Prosecution, Dr Akena similarly stated that ‘we really don’t see why the client would do that’, and that ‘the client’, i.e. Dominic Ongwen, was ‘extremely 6896 distressed about what he goes through’, whereas ‘[w]e don’t see that in malingering’. Similarly, Professor Ovuga testified that ‘[t]here is nothing [Dominic Ongwen] gains 6897 from faking an illness’. In the assessment of the Chamber, rather, the potential gain from malingering in the present context is obvious – exclusion of criminal responsibility.

text: Dr Akena nevertheless stated that himself and Professor Ovuga ‘[a]bsolutely’ did consider the possibility of malingering, and then appeared to claim that this risk could be excluded by asking the person what they expected from the interaction given that 6898 ‘[p]eople who are malingering don’t want to get better’. In light of the other evidence on the phenomenon of malingering, in particular that obtained from Professor Mezey and Professor Weierstall-Pust, the Chamber considers that this particular statement by Dr Akena in fact represents a serious failure to grasp the problem appropriately. Additionally,

text: 6891 Professor Weierstall-Pust’s Report, UGA-OTP-0280-0674, at 0682. 6892 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0969. 6893 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0969. 6894 Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena’s Second Report, UGA-D26-0015-0948, at 0969. 6895 D-0041: T-248, p. 55, lines 1-6. 6896 D-0041: T-249, p. 79, lines 11-25. See also p. 80, line 13 – p. 81, line 6. 6897 D-0042: T-250, p. 32, lines 3-5. 6898 D-0041: T-248, p. 56, line 3 – p. 57, line 1.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 904/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6899 it confirms the concern of the Chamber, laid out above, that Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, focusing on Dominic Ongwen getting better, did not have the necessary distance to consider the totality of the evidence, which they should have done as forensic experts.

text: Dr Akena also stated that to assess the reliability of Dominic Ongwen’s self-report they ‘looked for collateral history’, and ‘asked the client the same kinds of questions but using 6900 different methods’. The texts of the reports, however, do not indicate this to be the case.

text: At the same time, during examination by the Prosecution, Dr Akena confirmed that he knew of psychometric tests which can be used to detect malingering, but claimed that they did not ‘assess for malingering’ because the ‘clinical situations under which we 6901 operated did not point towards malingering’. It is noted that Dr Akena expressed a clear preference for clinical exams over psychometric tests in order to address the 6902 possibility of malingering. On the other hand, Professor Ovuga accepted that they ‘could’ have used psychometric tools to establish a greater or lesser likelihood of malingering, but stated that ‘we had limited time and we needed to collect lots of other 6903 information and we didn’t think it was economically wise to waste time using a scale’. On this point, the explanation is entirely unconvincing in light of the ample access Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena had to Dominic Ongwen, as also pointed out by the 6904 Prosecution.

text: In his rejoinder report, Professor Ovuga additionally stated that the signs and symptoms of individuals who are malingering are ‘obvious to an experienced and good 6905 clinician’. However, the Chamber is not satisfied by the explanations provided by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena for how they excluded malingering in Dominic Ongwen, and finds that the choice not to use further standardised methods to detect malingering remains questionable and undermined their analysis.

text: 6899 See paras 2528-2531 above. 6900 D-0041: T-248, p. 57, lines 11-20. 6901 D-0041: T-249, p. 81, lines 7-23. 6902 D-0041: T-249, p. 82, line 16 – p. 83, line 3. 6903 D-0042: T-251, p. 19, lines 16-22. 6904 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 404. See also D-0042: T-251, p. 19, line 23 – p. 20, line 8. 6905 Rejoinder Report, UGA-D26-0015-1574, at 1575.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 905/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence, relying on Professor Mezey’s evidence that symptoms that look like mental illness can occasionally be produced, but that to maintain that is almost impossible, states that Dominic Ongwen could not have kept producing those symptoms since the first interviews with the Defence experts, up until the present, 6906 and towards a variety of people. The Chamber is unconvinced by this argument, given the weight placed by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena on Dominic Ongwen’s selfreporting of feelings and incidents which were then taken at face value and interpreted as symptoms of mental illnesses, and which also diverged in the two examinations. In any case, this argument is unrelated to the Chamber’s conclusion that the Defence experts failed to properly assess the possibility of malingering.

text: The Chamber, in light of the reports of Dr Akena and Professor Ovuga, and in light of their testimonies in court, finds the way in which they dismissed malingering as a possible explanation for the presence of symptoms of mental disorders apparent from the self-report of Dominic Ongwen unconvincing, and considers this to be a major factor militating against reliance on their reports.

text: Sixth, and finally, a further methodological problem in relation to the reports of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena is the fact that the reports present very general analyses and findings, and are not clearly anchored on the relevant period and the more specific factual contexts in which Dominic Ongwen acted.

text: The Prosecution made the point that one of the difficulties facing the mental health experts in this case is that their attempts to determine Dominic Ongwen’s state of mental health at particular times between 2002 and 2005 are being made more than a decade later, and that this difficulty is ‘nowhere acknowledged’ in the reports of the Defence 6907 experts. The Chamber indeed considers that the absence of any engagement with this manifest challenge, specifically by addressing it in their examination of Dominic Ongwen, is a further factor significantly impairing the value of the reports prepared by Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena.

text: 6906 Defence Closing Brief, paras 670-71. See also P-0446: T-163, p. 45, lines 16-20. 6907 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 384.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 906/1077 4 February 2021

text: Dr Akena, when asked by Prosecution counsel whether he and Professor Ovuga ever discussed with Dominic Ongwen what he could remember about any of the charged crimes, brushed off the issue by stating that Dominic Ongwen ‘said he didn’t commit the 6908 crimes’. When asked again if they asked Dominic Ongwen about each of the crimes, Dr Akena responded: ‘We asked him about his mental state between the periods of 2002 6909 and 2005’.

text: Professor Ovuga, when asked a similar question, responded: ‘I am not sure if the alleged crimes were specifically linked to him with the evidence you have, or is it a matter of 6910 asking me for my opinion as to whether – opinion and fact as to whether I asked him’. Moreover, asked specifically about sexual and gender-based crimes, Professor Ovuga stated that ‘[t]he brief given to [them] was not sexual offences’ but was given ‘for 6911 nonsexual offences’.

text: The Chamber considers the above explanations to be insufficient and unsatisfactory in light of the clear and unambiguous language of

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , which requires an assessment of the relevant criteria ‘at the time of that person’s conduct’. That the task of mental health experts engaged by a criminal court for an examination of the accused with a view to establishing whether criminal responsibility is excluded is to explore specifically the mental status of the accused at the time of the acts in question is manifestly obvious and beyond discussion. The failure of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena to correctly focus their examination is striking, and represents another reason preventing the Chamber from relying on their evidence.

text: Based on the above factors affecting the reliability of the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena, the Chamber concludes that it cannot rely on that evidence, and in particular not on the diagnoses of mental disorders in Dominic Ongwen which are advanced therein.

text: 6908 D-0041: T-249, p. 41, lines 21-24. 6909 D-0041: T-249, p. 42, lines 2-5. See also p. 43, lines 10-13. 6910 D-0042: T-251, p. 65, lines 8-13. 6911 D-0042: T-251, p. 65, line 14 – p. 67, line 6. See also p. 71, lines 1-15.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 907/1077 4 February 2021 v. Other evidence discussed by the parties

text: In this final section of its analysis under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber provides a brief explanation of the reasons why it does not rely on some further evidence discussed by the parties.

text: In particular, the Chamber also has before it the report of Professor Joop T. de Jong, dated 6912 7 January 2017. This report was prepared following a decision by the Chamber of 16 December 2016, which ordered that ‘a psychiatric examination of Dominic Ongwen be conducted with a view to: (i) making a diagnosis as to any mental condition or disorder that Dominic Ongwen may suffer at the present time; and (ii) providing specific recommendations on any necessary measure/treatment that may be required to address 6913 any such condition or disorder at the detention centre’. In line with that, the report discussed Dominic Ongwen’s mental health at the time of preparation of the report, and properly did not attempt to make a historical diagnosis. In his report, Professor De Jong diagnosed Dominic Ongwen with post-traumatic stress disorder (severe), major 6914 depressive disorder (severe), and other specified dissociative disorder. Professor De Jong did not testify during the trial.

text: The Chamber notes that Professor De Jong prepared his report on the basis of two in- 6915 person interviews and one telephone interview with Dominic Ongwen, as well as on the basis of ‘[d]ocumentation of the physical, psychological, and psychiatric assessment 6916 of the Detention Centre staff in The Hague’. Professor De Jong concluded his report by alerting to the fact that it has ‘several shortcomings’, among which he singled out as ‘most important’ the fact that ‘it was not possible to complement the interviews with 6917 additional information from the family and the community’.

text: In sum, considering that Professor De Jong’s report was prepared for a different purpose, having as its object of examination Dominic Ongwen’s mental health at the time of the examination during the trial, and not at the time of his conduct relevant under the charges,

text: 6912 See UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01. 6913 Decision on the Defence Request to Order a Medical Examination of Dominic Ongwen, 16 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Conf (public redacted version available: ICC-02/04-01/15-637-Red), p. 18. 6914 Professor De Jong’s Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0051. 6915 Professor De Jong’s Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0048. 6916 Professor De Jong’s Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0047. 6917 Professor De Jong’s Report, UGA-D26-0015-0046-R01, at 0074.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 908/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber does not consider that it can rely on that report directly for its conclusions with respect to the issue at hand.

text: Further, the Chamber notes that the Defence also refers in its closing brief to the report of Professor Seggane Musisi, submitted by the Common Legal Representative of 6918 Victims. The Chamber does not rely on the evidence of Professor Musisi, for the reason that it does not provide specific information in relation to the question whether Dominic Ongwen suffered from a mental disease or defect during the period of the charges.

text: vi. Conclusion

text: In line with the above, based on the expert evidence of Professor Mezey, Dr Abbo and Professor Weierstall-Pust, who did not identify any mental disease or disorder in Dominic Ongwen during the period of the charges, further based on the corroborating evidence heard during the trial, which is incompatible with any such mental disease or disorder, and noting that the evidence of Professor Ovuga and Dr Akena cannot be relied upon, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the conduct relevant under the charges. A ground excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: is not applicable.

text: Duress

text: i. Introduction

text: Duress in

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: has three elements. The first element is that the conduct alleged to constitute the crime has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person. The threat in question may either be: (i) made by other persons or (ii) 6919 constituted by other circumstances beyond that person’s control. The threat is to be 6920 assessed at the time of that person’s conduct.

text: From the plain language of the provision, the words ‘imminent’ and ‘continuing’ refer to the nature of the threatened harm, and not the threat itself. It is not an ‘imminent threat’

text: 6918 Defence Closing Brief, para. 539. See PCV-0003 Report, UGA-PCV-0003-0046. 6919

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: . 6920

text: Article 31

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 909/1077 4 February 2021 of death or a ‘continuing or imminent threat’ of serious bodily harm –

text: the Statute

text: does not contain such terms. Rather, the threatened harm in question must be either to be killed immediately (‘imminent death’), or to suffer serious bodily harm immediately or in an ongoing manner (‘continuing or imminent serious bodily harm’). On this understanding, duress is unavailable if the accused is threatened with serious bodily harm that is not going to materialise sufficiently soon. A merely abstract danger or simply an elevated probability that a dangerous situation might occur – even if continuously present – does 6921 not suffice.

text: The second element of duress in

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: is that the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid the threat. The person is not required to take all conceivable action to avoid the threat, irrespective of considerations of proportionality or feasibility. The Chamber must specifically consider what, if any, acts could ‘necessarily and reasonably’ avoid the threat, and what the person should have done must be assessed under the totality of the circumstances in which the person found themselves. Whether others in comparable circumstances were able to necessarily and reasonably avoid the same threat is relevant in assessing what acts were necessarily and reasonably available.

text: Finally, the third element of duress in

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: is that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. This is a subjective element – it is not required that the person actually avoided the greater harm, only that he/she intended to do so. The Chamber considers that assessment of whether one intended harm is ‘greater’ than another depends on the character of the harms under comparison.

text: In the present case, as is clear from the analysis below, already the first element of duress under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: is not met, and it is not necessary, or even possible, to consider its remaining elements.

text: 6921 A. Eser in O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the

text: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

text: : Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008), p. 1151 (and at footnote 160 on this same page: ‘[t]he concrete imminence of the threat could become pertinent in a case of coerced recruitment, especially of child soldiers, since an accused cannot raise the duress defence, if he was “only” coercively enrolled generally but not forced to commit the charged offence’).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 910/1077 4 February 2021

text: The conduct underlying the charges in the present case is not a single discrete act on the part of Dominic Ongwen, momentary or of a short duration. Rather, the conduct charged is complex and spread over the entire period of the charges between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. The Defence submits that Dominic Ongwen ‘was under a continuing threat of imminent death and serious bodily harm from Kony and his controlling, military 6922 apparatus’. The essence of the argument of the Defence is that the threat which caused Dominic Ongwen to engage in the conduct underlying the charged crimes originated in Joseph Kony’s control of the LRA, which Joseph Kony allegedly maintained through a combination of strict disciplinary rules which severely punished non-compliance with orders, the tight supervision of commanders, and successful assertion of spiritual 6923 powers.

text: 6924 The Prosecution submits that duress is not applicable in the present case. It argues principally that ‘[a]lthough the LRA sometimes inflicted severe punishment on its members for breaking the armed group’s rules, the Chamber has heard no evidence that Mr Ongwen’s conduct was caused by a threat of imminent death or imminent or 6925 continuing serious bodily harm against him or another person’. To disprove the existence of such a threat to Dominic Ongwen, the Prosecutor makes arguments on five topics: the LRA disciplinary regime, collective punishment, spies, spirits, and 6926 specifically the threat of arrest, demotion or other punishment. In addition, the parties 6927 discussed the impossibility, or difficulty, of escape from the LRA. In the assessment of the Chamber, and in the circumstances of the present case, the possibility of escaping or otherwise leaving the LRA also informs the conclusions on the existence or nature of the threat, even though it possibly has a more straightforward relevance for the discussion of the necessity and reasonableness of the conduct in response to the threat. For this reason, the Chamber considers it appropriate to consider the evidence on the possibility of escape already for the purpose of determining whether a threat within the meaning of

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: existed at the time of Dominic Ongwen’s relevant conduct.

text: 6922 Defence Closing Brief, para. 680. 6923 See generally Defence Closing Brief, paras 681-722. 6924 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 472. 6925 Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 475. 6926 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 482-500. 6927 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 507-15; Defence Closing Brief, paras 714-22.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 911/1077 4 February 2021

text: As already stated above, there is no specific provision in

text: the Statute

text: related to the burden and standard of proof as concerns grounds excluding criminal responsibility under 6928 Article 31, and for this reason, the general provisions of

text: the Statute

text: apply. Under

text: Article 66

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: Taking into account the submissions of the parties, the Chamber provides hereunder its analysis of the question whether Dominic Ongwen, at the time of his relevant conduct, was subject to a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against himself or another person. For clarity and structure, the analysis is split into sub-sections covering broad topics, but it must be understood that the issues addressed significantly overlap and inform a single conclusion given in the final sub-section below.

text: ii. Dominic Ongwen’s status in the LRA hierarchy and the applicability of LRA disciplinary regime to him

text: It is an established fact that the mechanisms used in the LRA to ensure obedience in its 6929 ranks, discussed in detail above, were characterised by their brutality. However, as also discussed above, there was a difference between the status of low-ranking LRA members and the higher commanders: whereas the LRA was an effective, hierarchically structured organisation, it was not under the absolute control of Joseph Kony, and Joseph Kony relied on the co-operation of various LRA commanders to execute LRA 6930 policies. Therefore, Dominic Ongwen’s situation in the LRA was not analogous to that of any low-level member or recent abductee. Those persons were, as the evidence demonstrates, frequently placed in situations where they had to perform certain actions under threat of 6931 imminent death or physical punishment. Dominic Ongwen was also personally the 6932 source of such threats, including the specific instance in which he explicitly threatened P-0226 and a number of other girls with death in order to make them beat a

text: 6928 See section IV.A above. 6929 See section IV.C.2.ii.d above. 6930 See paras 866-873 above. 6931 See section IV.C.2.ii.d. See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 688. 6932 See paras 964-966 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 912/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6933 captured government soldier to death. The Chamber considers that due to his status as a battalion and brigade commander, in charge of his group, Dominic Ongwen’s situation was fundamentally different from that of low-level LRA members or recent abductees.

text: In its assessment, the Chamber focuses on the situation of Dominic Ongwen as battalion and brigade commander during the period of the charges. Dominic Ongwen’s childhood experience in the LRA is not central to the issue. The Defence relies on certain evidence relating to Dominic Ongwen’s life in the LRA in the period immediately following his 6934 abduction in the 1980s, when Dominic Ongwen was a child. However, this evidence is not as such relevant for the determination whether a threat relevant under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: existed at the time of the conduct relevant for the charges, many years after Dominic Ongwen’s abduction, when he was an adult and in a commanding position. Even if the threat to Dominic Ongwen were to start at the time of his abduction, that threat would have to express itself at the time of his conduct during the period of the charges – and be discernible from the abundant evidence which relates to that time. Also, as concerns Dominic Ongwen’s mental development and status, the Chamber recalls that, as discussed above, no mental disease or defect at the time of the conduct relevant to the 6935 charges was identified in Dominic Ongwen. The Defence argument that the 6936 provisions of Article 31(1)(a) and (d) could be combined is addressed below.

text: 6937 As discussed above, the evidence indicates that as a matter of fact, high-ranking commanders of the LRA, including Dominic Ongwen, did not always execute Joseph Kony’s orders.

text: One witness testimony already referred to above, but which is necessary to recall in detail also in the present context, is that of P-0440. During his testimony, P-0440 discussed Joseph Kony’s order to stop abductions , and stated that compliance with this order ‘varie[d], depending on how somebody ha[d] perceived it’, and that ‘[s]ome people could 6938 – may follow that they should not abduct, but some people could violate the orders’.

text: 6933 See section IV.C.10.ii.d.i above. 6934 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 682. 6935 See section IV.D.1 above. 6936 See para. 2671. 6937 See paras 866-873 above. 6938 P-0440: T-39, p. 83, line 25 – p. 84, line 14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 913/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0440 named two persons, Onen Unita and Odongo, as examples of commanders who

text: did not obey Joseph Kony’s orders and who Joseph Kony complained about and called

text: 6939 lazy. Asked how these commanders could avoid carrying out Joseph Kony’s orders,

text: 6940 P-0440 stated that they could delegate the tasks to subordinates, but also said:

text: I know most times when somebody does not want to do something, they make up excuses so that they do not go on mission, for example, they pretend to be ill or, if they don’t want to go, they make up their minds that, okay, I do not really want to 6941 go, so if I pretend that I’m sick, then I would not suffer consequences from that.

text: Similar to the evidence of P-0440 is the statement of Hillary Daniel Lagen, who testified

text: that Ocan Bunia, Gilva brigade commander, did not take part in ‘any of the Kony

text: operations’ for more than two years, and, specifically, that he refused Joseph Kony’s

text: 6942 order to go and attack the Alero camp. Hillary Daniel Lagen also stated that a number

text: of commanders ‘always found ways to not do exactly what… uh… he had instructed

text: 6943 them to do’.

text: 6944 P-0070 similarly testified that Ocan Bunia, Gilva brigade commander in 2003-04,

text: was ‘always accused of being a coward’ and of avoiding going to the battlefront ‘[e]ven

text: 6945 if he is issued instructions or orders to go and fight’. P-0070 was not aware of any

text: punishments Ocan Bunia would have received for this, despite Ocan Bunia’s lack of

text: 6946 participation being discussed frequently during radio communications.

text: P-0231, who served under Dominic Ongwen, testified specifically about commanders

text: finding ways to not do exactly what they were instructed. Importantly, P-0231 described

text: Dominic Ongwen as a commander who did not automatically execute Joseph Kony’s

text: orders, but intervened if he deemed it necessary, including going back to Joseph Kony

text: 6947 for more information. Even though P-0231 stated that if Joseph Kony insisted his

text: 6939 P-0440: T-40, p. 4, lines 17-22. 6940 P-0440: T-40, p. 4, line 23 – p. 5, line 12. 6941 P-0440: T-40, p. 6, line 18 – p. 7, line 9. 6942 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0569-R01, at 0575, lines 163-80. See also P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0220-0678-R01, at 0697, lines 672-77. 6943 P-0040 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0209-0569-R01, at 0583, lines 400-01. 6944 P-0070: T-105, p. 72, lines 18-19. 6945 P-0070: T-106, p. 42, line 23 – p. 43, line 2. 6946 P-0070: T-106, p. 43, lines 3-7. On this point, P-0070 is corroborated by the records of intercepted radio communications, see ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0048, 0064, 0094, 0202-03; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0209, 0337; UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4227, 4234, 4250, 4318, 4321-22; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7309, at 7426. 6947 P-0231: T-123, p. 83, line 6 – p. 84, line 9.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 914/1077 4 February 2021

text: 6948 order would be executed, the kind of interaction between Dominic Ongwen and Joseph Kony as described by P-0231 is incompatible with a situation of threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

text: P-0231’s testimony is corroborated by other insiders’ testimonies. P-0016, a longstanding LRA insider, testified that he personally observed when ‘Kony wanted to do something bad’ Dominic Ongwen ‘would clearly tell Kony that this thing is bad, don’t 6949 do it’.

text: Furthermore, when asked about Dominic Ongwen’s competence at tactics and planning, former LRA fighter Daniel Opiyo stated:

text: Well, Dominic would not just engage in something without being sure. If there is – and he wouldn’t do things on his volition. If there is an order from his senior, he would sit down with his officers and they would assess. If they feel that this is not practical or they feel it’s not feasible, Dominic would object to doing that. But if 6950 he knew he was able to accomplish that, he would do that. The Chamber also notes in this context P-0226’s testimony to the effect that upon her abduction in 1998, Dominic Ongwen successfully evaded the authority of Joseph Kony 6951 to keep P-0226 for himself, even after Joseph Kony sent his escorts to collect her. P- 6952 0226 did not see Dominic Ongwen beaten for this conduct.

text: Joseph Okilan testified that ‘if you don’t follow Kony’s commands, that means death is 6953 assured for you’, but the Chamber considers that this general assertion is unreliable in light of the specific and contextualised evidence provided by several other witnesses, as just laid out.

text: Indeed, it transpires from the above that the relationship between Joseph Kony and Dominic Ongwen was not characterised by the complete dominance of the former and subjection of the latter. On the contrary, what results clearly from the above witness testimonies is that Dominic Ongwen was a self-confident commander who took his own decisions on the basis of what he thought right or wrong.

text: 6948 P-0231: T-123, p. 84, lines 8-9. 6949 P-0016: T-34-CONF, p. 42, lines 5-7. 6950 D-0056: T-229, p. 33, line 24 – p. 34, line 6. 6951 P-0226: T-8-CONF, p. 26, line 24 – p. 35, line 6. See also section IV.C.10.i.d above. 6952 P-0226: T-9-CONF, p. 32, lines 16-22, p. 36, lines 11-12. 6953 D-0019: T-236, p. 16, line 24 – p. 17, line 8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 915/1077 4 February 2021

text: The witness evidence as recounted is corroborated by intercepted radio communications,

text: which contain exchanges between Joseph Kony and other LRA commanders in which

text: the non-execution of orders is discussed.

text: One particularly relevant communication was intercepted on 18 May 2004.

text: According to the transcript and the annotation and summary provided by P-0003, P-0016,

text: P-0059 and P-0440, the communication involves Joseph Kony, in a conversation with

text: Vincent Otti and Buk Abudema, complaining that certain commanders, in particular

text: Angola and Odongo, were not working well. Conversely, Joseph Kony gave to

text: Vincent Otti the example of Dominic Ongwen as somebody who worked well, and

text: expressed the wish that everybody would work as well as Dominic Ongwen.

text: is indicative for the determination of the control that Joseph Kony exerted

text: over LRA commanders. As such, it is fully compatible with the Chamber’s conclusion.

text: Furthermore, there are other records of intercepted radio communications which indicate

text: that Joseph Kony expressed dissatisfaction with LRA commanders, yet did not order

text: 6954 See section IV.B.3.ii.m above. 6955 P-0003: T-43, p. 31, line 3 – p. 33, line 13; P-0003 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0198-R01, at 0201- 06; P-0016: T-33, p. 6, line 16 – p. 8, line 17; P-0016 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0044; P-0059: T-37, p. 13, line 8 – p. 15, line 24; P-0059 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0436-R01, at 0437-46; P-0440: T-40, p. 40, line 1 – p. 42, line 10; P-0440 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0399-R01, at 0400-09. 6956 P-0003: T-43, p. 31, line 3 – p. 33, line 13; P-0003 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0198-R01, at 0201- 06; P-0016: T-33, p. 6, line 16 – p. 8, line 17; P-0016 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0259-0044; P-0059: T-37, p. 13, line 8 – p. 15, line 24; P-0059 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0248-0436-R01, at 0437-46; P-0440: T-40, p. 40, line 1 – p. 42, line 10; P-0440 Tape 822 Transcript, UGA-OTP-0262-0399-R01, at 0400-09. The Defence submitted that D-0032 ‘testified that Kony was praising Mr Ongwen for being efficient in attacking government soldiers and defeating them in battle as opposed to the Prosecution inference of attacking civilians’ (Defence Closing Brief, para. 689). This submission is, in addition to being directly contradictory to the proposition that Dominic Ongwen committed crimes against civilians under duress originating from Joseph Kony, also irrelevant to the issue under consideration, which is whether Dominic Ongwen was under threat from Joseph Kony at the time. The submission is also not supported by the cited evidence, which in fact only contains an abstract definition of an efficient commander according to D-0032. See D-0032: T-201-CONF, p. 28, lines 9-20. 6957 6958 6959

text: See

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 916/1077 4 February 2021 punishment or issue threats, at least not on the same occasion. On 22 January 2004, Joseph Kony is recorded in the ISO logbook as complaining about ‘all his com[man]d[e]rs’ as ignorant and not listening to his advice, which resulted in gunship 6960 attacks on the LRA. On 5 July 2004, an ISO logbook recorded Joseph Kony as ‘seriously complaining that all his com[man]d[e]rs are not serious with what they are doing’, and that ‘a com[man]d[e]r like Galdino is on his own and not following orders of 6961 his superiors’. In light of this evidence the Chamber considers the Defence’s assertion that ‘[t]here was therefore an unquestionable obligation to follow Kony’s orders, failure 6962 of which would result into death’ as totally unsupported by the evidence.

text: The parties also discussed the question whether Joseph Kony employed spies in order to 6963 control his subordinate commanders, in particular Dominic Ongwen. The evidence in the trial does not provide any basis for consideration of spies, or a spy network, as a 6964 separate phenomenon, and the Chamber actually considers that the issue folds entirely within the analysis of the nature of the hierarchical relationship between Joseph Kony and the LRA commanders, including Dominic Ongwen.

text: The Chamber notes that the Defence submits, also specifically in the context of duress, that ‘neither men nor women had a choice when partners were distributed to them by 6965 Kony’. However, in light of the preceding analysis, and in light of the specific discussion of this question above, which concluded that imposing so-called ‘marriage’ 6966 on men was not an issue in the LRA, the Chamber considers the submission of the Defence to be unsustainable on the basis of the evidence, and therefore rejects it.

text: 6960 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0013. It is noted that a corresponding UDPF logbook records Joseph Kony as continuing, saying that as from that day, if an abductee escapes, the ‘remnants’ should all be killed, ‘even if they are more than one hundred’ (UGA-OTP-0254-4143, at 4207). Whereas it indicates that Joseph Kony issued a genereal threat, this information does not indicate that Joseph Kony ordered any punishment for the events he was complaining about. 6961 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0088. 6962 Defence Closing Brief, para. 684. 6963 Prosecution Closing Brief, paras 492-94; Defence Closing Brief, para. 691 (arguing, without referring to specific items of evidence, that there was ‘omnipresent surveillance by selected individuals within the LRA, who reported to Kony’). See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 717 and the analysis at para. 2637 below. 6964 See also in relation to a very specific related point, para. 2637 below. 6965 Defence Closing Brief, para. 683. 6966 See para. 2229 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 917/1077 4 February 2021 iii. Executions of senior LRA commanders on Joseph Kony’s orders

text: The Defence emphasised that on several occasions, high-ranking commanders of the

text: LRA were killed on the orders of Joseph Kony and that due to the comparable position

text: of Dominic Ongwen, these killings are indicative of the existence of a threat for his life

text: too. This relates in particular to the killings of Otti Lagony and Okello Can Odonga

text: in 1998, the killing of James Opoka in 2002 and the killing of Vincent Otti sometime

text: after the period of the charges in the DRC.

text: Even though, with the exception of the killing of James Opoka, these facts all occurred

text: outside the period of the charges, the Chamber considers they are all relevant to the issue

text: under consideration. For this reason, the Chamber analyses them in detail. Because the

text: evidence indicates that the killings were widely known within the LRA, the Chamber

text: focuses in its analysis on witnesses who indicated that they had some sort of personal

text: knowledge about the events.

text: As concerns the killings of Otti Lagony and Okello Can Odonga, the Chamber notes first

text: that the evidence confirms that they occupied senior positions in the LRA. Several

text: witnesses described in detail how Otti Lagony and Okello Can Odonga were killed on Joseph Kony’s orders, after a large gathering of the LRA at which Joseph Kony addressed

text: 6969 6970

text: the members. P-0231 testified that this took place in 1998. Witness evidence also

text: 6967 Defence Closing Brief, para. 684. 6968 D-0032: T-199, p. 30, line 14 – p. 31, line 3 (testifying that he knew Otti Lagony, whose final position was commanding officer in charge of operations and ‘more or less deputy to Kony’, and Okello Can Odonga, commonly known only as Can Odonga, who was initially the deputy to the operations commander and was then moved to Stockree brigade command); P-0231: T-123, p. 43, line 1 – p. 44, line 1 (stating that at the time Otti Lagony was the second most senior person in the LRA, in Control Altar, while Can Odongo was Gilva brigade commander); P-0172: T-113, p. 44, lines 10-11 (stating that Otti Lagony was Joseph Kony’s second-in-command). 6969 D-0032: T-199, p. 31, lines 4-12 (testifying that Otti Lagony and Can Odonga were killed on the order of Joseph Kony, who brought them in front of the ‘whole congregation’ and said that they had planned to escape and wanted to defect), p. 32, lines 5-7 (stating that about 2,500 were present at the gathering), p. 33, lines 8-23 (testifying that Otti Lagony and Okello Can Odonga were blindfolded, taken away and shot behind the barracks, ‘somewhere in the bushes’, and that he heard the gunshots); P-0172: T-113, p. 44, lines 12-23 (testifying that ‘we heard that Lagony was asking too many questions, he was accused of planning to escape’, and that he was present when Joseph Kony gathered the people and asked ‘What should we do to Lagony?’, that later, in the evening, Otti Lagony was ‘taken and killed’, and that a brigadier known as ‘Canodonga’ was killed together with Otti Lagony). See also P-0231: T-123, p. 43, line 1-16 (testifying that he was present at the place where Otti Lagony and ‘Can Odongo’ were killed); P-0205: T-49, p. 29, line 3 – p. 30, line 2 (testifying that he was present nearby for the killings of ‘Okello’ and Otti Lagony, and specifying that while he could not hear the gunshots due to heavy downpour, he confirmed their absence from the group thereafter); D-0020 Statement, UGA-D26-0010-0382, para. 12 (stating that he saw Okello Can Odonga ‘tied really tightly’, heard Joseph Kony ordering to execute him together with Otti Lagony and that he later heard the gunshots). 6970 P-0231: T-123, p. 43, lines 1-5.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 918/1077 4 February 2021 establishes that the reason behind the execution of Otti Lagony and Okello Can Odonga was that they were challenging Joseph Kony’s authority as the exclusive leader of the

text: LRA.

text: Turning to the case of James Opoka, D-0032 testified that he heard from Vincent Otti

text: that Joseph Kony had ordered the arrest and killing of James Opoka, because he ‘ha[d]

text: an arrangement to escape from the LRA with LRA soldiers, the former LRA soldiers so

text: that he – they would take them back to Uganda’. D-0092 corroborated the evidence

text: of D-0032. As to the time of this incident there is some discrepancy in the evidence,

text: but the conclusion that suffices, and which can confidently be made, is that James Opoka

text: was killed around the end of 2002.

text: As for the killing of Vincent Otti, P-0205 testified that at Ri Kwamba – in the DRC,

text: Vincent Otti was apprehended and taken away across a river and shot; the witness could

text: hear the gunshots. P-0233 testified that he witnessed Joseph Kony order the

text: killing. While noting that he was low in rank and would only hear things from other

text: people, P-0233 also testified that there was a ‘divergence between what Otti stood for

text: and what Kony was standing for’.

text: 6971 D-0032: T-199, p. 31, lines 9-11 (testifying that Joseph Kony stated that the two men were ‘competing’ and did not have the desire to stay in the LRA, and for these reasons should be killed); P-0231: T-123, p. 43, lines 7- 14 (explaining that he at first heard that they had been trying to connect with the Ugandan government so that they may defect, and later also that Otti Lagony ‘had ordered for abduction of women and he distributed them to some of his officers without telling Kony’ and that this meant that ‘he wanted to sway all the soldiers to respect him so that he becomes the overall boss’); D-0018: T-185, p. 45, lines 6-16 (stating that Otti Lagony was ‘executed because he went directly to deal with Arabs, the Sudan government’). See also: D-0020 Statement, UGA-D26- 0010-0382, para. 12 (explained that he had heard that Okello Can Odongo and Otti Lagony were planning ‘a coup’); see also para. 11. 6972 D-0032: T-199, p. 35, line 13 – p. 36, line 2. 6973 D-0092: T-208, p. 33, line 20 – p. 34, line 3 (‘You know, the way Opoka joined us in the bush, I was already an escort with the boss himself, Opoka did not come alone. He came with some people, they even came with some radio calls. Opoka did not have any rank in the bush. He went as a boss himself. He was a bit big-headed and started planning with other officers and told other officers that Kony was taking long and delaying to overthrow the government, they should allow so that Kony is shot. That is when the spirit reported that to Kony and he was arrested. He had not taken long in the bush yet.’). The Chamber notes that D-0092 testified that he heard James Opoka was killed, but that he was not present at the time, see D-0092: T-208, p. 34, lines 10-14. 6974 See D-0032: T-199, p. 36, lines 3-6 (stating that James Opoka was killed around October 2002); compared with ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0065-0002, at 0118 (logbook entry dated 20 December 2002, stating that James Opoka was with Joseph Kony in Sudan) and ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0004-05 (a logbook entry on 13 March 2003, where Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti discuss how the information of the LRA killing James Opoka could have reached the media). 6975 P-0205: T-49, p. 30, lines 15-21. P-0205 added that afterwards, ‘people were convened and some instructions were given that whoever is seen talking or heard talking about what has happened, the person would be punished’, P-0205: T-49, p. 30, lines 22-23. 6976 P-0233: T-112, p. 13, line 20 – p. 16, line 19. 6977 P-0233: T-122, p. 20, lines 8-10. See also T-122, p. 20, line 10 – p. 21, line 25.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 919/1077 4 February 2021

text: In conclusion on this issue, the Chamber notes that the evidence in relation to all three instances of killings of senior LRA commanders on the orders of Joseph Kony does not indicate that the commanders were executed for failing to execute orders to engage in operations, by remaining passive. Rather, they were caused by these commanders challenging ‘politically’ the power of Joseph Kony as the exclusive leader of the LRA i.e. by seeking to take more general decisions in relation to the goals and priorities of the LRA. This is why the Chamber does not see a basis in this evidence to draw the conclusion that Joseph Kony inevitably and immediately ordered the killing of commanders who did not execute his orders.

text: In fact, as discussed above, there is strong evidence to the effect that Joseph Kony could not always rely on the unconditional compliance with his orders by the commanders under him. There is evidence that during the period of the charges, Joseph Kony at most demoted or threatened to demote non-performing commanders. This is demonstrated by two entries in the logbooks of intercepted radio communications from the period of the charges.

text: The ISO logbook recorded on 16 April 2003 Dominic Ongwen reporting a UPDF gunship 6978 raid on the previous day. The ISO staff recording the communication then noted:

text: Kony could not wait for Dominic to finish when he just blasted him that Dominic looks to be a weak com[man]d[e]r and why is it always that only him that gunship raid and succeeds very well and not others. Kony said that if Dominic is not careful, then he will be demoted so that another off[ice]r take charge of that BN. He strongly warned that if he again hear that any of his unit com[man]d[e]r was raided by gunship and they succeed as it happened to Dominic then that com[man]d[e]r 6979 will have problem with him.

text: 6978 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0124. 6979 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0124. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 0455, at 0490-91. The Chamber notes that the UPDF logbook records communication indicating that Lakati and Vincent Otti ‘forced’ Dominic Ongwen to send the report ‘on their behalf’. As concerns the reaction of Joseph Kony, the UPDF logbook corresponds in substance to the ISO logbook. In these circumstances, the small discrepancy between the two logbooks is immaterial.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 920/1077 4 February 2021

text: Similarly, on 14 May 2004 Joseph Kony is recorded in an ISO logbook as ordering the separation of two commanders ‘b[ecau]se if they stay together they will keep on defying 6980 orders’.

text: Finally under this heading, the Chamber recalls, noting the Defence allegation that ‘Dominic himself came close to execution for getting in touch with and receiving money 6981 from Lt General Salim Saleh’, that it does not rely on the item of evidence cited by 6982 the Defence. Considering also that there is no other evidence to the same effect, it must be concluded that there is no basis in the evidence to reach the conclusion proposed by the Defence.

text: iv. Possibility of escaping from or leaving the LRA

text: The phenomenon of escape from the LRA is discussed above in the context of its mechanisms to ensure capability to undertake military operations, including compliance 6983 with orders. In that context, the Chamber also observed that escape from the LRA 6984 was relatively common. However, in the present context, the Chamber has to determine, on the basis of the evidence, whether and to what extent escape from or otherwise leaving the LRA was possible for Dominic Ongwen, or for LRA members of comparable status and authority. This is because, in the assessment of the Chamber, the possibility for Dominic Ongwen to escape or leave the LRA militates against the conclusion that threat of imminent death or imminent or continuing serious bodily harm to himself or another person caused him to engage in conduct underlying the charged crimes. In other words, for Dominic Ongwen to have engaged in such conduct when escaping or leaving was possible is a strong indication that he acted on his own accord.

text: 6985 As discussed above, Dominic Ongwen was briefly arrested in April 2003. The evidence indicates that his arrest was ordered by Joseph Kony over an allegation of 6986 communicating by phone with the government. The Defence, citing Florence Ayot’s

text: 6980 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0206, at 0309. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 2982, at 3033; UPDF Logbook (Lira), UGA-OTP-0255-0228, at 0243; UPDF Logbook (Sudan), UGA-OTP- 0242-7194, at 7270. 6981 Defence Closing Brief, paras 684-85. 6982 See para. 1054 above. 6983 See section IV.C.2.ii.e above. 6984 See para. 972 above. 6985 See paras 1050-1063 above. 6986 See paras 1050-1051 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 921/1077 4 February 2021 testimony, submits that ‘Dominic tried to escape while in sickbay, but was found out by

text: 6987 Kony and arrested’. As found by the Chamber, the arrest of Dominic Ongwen in April

text: 2003 did not for any significant period interrupt the exercise of his authority as an LRA 6988 6989 commander. In September 2003, Dominic Ongwen was promoted. In light of the 6990 fact that the other evidence, which is detailed and reliable as discussed above, does not indicate that an attempt to escape was the reason for Dominic Ongwen’s arrest, but

text: shows that the arrest followed contact with the government forces, the Chamber rejects

text: the evidence of Florence Ayot on this point. But in any case, the incident demonstrated

text: to Dominic Ongwen that defying Joseph Kony did not mean to be killed, and that the

text: consequences of being on the wrong side of Joseph Kony were not necessarily grave.

text: There is also overwhelming evidence that during the period relevant to the charges,

text: persons of relatively high rank and position in the LRA successfully escaped, including

text: some proximate to Dominic Ongwen.

text: First, there is consistent evidence from multiple sources indicating that Odong Cow, the

text: person in charge of the sickbay in which Dominic Ongwen was placed following his 6991 6992 injury in late 2002, escaped from that sickbay around March 2003. The Chamber

text: notes that P-0231 testified that he did not know of any punishment for Dominic Ongwen 6993 in relation to the escape of Odong Cow.

text: 6994 Further, Charles Lokwiya, who was support commander in Control Altar, testified

text: that he escaped from sickbay following his injury during the attack on Pajule IDP camp

text: on 10 October 2003, with one of his so-called ‘wives’, two other girls who were living 6995 in his household, as well as his child. The Chamber notes the argument of the Defence

text: 6987 Defence Closing Brief, para. 714, n. 1182; D-0013: T-244, p. 53, line 19 – p. 54, line 16. 6988 See para. 1063 above. 6989 See para. 1071 above. 6990 See paras 1050-1063 above. 6991 See para. 1034 above. 6992 P-0231: T-122, p. 53, line 25 – p. 54, line 3 (testifying that Odong Cow remained in charge of the sickbay ‘for a short while, perhaps five to six months’ and thereafter surrendered to the government); P-0379: T-57, p. 62, line 4 – p. 63, line 16 (providing a detailed account of the escape, which, the witness explained, took part during an operation). See also ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0063-0002, at 0017, 0087.

text: 6993 P-0231: T-123, p. 53, lines 6-11. 6994 D-0134: T-240, p. 30, line 18 – p. 31, line 3. 6995 D-0134: T-240, p. 71, lines 1-12. See also p. 70, line 15 – p. 71, line 5 (explaining the immediate circumstances of his escape).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 922/1077 4 February 2021 that Charles Lokwiya ‘was so worried about his plan to escape being discovered that he 6996 ’. Charles Lokwiya explained he did not do so because he

text: 6997 . This explanation, which is entirely reasonable, demonstrates indeed that Charles Lokwiya felt he had to ensure that his escape plan was not discovered. Yet, it is of no consequence for the present discussion that he felt .

text: P-0070 testified that he escaped just before the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, and therefore around May 2004, , together with people 6998 under his command. P-0070 explained in detail how he proposed to the group that 6999 they should escape and secured their agreement.

text: Still further, P-0440, who held the position of 7000 7001 , escaped from the LRA in August 2004. By reference to his prior 7002 statement, P-0440 confirmed that he escaped on August 2004. , less than two months before P-0440’s escape, , Joseph Kony told Vincent Otti that commanders P-0440 and Ogila were useless and that they 7003 might defect to the government. This is significant insofar as it demonstrates that Joseph Kony suspected that P-0440 could escape. Yet, as shown by the evidence, the escape was successful.

text: 6996 Defence Closing Brief, para. 686. 6997 D-0134: T-241-CONF, p. 20, lines 20-25. 6998 P-0070: T-106-CONF, p. 47, line 12 – p. 48, line 6. 6999 P-0070: T-106, p. 48, lines 7-25. 7000 P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 68, line 11 – p. 69, line 1. 7001 P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 71, lines 22-25 (‘I did come out of the bush in 2004. When I escaped it was my own decision, because I realized that the life I was in was not the right life for me. So I decided to leave the bush and come back home.’). 7002 P-0440: T-39-CONF, p. 72, line 6 – p. 73, line 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 923/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7004 P-0085, who at some point was second-in-command of , 7005 escaped in May 2004, . He gave clear and compelling testimony in relation to his thoughts at the time, and the execution of his escape plan, including how he shared his plan with his so-called ‘wives’ and his escorts, and how he could escape even after revealing his intention to some escorts who refused to escape 7006 with him. In the assessment of the Chamber, this testimony is extremely relevant, not only because it demonstrates that an LRA commander could, in the right circumstances, make and execute the decision to leave, but also because it shows how a commander could manage the risk associated with escaping, and, also very importantly, how he could, if he so wanted, also save from life in the LRA those under his control.

text: According to the evidence, other senior LRA members who successfully escaped during 7007 7008 the period of the charges include Onen Kamdulu and Sam Kolo.

text: Finally in this overview, the Chamber turns to the testimony of P-0209, who escaped in 7009 November 2009 when holding the position of . He testified that in 2008, he shared his escape plan with Dominic Ongwen, who in response told him ‘only 7010 one thing, about the court case on him, the indictment’. According to P-0209, 7011 Dominic Ongwen told him that he ‘feared the Court’. The fact that in this conversation, regarding which the Chamber has no reason to doubt P-0209, Dominic Ongwen did not mention the difficulty of escaping, or any fear of punishment should he fail in an attempt to escape, but referred only to the case before the Court, is further specific indication that there was no threat to him in the LRA. While this conversation took place in 2008, and therefore after the period of the charges, the Chamber still considers this evidence relevant with regard to the other evidence discussed.

text: 7004 P-0085: T-158-CONF, p. 21, line 3 – p. 22, line 22. 7005 P-0085: T-158, p. 44, line 23 – p. 45, line 5; T-158-CONF, p. 56, lines 2-7. 7006 P-0085: T-158-CONF, p. 55, line 5 – p. 57, line 11. 7007 D-0027: T-202, p. 55, lines 17-22; ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0152. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254-1077, at 1171; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-7500, at 7600- 01. 7008 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0161-62. See also P-0355: T-96, p. 77, lines 19-21; see also p. 70, line 24 – p. 71, line 4. 7009 P-0209: T-160, p. 9, lines 5-6; T-160-CONF, p. 39, lines 7-19. 7010 P-0209: T-160, p. 36, lines 3-25, p. 37, lines 7-9. 7011 P-0209: T-160, p. 37, lines 1-6.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 924/1077 4 February 2021

text: It is noted that records of intercepted radio communications also indicate that Dominic Ongwen was aware of a risk of being held individually criminally responsible for his actions as LRA commander as early as mid-2004. On 11 August 2004, he is recorded in the ISO logbook as making reference to President Museveni’s plan to take captured LRA 7012 commanders ‘to court for committing crime against humanity’. In the same message, Dominic Ongwen is recorded as stating that he would ‘fight until the dying hour and will 7013 die in the bush’. It may be added that, the risk of being held individually criminally responsible for one’s actions is not relevant under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: , and that evidence of this motivation for the continued stay in the LRA in fact militates against the suggestion that duress caused the conduct constituting crimes.

text: The Defence points to the testimony of Nathan Iron Emory to argue that it was ‘nearly 7014 impossible for him [i.e. the witness] to escape’. Reference to this witness in this context is inapposite, because he was never a member of the LRA, but a ‘guest 7015 commander’ as part of negotiations with various other actors in the conflict. Nathan Iron Emory’s testimony also does not contain any indication that the witness had difficulties in leaving Joseph Kony after meeting with him.

text: The Chamber also notes certain entries in the records of intercepted radio communications which represent further evidence of escapes from the LRA by persons of some status. On 9 September 2002, Lapanyikwara is recorded in the ISO logbook as informing Vincent Otti that one of their senior commanders called Ogwang escaped from 7016 his group. On 3 November 2004, an ISO logbook recorded a conversation between Labalpiny and Buk Abudema in which it was reported that a captain named Otim 7017 defected with four soldiers. The same logbook also includes an entry, dated 5 December 2004, indicating that a commander called Matata had escaped with five other 7018 soldiers.

text: 7012 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0183. 7013 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0183. See also UPDF Logbook, UGA-OTP-0255-0451, at 0468-69. 7014 Defence Closing Brief, para. 686. 7015 D-0018: T-185, p. 38, lines 13-15, p. 64, lines 19-24; T-186, p. 8, lines 19-24. See also for the context of the witness’s stay with the LRA, D-0018: T-185, p. 34, line 15 – p. 35, line 2, p. 41, line 18 – p. 42, line 1. 7016 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0064-0093, at 0122. 7017 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0024. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 3833, at 4079. 7018 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0152-0002, at 0082. See also UPDF Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0254- 1077, at 1084.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 925/1077 4 February 2021

text: The above is the evidence on record in relation to escapes by persons of some status in the LRA. But even beyond that, the Chamber heard dozens of personal escape stories from witnesses who came to testify during the trial, in particular from persons who due to their low hierarchical position in the LRA were under much tighter control than Dominic Ongwen. Just as examples of escapes which took place during the period relevant to the charges, the Chamber notes the following. P-0138 escaped in 2003 with another LRA soldier and some young children 7019 , and stated that he escaped ‘because [he] was not brainwashed 7020 anymore’. P-0018, who had taken part in the attack on Lukodi IDP camp on or about 19 May 2004, escaped the following morning together with a woman who had been abducted from the camp, by simply staying behind at the location where the attackers 7021 spent the night and then returning to Lukodi IDP camp. D-0118 decided to return home with her four-year old child after becoming separated from her group during an 7022 7023 attack. D-0119 successfully escaped in 2004, during her third attempt. P-0145 escaped in 2005 after 15 years in the LRA, taking with him two small children assigned to him, after having overcome their, and his own, fear that they may be killed upon 7024 7025 return. P-0097, who was at most 15 years old at the time, escaped in November 7026 2005 by hiding in the field that the unit had been sent to by Dominic Ongwen to loot. The Chamber further refers specifically to the analysis of evidence above, which shows that also women in Dominic Ongwen’s household, including some of his so-called 7027 ‘wives’, successfully escaped from the LRA.

text: It is in this context that the Chamber reads the ISO logbook entry of 3 August 2004, recording Joseph Kony as stating that the ‘rate of defection in LRA has gone too high these days and it needs LRA to remain with strong heart otherwise there is nothing he 7028 can do’.

text: 7019 P-0138: T-120-CONF, p. 17, lines 5-8, p. 71, line 25 – p. 73, line 1. 7020 P-0138: T-120, p. 68, lines 20-22, p. 69, line 24 – p. 70, line 8. 7021 P-0018: T-69, p. 18, line 13 – p. 19, line 2. 7022 D-0118: T-216-CONF, p. 41, lines 4-16. 7023 D-0119: T-196-CONF, p. 35, line 7 – p. 45, line 2. 7024 P-0145: T-143, p. 31, line 25 – p. 33, line 11. 7025 See section IV.B.2.ii.b.iv above. 7026 P-0097: T-108, p. 52, line 7 – p. 55, line 20. 7027 See section IV.C.10.iii above. 7028 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0145, at 0162.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 926/1077 4 February 2021

text: There can be no doubt that Dominic Ongwen was aware of escapes occurring in the LRA, including, as explained above, in his proximity. Moreover, the measures aimed at 7029 preventing escape that he contributed to maintaining, are a further indicator of the fact that he knew of the possibility of escaping. Taking into account all the evidence, in particular the above evidence of escapes by many senior commanders, the Chamber also agrees with the submission of the Prosecutor that Dominic Ongwen’s high rank and position placed him in a relatively better position to escape, as compared to lower-ranking 7030 LRA members.

text: The above evidence leads the Chamber to concluding that escaping from or otherwise leaving the LRA was a realistic option available to Dominic Ongwen at the time of the conduct relevant for the charges, as it was for many others who successfully escaped. The fact that he did not take this option is further indicative that he was not under serious threat when engaging in the conduct relevant for the charges.

text: The parties argued over the right interpretation of the fact that Dominic Ongwen refused 7031 to surrender at a meeting with government soldiers in September 2006. Joseph Balikudembe testified that during the meeting he asked Dominic Ongwen to surrender to 7032 him, and that Dominic Ongwen responded: ‘No, no, no, I cannot surrender’, and that also the resident district commissioner asked Dominic Ongwen to surrender, and 7033 Dominic Ongwen again refused.

text: The Defence has argued that Adjumani and Acaye Doctor were present among the LRA during that meeting, deployed as Joseph Kony’s personnel to ensure compliance with Joseph Kony’s orders, but since this argument is based entirely on Michael Oryem, whom the Chamber deems to be an unreliable witness, the allegation is not established in the 7034 evidence. In addition, Irumba Tingira, a UPDF officer who was also present at the meeting, was asked about this possibility, and testified that Dominic Ongwen was ‘fully

text: 7029 See section IV.C.2.ii.e above. 7030 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 512. 7031 See Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 513; Defence Closing Brief, paras 717-22. See also paras 2403-2412 above. 7032 P-0359: T-109, p. 78, lines 8-16. See also T-109, p. 79, lines 15-22. 7033 P-0359: T-109, p. 83, lines 9-12. 7034 Defence Closing Brief, para. 717. See also section IV.B.2.ii.b.xxxi above. The Defence also cites, in favour of a similar proposition that Dominic Ongwen was under surveillance, a 2003 document in fact relating to Dominic Ongwen’s brief arrest at that time, see Defence Closing Brief, para. 718, n. 1189.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 927/1077 4 February 2021 in charge of that group’ and that he remembered that at one point, he saw Dominic Ongwen give an order to Adjumani, and Adjumani ‘really hurried to execute the 7035 order’. The Chamber deems that this detail, coming as an observation from a military officer, is reliable and significant.

text: Further, the Chamber does not accept the argument of the Defence that at the same time, Vincent Otti was ‘closely monitoring safe passage of the LRA convoy’, when the evidence pointed to by the Defence in fact only indicates that Vincent Otti, by telephone, 7036 pleaded with Joseph Balikudembe to allow the convoy to proceed. There is nothing in the circumstances of Vincent Otti’s intervention which would indicate that the purpose of the call was to put pressure on Dominic Ongwen not to surrender. The Defence argument that Mega FM journalist Lacamber, who passed on the phone, ‘subverted the pressure for Mr Ongwen to surrender or release the children by placing a phone call to 7037 Vincent Otti’ is speculative.

text: The Chamber also rejects the argument of the Defence that following the ambush and killing of Raska Lukwiya by the UPDF a short time before, ‘it could not reasonably be 7038 expected for Mr Ongwen to surrender’ to the UPDF. The argument is irrelevant to the question of whether it was possible for Dominic Ongwen to leave the LRA, or more broadly to the question whether he was under threat of death or physical harm if he did not engage in the conduct underlying the charges. Equally irrelevant to the issue of duress is the Defence argument – which is speculative in nature – that Dominic Ongwen could not have been expected to contribute through his escape to the collapse of peace talks 7039 between the Ugandan government and the LRA.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen’s refusal to surrender in September 2006, although outside of the period of the charges, provides certain further basis to conclude that he was, during the time of his conduct relevant for the charges, not under threat of death or physical harm.

text: 7035 P-0189: T-96, p. 45, line 14 – p. 46, line 9. 7036 P-0359: T-109, p. 80, lines 6-12. See Defence Closing Brief, paras 719-21. 7037 See Defence Closing Brief, para. 719. 7038 Defence Closing Brief, para. 722. 7039 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 11, line 18 – p. 12, line 17.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 928/1077 4 February 2021

text: The evidence of Dominic Ongwen’s refusal to surrender during this meeting with government soldiers must also be considered together with the evidence of P-0172, who stated that following his own successful escape from the LRA, at the time of the peace talks around 2006, he spoke with Dominic Ongwen on the phone for about an hour, ‘explaining to him the benefit, the advantages of ICC, also the bad side of the people who 7040 were telling him not to return’. P-0172 stated that he used himself as an example, and also: ‘[O]n the issue of ICC, I told him that ICC is not bad. We told him that when you 7041 go to ICC you will not be killed.’

text: The Defence has further made the argument that ‘[i]mminent threats were also real and 7042 constant to the families and communities of the abductees, including Dominic’. The argument relates to the general threat made to LRA members that their home areas would be attacked if they escaped. This topic is analysed exhaustively above, where the Chamber concluded that such threats were made and were widely known, but that punitive attacks on escapees’ home areas occurred mostly before the relevant period, and during the relevant time only in one instance, which, however, presented characteristics which made it distinguishable from punishment for escape, in particular the fact that the 7043 person who escaped did so after stealing a weapon and opening fire on the LRA. On this basis, and also in light of all the evidence discussed above, as well as noting the complete absence of any evidence to the effect that the matter played a role for Dominic Ongwen, the Chamber does not consider that the possibility of collective punishment was a factor contributing to a threat relevant under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: v. Joseph Kony’s alleged spiritual powers

text: The Defence submitted that ‘Kony’s use of spiritualism cemented the threat to Mr 7044 Ongwen’s life and that of others’. The fact that Joseph Kony acted also as a spiritual leader, building on Acholi traditions, is uncontroversial and well-attested in the 7045 evidence. In this context, the Defence submits that ‘children like Mr Ongwen had to

text: 7040 P-0172: T-113, p. 34, line 15 – p. 36, line 10. 7041 P-0172: T-113, p. 36, lines 6-10. 7042 Defence Closing Brief, para. 690. 7043 See para. 998 above. 7044 Defence Closing Brief, paras 692-93. See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 24-29. 7045 See, for example, P-0264: T-65, p. 73, lines 8-10; P-0144: T-92, p. 22, line 24 – p. 23, line 5; P-0045: T-104, p. 41, lines 24-25; P-0233: T-112, p. 9, lines 2-9; D-0079: T-189, p. 16, lines 8-12. See also Defence Closing Brief, para. 710.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 929/1077 4 February 2021 adhere to the LRA’s moral order, which within the environment of the LRA exposed one

text: 7046 to violent acts’.

text: During the trial, the Chamber heard a number of personal accounts by former LRA members who were questioned about the effect of LRA spiritualism on them. This evidence informs the Chamber’s view on whether spiritualism was in some way used to create or sustain a threat relevant under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: Whereas there is evidence that some persons did believe in the spiritual powers of Joseph 7047 Kony, the Chamber observes that there is consistent evidence that for many persons

text: who stayed in the LRA longer their belief followed a pattern: it was stronger in the young, new and impressionable abductees and then subsided and disappeared in those who stayed in the LRA longer.

text: This trajectory was explained very clearly by P-0231, who stated that when he first saw 7048 Joseph Kony in 1995, he believed Joseph Kony was possessed by a spirit. However, the witness explained that when he was leaving the bush he was losing trust in what he heard and saw in the bush, and that he ‘did not believe so much that the spirits really

text: 7049 possessed [Joseph Kony]’. P-0231 also stated:

text: In regards to the spirits, when I had just arrived in the bush, when I was still young, I believed so much that the spirits were the ones that were protecting us against anything.

text: Later on, when I grew up and I became aware, I started realising that it was not that thing that was protecting me. I started believing that my own survival skill made

text: 7046 Defence Closing Brief, para. 712. 7047 P-0142: T-72, p. 20, lines 17-22 (stating that it was difficult for him to understand but that ‘from what [he] could see and what [Joseph Kony] would say’ he could believe that ‘maybe [Joseph Kony] has some spirit’); P- 0233: T-112, p. 8, line 24 – p. 10, line 7 (indicating that the witness believed and continues to believe in Joseph Kony’s spiritual powers); D-0024: T-192, p. 15, lines 5-9 (testifying that he did believe that Joseph Kony possessed supernatural powers); D-0027: T-202, p. 14, line 24 – p. 15, line 10 (testifying that he believed in the power of spirits in the LRA, and purporting, when asked whether others had the same feelings about the rituals, that ‘anybody who was a member of the LRA had the same kind of belief that I did’; an affirmation proved false by the evidence cited in the following paragraphs); D-0049: T-243, p. 22, lines 7-23 (testifying that while she was in the LRA, she believed that Joseph Kony had spiritual powers, and mentioned that interactions with people she found in the bush contributed to her belief); D-0056: T-228, p. 44, line 25 – p. 45, line 4 (stating that while in the bush, he ‘did have some kind of belief, but not a hundred per cent belief’); D-0074: T-187, p. 15, line 25 – p. 16, line 9; T-188, p. 19, lines 9-15 (testifying that he believed in Joseph Kony’s spirits and that ‘[e]verybody [within the LRA] believed’). 7048 P-0231: T-123, p. 32, line 25 – p. 33, line 2. 7049 P-0231: T-123, p. 33, lines 10-14.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 930/1077 4 February 2021 me to survive from whatever was happening in the bush. That was according to me.

text: I started realising that whatever Kony says, that this and that should be done, he first mentions so that you will follow what he wants. I realised later that because I was still young, it was what Kony used to brainwash you so that you can believe.

text: When I matured up, I became aware and knowledgeable in many of the things that were happening. I realised that even if I’m not told, I’m supposed to protect myself because I am already exposed to danger. No one can ensure I am safe. I should 7050 ensure that I safeguard myself so that I don’t die.

text: Very similarly to P-0231, also P-0379 testified:

text: That’s what we are told. We are told, we are told about these things. But later on I, I became wiser and I decided that the use of things like the holy spirit is done to brainwash the younger children so that they do not escape. But at the time when it happened to me I believed it and I thought I had to comply and obey. But then when I realised that there were some people who were able to escape and not be apprehended, then I started doubting it because I knew that, that the holy spirit that 7051 they were talking about wasn’t actually effective.

text: P-0070, a witness with a long personal experience in the LRA, including in higher hierarchical positions, testified that while he was still young, the way Joseph Kony would speak and seeing the strength of the LRA at the time made him believe in Joseph Kony’s 7052 spiritual message, but that ‘later on [he] realised that it was different’.

text: P-0145, asked about Joseph Kony’s predictions about the future, affirmed that he 7053 ‘actually [did] not believe anything like that’. When asked about Joseph Kony’s alleged ability to know about LRA members’ escape or defection plans in advance, he

text: reacted as follows:

text: Well, he would say that he knew, he knew what people were thinking, he knew when people wanted to escape, but I believe he was just guessing because there are some times when he would kill somebody for no apparent reason if – regardless of whether the person wants to escape or not. So if he knew, if he actually knew people’s thoughts, if he knew whether people attempted to escape or not, don’t you think he would have called me and asked me as well at the time that I was planning 7054 to escape?

text: 7050 P-0231: T-123, p. 84, line 18 – p. 85, line 5. 7051 P-0379: T-59, p. 81, lines 4-12. The witness stated that he spent about eight months in the bush at the age of about 14 years old, P-0379: T-59, p. 81, lines 13-18. 7052 P-0070: T-107, p. 19, lines 9-22. 7053 P-0145: T-143, p. 58, lines 11-17. 7054 P-0145: T-143, p. 58, line 18 – p. 59, line 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 931/1077 4 February 2021

text: P-0205’s response to the question whether he believed that spirits spoke through Joseph Kony was: ‘If I did believe, if I did believe strongly in the spirits, I would not have

text: escaped. No, I did not believe in the spirits because I cannot confirm some of this 7055 stuff.’ He further explained:

text: We would follow, we would follow this because those were the rules, not because of belief, but we would follow it because of the rules. But whether or not you 7056 believe it you have to follow it. I did not believe it, but I followed it.

text: P-0209 also expressed scepticism about the power of Joseph Kony to predict future events:

text: Yes, I heard. But basing on what I know, it’s possible that there were spirits. But I think he could have received information from somewhere else, then he comes and 7057 then disguised that he received information from the spirits when he’s talking.

text: P-0209 went on to affirm that he did not believe in Joseph Kony’s spirits, even though he did accept, based on Acholi traditional culture, that Joseph Kony could have been a 7058 chief and possessed some capacity for that reason. He stated that, based on his personal observation, Joseph Kony used to act in a certain manner ‘so that people do not 7059 leave him’.

text: Simon Tabo also testified that when he was abducted, he believed what Joseph Kony and others told them about the spirits, but that later, as he got older, he started to question 7060 those beliefs.

text: Kenneth Banya testified:

text: In the beginning when we even saw what was happening, we believed in it. But when we started seeing him ordering all kinds of bad things we did not accept it anymore. But then… uh… you had to be very careful because if he knew that you 7061 did not believe or agree with him, you could be in trouble.

text: 7055 P-0205: T-49, p. 20, line 22 – p. 21, line 2. 7056 P-0205: T-49, p. 21, lines 5-9. 7057 P-0209: T-161, p. 52, lines 9-16. 7058 P-0209: T-161, p. 53, line 12 – p. 54, line 7. 7059 P-0209: T-161, p. 54, lines 18-21. 7060 D-0034 Statement, UGA-D26-0022-0385, at para. 16. 7061 P-0028 Interview Transcript, UGA-OTP-0217-0125-R01, at 0131, lines 202-05.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 932/1077 4 February 2021

text: Charles Lokwiya stated that the gatherings about spirituality did not have an effect on him, but that there were, still at the time of his testimony, people in the bush who did 7062 believe that ‘Kony has a spirit’. Joseph Okilan made a similar point when asked if he believed in Joseph Kony’s spirits, stating that ‘sometimes, as a human being, you can actually believe that probably this 7063 man’s spirits worked’, but that he, as somebody who has knowledge, did not believe.

text: The Chamber also notes the explanation put forward by D-0092:

text: Once you are there in the bush, whether you like it or not, you have to believe because that is what they say that the spirits have said. There was one day that I was trying to ask myself because I didn’t know anything about the spirit, so I asked a colleague, that what does the spirit talk about? What does the spirit say? Then he warned me that do not ever open your mouth again to say anything about the spirit. And I immediately kept quiet. I promised myself never to ask anything about the 7064 spirits. All of this evidence leads the Chamber to the conclusion that LRA members with some experience in the organisation did not generally believe that Joseph Kony possessed spiritual powers. There is also no evidence indicating that the belief in Joseph Kony’s spiritual powers played a role for Dominic Ongwen, and in fact the evidence of Dominic Ongwen defying Joseph Kony, discussed above, speaks clearly against any such influence. The Chamber therefore does not discern in the issue of LRA spirituality a factor contributing to a threat relevant under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: . vi. Dominic Ongwen’s personal loyalty to Joseph Kony and his career

text: advancement

text: The evidence of Dominic Ongwen’s performance during the period relevant to the charges is another important factor which the Chamber takes into account and which militates against a finding that, at the time of his conduct relevant for the charges, Dominic Ongwen was under threat of being killed or suffering serious bodily harm. This is because performance under threat is not reasonably compatible with the performance and results obtained by Dominic Ongwen as an LRA commander during the relevant time period.

text: 7062 D-0134: T-240, p. 36, line 8 – p. 37, line 25. 7063 D-0019: T-236, p. 21, line 20 – p. 21, line 6. 7064 D-0092: T-208, p. 41, line 24 – p. 42, line 7.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 933/1077 4 February 2021

text: On 27 September 2003, an ISO logbook recorded Joseph Kony instructing that a ‘serious warning’ be given to Lapanyikwara for the ‘mess he has done which made up to 14 recruits and soldiers to escape and also some soldiers killed’, and stating that 7065 ‘Lapanyikwara should know that he can be demoted anytime if he repeats it’. According to the same entry in the ISO logbook, Joseph Kony then ‘praised Dominic so 7066 much for his hard work he is doing’. Then, Joseph Kony blamed ‘Pokot and the entire Sinia Bde under Abudema that they are so weak and almost all the lo[s]ses LRA are incurring normally comes f[ro]m Sinia Bde’, and ‘warned Abudema to be careful if not 7067 BC of Sinia will be appointed another person’. This message, transmitted at a crucial time for many of the charges in the case, shows both that Dominic Ongwen’s performance was highly valued by Joseph Kony, and also that poorer performance did not lead to more than threat of demotion, as already discussed above. The Chamber also notes that Joseph Kony again praised Dominic Ongwen for having ‘good plans’ shortly 7068 before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, and eventually appointed Dominic Ongwen as 7069 Sinia brigade commander on 5 March 2004.

text: On 12 February 2004, Joseph Kony, in a radio message recorded in the ISO logbook, singled out Dominic Ongwen as an example, stating that what Dominic Ongwen did was ‘good’ because he ‘caused a lot of havoc before he was hit by g[un]ships and mobiles in 7070 Koch Ongako’. The Chamber also makes reference to the radio communication after the attack on Odek IDP camp, analysed above, wherein Joseph Kony specifically praised Dominic Ongwen’s performance, stating, inter alia, ‘This guy has pleased me very 7071 much.’

text: 7065 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0477. 7066 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0477. The Chamber notes that several other corresponding logbooks which recorded this communication, do not include mention of Joseph Kony praising Dominic Ongwen, see UGA-OTP-0254-0725, at 1024-26; UPDF Logbook (Achol Pii), UGA-OTP-0242-6018, at 6147; UPDF Logbook (Soroti), UGA-OTP-0254-1991, at 2052-53. Noting the Chamber’s general considerations on the use of logbooks (see para. 666 above), and noting that these logbooks do not contain any indication that would bring in doubt the ISO’s interpretation of the recording, the Chamber concludes that the ISO logbook is reliable on this point, even if it was the only logbook noting Joseph Kony’s praise for Dominic Ongwen. 7067 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0232-0234, at 0477. 7068 See section IV.C.6.ii.a above. 7069 See paras 1075-1077 above. 7070 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0061-0002, at 0069. 7071 See section IV.C.7.vii above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 934/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber also refers to its analysis of the evidence of Dominic Ongwen’s report on 24 May 2004 after the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, in particular to the fact that the 7072 intercept evidence reveals that Dominic Ongwen’s report was met with approval.

text: On 18 July 2004, an ISO logbook recorded Vincent Otti stating that ‘Dominic is working very well’, to which Joseph Kony commented that ‘Dominic always first of all plan[s] 7073 before moving to attack and that is why he is performing very well’.

text: While noting P-0070’s general evidence that ‘[i]f Kony knew that you were having a different mind and to motivate you, what he would do, he would just give you a 7074 promotion’, the Chamber notes that the above evidence demonstrates a clear link between Dominic Ongwen’s actions on the ground, including the commission of charged crimes, and the praise received from Joseph Kony. There is also a temporal overlap with 7075 some of the promotions conferred on Dominic Ongwen by Joseph Kony.

text: In addition, the Chamber notes the findings made above in relation to Dominic Ongwen’s 7076 conduct relevant for the charges. Those findings, and the evidence underlying them, indicate a commander in control of his unit, directing its organisation and its actions according to his own planning. Whereas some of Dominic Ongwen’s conduct in relation to the crimes was undertaken directly upon orders originating from Joseph Kony, much 7077 of his relevant conduct resulted instead from his own initiative. This is the case entirely with the attacks on Lukodi and Abok IDP camps, which were conceived and set 7078 in motion by Dominic Ongwen completely independently. Such actions are, in the view of the Chamber, entirely incompatible with a commander in fear for his life or similar, and as such militate against a finding that there existed a threat to Dominic Ongwen.

text: 7072 See section IV.C.8.v above. 7073 ISO Logbook (Gulu), UGA-OTP-0062-0002, at 0111. 7074 P-0070: T-107, p. 14, lines 3-8. 7075 See section IV.C.3 above. 7076 See section IV.C above. 7077 See also paras 866-873 above. 7078 See sections IV.C.8.ii, IV.C.9.iii above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 935/1077 4 February 2021 vii. Crimes committed in private

text: During the closing statements, the Prosecution made the following argument, which relates to the portion of the charges concerning direct perpetration of sexual and genderbased violence by Dominic Ongwen:

text: They want to persuade your Honours that after having caused these young girls to be beaten into submission and then having brought them to the privacy of his tent, it would have been impossible on the pain of death for him to have said quietly to them, ‘Actually, I am not so wicked and monstrous as to rape a young girl like you. I have only done this to satisfy Joseph Kony. But if you lie here quiet and safe, we 7079 can pretend in the morning that we had sex.’ He didn’t do that. The Chamber finds this argument persuasive. As found above in the relevant section, the conduct underlying the crimes charged under counts 50-60 includes to a large extent conduct performed in the relative privacy of Dominic Ongwen’s household, or even in 7080 complete privacy of his sleeping place. The fact that Dominic Ongwen engaged in this conduct, when, had he not, it would have been relatively easy to hide that fact, further indicates that his actions were not caused by threat. Even though this argument specifically relates only to one section of the charges, it also has persuasive force for the Chamber’s broader conclusion.

text: viii. Conclusion

text: It transpires from the above that there is no basis in the evidence to hold that Dominic Ongwen was subjected to a threat of imminent death or imminent or continuing serious bodily harm to himself or another person at the time of his conduct underlying the charged crimes. In fact, based on the above, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen was not in a situation of complete subordination vis-à-vis Joseph Kony, but frequently acted independently and even contested orders received from Joseph Kony. The evidence indicates that in the period of the charges, Dominic Ongwen did not face any prospective punishment by death or serious bodily harm when he disobeyed Joseph Kony. Dominic Ongwen also had a realistic possibility of leaving the LRA, which he did not pursue. Rather, he rose in rank and position, including during the period of the charges. Finally,

text: 7079 Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 19, lines 12-17. See also Prosecution Closing Brief, para. 518. 7080 See section IV.C.10 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 936/1077 4 February 2021 he committed some of the charged crimes in private, in circumstances where any threats otherwise made to him could have no effect.

text: Based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen was not under threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another person when engaging in conduct underlying the charged crimes. It is therefore not possible to further discuss specifically the imminence of the threatened harm, in the sense that it would follow, without delay, Dominic Ongwen’s failure to perform as required by the source of the threat. It is also conceptually not possible to discuss the other requirements of

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: , namely the necessity and reasonableness of the act undertaken to avoid the threat, and the requirement that the person did not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided.

text: The actions which Dominic Ongwen took and which underlie the crimes charged and found in this judgment were, within the meaning of Article 31(1)(d), free of threat of imminent death or imminent or continuing serious bodily harm. Duress as a ground excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: (1)(d) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore not applicable.

text: In light of the above analysis and conclusions, the Chamber also considers that no further specific consideration is needed to address the Defence argument that Dominic Ongwen should be acquitted as a result of a ‘cumulative effect from the combination of lack of capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness of the conduct or to conform to the conduct to the law and the extensive threats and coercion under which Mr Ongwen lived and 7081 acted’. On the one hand, it may be observed that the two grounds for excluding criminal responsibility cannot coexist even in the abstract, given that one is premised on a destruction of the person’s capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of the law, and the other on a conscious choice to engage in conduct which constitutes a crime based on an evaluation of the harm that is caused. On the other hand, the Chamber recognises that similar discussion of facts and evidence partly underlies the analysis of both grounds excluding criminal responsibility discussed in the present case, and to the

text: 7081 Defence Closing Brief, para. 729.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 937/1077 4 February 2021 extent that the Defence in fact aimed to make this point, the Chamber is confident that all relevant considerations have been made under each heading.

text: In addition to specific arguments made under

text: Article 31

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , the Defence also made some legally unspecified submissions emphasising that Dominic Ongwen was 7082 himself a victim of crimes, on account of his abduction at a young age by the LRA. The Chamber has duly considered above the facts underlying these submissions. In addition, and while acknowledging that indeed Dominic Ongwen had been abducted at a 7083 young age by the LRA, the Chamber notes that Dominic Ongwen committed the relevant crimes when he was an adult and, importantly, that, in any case, the fact of having been (or being) a victim of a crime does not constitute, in and of itself, a justification of any sort for the commission of similar or other crimes – beyond the potential relevance of the underlying facts to the grounds excluding criminal responsibility expressly regulated under

text: the Statute

text: . The separate and more specific Defence assertion that ‘Article 21(3) prohibits charging a victim of a crime with the same crime’ is equally without merit: a rule that would immunize persons who suffer human rights violations from responsibility for all similar human rights violations that they may themselves commit thereafter manifestly does not exist in international human rights 7084 law. Finally, the Chamber notes that during its oral closing submissions the Defence referred to the notion of superior orders, including specifically to Article 33 of the 7085 Statute, but that – by its very terms – this argument is placed by the Defence within the discussion of the applicability of duress as a ground excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: (d) of

text: the Statute

text: , which the Chamber addressed above.

text: 7082 Defence Closing Brief, paras 11-21; Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 5, lines 13-19, p. 27, lines 5-20. See also Defence Closing Brief, paras 6, 487-488, 494-496, 715. The Prosecution responded during the closing hearings, see Prosecution Closing Statement: T-256, p. 12, line 21 – p. 14, line 15. 7083 See paras 27-30 above. 7084 See Defence Closing Brief, paras 494-496. 7085 Defence Closing Statement: T-258, p. 78, line 6 – p. 82, line 14, p. 92, lines 7-8.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 938/1077 4 February 2021

text: V. LEGAL FINDINGS

text: A. Applicable law

text: Crimes against humanity and war crimes

text: i. Contextual elements

text: a. Crimes against humanity The chapeau of

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: , which sets out the contextual elements of crimes against humanity, reads: ‘[f]or the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack’. The provision is complemented by

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: which stipulates: ‘“[a]ttack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack’.

text: i Attack against any civilian population

text: An ‘attack’ in this context means a ‘course of conduct involving the multiple commission 7086 of acts referred to in [Article 7(1)]’. The requirement that the acts form part of a ‘course of conduct’ indicates that Article 7 is meant to cover a series or overall flow of 7087 events, as opposed to a mere aggregate of random or isolated acts. The ‘multiple commission of acts’ sets a quantitative threshold involving a certain number of acts 7088 falling within the course of conduct. The course of conduct must be ‘directed against any civilian population’, namely a collective, as opposed to individual civilians. The civilian population must be the primary 7089 target of the attack and not an incidental victim of it. The presence within a civilian population of individuals who do not fall under the definition of ‘civilians’ does not 7090 deprive the population of its civilian character. Further, and although the attack must be directed against a civilian population, there is no requirement that the individual

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7087 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 662. 7088 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 663. 7089 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 668; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1104. 7090 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 668; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1105.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 939/1077 4 February 2021 victims of crimes be civilians; they need only be ‘persons’ under the Elements of

text: 7091 Crimes. In any case, the Chamber notes that there also must be a sufficient nexus to an attack against a ‘civilian’ population.

text: ii Organisational policy

text: The ‘course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts’ must take place ‘pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack’

text: within the meaning of

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . The Elements of Crimes specify that the ‘“policy to commit such attack” requires that the […] organization actively

text: 7092 promote[s] or encourage[s] such an attack against a civilian population’. For the purposes of this judgment, only the ‘organisational policy’ prong is relevant.

text: As regards the ‘organisation’ pursuing the policy, the Chamber adheres to the definition

text: established by Trial Chamber II:

text: In the Chamber’s view, the connection of the term “organisation” to the very existence of the attack and not to its systematic or widespread nature presupposes that the organisation has sufficient resources, means and capacity to bring about the course of conduct or the operation involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in

text: article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . It therefore suffices that the organisation [has] a set of structures or mechanisms, whatever those may be, that are sufficiently efficient to ensure the coordination necessary to carry out an attack directed against 7093 a civilian population.

text: 7091 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 669. Victims are described as ‘person’ or ‘persons’ across all Article 7(1) crimes except for forced pregnancy (refers to ‘women’) and the residual ‘other inhumane acts’ (which only speaks generally of inflicting ‘great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health […]’). No further status requirement is specified. In contrast, see the elements for the crimes under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (specifically requiring that the victim was ‘protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949’). See also ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić & Veselin Šljivančanin, Judgement, 5 May 2009, IT- 95-13/1-A, para. 32; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Judgement, 12 November 2009, IT-98-29/1-A, paras 58, 96; United States Military Tribunal, The High Command Case, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1949, Vol. XI, pp. 675, 679 (convicting General Walter Warlimont for significantly contributing to the illegal plan to lynch Allied flyers; this plan is described as a crime against humanity). 7092 Elements of Crimes, Introduction to Article 7, para. 3. See also footnote 6 of the same paragraph. 7093 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1119.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 940/1077 4 February 2021

text: As the terms ‘pursuant to or in furtherance of’ imply, the policy requirement ensures that the multiple acts forming the course of conduct are linked. It ensures that acts which are 7094 unrelated or perpetrated by individuals acting randomly on their own are excluded.

text: A policy may consist of a pre-established design or plan, but it may also crystallise and 7095 develop only as actions are undertaken by the perpetrators. The ‘policy’ may be inferred from a variety of factors, such as: (i) a recurrent pattern of violence; (ii) the existence of preparations or collective mobilisation orchestrated and coordinated by the organisation; (iii) the use of public or private resources to further the policy; (iv) the involvement of organisational forces in the commission of crimes; (v) statements, instructions or documentation attributable to the organisation condoning or encouraging 7096 the commission of crimes; and (vi) an underlying motivation. In principle, a state or organisation committing a systematic attack against a civilian population will satisfy the 7097 policy requirement.

text: iii Widespread or systematic attack

text: The alternative qualifiers of ‘widespread’ or ‘systematic’ serve to characterise the ‘attack’ itself.

text: The term ‘widespread’ connotes the large-scale nature of the attack and the number of 7098 targeted persons. The assessment of whether the attack is widespread is neither exclusively quantitative nor geographical, but must be carried out on the basis of all the 7099 relevant facts of the case.

text: The term ‘systematic’ reflects the organised nature of the violent acts, referring often to the existence of ‘patterns of crimes’ and the improbability of their random or accidental 7100 occurrence.

text: 7094 Similarly Trial Chamber III, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , 21 March 2016,

text: (with public annexes I, II and A to F, hereinafter: ‘Bemba Trial Judgment’), para. 161. 7095 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 674; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1110. 7096 Similarly Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 674; Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 1108-10. 7097 Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 1111-13. 7098 See Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 691; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1123. 7099 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 691. 7100 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 692; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1123.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 941/1077 4 February 2021 b. War crimes – armed conflict not of an international character The war crimes charged in this case exclusively concern a non-international armed 7101 conflict. An armed conflict not of an international character exists when there is protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups 7102 or between such groups within a State. Such a conflict exceeds situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other 7103 acts of similar nature.

text: When evaluating the intensity of the conflict to determine its ‘protracted’ character, chambers consider factors such as: (i) the seriousness and frequency of attacks and armed clashes; (ii) the spread of clashes over territory and the group’s ability to control territory over a period of time; (iii) whether any ceasefire orders had been issued or agreed to; (iv) the type and number of armed forces deployed, including any involvement of the government; (v) the type of weapons used; (vi) whether the situation had attracted the attention of the UN Security Council, or involvement of other international organisations; (vii) whether those fighting considered themselves bound by international humanitarian law and (viii) the effects of the violence on the civilian population, including the extent to which civilians left the relevant area, the extent of destruction, and the number of 7104 persons killed. Exercise of control over a part of the territory is not required, though 7105 the importance of this factor increases in the absence of active hostilities. It is also not required that the violence be continuous and uninterrupted – the Chamber need only find 7106 that the violence goes beyond isolated or sporadic acts.

text: When evaluating whether an entity qualifies as an ‘organised armed group’, chambers consider factors such as: (i) the existence of a command structure, the existence of headquarters, the issuing of political statements, and the use of official spokespersons; (ii) the military (operational) capacity of the armed group, which may be shown by, for example, the ability to define a unified military strategy, the use of military tactics, the

text: 7101 Articles 8(2)(c)(i)-(ii) and 8(2)(e)(i), (v), (vi), (vii) and (xii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7102

text: Article 8

text: (2)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: ; Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 701-03; Trial Chamber VIII, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqui Al Mahdi, Judgment and Sentence, 27 September 2016,

text: , para. 17; Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 1183-87; Lubanga Trial Judgment, paras 531-38. 7103

text: Article 8

text: (2)(d) and (f) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7104 See Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 716-17; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 538; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1187. 7105 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 717. 7106 Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 140.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 942/1077 4 February 2021 ability to carry out (large scale or coordinated) operations, the control of territory, and having a territorial division into zones of responsibility; (iii) the logistical capacity of the armed group, indicated, among others, by the existence of a supply chain for military equipment, as well as by the group’s ability to move troops around and to recruit and train personnel; (iv) the existence of an internal disciplinary system and the ability to implement international humanitarian law; and (v) the group’s ability to speak with one voice, indicated, for example, by the capacity of the leadership to act on behalf of its members in political negotiations and to conclude agreements, such as cease-fire or peace 7107 agreements.

text: A situation that starts out as a non-international armed conflict may become international, if another State intervenes in the conflict directly (through its troops) or indirectly (when 7108 some of the groups involved act on behalf of that other State). The intervention must be to assist a non-State armed group that is engaged in an armed conflict with the government of a State. In case of an intervention by a third State in support of an armed group fighting on the government’s side or with the consent of the host State, the conflict 7109 remains non-international.

text: To assess whether an international armed conflict exists as a result of such indirect participation of a State, the Chamber must appraise the degree of control exerted by that State over the armed group in question. In doing so, the Chamber will rely on the ‘overall control’ test, whereby it must be established that the State had ‘a role in organising, coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group, in addition to 7110 financing, training and equipping or providing operational support to that group’. An international armed conflict therefore exists if a degree of control is exercised by the intervening third State over a non-State actor fighting in opposition to, or without the consent of, the government, that goes beyond the mere financing and equipping of the

text: 7107 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 704; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 537; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1186. 7108 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 726; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1178; Lubanga Trial Judgment, paras 541-42. 7109 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 726. 7110 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 727; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1178; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 541; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Judgement, 15 July 1999, IT-94-1-A, paras 115-45. This is the dominant test used in international criminal tribunals, but for a different approach see ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment (Merits), 27 June 1986, para. 115 (‘effective control’ test).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 943/1077 4 February 2021 armed group. It does not require, however, that such control extends to the issuance of 7111 specific orders or instructions relating to single military actions.

text: c. Nexus requirement and perpetrators’ awareness

text: Crimes against humanity must have been committed as part of a widespread or systematic 7112 attack directed against a civilian population. When assessing such a nexus, due regard must be given to the characteristics, aims, nature and consequences of the acts 7113 concerned.

text: The war crimes charged in the present case require, as their contextual elements, that the relevant took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict not of an 7114 international character. The perpetrator’s conduct need not take place as part of hostilities, meaning that the nexus requirement could still be satisfied for crimes 7115 temporally or geographically remote from the actual fighting. What is required is a sufficiently close link to the hostilities – the Chamber may take into account, amongst other factors, the status of the perpetrator and the victim, whether the act may be said to serve the ultimate goal of a military campaign, and whether the crime is committed as 7116 part of, or in the context of, the perpetrator’s official duties.

text: These nexus requirements find their subjective equivalent in the requisite knowledge or awareness of the perpetrator.

text: In the case of a crime against humanity, the perpetrator must know that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. However, it is not necessary that the perpetrator be aware 7117 of the precise details of the plan or policy of the State or organisation.

text: 7111 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 727. 7112 See the chapeau of

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: (‘as part of’). 7113 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 696; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1124. 7114 See the penultimate element of the crimes in the Elements of Crimes of the individual war crimes with which Dominic Ongwen is charged. 7115 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 731; Trial Chamber VIII, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqui Al Mahdi, Judgement and Sentence, 27 September 2016,

text: , paras 18, 49; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1176; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 571; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Judgement, 12 June 2002, IT-96-23/1-A (hereinafter: ‘Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment’), para. 57. 7116 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 732; Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 143. 7117 Elements of Crimes, Introduction to Article 7, para. 2.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 944/1077 4 February 2021

text: In the case of a war crime, the perpetrator must have been aware of factual circumstances

text: that established the existence of an armed conflict.

text: These nexus and awareness requirements must be met in order to prove any crime against

text: humanity or war crime. All crimes set forth in the next sub-section must have been

text: committed with the required nexus and awareness of the perpetrator.

text: ii. The crimes

text: In the following, the Chamber will set forth the relevant applicable law of the individual

text: crimes with which Dominic Ongwen is charged. The crimes are embedded in the context

text: that gives them their international character and differentiates them from ordinary crimes.

text: Unless otherwise provided in

text: the Statute

text: , the material elements of the crimes must have been committed with ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ within the meaning of Article 30 of the

text: Statute. As regards the phrase ‘will occur in the ordinary course of events’ in Article

text: 30(2)(b) and (3) of

text: the Statute

text: , this requires virtual certainty that the consequence in

text: question would occur. ‘Knowledge’ means awareness that a circumstance exists or a

text: consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. To the extent that any further discussion beyond Article 30’s terms is necessary, the Chamber will also discuss the

text: required mental elements below.

text: 7118 See the last element in the Elements of Crimes of the individual war crimes with which Dominic Ongwen is charged. Para. 3 of the Introduction to Article 8 of the Elements of Crimes reads: ‘[w]ith respect to the last two elements listed for each crime: (a) There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international; (b) In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international; (c) There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with”’. 7119 Article 30 provides: ‘1. Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. 2. For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where: (a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events. 3. For the purposes of this article, “knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. “Know” and “knowingly” shall be construed accordingly’. See also Lubanga Appeals Judgment, paras 446-51. 7120 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, paras 447-50. 7121

text: Article 30

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 945/1077 4 February 2021 a. Murder and attempted murder (Article 7(1)(a) and Article 8(2)(c)(i))

text: The crime of murder is committed in case a person is killed as a result of the

text: perpetrator’s act or omission. In the case of attempted murder, substantial steps have

text: been taken to execute the crime but it does not occur because of circumstances

text: independent of the perpetrator’s intentions.

text: For the purpose of murder as a war crime,

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: prescribes that the crime must be committed ‘against persons taking no active part in the hostilities,

text: including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors

text: de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause’. Taking an active part

text: in the hostilities is understood as acts of war that by their nature or purpose strike at the

text: personnel and matériel of enemy armed forces. It is not considered taking an active

text: part in the hostilities when persons otherwise protected under international humanitarian

text: law exercise their right to individual self-defence.

text: Lastly, while the Prosecutor must demonstrate, to the extent possible, the location, date

text: and means of killing, she is not required to demonstrate for each killing the identity of

text: the victim or that the corpse of the deceased has been found.

text: The attempted commission of a crime is characterised by the fact that the perpetrator did

text: not fulfil all objective elements despite his or her intention to do so. Accordingly, there

text: 7122 Footnotes 7 and 31 in the Elements of Crimes specify that ‘[t]he term “killed” is interchangeable with the term “caused death”’. 7123 Bemba Trial Judgment, paras 87-88, 91-94; Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 767-69, 783-91. 7124

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7125 Equally, para. 2 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i)-1 of

text: the Statute

text: determines that the ‘person or persons were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel, taking no active part in the hostilities’. 7126 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 883; ICTY, Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgement and Opinion, 5 December 2003, IT-98-29-T, para. 48. 7127 ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Judgment, 7 May 1997, IT-94-1-T, para. 640; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 148; ICRC Interpretive Guidance on ‘Direct Participation’, p. 61 (citations removed: ‘[t]he causation of harm in individual self-defence or defence of others against violence prohibited under IHL lacks belligerent nexus. For example, although the use of force by civilians to defend themselves against unlawful attack or looting, rape, and murder by marauding soldiers may cause the required threshold of harm, its purpose clearly is not to support a party to the conflict against another. If individual self-defence against prohibited violence were to entail loss of protection against direct attack, this would have the absurd consequence of legitimizing a previously unlawful attack. Therefore, the use of necessary and proportionate force in such situations cannot be regarded as direct participation in hostilities.’). 7128 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 862; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 768.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 946/1077 4 February 2021 are no distinctions to be drawn between the mental elements required for murder in its

text: consummated form and those required for its attempted form.

text: b. Torture (Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(2)(c)(i))

text: The crime of torture, whether as a crime against humanity or war crime, is committed either by act or omission and has a common material element that ‘[t]he perpetrator

text: inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons’.

text: The severity implies an important degree of pain and suffering and may be met by a

text: single act or by a combination of acts when viewed as a whole. This can be assessed

text: only on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It is not

text: 7129 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 861. 7130 See

text: Article 7

text: (2)(e) of

text: the Statute

text: and para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: . 7131 Similarly Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdould Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Rectificatif à la Décision relative à la confirmation des charges portées contre Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, 13 November 2019,

text: -Corr-Red (hereinafter: ‘Al Hassan Confirmation Decision’), para. 230; Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean- Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009,

text: , para. 193. See also ICTY, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Judgment, 15 March 2002, IT-97-25-T, paras 181, 219, 222, 224, 236; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Judgment, 13 December 2012, Application No. 39630/09, paras 196-97; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Gäfgen v. Germany, Judgment, 1 June 2010, Application No. 22978/05, para. 90; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Selmouni v. France, Judgment, 28 July 1999, Application No. 25803/94, para. 100. See also ECtHR, Chamber, Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 18 January 1978, Application No. 5310/71, paras 162-63; IACtHR, Case of Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment, 11 March 2005, Series C No. 123, paras 67-69; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Decision, 2 May 2012, Comm. No. 288/2004, para. 138. 7132 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 230; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Judgement, 3 May 2006, IT-98-34-A, para. 299; ICTY, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Judgment, 15 March 2002, IT-97-25-T, para. 182; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Selmouni v. France, Judgment, 28 July 1999, Application No. 25803/94, para. 105; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment, 25 September 1997, Application No. 23178/94, para. 86. 7133 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 230; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Judgement, 3 April 2007, IT-99-36-A, para. 251; ECCC, Trial Chamber, Prosecutors v. Kaing Guek alias Duch, Judgement, 26 July 2010, 001/18-07-200/ECCC/TC (hereinafter: ‘Duch Trial Judgment’), para. 355; ECtHR, Chamber, Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 18 January 1978, Application No. 5310/71, para. 162 (‘[t]he assessment of th[e] minimum [level of severity] is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc.’). See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Decision, 2 May 2012, Comm. No. 288/2004, para. 138 (‘The assessment of this minimum level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.’); IACtHR, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, Judgment, 20 November 2014, Series C No. 289, para. 142 (the violation of the right to physical and mental integrity has different connotations of degree, and ranges from torture to other kinds of abuse or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the physical and mental aftereffects of which vary in intensity in accordance with factors that are endogenous and exogenous to the individual (such as, duration of the treatment, age, sex, health, context, and vulnerability) that must be analyzed in each specific situation. […] the personal characteristics of a presumed victim of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must be taken into account when determining whether their personal integrity was violated, because these characteristics may change the

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 947/1077 4 February 2021 necessary to prove that the pain or suffering involved specific physical injury (such as 7134 organ failure), impairment of a bodily function or death. The pain and suffering may 7135 be either physical or mental. The consequences of torture do not have to be visible, 7136 nor must the injury be permanent.

text: There are some notable differences between the elements of torture as a crime against

text: humanity versus a war crime.

text: For torture as a crime against humanity,

text: Article 7

text: (2)(e) of

text: the Statute

text: further requires that ‘[s]uch person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator’.

text: Torture as a crime against humanity also requires that the pain or suffering did not arise 7137 only from, and was not inherent or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

text: In contrast, for torture as a war crime, the custody/control element is not required. Instead,

text: for the war crime of torture there is an additional mental element specified below. The

text: war crime must also be committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities,

text: including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors 7138 de combat.

text: In addition to the mental elements specified in Article 30, the war crime of torture further

text: requires that:

text: The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

text: individual’s perception of the reality and, consequently, increase the suffering and the feeling of humiliation when they are subjected to certain treatments’). 7134 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 231; Duch Trial Judgment, para. 355; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Judgement, 3 April 2007, IT-99-36-A, paras 244-51. 7135 Para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: ; United Nations, Human Rights Committee (Committee on Civil and Political Rights), General comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of th torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 10 March 1992, 44 Session, para. 5. See also ECtHR, Chamber, Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 18 January 1978, Application No. 5310/71, para. 167; IACtHR, Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Judgment, 17 September 1997, Series C No. 33, para. 57; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Shumba v. Zimbabwe, Decision, 2 May 2012, Comm. No. 288/2004, paras 143-44. 7136 Similarly Duch Trial Judgment, para. 355; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 150; ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Judgement, 2 November 2001, IT-98-30/1-T, para. 148. 7137 Para. 3 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7138

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 948/1077 4 February 2021

text: This specific purpose must be part of the motivation behind the conduct but it need not

text: be the ‘predominant or sole purpose’. No specific purpose need be proven for torture

text: as a crime against humanity. For torture as a war crime, the perpetrator must also have

text: been aware of the factual circumstances that established the status of the victim.

text: As concerns the severe pain or suffering required, the perpetrator need not have

text: completed a value judgment as to the severity of the pain inflicted.

text: c. Rape (Article 7(1)(g) and Article 8(2)(e)(vi))

text: The crime of rape, whether as a crime against humanity or war crime, is committed when

text: the following two material elements are fulfilled:

text: The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.

text: The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed

text: against a person incapable of giving genuine consent.

text: The establishment of one of the coercive circumstances or conditions set out in the second

text: element is sufficient for penetration to amount to rape. It is not necessary to prove the

text: 7139 Similarly Duch Trial Judgment, para. 356; ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Judgement, 24 March 2016, IT-95-5/18-T, para. 508; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 155. See similarly IACtHR, Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment, 27 November 2003, Series C No. 103, para. 91 (‘the elements of the concept of torture established in

text: Article 2

text: of the Inter-American

text: Convention against Torture

text: include methods to obliterate the personality of the victim in order to attain certain objectives, such as obtaining information from a person; or intimidation or punishment, which may be inflicted through physical violence or through acts that produce severe mental or moral suffering in the victim’). 7140

text: Article 30

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: ; Footnote 14 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: . See for example IACtHR, Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment, 8 July 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 116 (‘In general, in situations of massive human rights violations, the systematic use of torture has the aim of intimidating the population’). 7141 Para. 4 of the Elements of Crimes of Article 8(2)(c)(i)-4. 7142 Para. 4 of the General Introduction of the Elements of Crimes (‘[w]ith respect to mental elements associated with elements involving value judgement, such as those using the terms “inhumane” or “severe”, it is not necessary that the perpetrator personally completed a particular value judgement, unless otherwise indicated.’). 7143 Footnotes 15 and 63 of the Elements of Crimes specify: ‘[t]he concept of “invasion” is intended to be broad enough to be gender-neutral’. 7144 Footnotes 16 and 64 of the Elements of Crimes specify: ‘[i]t is understood that a person may be incapable of giving genuine consent if affected by natural, induced or age-related incapacity’. 7145 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 934; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 965.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 949/1077 4 February 2021

text: victim’s lack of consent and there is no requirement of resistance on the part of the

text: victim.

text: Coercive circumstances need not be evidenced by a show of physical force – threats,

text: intimidation, extortion, and other forms of duress which prey on fear or desperation may

text: constitute coercion. Coercion may be inherent in certain circumstances, such as armed

text: conflict or the military presence of hostile forces amongst the civilian population.

text: Several factors may contribute to creating a coercive environment, such as the number

text: of people involved in the commission of the crime, or whether the rape is committed

text: during or immediately following a combat situation, or is committed together with other

text: crimes.

text: d. Enslavement (Article 7(1)(c))

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: defines ‘enslavement’ as the exercise of any or all of the

text: powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of

text: such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.

text: The Elements of Crimes include a non-exhaustive list of the various forms in which ownership over a person may be exercised, namely ‘by purchasing, selling, lending or

text: bartering such a person or persons, or by imposing on them a similar deprivation of

text: liberty’.

text: 7146 Similarly Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 934; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 965. See also Rules 70 and 71 of the Rules. 7147 Similarly Duch Trial Judgment, para. 363; SCSL, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Judgement, 18 May 2012, SCSL-03-01-1281, para. 416; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 128. See also IACtHR, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 30 August 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 115. 7148 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 935. See also IACtHR, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 30 August 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 118, referring to the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention Belem do Pará): ‘violence against women constitutes not only a violation of human rights, but is “an offense against human dignity and a manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between women and men,” that “pervades every sector of society, regardless of class, race, or ethnic group, income, culture, level of education, ageor religion, and strikes at its very foundation’. 7149 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 935. 7150 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 935. See also IACtHR, Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment, 25 November 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 224 (‘It has been acknowledged that during domestic and international armed conflicts the confronting parties used sexual violence against women as a means of punishment and repression. The use of state power to breach the rights of women in a domestic conflict, besides affecting them directly, may have the purpose of causing an effect in society through those breaches and send a message or give a lesson’). 7151

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7152 Para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . A footnote to this paragraph further stipulates: ‘[i]t is understood that such deprivation of liberty may, in some circumstances, include exacting forced

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 950/1077 4 February 2021

text: Indicia for the exercise of the powers attaching to the right of ownership include:

text: (i) control or restrictions of someone’s movement and, more generally, measures taken

text: to prevent or deter escape; (ii) control of physical environment; (iii) psychological

text: control or pressure; (iv) force, threat of force or coercion; (v) duration of the exercise of

text: powers attaching to the right of ownership; (vi) assertion of exclusivity; (vii) subjection

text: to cruel treatment and abuse; (viii) control of sexuality; (ix) forced labour or subjecting

text: the person to servile status; and (x) the person’s vulnerability and the socio-economic

text: 7153 conditions in which the power is exerted.

text: The elements of the crime of enslavement are satisfied without any additional ill-

text: 7154 7155 treatment. A commercial transaction is also not required. Imposition of a ‘similar deprivation of liberty’ may take various forms – it may cover situations in which the

text: victims may not have been physically confined, but were otherwise unable to leave as

text: 7156 they would have nowhere else to go and fear for their lives.

text: 7157 The law also does not establish a minimum period of enslavement. As outlined above,

text: the duration of the exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership is a factor to be

text: taken into account in the specific circumstances of the case.

text: e. Sexual Slavery (Article 7(1)(g) and Article 8(2)(e)(vi))

text: 7158 The crime of sexual slavery is a specific form of the crime of ‘enslavement’, penalising the perpetrator’s restriction or control of the victim’s sexual autonomy while

text: 7159 held in the state of enslavement. The crime of sexual slavery, whether as a crime

text: labour or otherwise reducing a person to a servile status as defined in the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956. It is also understood that the conduct described in this element includes trafficking in persons, in particular women and children’. 7153 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 952; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 976. Similarly Duch Trial Judgment, para. 342; SCSL, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Judgement, 18 May 2012, SCSL-03- 01-1281, para. 447; SCSL, Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay et al., Judgement, 2 March 2009, SCSL-04-15-T (hereinafter: ‘Sesay et al. Trial Judgment’), para. 199; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 119. See also IACtHR, Case of Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil, Judgment, 20 October 2016, Series C No. 318, paras 271-72. 7154 Similarly Duch Trial Judgment, para. 344; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 123. 7155 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 952; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 976. 7156 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 952. 7157 SCSL, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Judgement, 18 May 2012, SCSL-03-01- 1281, para. 447; Sesay et al. Trial Judgment, para. 200; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 121. 7158 Footnotes 17 and 65 of the Elements of Crimes, specify: ‘[g]iven the complex nature of this crime, it is recognized that its commission could involve more than one perpetrator as a part of a common criminal purpose’. 7159 IACtHR, Case of López Soto v. Venezuela, Judgment, 26 September 2018, Series C No. 362, paras 176-79.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 951/1077 4 February 2021 against humanity or war crime, is committed when the material element of enslavement

text: is fulfilled and the perpetrator also caused such person or persons to engage in one or

text: more acts of a sexual nature.

text: Acts of a sexual nature in this context include acts of rape, but are not limited to them.

text: Accordingly, they not need involve penetration or even physical contact. The term

text: ‘sexual’ may refer to acts carried out through sexual means or by targeting sexuality.

text: Whether an act is sexual in nature must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending

text: on the specific facts and circumstances of a given case.

text: f. Forced pregnancy (Article 7(1)(g) and Article 8(2)(e)(vi))

text: This is the first time forced pregnancy is to be considered by a trial chamber of this Court.

text: The crime of forced pregnancy is grounded in the woman’s right to personal and

text: reproductive autonomy and the right to family.

text: 7160 Para. 2711 above. 7161 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 955; Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 547. 7162 See similarly ICTR, Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgement, 2 September 1998, ICTR- 96-4-T, para. 688 (discussing sexual violence: ‘The Tribunal considers sexual violence, which includes rape, as any act of a sexual nature which is committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive. Sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact.’); ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Judgement, 26 February 2009, IT-05-87-T, para. 199 (discussing sexual assault in the context of persecution). See also IACtHR, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 31 August 2010, Series C No. 216, para. 109 (‘sexual violence involves acts of a sexual nature, committed against a person without their consent, and that in addition to the physical invasion of the human body, they may include acts which do not involve penetration or even any physical contact’.) 7163 UN Commission on Human Rights, Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery like practices during armed conflict, Final report submitted by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur, 22 June 1998, E/CN.4/Sub2/1998/13, para. 21. 7164 See generally

text: Article 16

text: (1)(e) of the

text: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

text: , UNTS vol. 1249, p. 13 (‘[s]tates Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: […]’); Article 16 of the Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran, 22 April to 13 May 1968, UN Doc A/CONF/32/41. See also Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court, Recommendations and Commentary For December 1997 PrepCom On The Establishment of An International Criminal Court, December 1997, para. W.C.4.4, available at http://www.iccnow.org/documents/5PrepComRecommWomensC.pdf (classifying forced pregnancy as an attack on reproductive integrity); E. La Haye, ‘Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4 Forced Pregnancy’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001), p. 193; C. K. Hall, J. Powderly, N. Hayes in O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the

text: : Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008), p. 274 n. 838; W. A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the

text: Rome Statute

text: (2016), pp. 191-92 (treatises noting other international instruments which used the expression ‘forced pregnancy’ prior to the

text: Rome Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 952/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Statute

text: adopted a ‘narrow’ definition of forced pregnancy, largely because the

text: provision was ‘one of the most difficult and controversial to draft’. Negotiations for

text: the crime of forced pregnancy were largely driven with atrocities of the Bosnian conflict

text: in mind, where Bosnian women were raped and then unlawfully detained with the intent

text: to change the ethnic composition of their group by giving birth to half-Serb children.

text: Some States argued that the crime was unnecessary because its elements were already

text: covered by the crimes of rape and unlawful detention in

text: the Statute

text: and there was no

text: need to create a new crime to punish those acts committed in Bosnia. Another group of

text: States, including Bosnia and Herzegovina and the United States of America, argued that

text: this approach denied the existence of a distinct and terrible crime. Some States

text: focused on fair labelling and how each gender-based crime, including forced pregnancy,

text: should be specifically punished in

text: the Statute

text: The Holy See and certain States were also concerned that the crime might be construed

text: as interfering with national laws on abortion and wanted a high threshold of intent by

text: 7165 E. La Haye, ‘Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4 Forced Pregnancy’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001), p. 193. 7166 C. K. Hall, J. Powderly, N. Hayes in O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the

text: : Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008), p. 274. 7167 C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of the

text: Rome Statute

text: : Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), p. 366. See Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 342, 583, 654; ICTY, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Judgement, 1 September 2004, IT-99-36-T, para. 1011. 7168 See Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, paras 11, 33, 83; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, paras 63, 66; C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of the

text: Rome Statute

text: : Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), p. 367. 7169 C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of the

text: Rome Statute

text: : Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), p. 367. 7170 Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.8, para. 83 (emphasis added: ‘[r]ape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy, mass rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based persecution must be specifically listed […]’); Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court, Recommendations and Commentary For December 1997 PrepCom On The Establishment of An International Criminal court, December 1997, Recommendation 7 (emphasis added: ‘[t]he enumeration of war crimes should include a subparagraph identifying, as examples, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization and other forms of sexual and gender violence as war crimes in themselves’). 7171 C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of the

text: Rome Statute

text: : Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), pp. 366-67; W. A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the

text: Rome Statute

text: (2016), p. 191. See Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, para. 72; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, para. 32.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 953/1077 4 February 2021 limiting it to ‘ethnic-cleansing’. Other States wanted a less restrictive approach because 7172 they argued that this crime might occur in other situations.

text: The resulting definition of forced pregnancy in

text: the Statute

text: is a delicate compromise that specified the mens rea requirement as ‘affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law’. A final sentence was added, saying that this crime ‘shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws 7173 related to pregnancy’. This final sentence does not add a new element to the offence – and is thus not reproduced in the Elements of Crimes – but allays the concern that criminalising forced pregnancy may be seen as legalising abortion.

text: As with any crime, forced pregnancy must be interpreted in a manner which gives this crime independent meaning from the other sexual and gender based violence crimes in

text: the Statute

text: . This is demanded by the rule against surplusage, a basic principle of statutory interpretation that presumes that the legislator does nothing in vain and that the court must endeavour to give significance to every word of a statutory instrument. This also implicates the principle of fair labelling, and how the proper characterisation of the evil committed, that is to say, calling the crime by its true name, is part of the justice sought by the victims. It is not enough to punish it merely as a combination of other crimes (e.g., rape and unlawful detention), or subsumed under the generic “any other form of sexual 7174 violence’. The crime of forced pregnancy depends on the unlawful confinement of a (forcibly made) pregnant woman, with the effect that the woman is deprived of reproductive autonomy.

text: i Material elements (actus reus)

text: 7175 The crime of forced pregnancy, whether as a crime against humanity or a war crime, is committed when the perpetrator ‘confined one or more women forcibly made 7176 pregnant’. The forcible conception of the woman could occur prior to or during the

text: 7172 C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: The Making of the

text: Rome Statute

text: : Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), p. 368. 7173

text: Article 7

text: (2)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7174

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7175

text: Article 7

text: (2)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: stipulates: ‘“Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy’. 7176 See para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-4 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 954/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7177 unlawful confinement. The perpetrator need not have personally made the victim forcibly pregnant – confining a woman made forcibly pregnant by another is necessary 7178 and sufficient for the crime of forced pregnancy.

text: The material element of this crime can be split into two components. The first of these is ‘unlawful confinement’, which means that the woman must have been restricted in her 7179 physical movement contrary to standards of international law. The Elements of Crimes do not indicate a specific duration of confinement, nor do they specify that the deprivation of liberty be ‘severe’ as is explicitly required for the crime against humanity 7180 of imprisonment.

text: The second component of the material element is that the woman has been ‘forcibly made pregnant’. This is understood as encompassing the same coercive circumstances 7181 described for other sexual violence crimes in

text: the Statute

text: . This means that the woman need not have been made pregnant through physical violence alone. ‘Forcibly’ in this context means force, or threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against her or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or that the woman made pregnant was a person incapable of giving genuine consent. The existence of such coercive circumstances undermines the woman’s ability to give voluntary and genuine 7182 consent.

text: ii Mental elements (mens rea)

text: Not every confinement of a forcibly impregnated woman constitutes the crime of forced pregnancy. In addition to the mental elements specified in Article 30, the perpetrator must act with the specific intent of ‘affecting the ethnic composition of any population or 7183 carrying out other grave violations of international law’.

text: 7177 See also Confirmation Decision, para. 100. 7178 See also Confirmation Decision, para. 99. 7179 Interpreting and applying the

text: Rome Statute

text: in conformity with internationally recognised human rights, the Chamber notes

text: Article 9

text: of the UDHR;

text: Articles 9

text: -11 of the

text: ICCPR

text: ; Article 6 of the AfCHPR;

text: Article 7

text: of the ACHR;

text: Article 5

text: of the

text: ECHR

text: . 7180

text: Article 7

text: (1)(e) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7181 Para. 2 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-1 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-1 of

text: the Statute

text: (rape); para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-3 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-3 of

text: the Statute

text: (enforced prostitution); para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-6 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-6 of

text: the Statute

text: (other sexual violence). 7182 See Rule 70(a) of the Rules. 7183 See para. 1 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g)-4 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-4 of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 955/1077 4 February 2021

text: This requirement of special intent is phrased alternatively, meaning that the crime of forced pregnancy under

text: the Statute

text: is committed with the intent either to affect the ethnic composition of the population or to carry out other grave violations of international law, e.g., confining a woman with the intent to rape, sexually enslave, enslave and/or torture her.

text: It is not required that the accused intended to keep the woman pregnant beyond these 7184 alternative intentions. In the negotiations for the Elements of Crimes, there was a proposal to include an element that ‘the accused intended to keep the woman or women pregnant in order to affect the ethnic composition of a population or to carry out another 7185 grave violation of international law’. This emphasised draft text was deliberately 7186 removed from the elements adopted, with one commentator explaining why some delegations were opposed to it:

text: Delegations that were against the addition argued, for example, that the insertion would unduly restrict the scope of the crime. It was pointed out that if a prison warden keeps women forcibly made pregnant in an internment camp in order to torture them, i.e. carrying out any other violation of international law, he/she should be guilty of forced pregnancy. This would be excluded if an intent to keep the 7187 women pregnant were required. On this understanding, the crime of forced pregnancy consists in the confinement of a forcibly pregnant woman in order to carry out other grave violations of international law, regardless of whether the accused specifically intended to keep the woman pregnant.

text: g. Persecution (Article 7(1)(h))

text: i Material elements (actus reus)

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: defines persecution as conduct against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as 7188 defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as

text: 7184 Similarly Confirmation Decision, para. 100. 7185 Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its second session (26 July-13 August 1999), 18 August 1999, PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, p. 71. 7186 E. La Haye, ‘Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4 Forced Pregnancy’ in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001), pp. 194-195. 7187 K. Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the

text: - Sources and Commentary (2003), p. 330, n. 5. 7188

text: Article 7

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: stipulates: ‘For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above’.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 956/1077 4 February 2021 impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

text: Article 7

text: (2)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: stipulates that ‘“[p]ersecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity’.

text: The crime is committed when the four material elements are fulfilled.

text: The first of these elements is that the perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to 7189 international law, one or more persons of fundamental rights. Not every infringement of human rights is relevant but only a ‘severe deprivation’ of a person’s ‘fundamental rights contrary to international law’ (emphasis added). This may include a variety of rights, such as the right to life, the right to personal liberty, the right not to be held in slavery or servitude, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment, inhuman 7190 or degrading treatment, and the right to private property.

text: The second and third elements of the crime of persecution are that the perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such, and that such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural religious, gender as defined in

text: article 7

text: , paragraph 3, of

text: the Statute

text: , or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law.

text: The targeted group can be defined both in a positive or a negative manner, meaning that it may be the case that the perpetrator targeted only members of a certain group or collectivity or that the perpetrator targeted individuals for not belonging to a certain 7191 group or collectivity.

text: In evaluating the alleged status as a protected group, the particular political, social, and cultural context are relevant, as are, in addition to the objective factors relevant to the

text: 7189 The Chamber heeds to footnote 21 of the Elements of Crimes which stipulates: ‘This requirement is without prejudice to paragraph 6 of the General Introduction to the Elements of Crimes’. Para. 6 of the General Introduction reads: ‘The requirement of 'unlawfulness” found in

text: the Statute

text: or in other parts of international law, in particular international humanitarian law, is generally not specified in the elements of crimes’. 7190 See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A(III), Articles 3, 4, 5, 17. See also Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 991. 7191 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1009.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 957/1077 4 February 2021 discriminatory ground alleged, the subjective perception of belonging of both the 7192 perpetrator and the victim. It is noted, however, that while it must be demonstrated

text: that the perpetrator targeted certain persons, a group, or a collectivity, based on one of

text: the prohibited grounds, it is not required that all victims of the crime of persecution be 7193 members, sympathisers, allies of, or in any other way related to, the protected group.

text: Of relevance to this judgment is discriminatory targeting on ‘political’ grounds. In this

text: regard, the Chamber observes that this includes targeting by reason of political 7194 affiliations, whether actual or only perceived by the perpetrator.

text: Fourth, persecution requires that the conduct was committed in connection with any act

text: referred to in

text: article 7

text: , paragraph 1, of

text: the Statute

text: or any crime within the jurisdiction of 7195 the Court.

text: ii Mental elements (mens rea)

text: The act of discrimination must be carried out with the requisite intent, i.e. an intent to

text: discriminate against the targeted persons on any of the grounds enumerated in

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: . The perpetrator harms the victim because the perpetrator 7196 perceives the victim as belonging to a particular group or collectivity. This intent may

text: be inferred from the general behaviour of the perpetrator as well as the circumstances 7197 surrounding the commission of the crime.

text: 7192 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1010. 7193 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1011. 7194 See also Pre-Trial Chamber III, Situation in the Republic of Burundi, Public Redacted Version of “Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 15

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Burundi”, ICC-01/17-X-9-US-Exp, 25 October 2017, 9 November 2017, ICC-01/17-9-Red, para. 133; ECCC, Supreme Court Chamber, Prosecutors v. Kaing Guek alias Duch, Judgement, 3 February 2012, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, para. 272. 7195 The Chamber notes footnote 22 of the Elements of Crimes, which stipulates: ‘[i]t is understood that no additional mental element is necessary for this element other than that inherent in element 6’. 7196 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 671; ICTY, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Judgement Volume I, 10 June 2010, IT-05-88-T, para. 968. 7197 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 671; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Judgement, 30 January 2015, IT-05-88-A, para. 969; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Judgement, 28 February 2005, IT-98-30/1-A, para. 460.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 958/1077 4 February 2021

text: As to the severe deprivation of fundamental human rights required by this crime, the

text: perpetrator need not have completed a value judgment as to the severity of the deprivation

text: inflicted.

text: h. Other inhumane acts, including forced marriage (Article 7(1)(k))

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the crime of other inhumane acts, including forced

text: marriage, within the meaning of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: . In conformity with the

text: principle of legality, this category of crimes against humanity must be interpreted

text: conservatively and – with due regard to

text: Article 22

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: – must not be used

text: to expand uncritically the scope of crimes against humanity. Judicial interpretation

text: within

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: must be consistent with the essence of the offence

text: and in a manner which could have been reasonably foreseen.

text: Following a Defence challenge during the confirmation phase, the Pre-Trial Chamber

text: confirmed the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of forced marriage. This Chamber

text: dismissed a similar challenge during the defence presentation of evidence as untimely,

text: though it noted it would decide upon the proper legal interpretation of this crime in the

text: judgment. In its closing brief, the Defence reiterates, by reference to its previous

text: 7198 Para. 4 of the General Introduction of the Elements of Crimes (‘[w]ith respect to mental elements associated with elements involving value judgement, such as those using the terms “inhumane” or “severe”, it is not necessary that the perpetrator personally completed a particular value judgement, unless otherwise indicated’). 7199

text: Article 22

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: provides: ‘[t]he definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted’. See also Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Public Redacted Version Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012,

text: -Red, para. 269. 7200

text: Article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: ; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Del Río Prada v. Spain, Judgment, 21 October 2013, Application No. 42750/09, para. 93; ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Kafkaris v. Cyprus, Judgment, 12 February 2008, Application No. 21906/04, para. 141; ECtHR, Chamber, S.W. v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 22 November 1995, Application No. 20166/92, para. 36. See also IACtHR, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, 20 March 2013, Serie C No. 221, para. 97. In the specific context of interpreting a provision drafted through the legislative technique of categorisation (such as

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: ). See also ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Cantoni v. France, Judgment, 11 November 1996, Application No. 17862/91, paras 31-32. 7201 Confirmation Decision, paras 87-95. 7202 Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision, 7 March 2019, ICC-02/04- 01/15-1476, paras 31-35, 37, ruling upheld in Appeals Chambers, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against Trial Chamber IX’s ‘Decision on Defence Motions Alleging Defects in the Confirmation Decision’, 17 July 2019,

text: , paras 155-58, 163(vii).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 959/1077 4 February 2021 submissions it made before the Pre-Trial Chamber, that ‘forced marriage is not a crime

text: under the

text: Rome Statute

text: The crime of other inhumane acts is committed, either by act or omission, when the

text: following two material elements are fulfilled:

text: The perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act.

text: Such act was of a character similar to any other act referred to in article 7,

text: paragraph 1, of

text: the Statute

text: International case-law suggests that serious beatings, subjection to deplorable conditions

text: of detention and requiring persons to witness the beatings or killings of others can

text: constitute other inhumane acts. Other international jurisdictions have also recognised

text: forced marriage as an ‘other inhumane act’ falling under crimes against humanity.

text: The prior jurisprudence of this Court has understood

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: as a

text: residual category of crimes against humanity, requiring that the specific act in question

text: fails to qualify as any of the enumerated crimes under

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . The

text: Chamber agrees that the crime of ‘other inhumane acts’ has indeed a residual nature. It

text: notes in this regard that

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: was included in recognition of the

text: 7203 Defence Closing Brief, para. 471. 7204 Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(k). 7205 Egs ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Judgment, 7 May 1997, IT-94-1-T, paras 726, 730; Duch Trial Judgment, paras 260-77, 372; ECCC, Trial Chamber, Prosecutors v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, Judgment, 16 November 2018, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC, paras 733-39; ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Judgement, 2 November 2001, IT-98-30/1-T, para. 209; ICTR, Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Judgement, 7 June 2001, ICTR-95-1A-T, paras 490-94; ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić et al., Judgement, 14 January 2000, IT-95-16-T, para. 819; Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Public Redacted Version Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012,

text: -Red, paras 274-80. 7206 ECCC, Trial Chamber, Prosecutors v. Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, Judgment, 16 November 2018, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC, paras 740-49; SCSL, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima et al., Judgment, 22 February 2008, SCSL-2004-16-A, paras 197-201. 7207 Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Public Redacted Version Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012, ICC- 01/09-02/11-382-Red, para. 269; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008, ICC- 01/04-01/07-717, para. 450.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 960/1077 4 February 2021 impossibility of exhaustively enumerating every inhumane act which could constitute a 7208 crime.

text: If the act is the same as one of the enumerated acts, with an identical ‘character’ in terms of its nature, harm suffered and protected interests involved, then the second material element under Article 7(1)(k) is not satisfied. In this case, a conviction can be entered for a crime under Article 7(1)(a)-(j), but not for the crime of ‘other inhumane act’ under Article 7(1)(k).

text: However, this does not mean that a conviction under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: can be entered only when the conduct in question, considered in its entirety, falls completely outside any act under Article 7(1)(a)-(j). Rather, a conviction can be entered also under Article 7(1)(k) when the full scope of the culpable conduct is not reflected by its qualification under the enumerated crime(s) alone. The Chamber notes that ‘character’ under the second material element of Article 7(1)(k) refers to the nature and gravity of 7209 the act. The Chamber can enter a conviction under Article 7(1)(k) if the perpetrator inflicts great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of a course of conduct which, despite comprising also acts falling under one or more of the enumerated crimes, is, in its entirety, not identical, but is nonetheless ‘similar’ in character in terms of nature and gravity, to those enumerated crimes.

text: The Chamber considers forced marriage – and the enumerated acts charged out of the same overall course of conduct in this case – to be just such an example. Every person enjoys the fundamental right to enter a marriage with the free and full consent of another 7210 person. Marriage creates a status based on a consensual and contractual relationship

text: 7208 G. Witschel and W. Rückert, ‘Article 7(1)(k) – Crime Against Humanity of Other Inhumane Acts’, in R. S. Lee (ed.) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001), pp. 106-07. For a similar explanation of ‘other inhumane acts’ under customary international law, see ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Judgement, 17 December 2004, IT-95-14/2-A, para. 117, quoting ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić et al., Judgement, 14 January 2000, IT- 95-16-T, para. 563 (inhumane acts as crimes against humanity were ‘deliberately designed as a residual category, as it was felt undesirable for this category to be exhaustively enumerated. An exhaustive categorization would merely create opportunities for evasion of the letter of the prohibition.’). 7209 See Elements of Crimes, footnote 30. 7210

text: Article 16

text: of the UDHR;

text: Article 23

text: (3) of the

text: ICCPR

text: Article 10

text: (1) of the

text: ICESCR

text: ; Human Rights Committee, General Comment 28, 29 March 2000, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), paras 23-24; Article 1(1) of the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages, 9 December 1964, UNTS vol. 521, p. 231;

text: Article 16

text: (1)(b) of the

text: , 3 September 1981, UNTS vol. 1249, p. 13; Article 6(2)(a) of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 7 November 1967, A/RES/22/226; Article 6(a) of the Protocol of

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 961/1077 4 February 2021

text: – it is an institution and also an act or rite. The central element, and underlying act of

text: forced marriage is the imposition of this status on the victim, i.e. the imposition,

text: regardless of the will of the victim, of duties that are associated with marriage – including

text: in terms of exclusivity of the (forced) conjugal union imposed on the victim – as well as

text: the consequent social stigma. Such a state, beyond its illegality, has also social, ethical

text: and even religious effects which have a serious impact on the victim’s physical and

text: psychological well-being. The victim may see themselves as being bonded or united to

text: another person despite the lack of consent. Additionally, a given social group may see

text: the victim as being a ‘legitimate’ spouse. To the extent forced marriage results in the

text: birth of children, this creates even more complex emotional and psychological effects on

text: the victim and their children beyond the obvious physical effects of pregnancy and childbearing.

text: Accordingly, the harm suffered from forced marriage can consist of being ostracised from the community, mental trauma, the serious attack on the victim’s dignity, and the

text: deprivation of the victim’s fundamental rights to choose his or her spouse.

text: The conduct underlying forced marriage – as well as the impact it has on victims – are

text: not fully captured by other crimes against humanity. To focus on sexual slavery and rape

text: in particular, these crimes and forced marriage exist independently of each other. While the crime of sexual enslavement penalises the perpetrator’s restriction or control of the

text: victim’s sexual autonomy while held in a state of enslavement, the ‘other inhumane act’

text: the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa; Article 19(i) of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights; Article 33(1) of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, 15 March 2008, reprinted in 12 Int’l Hum. Rts. Rep. 893;

text: Article 17

text: (3) of the ACHR;

text: Article 8

text: (1) of the

text: ECHR

text: Article 5

text: of the Protocol No. 7 to the

text: ECHR

text: . See also Human Rights Council, Child, early and forced marriage in humanitarian settings – Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 26 April 2019, A/HRC/41/19, para. 4 (‘[c]hild, early and forced marriage is a human rights violation, a form of gender-based discrimination, a harmful practice and a form of sexual and gender-based violence, which requires States to take steps to prevent and eliminate it.’). 7211 Merriam Webster dictionary defines marriage as: ‘a: […] the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock; c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities […]’. 7212 Confirmation Decision, para. 93; Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 555. See also AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 195. 7213 Concretely as regards sexual violence and in analysing whether it caused ‘severe physical or mental suffering’, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has determined that the specific circumstances of each case must be taken into account, including: ‘characteristics of the action, the duration, the method used, or the way in which the suffering was inflicted, the potential physical and mental effects, and also the status of the person who endured this suffering, including their age, gender, and physical condition, among other personal details’ (IACtHR, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 30 August 2010, Series C No. 215, para. 122).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 962/1077 4 February 2021 of forced marriage penalises the perpetrator’s imposition of ‘conjugal association’ with the victim. Forced marriage implies the imposition of this conjugal association and does not necessarily require the exercise of ownership over a person, an essential element for the existence of the crime of enslavement. Likewise, the crime of rape does not penalise the imposition of the ‘marital status’ on the victim. When a concept like ‘marriage’ is used to legitimatise a status that often involves serial rape, victims suffer trauma and 7214 stigma beyond that caused by being a rape victim alone.

text: The Chamber thus interprets

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: and its elements to include the inhumane act of forced marriage, namely forcing a person, regardless of his or her will, into a conjugal union with another person by using physical or psychological force, threat 7215 of force or taking advantage of a coercive environment. Such an act does not fall under any of the acts enumerated in

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a)-(j) of

text: the Statute

text: , but is similar in character to them. Whether the conduct charged in this case constitutes forced marriage under this definition is assessed on the facts.

text: It follows that forced marriage is a continuing crime, in the sense that it covers the entire period of the forced conjugal relationship, and only ends when the individual is freed 7216 from it.

text: The perpetrator need not make a value judgment as to the ‘inhumane’ character of the 7217 act. They need only be aware of the factual circumstances that established the 7218 character of the inhumane act.

text: i. Cruel treatment (Article 8(2)(c)(i)) The crime of cruel treatment requires that:

text: The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.

text: 7214 Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 555. 7215 Confirmation Decision, paras 91-93; SCSL, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay et al., Judgment, 26 October 2009, SCSL-04-15-A, paras 736-40. 7216 Similarly Sesay et al. Trial Judgment, paras 1211-14. Although in the context of conscription and enlistment of children, see Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 618. 7217 Elements of Crimes, General Introduction, para. 4. 7218 Elements of Crimes,

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , para. 3.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 963/1077 4 February 2021

text: Such person or persons were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities.

text: The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established this status.

text: j. Outrages upon personal dignity (Article 8(2)(c)(ii))

text: The crime of outrages upon personal dignity is committed when the following three

text: material elements are fulfilled:

text: The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons.

text: The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity.

text: Such person or persons were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the 7219 hostilities.

text: Whether the ‘severity’ of the humiliation, degradation or violation is ‘generally

text: recognised’ as an outrage upon personal dignity entails an objective assessment of a 7220 reasonable person and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is no 7221 requirement that the suffering or injury must have long term effects.

text: The perpetrator must have been aware of the factual circumstances that established the 7222 status of the victim. The perpetrator need not have completed a value judgment as to

text: 7219 See also footnote 57 of the Elements of Crimes, which stipulates: ‘[f]or this crime, “persons” can include dead persons. It is understood that the victim need not personally be aware of the existence of the humiliation or degradation or other violation. This element takes into account relevant aspects of the cultural background of the victim’. 7220 Similarly Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 262; Sesay et al. Trial Judgment, para. 176; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 504. 7221 Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 262; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008,

text: , para. 369. Similarly ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Judgement, 2 November 2001, IT-98-30/1-T, para. 168; Kunarac et al. Appeals Judgment, paras 501, 503. 7222 Para. 4 of the Elements of Crimes of Article 8(2)(c)(ii).

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 964/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7223 the severity of the humiliation, degradation or violation inflicted. There is also no

text: 7224 additional requirement that the perpetrator had a discriminatory intent or motive.

text: k. Attack against the civilian population (Article 8(2)(e)(i))

text: This crime requires the two material elements. The first of these is that the perpetrator

text: directed an attack. An ‘attack’ constitutes any ‘acts of violence against the adversary,

text: 7225 whether in offence or defence’. To ‘direct’ an attack in this context means that the

text: 7226 perpetrator selected the intended target and decided on the attack. No particular harm

text: 7227 to civilians need be caused; the crime is directing the attack as such.

text: The second material element of the crime is that the object of the attack was a civilian

text: population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. Civilians

text: are persons who are not members of State armed forces or organised armed groups of a

text: 7228 party to the conflict. The term ‘civilian population’ denotes a collective, as opposed

text: 7229 to individual civilians. The presence within a civilian population of individuals who

text: do not fall under the definition of ‘civilians’ does not deprive the population of its civilian

text: 7230 character.

text: The civilian population or individual civilians must have been the primary object of the

text: ‘attack’; directing the attack against military objects that affect civilians incidentally does

text: 7231 not suffice. Efforts to comply with international humanitarian law are relevant in this

text: context, including the principle of distinction between legitimate targets and protected

text: 7232 persons or objects and the duty to take precautionary measures. Depending on the

text: 7223 Para. 4 of the General Introduction of the Elements of Crimes (‘[w]ith respect to mental elements associated with elements involving value judgement, such as those using the terms “inhumane” or “severe”, it is not necessary that the perpetrator personally completed a particular value judgement, unless otherwise indicated.’). 7224 Similarly Sesay et al. Trial Judgment, para. 177; ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Judgement, 24 March 2000, IT-95-14/1-A, para. 28. 7225 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 916; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 798; Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II; Article 49 of Additional Protocol I. See also Trial Chamber VIII, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqui Al Mahdi, Judgement and Sentence, 27 September 2016,

text: , paras 15-16. 7226 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 744, 917. 7227 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 904. 7228 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 883; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 788; Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions. 7229 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 921. 7230 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 921. 7231 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 802. 7232 See Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 921; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 802.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 965/1077 4 February 2021 circumstances, the civilian population can still qualify as the primary object of an attack 7233 in a situation where everyone is targeted at a mixed military-civilian position.

text: The perpetrator must also have intended the civilian population as such or individual 7234 civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.

text: l. Pillaging (Article 8(2)(e)(v))

text: i Material elements (actus reus)

text: The first material element of pillaging is that the perpetrator appropriated certain property.

text: Article 8(2)(e)(v) relates to ‘pillaging a town or place’. The pillaging of a town or place comprises all forms of appropriation of property, including appropriation committed by 7235 individuals in their own interest and acts of organised or systematic appropriation.

text: Though noting that the jurisprudence is not uniform on this point, the Chamber – relying on the absence of any statutory language to this effect – considers that there is no requirement that appropriations must occur on a large scale basis before constituting the 7236 crime of pillaging.

text: The second material element of pillaging is that the appropriation was without the consent of the owner.

text: When the property owner has fled, such appropriations must be assumed to have been 7237 without the owner’s consent absent any contrary indication. This could occur, for example, when items are appropriated from an empty house whose residents have 7238 fled. The concept of private property and the right to property must be understood as encompassing not only the property of individuals, but also the communal property of

text: 7233 See Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 921, 923; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 802. Similarly ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgement, 30 November 2006, IT-98-29-A, para. 132. 7234 Para. 3 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7235 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1028; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 905. 7236 In accord with Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1044. But see Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 117; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 909. 7237 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1034; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 954. 7238 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 1034, 1037; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 954.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 966/1077 4 February 2021 the communities. It must also take into consideration the customary law of the 7239 community (i.e. practices on possession, titles and registration).

text: ii Mental elements (mens rea)

text: 7240 Appropriations justified by military necessity cannot constitute the crime of pillaging. Military necessity requires that the appropriation’s use be directed to further the war

text: 7241 effort and thus be used for military purposes. This is in contrast to appropriations for 7242 private or personal use. The perpetrator must have specifically intended to deprive the 7243 owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. If combatants appropriate property essential to their survival, such as food, this alone does not make 7244 the appropriation one of military necessity.

text: m. Conscription of children or their use in armed hostilities (Article 8(2)(e)(vii))

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: concerns conscripting, enlisting and using children under the age of 15 years in hostilities. Conscription or enlistment alone are sufficient and it is therefore not required that a child under 15 years of age who has been conscripted 7245 or enlisted also be ‘used’ to participate actively in hostilities. The crime is committed

text: when the following two material elements are fulfilled:

text: The perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons into an armed force or group or used one or more persons to participate actively in hostilities.

text: Such person or persons were under the age of 15 years.

text: ‘Conscripting’ has been defined as the coercive and ‘enlisting’ as the voluntary

text: 7246 integration of children under the age of 15 years into an armed force or group. The

text: 7239 See IACtHR, Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, Series C No. 79, paras 149-51. See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, Judgment, 26 May 2017, Application No. 006/2012, para. 123. 7240 Footnote 62 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7241 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1030. 7242 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 1030, 1041-42. 7243 Para. 2 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7244 Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 951-52; ICTY, Trial Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, Judgement, 15 March 2006, IT-01-47-T, paras 1895, 1976-77. 7245 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1104. 7246 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, paras 278, 311-312; Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1107 (noting that ‘[i]t may be difficult to distinguish between voluntary and forced recruitment in the case of children under the age of 15,

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 967/1077 4 February 2021 element of compulsion distinguishes both forms of integration and is established by taking into account ‘whether the force, threat of force or psychological pressure applied was of such a degree and so pervasive, that individuals can be said to have been forced 7247 to join the armed force or group’. This compulsion must be determined on a case-bycase basis, considering the particular circumstances of the child and the way she or he was recruited.

text: As concerns the use of such children, to ‘participate actively in hostilities’ ranges from 7248 direct participation in hostilities to other supporting combat-related activities. Conversely, activities unrelated to hostilities fall outside of Article 8(2)(e)(vii) of the 7249 Statute. When assessing whether the role of the child is to be treated as active participation, what matters is a case-by-case assessment of the link between the activity undertaken by the child and the hostilities in which the armed force or group for which 7250 he or she is acting is engaged.

text: Conscripting and using children under the age of 15 years is a crime of continuing nature for as long as the children remain in the armed force or group; consequently, it ceases to be committed when the children leave the force or group or reach the age of 15 years, 7251 whichever comes first.

text: In addition to the mental elements specified in Article 30, the perpetrator must know or 7252 should have known that such person or persons were under the age of 15 years.

text: n. Destruction of property (Article 8(2)(e)(xii)) Dominic Ongwen is charged with the crime of destroying property of an adversary as a war crime, within the meaning of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: . This provision also governs ‘seizing’ such property, but only destruction of property is relevant in this case.

text: particularly since such individuals may be unable to give genuine and informed consent when enlisting in an armed force or group.’). 7247 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, para. 282. See also Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 1106-07. 7248 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, paras 333-40; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1044. 7249 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1044. 7250 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, paras 333, 340 (from para. 340, with further quotation marks removed: to participate actively in hostilities ‘imports a wide interpretation to the activities and roles that are covered by the offence of using children under the age of 15 actively to participate in hostilities’); Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 1108-09. 7251 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1104; Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 618. 7252 Para. 3 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 968/1077 4 February 2021

text: The crime of destroying the adversary’s property is committed if the following 7253 four material elements are fulfilled.

text: First, it is required that the perpetrator destroyed certain property. The property, including 7254 movable or immovable, private or public items, is ‘destroyed’, either by act or omission, if it is set ablaze, demolished, pulled down or so badly damaged it is no longer 7255 fit for purpose.

text: Second, the crime of destruction of property requires that such property was property of an adversary. The property must belong to the ‘adversary’, namely to individuals or entities considered to be aligned to the opposing party to the conflict adverse or hostile 7256 to the perpetrator. With regard to the destruction of property belonging to persons who had no stated or apparent allegiance to a party involved in the conflict, the Chamber notes that it may be established that these persons or entities were ‘adverse’, or considered as such by the perpetrators, for example by showing that they were not aligned 7257 to or supportive of the perpetrators’ party or its objectives.

text: Third, such property must have been protected from that destruction under the international law of armed conflict. The property is protected under international law when it does not constitute ‘military objectives’, namely ‘objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, 7258 offers a definite military advantage’. Whether or not the action offered a ‘military advantage’ must be evaluated from the attacker’s perspective for each targeted object and ‘such advantage must be definite and cannot in any way be indeterminate or

text: 7253 See paras 1-3, 5 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7254 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 892; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 171. 7255 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 891; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 171. 7256 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 892; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Public Redacted Version of Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 171. 7257 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1160. 7258 Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 893.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 969/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7259 potential’. As a result, objects of the adversary lose their protection under 7260 international law of armed conflict if and for such time as they are ‘military objects’.

text: Fourth, the perpetrator must have been ‘aware of the factual circumstances that 7261 established the status of the property’.

text: Fifth, the crime of destruction of property requires that the destruction was not required by military necessity. This relates to situation where destruction is ‘imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict’. Such a compelling necessity must be 7262 assessed on a case-by-case basis.

text: Mode of liability – Commission (

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: In this section, the Chamber will set out the applicable law for the mode of liability relevant to its findings which, for the reasons provided in the present judgment, is the responsibility under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: as direct or indirect perpetrator, or indirect co-perpetrator, as the case may be. Indeed, in light of the Chamber’s findings, it is unnecessary to set out the requirements for the alternative modes of liability charged 7263 by the Prosecution and confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: provides that a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible.

text: i. Commission ‘as an individual’ (direct perpetration)

text: Direct perpetrators must personally carry out the material elements of the crime with the requisite intent and knowledge pursuant to

text: Article 30

text: of

text: the Statute

text: as well as any further 7264 specific provision.

text: 7259 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 893. 7260 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 893. 7261 Para. 4 of the Elements of Crimes of

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7262 Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 894. 7263 Other trial judgments have proceeded similarly. Trial Chamber VIII, The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqui Al Mahdi, Judgement and Sentence, 27 September 2016,

text: , para. 20; Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1200. 7264 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 735; Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 58.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 970/1077 4 February 2021 ii. Commission ‘through another person’ (indirect perpetration)

text: An indirect perpetrator controls the person or persons who execute the material elements 7265 of the crime by subjugating their will. This subjugation of the will is what distinguishes indirect perpetration from ordering, where a lesser degree of influence is required. The crucial element is the perpetrator’s control of the action of another person or persons to such a degree that the will of that person becomes irrelevant, such that their 7266 action must be attributed to the perpetrator as if it were his or her own. Whether the 7267 controlled person is also criminally responsible for the crime is irrelevant.

text: The subjugation of the will of the person or persons who execute the material elements 7268 of the crime may occur in various ways. The use of an organisation is one such way, but this is a factual consideration and not a requirement for establishing this mode of liability. In such a case, while the potential physical perpetrators are interchangeable 7269 within the organisation, the criterion of control means that the indirect perpetrator used ‘at least part of the apparatus of power subordinate to him or her, so as to steer it intentionally towards the commission of the crime, without leaving one of the 7270 subordinates at liberty to decide whether the crime is to be executed.’

text: In addition, for an indirect perpetrator to be individually criminally responsible, he or she must satisfy the subjective elements as required by Article 30 and any further specific provision.

text: iii. Commission ‘jointly with another’ and ‘through another person’

text: (indirect co-perpetration)

text: Joint commission (co-perpetration) is when the execution of the material elements of the 7271 crime results from the actions of a plurality of persons. The execution of the material elements of the crime by the co-perpetrators may take place through yet another person or persons, including, as just stated above, through the use of an organization to control

text: 7265 See Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 774, 777-79 (discussed in the context of indirect co-perpetration); Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 1396, 1402-03, 1406. See also Confirmation Decision, paras 38-40. 7266 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 777; Confirmation Decision, paras 39-40. 7267

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (the person is responsible for committing a crime through another person ‘regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible’). 7268 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 778; Katanga Trial Judgment, paras 1403-06. 7269 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 778; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1408. 7270 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 778; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1411. 7271 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, para. 445. See also Confirmation Decision, para. 38.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 971/1077 4 February 2021 such persons. This is what the Chamber understands ‘indirect co-perpetration’ to be in 7272 the confirmed charges. Defence arguments that indirect co-perpetration has no 7273 statutory basis are misconceived because, as understood by this Chamber, indirect coperpetration is nothing more than a particular form of committing a crime ‘jointly with another’ under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Indirect co-perpetration requires the following objective elements: (i) the existence of an agreement or common plan, between the accused and one of more other persons, to commit the crimes or to engage in conduct which, in the ordinary course of events, would result in the commission of the crimes; and (ii) the control of the members of the common plan over a person or persons who execute the material elements of the crimes by 7274 subjugating the will of the direct perpetrators. The accused, though not required to carry out the criminal conduct directly and personally, must have control over the crime ‘by virtue of his or her essential contribution to it and the resulting power to frustrate its 7275 commission’.

text: In addition, for an indirect co-perpetrator to be individually criminally responsible, he or she must satisfy the subjective elements as required by Article 30 and any further specific provision. In particular, the indirect co-perpetrator must have meant to engage in the 7276 conduct which constituted his or her essential contribution, and must have intended the execution of the material elements of the crime or have been aware that the implementation of the agreement between the co-perpetrators would in the ordinary 7277 course of events result in execution of the material elements of the crimes.

text: 7272 See Confirmation Decision, paras 38-39. Similarly Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 772 (citations removed: ‘[h]owever, the Chamber understands that in the current case, the concept of indirect co-perpetration entails a form of co-perpetration where the common plan is executed through other persons, who function as a tool of all of the co-perpetrators. In this sense, ‘indirect co-perpetration’ in this case should not be seen as a stand-alone mode of liability, but as a particular form of co-perpetration, which is compatible with the wording of

text: the Statute

text: .’); Al Hassan Confirmation Decision, para. 809. 7273 Defence Closing Brief, para. 183. 7274 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 777. 7275 Lubanga Appeals Judgment, para. 473. 7276

text: Article 30

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . 7277

text: Article 30

text: (2)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 972/1077 4 February 2021

text: B. Legal characterisation of the facts

text: Introduction

text: Above, the Chamber has established, by way of detailed analysis of the evidence, the 7278 facts of the case. It has also excluded, on the evidence, the applicability of grounds excluding criminal responsibility under

text: Article 31

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . In the present section, the Chamber proceeds to the subsumption of the factual findings within the legal characterisation proposed in the corresponding charges, i.e. to the application of the law, as laid out above, to the factual findings and the analysis of each element of each of the crimes charged – including the constituent elements of Dominic Ongwen’s criminal responsibility.

text: The Chamber addresses first the two sets of contextual elements, crimes against humanity and war crimes, of the crimes charged. Thereafter, it proceeds in the order of the charges as presented, addressing in turn the charges: (i) related to the attack on Pajule IDP camp; (ii) related to the attack on Odek IDP camp; (iii) related to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp; (iv) related to the attack on Abok IDP camp; (v) of sexual and gender-based crimes directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen; (vi) of sexual and gender-based crimes not directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen; and (vii) of conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 years. In each of the sub-sections, with the exception of the charges of sexual and gender-based crimes directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen where no further division is necessary, the Chamber proceeds again in two steps, addressing first the specific objective elements of each charged crime, and second the individual criminal responsibility of Dominic Ongwen, including the mental elements of the crimes.

text: The Chamber notes that some charges, in particular as concerns the modes of liability under

text: Articles 25

text: (3) and

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , are presented in the alternative. As laid out below at appropriate points in the analysis, the Chamber accepts the primary alternative stated in the charge, which is responsibility under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: as direct or indirect perpetrator, or indirect co-perpetrator, as the case may be. The primary

text: 7278 See section III, the Chamber’s discussion of the Findings of Facts above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 973/1077 4 February 2021 alternative being established, the Chamber does not proceed to consider the further subsidiary alternative modes of liability.

text: As also indicated in the present section, the Chamber has not retained some legal qualifications of facts proposed in the charges on account of impermissible concurrence of crimes. Concurrence of crimes, also referred to as cumulative conviction, is a situation where the same facts satisfy the legal definition of multiple crimes. In this regard, the Chamber notes that there is no provision in

text: the Statute

text: explicitly requiring it to exclude some legal qualifications of facts on the ground that they are in impermissible concurrence with other legal qualifications of the same facts; also, the provisions on sentencing may be considered in themselves adequate to address, in the context of the determination of the sentence to be imposed, those instances in which a person is 7279 convicted of more than one crime on the basis of the same conduct. Nonetheless, the Chamber agrees with the consistent stance of Trial Chambers of the Court that there are certain limitations on the permissibility of concurrence of crimes and consequential cumulative convictions. In particular, it has consistently been held that convictions may be entered cumulatively if the conduct in question violates two distinct provisions of

text: the Statute

text: , each having a ‘materially distinct’ element not contained in the other, i.e. an 7280 element which requires proof of a fact not required by the other. The Defence argued that

text: the Statute

text: requires ‘a conduct-based test, not merely elements 7281 of a crime’ as the standard of assessing concurrence of crimes. Its submission is that the ‘prohibition on subsequent prosecutions for the same conduct, and consequently multiple convictions, should be considered as broader than merely a legal elements 7282 test’. The Prosecutor responded that ‘there is no need to resort to a conduct-based approach addressed to article 20(1) situations to resolve the question’ and that ‘[a]

text: 7279 See

text: Article 78

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: , giving the Trial Chamber discretion to impose for multiple crimes a total sentence equal to the highest individual sentence. 7280 Bemba et al. Trial Judgment, para. 951; Bemba Trial Judgment, paras 747-748; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1695. 7281 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, 9 December 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1697 (hereinafter: ‘Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions’), p. 5. 7282 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, para. 23. See also paras 24-33.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 974/1077 4 February 2021 materially distinct legal-elements approach is the correct approach to apply at the Court 7283 for the imposition of multiple convictions’.

text: The so-called ‘conduct-based test’ put forward by the Defence is primarily based on

text: Article 20

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . However, the Chamber does not accept the argument of the Defence that

text: Article 20

text: of

text: the Statute

text: contains ‘guiding law on the interpretation for 7284 multiple convictions within one case’. This is because

text: Article 20

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , by its terms, regulates consecutive trials for the same conduct, and protects persons from being unduly subjected to criminal proceedings twice, as well as the finality of judgments and thus the integrity of the legal system. In its three paragraphs,

text: Article 20

text: of

text: the Statute

text: also places obligations both on the Court and on States Parties, seeking to regulate with precision the different situations, notably related also to the Court’s jurisdiction being limited ratione materiae, as opposed to the jurisdiction of States. As also observed by 7285 the Appeals Chamber, it is evident that the procedural situations foreseen by

text: Article 20

text: of

text: the Statute

text: are entirely different from the one at hand: concurrence of crimes within single criminal proceedings before the Court.

text: Thus, contrary to the submission by the Defence, there is no basis in

text: Article 20

text: of

text: the Statute

text: for the so-called ‘conduct-based test’ in relation to concurrence of crimes. However, this does not mean that the analysis as to the permissibility of concurrence of crimes – and consequent cumulative conviction – is entirely abstract. Indeed, as explained, the test based on materially distinct legal elements defines such elements as those which require proof of a fact not required by the other.

text: In this regard, the Chamber is also mindful of the recent statement of the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba et al. case, where the Appeals Chamber, on the one hand, found no error in the application of the test based on materially distinct legal elements in the concrete circumstances, while, on the other hand, observing that ‘it is arguable that a bar to multiple convictions could also arise in situations where the same conduct fulfils the elements of two offences even if these offences have different legal elements, for instance 7286 if one offence is fully consumed by the other offence or is viewed as subsidiary to it’.

text: 7283 Prosecution’s Response to Defence’s ‘Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions’, 20 December 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1704, para. 3. 7284 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, para. 10. 7285 See also Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 748. 7286 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 751.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 975/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber agrees that there may be situations in which crimes requiring in abstracto different legal elements may nevertheless be in impermissible concurrence, and bears this in mind in its analysis of the concrete questions posed in this case.

text: The Chamber observes that, in the present case, situations in which the same conduct fulfils the legal elements of more than one crime include: (i) the concurrence of analogous 7287 crimes against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: and war crimes under

text: Article 8

text: of

text: the Statute

text: ; (ii) the concurrence of torture and cruel treatment as war crimes under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) 7288 of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iii) the concurrence of torture and other inhumane acts as crimes 7289 against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) and (k) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iv) the concurrence of enslavement and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) and (g) 7290 of

text: the Statute

text: ; and (v) the concurrence of rape and sexual slavery, both as crimes against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and as war crimes under Article 7291 8(2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: . These concrete questions of concurrence of crimes are discussed in their immediate context in the legal analysis below.

text: Contextual elements

text: i. Contextual elements of crimes against humanity

text: The Chamber found that throughout the period of the charges, i.e. from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, in Northern Uganda, the LRA killed, injured and enslaved a large number of civilians in numerous attacks on individual civilians, IDP camps and other 7292 civilian locations. It also abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual slaves and so- 7293 called ‘wives’, and as domestic servants, a large number of civilians. This constitutes a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: , directed against a civilian population, i.e. the civilians of Northern Uganda, within the meaning of

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: 7287 See paras 2818-2821 below. 7288 See paras 2835, 2893, 2946, 2992 below. 7289 See paras 2837, 2891, 2944, 2990 below. 7290 See paras 3051, 3086 below. 7291 See paras 3036-3039, 3079 below. 7292 See para. 143 above. 7293 See para. 143 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 976/1077 4 February 2021

text: Moreover, as found by the Chamber, the LRA had a hierarchical structure, with Joseph

text: 7294 Kony being the highest authority. During the period relevant to the charges, his

text: 7295 deputy was Vincent Otti, who led a headquarters unit called Control Altar. The LRA

text: 7296 was further divided into four brigades: Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle. From 2003,

text: 7297 there was also a division called Jogo. The brigades were divided into battalions and

text: 7298 7299 further into companies or ‘coys’. Each of these units was led by a commander.

text: Orders were generally communicated from Joseph Kony directly or through Vincent Otti

text: to the brigade commanders, who communicated them to the battalion commanders, who

text: 7300 in turn passed them to their subordinates. Joseph Kony’s orders were generally

text: 7301 complied with. At the same time, in particular when Joseph Kony was geographically

text: removed from LRA units, brigade and battalion commanders took their own

text: 7302 initiatives.

text: 7303 The LRA had at its disposal weapons and ammunition for use in military operations.

text: 7304 It regularly seized weapons from the UPDF during combat. It also obtained weapons

text: 7305 and other supplies from Sudan. The LRA supplied itself with food, medicines and

text: other items of use by looting from civilians in Northern Uganda, in particular from IDP

text: 7306 camps. The LRA relied on high-frequency radio as the principal mode of

text: 7307 communication between units in various locations in Northern Uganda and Sudan.

text: The Chamber also found that the LRA perceived as associated with the Government of

text: Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular

text: 7308 those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda. LRA

text: 7294 See para. 123 above. 7295 See para. 123 above. 7296 See para. 123 above. 7297 See para. 123 above. 7298 See para. 123 above. 7299 See para. 123 above. 7300 See para. 124 above. 7301 See para. 124 above. 7302 See para. 124 above. 7303 See para. 125 above. 7304 See para. 125 above. 7305 See para. 125 above. 7306 See para. 125 above. 7307 See para. 125 above. 7308 See para. 140 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 977/1077 4 February 2021 commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort 7309 against the government and should be killed by the LRA.

text: On the basis of these facts, the Chamber finds, first, that the LRA meets the definition of an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of

text: Article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . Further, the repeated 7310 occurrence of attacks on individual civilians, IDP camps and other civilian locations, and the LRA’s perception of civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the 7311 Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, of civilians living in Northern Uganda as well as the fact that the LRA abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual slaves and socalled ‘wives’, and as domestic servants, a large number of civilians in a coordinated and 7312 methodical effort, reveal that the acts described above as an attack against the civilian population occurred pursuant to a policy to attack the civilian population.

text: On the basis of the temporal and geographic extent of the attack, the Chamber finds that it was widespread within the meaning of

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . In addition, considering that throughout the period of the charges the LRA attacked civilians living in Northern Uganda whom, as recalled, it perceived as associated with the Government 7313 of Uganda and considering again that the LRA, as part of a coordinated and methodical effort, abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual slaves and so-called ‘wives’, 7314 and as domestic servants, a large number of civilians, the Chamber finds that the attack was also systematic in nature.

text: The crimes charged in relation to the attacks on Pajule IDP camp, Odek IDP camp, Lukodi IDP camp and Abok IDP camp under Counts 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46 and 49 were committed, as discussed below, in the context of specific LRA attacks on these four IDP camps in Northern Uganda. Considering that the LRA perceived civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, in particular those who lived in 7315 government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda, the four specific attacks

text: 7309 See para. 140 above. 7310 See para. 143 above. 7311 See para. 140 above. 7312 See paras 143, 212 above. 7313 See paras 140, 143 above. 7314 See paras 143, 212 above. 7315 See para. 140 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 978/1077 4 February 2021 form part of the attack against the civilian population within the meaning of

text: Article 7

text: of

text: the Statute

text: as defined in this section. As concerns the crimes charged under Counts 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66 and 68, the Chamber found that throughout the period of charges, in Northern Uganda, the LRA also abducted and enslaved, and used a large 7316 number of civilians as sexual slaves and so-called ‘wives’, and as domestic servants. The crimes found under the enumerated counts fall squarely within this category, considering the type of conduct and the characteristics of the victims. Accordingly, the Chamber finds, in respect of Counts 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66 and 68, that the conduct was committed as part of the widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population, as required by

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen knew that throughout the period of charges, in Northern Uganda, the LRA killed and injured a large number of civilians in numerous attacks on individual civilians, IDP camps and other civilian locations, and that it abducted and enslaved, and used as sexual slaves and so-called ‘wives’, and as domestic 7317 servants, a large number of civilians. In addition, the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived (and also himself perceived) the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the 7318 enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen knew that the conduct in relation to the crimes charged under Counts 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66 and 68 was part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber concludes that the contextual elements are satisfied in respect of the crimes against humanity charged under Counts 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 66 and 68.

text: 7316 See para. 143 above. 7317 See para. 143 above. 7318 See para. 141 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 979/1077 4 February 2021 ii. Contextual elements of war crimes

text: In relation to the facts underlying the contextual elements of the charged war crimes, the

text: Chamber recalls again its findings to the effect that the LRA had a hierarchical structure,

text: 7319 with Joseph Kony being the highest authority in this structure. During the time period

text: relevant to the charges, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, his deputy was

text: 7320 Vincent Otti, who led a headquarters unit called Control Altar. Further, the LRA was

text: 7321 divided into four brigades: Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle. From 2003, there was

text: 7322 also a division called Jogo. The brigades were divided into battalions and further into

text: 7323 7324 companies or ‘coys’. Each of these units was led by a commander. Orders were

text: generally communicated from Joseph Kony directly or through Vincent Otti to the

text: brigade commanders, who communicated them to the battalion commanders, who in turn

text: 7325 passed them to their subordinates. Joseph Kony’s orders were generally complied

text: 7326 with. At the same time, in particular when Joseph Kony was geographically removed

text: 7327 from LRA units, brigade and battalion commanders took their own initiatives.

text: Moreover, it must be recalled again that the LRA had at its disposal weapons and

text: 7328 ammunition for use in military operations. It regularly seized weapons from the

text: 7329 7330 UPDF during combat. It also obtained weapons and other supplies from Sudan.

text: The LRA supplied itself with food, medicines and other items of use by looting from

text: 7331 civilians in Northern Uganda, in particular from IDP camps. The LRA relied on highfrequency radio as the principal mode of communication between units in various

text: 7332 locations in Northern Uganda and Sudan.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that the LRA constituted an organised armed group.

text: The Chamber notes that the LRA’s military adversary were the armed forces of the

text: 7319 See para. 123 above. 7320 See para. 123 above. 7321 See para. 123 above. 7322 See para. 123 above. 7323 See para. 123 above. 7324 See para. 123 above. 7325 See para. 124 above. 7326 See para. 124 above. 7327 See para. 124 above. 7328 See para. 125 above. 7329 See para. 125 above. 7330 See para. 125 above. 7331 See para. 125 above. 7332 See para. 125 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 980/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7333 Government of Uganda and associated local armed units, i.e. a State. Thus, the organisational requirement of the contextual elements of war crimes is met.

text: The Chamber further found that throughout the period of charges, the LRA regularly fought the armed forces of the Government of Uganda and associated local armed units 7334 in Northern Uganda. Accordingly, the military conflict was of such intensity that surpassed the threshold required by the contextual elements of war crimes. It was also protracted in nature, noting that it spanned the entire period relevant to the charges, i.e. 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005.

text: The armed conflict in question was not of an international character. The Chamber notes the argument of the Defence that the conflict was international ‘because the operational command decisions on the war were made by Kony from Sudan, the weaponry for the Prosecution of the war came from Sudan, and the multinational forces conducted war 7335 operations against the LRA and Kony in Sudan’.

text: In this regard, the Chamber refers to its analysis of the applicable law on the question of the conditions under which a conflict that starts out as a non-international armed conflict 7336 may become international. In its evidentiary analysis, the Chamber has addressed this issue and no factual finding was made which could sustain the qualification of the armed conflict between the LRA and the government forces in Northern Uganda as international 7337 in nature. At the same time, the Chamber observes that the facts specifically referred to by the Defence as allegedly demonstrating the international character of the armed conflict in Northern Uganda in fact do not have that effect. First, that Joseph Kony was physically located in Sudan for much of the period of time relevant to the charges is not relevant to the issue under consideration. Second, the fact that the LRA obtained some of the weapons that it used for its fight against the Ugandan government forces also from 7338 Sudan – a fact established by the Chamber – is not sufficient in the absence of a finding that Sudan also had any role in organising, coordinating or planning the military actions of the LRA in the context of the armed conflict at issue. Third, the events

text: 7333 See para. 142 above. 7334 See para. 142 above. 7335 Defence Closing Brief, para. 305. 7336 See paras 2686, 2687 above. 7337 See para. 1154 above. See also para. 876. 7338 See para. 125 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 981/1077 4 February 2021 mentioned which may have simultaneously taken place in Sudan – which the Chamber made no finding on – do not have an impact on the qualification of the armed conflict in Northern Uganda.

text: In relation to the crimes charged as having occurred during the LRA attacks on Pajule IDP camp, Odek IDP camp, Lukodi IDP camp and Abok IDP camp under Counts 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47 and 48, the Chamber recalls that the LRA perceived civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda as associated with 7339 the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. In addition, simultaneously to committing crimes against civilian residents of the IDP camps, LRA soldiers during the 7340 four attacks also fought the government forces present. These circumstances demonstrate conclusively that the conduct underlying the crimes charged under Counts 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47 and 48 took place in the context of and was associated with the non-international armed conflict as described.

text: As concerns the crimes charged under Counts 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 63, 65 and 67, which relate to sexual and gender based violence against abducted women and girls, the Chamber found that the abducted women and girls were held captive in the Sinia brigade of the LRA at the time when the LRA was engaged in an armed conflict with the 7341 Government of Uganda. The principal aim of the LRA’s abduction of women and girls in Northern Uganda was for them to serve as so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia 7342 brigade, and as domestic servants. As such, the abduction of women and girls was designed to support the LRA in its activity. These circumstances demonstrate conclusively that the conduct underlying the crimes charged under Counts 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 63, 65 and 67 took place in the context of and was associated with the noninternational armed conflict as described.

text: Finally, in relation to Counts 69 and 70, i.e. the conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15, the Chamber notes that because the children were integrated

text: 7339 See para. 140 above. 7340 See paras 147, 164, 181, 194 above. 7341 See paras 142, 205, 211, 213 above. 7342 See para. 212 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 982/1077 4 February 2021 into the LRA, and in fact also regularly participated in the hostilities with the Ugandan 7343 government forces, the nexus requirement is met.

text: The Chamber found, on facts, that Dominic Ongwen knew that throughout the period of charges, the LRA fought the armed forces of the Government of Uganda and associated 7344 local armed units in Northern Uganda. Accordingly, the relevant legal element of war crimes in terms of knowledge on the part of the perpetrator is established.

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber concludes that the contextual elements are satisfied in respect of the war crimes charged under Counts 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 70.

text: iii. Concurrence of analogous crimes against humanity and war crimes Several underlying crimes are charged in the present case both as crimes against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and as war crimes under

text: Article 8

text: of

text: the Statute

text: . The Defence addressed this issue specifically, arguing that ‘multiple convictions [are] 7345 barred’ in such cases of ‘[o]verlapping war crimes and crimes against humanity’. The Defence argues for this result primarily on the basis that both charges are based on the same conduct, but adds that ‘[e]ven if the Court follows the elemental approach, the analysis should consist solely of a comparison of the actus reus and mens rea elements 7346 and not the contextual chapeau elements’. In its response to the Defence submission, the Prosecution stated that ‘[c]ontextual elements are mandatory constituent components of the crimes in the Court’s jurisdiction’ and ‘must form part of any assessment of whether multiple convictions should be entered when the different charges are based on 7347 the same underlying conduct’.

text: This issue with regard to analogous war crimes and crimes against humanity concerns the charges of: murder and attempted murder as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: and as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Counts 2-3, 12-13, 14-15, 25-26, 27-28, 38-39, 40-41); torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: 7343 See paras 224, 225 above. 7344 See para. 142 above. 7345 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, para. 40. 7346 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, paras 42-43. 7347 Prosecution’s Response to Defence’s ‘Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions’, 20 December 2019, ICC-02/04-01/15-1704, paras 33, 38.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 983/1077 4 February 2021

text: (Counts 4-5, 16-17, 29-30, 42-43, 51-52, 62-63); rape as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: and as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Counts 53-54, 64-65); sexual slavery as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: and as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Counts 55-56, 66-67); and forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: and as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Counts 58-59). It must be noted immediately however that murder and torture each contain further differences – beyond the different contextual elements – in the legal elements of, respectively, Articles 7(1)(a) and 8(2)(c)(i), and

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 8(2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: That said, the Chamber does not consider that contextual elements are qualitatively different from the specific elements of the crimes, and that they should for that reason be set aside in the consideration of whether concurrence of analogous crimes against humanity and war crimes is impermissible. The contextual elements of crimes against humanity on the one hand and war crimes on the other hand require proof of facts not 7348 required by the other. In addition, contrary to the essence of the argument of the Defence, the contextual elements of crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court are not neutral as concerns the qualitative legal evaluation of the charged conduct. Indeed, beyond their unitary function of distinguishing crimes within the material jurisdiction of the Court from ordinary crimes falling outside such jurisdiction, the statutory contextual elements of crimes, considered individually, encapsulate distinct interests protected by the corresponding incriminating provisions under

text: the Statute

text: . Indeed, and as far as the charges in the present case are concerned, the Chamber observes that war crimes give protection in criminal law to persons in times of armed conflict, whereas crimes against humanity protect persons where there is a widespread and systematic attack on a civilian population. Thus, the two sets of crimes reflect (partly) different forms of criminality, in that they complement, in terms of protected interests, the incrimination of the individual ‘specific’ crimes – which, in turn, are therefore distinct depending (also) on the relevant contextual elements. In these circumstances, neither of these two sets of crimes can thus be said to be subsumed or consumed in any way by the other.

text: 7348 See also Ntaganda Trial Judgment, para. 1203; Bemba Trial Judgment, para. 750; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1696.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 984/1077 4 February 2021

text: Accordingly, the Chamber finds that concurrence of analogous crimes against humanity and war crimes is permissible.

text: Attack on Pajule IDP camp (Counts 1 to 10)

text: i. Specific objective elements of the charged crimes

text: a. Attack against the civilian population as such (Count 1) Under Count 1, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 10 October 2003, at or near Pajule IDP camp.

text: At the outset, the Chamber observes that the Defence makes the argument – equally applicable to the charges in relation to the attacks on Odek, Lukodi and Abok IDP camps – that it is ‘incorrect to use Article 7 crimes as an underlying conduct for an Article 8 war 7349 crime’. On this basis, the Defence ‘objects to the Prosecution qualifying murder as a crime against humanity (‘CAH’) (counts 2, 12, 25, 38), attempted murder as a CAH (counts 14, 27, 40), torture as a CAH (counts 4, 16, 29, 42), other inhumane acts as a CAH (counts 7, 18, 31, 44) and enslavement (counts 8, 20, 33, 46) as an underlying 7350 conduct of the war crime of attack against a civilian population’. Alternatively, the Defence also argues that torture under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and enslavement under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: specifically ‘cannot amount to an underlying conduct for the war crime of attack against a civilian population’ on the ground that under their statutory definitions these crimes cannot be committed ‘before the individuals fall into 7351 the hands of the attacking party, as required by Article 8(2)(e)(i)’. The Chamber holds that any discussion of qualifying one charged crime (also) as another, or to ‘use’ one crime as the underlying conduct for another charge (as opposed to the qualification of a fact) is legally and methodologically unsound. The charges do not contain any such language; they refer – correctly – to the relevant underlying conduct of the different crimes charged, rather than to other crimes as such. The Defence points to the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, which, however, merely uses crimes and counts of the charges as cross- 7352 references within the structure of its submissions in the Pre-Trial Brief. Thus, contrary

text: 7349 Defence Closing Brief, para. 468. 7350 Defence Closing Brief, para. 468. 7351 Defence Closing Brief, para. 470. 7352 Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, paras 217, 295, 377, 437.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 985/1077 4 February 2021 to the Defence submission, there exists no issue in the present case of ‘qualifying’ crimes against humanity as the underlying conduct of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such.

text: Turning to the facts established in relation to the attack on Pajule IDP camp, the Chamber finds that the specific material elements of the crime, namely that the perpetrator directed an attack and that the object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking part in hostilities, are met, considering that a large group of LRA 7353 fighters went to Pajule IDP camp and attacked the civilian camp. The Chamber also found that the attackers were armed with an assortment of weapons, including SPG-9, AK-47s, a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft gun, RPGs, a PKM machine gun as well as 7354 pangas/machetes and knives. In the conclusion of the Chamber, the object of the attack was the civilian population of Pajule IDP camp as such.

text: b. Murder (Counts 2-3) Under Counts 2 and 3, Dominic Ongwen is charged with murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , and murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, LRA 7355 fighters killed at least four civilians. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the first legal element of both murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the perpetrator killed one or more persons, is met.

text: Furthermore, considering in particular that the killed persons were civilians, most of 7356 whom were killed because they tried to escape or refused to carry looted goods, the Chamber finds that the second element of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the person or persons killed were either hors de combat,

text: 7353 See para. 147 above. 7354 See para. 147 above. 7355 See para. 152 above. 7356 See para. 152 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 986/1077 4 February 2021 or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: c. Torture (Counts 4-5) Under Counts 4 and 5, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: , and torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, LRA fighters abducted hundreds of civilians and forced them to carry injured LRA fighters and looted 7357 items from the camp, including heavy loads, for long distances. The Chamber also found that the abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death, that some were tied to each other, and that many of the abductees were forced to walk barefoot or not fully clothed through the bush for a 7358 long distance. The Chamber also found that LRA fighters beat abductees to make 7359 them walk faster.

text: The Chamber finds that by way of these acts, LRA fighters inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon the civilian residents of Pajule IDP camp. The first legal element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and of torture as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Considering that these acts were committed against civilians whom the LRA fighters abducted, placed under armed guard to prevent their escape and under constant threat of 7360 beatings or death, the Chamber finds that they were in the custody of the LRA fighters who attacked Pajule IDP camp. The second legal element of torture as a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(f) is therefore met.

text: In respect of the third constitutive element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the pain or suffering inflicted did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanction, the Chamber notes that it

text: 7357 See para. 153 above. 7358 See para. 153 above. 7359 See para. 153 above. 7360 See para. 153 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 987/1077 4 February 2021 did not find, on facts, any nexus between the acts under consideration and a context of lawful sanctions. The element is therefore likewise met.

text: Turning to the distinct element of torture as a war crime, the Chamber, considering in 7361 particular that the relevant acts were committed against civilians, finds that the third element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the persons on whom pain or suffering was inflicted were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: d. Cruel treatment (Count 6) Under Count 6, Dominic Ongwen is charged with cruel treatment as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of torture as a war crime under Count 5 and the charge of cruel treatment as a war crime under Count 6 are identical. This is therefore a situation of concurrence of crimes, the permissibility of which must be specifically considered by 7362 the Chamber. In this regard, and as observed above, the Chamber notes that the legal elements of the war crime of cruel treatment are entirely encompassed within the legal elements of the war crime of torture, with the latter containing an additional (mental) 7363 7364 constitutive element. In these circumstances, and as explained, while the same facts under consideration indeed fulfil the legal elements of both crimes, concurrence of crimes (and consequent cumulative conviction) are not permissible. For this reason, and considering the finding below as to the additional mental element required for the crime 7365 of torture as a war crime under Count 5, the charge of cruel treatment under Count 6 will not be further considered.

text: 7361 See paras 153, 154 above. 7362 See paras 2700-2707 (torture) and para. 2754 (cruel treatment) above. 7363 Indeed, in addition to the otherwise identical legal elements, torture as a war crime requires the following additional element which is not required for cruel treatment as a war crime: ‘[t]he perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any discrimination of any kind’. 7364 See para. 2792 above. 7365 See para. 2872 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 988/1077 4 February 2021 e. Other inhumane acts (Count 7) Under Count 7, Dominic Ongwen is charged with other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity under Count 7 are identical to those underlying the charge of torture as a crime against humanity under Count 4. The permissibility of this further concurrence of crimes must therefore be considered by the Chamber. In this regard, the Chamber recalls the residual character of 7366

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , which, in the statutory system of the Court, is therefore in a relationship of subsidiarity with all other crimes against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . That said, and in light of the established facts, the Chamber observes that there is no act underlying the charge under Count 7 which may be considered as different but of similar character, in terms of harm and protected interests involved, compared to those already qualified as a crime against humanity of torture under Count 4. In these circumstances, due to the residual nature of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , concurrent legal qualification under this provision is not possible. For this reason, the charge of other inhumane acts under Count 7 will not be further considered by the Chamber.

text: f. Enslavement (Count 8) Under Count 8, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, LRA fighters abducted hundreds of civilians and forced them to carry looted items from the camp, 7367 including heavy loads, for long distances. Some civilians were forced to carry injured 7368 LRA fighters. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and 7369 7370 were under constant threat of beatings or death. Some were tied to each other.

text: 7366 See para. 2745 above. 7367 See para. 153 above. 7368 See para. 153 above. 7369 See para. 153 above. 7370 See para. 153 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 989/1077 4 February 2021

text: Many of the abductees were forced to walk bare foot or not fully clothed through the 7371 bush for a long distance.

text: The principal question before the Chamber is whether these acts represented an exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over the abductees. In this context, the Chamber considers that the LRA fighters, by committing the acts referred to, deprived the abductees of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, and subjected them to measures aimed at preventing their escape, including threats, physical restraints and armed guard. The LRA fighters subjected the abductees to forced labour. The LRA fighters also engaged in physical and psychological abuse of the abductees. On the basis of these considerations, the Chamber finds that by way of abducting civilians and placing them in the situation as found, the LRA fighters exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the abductees by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: g. Pillaging (Count 9) Under Count 9, Dominic Ongwen is charged with pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the attack, LRA attackers, some of them led by Dominic Ongwen, broke into homes and shops and looted food and other property from them in 7372 7373 Pajule IDP camp. There was widespread looting throughout the camp. The attackers raided the trading centre in the camp, broke into shops and took food items and 7374 supplies. Among the items looted by the LRA attackers were foodstuffs like beans, flour, salt, sugar, cooking oil, maize, sweets, biscuits, groundnuts, soda as well as household goods such as bedding, clothing, a radio set, saucepans and items such as 7375 medicine, livestock and money.

text: The Chamber finds, on the basis of these facts, that the first element of pillaging as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the perpetrator appropriated certain property, is met.

text: 7371 See para. 153 above. 7372 See para. 150 above. 7373 See para. 150 above. 7374 See para. 150 above. 7375 See para. 150 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 990/1077 4 February 2021

text: Further, the Chamber finds that the circumstances of the appropriation, which took place during an armed attack on Pajule IDP camp by the LRA fighters, who broke into homes and shops and raided the trading centre, show that the appropriation took place without the consent of the owners of the property looted.

text: h. Persecution (Count 10) Under Count 10, Dominic Ongwen is charged with persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber finds that, as required by the first legal element of the crime against humanity of persecution, LRA attackers severely deprived, contrary to international law, civilians of fundamental rights in the course of the attack on Pajule IDP camp. 7376 Specifically, the LRA attackers deprived civilians of the right to life, the right not to 7377 7378 be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to personal liberty, 7379 7380 the right not to be held in slavery or servitude, and the right to private property. Based on the circumstances of the victimisation, the Chamber finds that the deprivation was severe.

text: The Chamber also finds that the LRA fighters targeted civilians during the attack on Pajule IDP camp by reason of their identity as perceived supporters of the Ugandan government, and therefore on political grounds. This is because the LRA perceived civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in governmentestablished IDP camps in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda, 7381 and thus as the enemy.

text: In this context, the selection of Pajule IDP camp as a target for the LRA attack indeed constituted targeting on political grounds. This is further confirmed by the fact that after the attack, Vincent Otti told abductees that the LRA reproached the civilians for settling

text: 7376 See para. 152 above. 7377 See para. 153 above. 7378 See para. 153 above. 7379 See para. 153 above. 7380 See para. 150 above. 7381 See para. 140 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 991/1077 4 February 2021 in IDP camps set up by the government, and that there was a punitive nature to the LRA’s

text: 7382 attack on the camp.

text: Finally in this regard, the Chamber deems the requirement that persecution as a crime

text: against humanity be committed in connection with any act referred to in Article 7(1) of

text: the Statute

text: or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court met, in light of the other legal

text: findings of the Chamber in relation to the attack on Pajule IDP camp.

text: ii. Individual criminal responsibility of Dominic Ongwen

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crimes under Counts 1 to 9

text: ‘jointly with’ and ‘through’ others within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: a. Existence of an agreement or common plan

text: The Chamber found that several days before the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Vincent Otti

text: summoned a number of LRA units to join him, and that around that time, Dominic

text: 7383 Ongwen and his group of fighters joined Vincent Otti. A meeting took place the day

text: before the attack at a location east of Pajule IDP camp, including Vincent Otti, Raska

text: 7384 Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen and other LRA commanders. Several

text: 7385 hundred LRA members were present nearby. Furthermore, the Chamber found that

text: after the meeting, on the eve of the attack, the LRA soldiers were selected from the

text: 7386 Control Altar, as well as Trinkle and Sinia brigades. Raska Lukwiya was designated

text: 7387 as the overall commander for the attack. The attackers were briefed about the attack

text: and instructed to attack the UPDF at the barracks, as well as civilian areas of the camp in

text: 7388 order to loot radio equipment, food and other items. The attackers were also told to

text: 7389 abduct civilians. The same evening after the briefing, the attackers, including

text: 7390 Dominic Ongwen, departed for Pajule IDP camp. The Chamber also found that after

text: 7382 See para. 156 above. 7383 See para. 145 above. 7384 See para. 146 above. 7385 See para. 146 above. 7386 See para. 146 above. 7387 See para. 146 above. 7388 See para. 146 above. 7389 See para. 146 above. 7390 See para. 146 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 992/1077 4 February 2021 the attack, Vincent Otti communicated the results of the attack to Joseph Kony on the 7391 LRA radio communication system.

text: The Chamber also notes that it found that the LRA, including Dominic Ongwen, perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government- 7392 established IDP camps in Northern Uganda. The Chamber particularly notes that after the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Vincent Otti told abductees that the LRA reproached the civilians for settling in IDP camps set up by the government, and that there was a punitive 7393 nature to the LRA’s attack on the camp.

text: On the basis of these facts, the Chamber finds that the attack on Pajule took place pursuant to an agreement involving Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders. As demonstrated by the briefing given to the soldiers selected for the attack, this agreement was to attack both the UPDF at the barracks as well as civilian areas of the camp, to loot radio equipment, food and other items, and to abduct civilians. The Chamber finds that, as such, the agreement was specifically directed at engaging in conduct which amounted to: (i) attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (ii) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iii) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iv) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (v) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: ; and (vi) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: Furthermore, the Chamber finds that the agreement of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders to attack Pajule IDP camp aimed at engaging in conduct during the attack which, in the ordinary course of events, would result in: (i) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: ; and (ii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: . This 7394 conclusion is based on the fact that the LRA fighters were sent to attack with firearms,

text: 7391 See para. 158 above. 7392 See paras 140-141 above. 7393 See para. 156 above. 7394 See paras 146-147 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 993/1077 4 February 2021 that, as found above, Dominic Ongwen and his co-perpetrators intended to engage in 7395 violent acts against civilians and that, more generally, recruits in the LRA were not taught, as part of their training which included training in military discipline, to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between civilian objects and military 7396 objectives.

text: b. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons Above, the Chamber found that during the attack on Pajule IDP camp LRA fighters executed the material elements of the crimes charged under Counts 1-10. The Chamber also found that LRA fighters attacked Pajule IDP camp after receiving instructions to this effect the night before, following a meeting including Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, 7397 Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders. The question before the Chamber at this juncture is whether the conduct of the LRA fighters as direct perpetrators of the crimes is attributable to the co-perpetrators acting pursuant to the common plan by virtue of their control which allowed them to subjugate the will of the LRA fighters.

text: The Chamber’s factual findings in relation to the organisation of the LRA are relevant in this regard. The Chamber found that the LRA had a hierarchical structure, within which Joseph Kony was the highest authority and Vincent Otti Joseph Kony’s deputy, who led 7398 a headquarters unit called Control Altar. The Chamber also made a number of factual findings specifically relating to the mechanisms to ensure capability to undertake military operations, including compliance with orders. The Chamber found that Sinia brigade 7399 obtained new fighters through abductions of civilians. These abductions were targeted 7400 at civilians deemed capable of fighting, including young children. Following their abduction, recruits generally passed through initiation rituals, most regularly including 7401 anointment with shea butter, intended to instil obedience and prevent escape. Beating

text: 7395 See para. 2852 above. 7396 See para. 130 above. 7397 See para. 146 above. 7398 See para. 123 above. 7399 See para. 129 above. 7400 See para. 129 above. 7401 See para. 129 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 994/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7402 was also a common feature of such initiation. With some regularity, recruits were

text: forced to brutally kill, or were forced to witness brutal killings, shortly after their

text: 7403 abduction. Upon abduction into Sinia brigade, recruits were given training in fighting

text: 7404 7405 skills, including the use of firearms. Weapons were distributed to recruits. As part

text: 7406 of the training, recruits were also taught military discipline. Recruits were not taught,

text: as part of their training, to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between

text: 7407 civilian objects and military objectives. There were clear rules requiring obedience of

text: 7408 LRA soldiers, and a violent disciplinary system that guaranteed adherence to them.

text: 7409 Penalties ranged from beating to execution. Sinia members, and LRA members

text: 7410 generally, were threatened with death if they were to attempt escape. On certain

text: 7411 occasions, execution of re-captured escapees in fact took place. Members were also

text: 7412 threatened that their home areas would be attacked by the LRA if they escaped. A

text: further measure taken to discourage escaping was giving soldiers false or negative

text: information about life outside of the LRA and preventing them from obtaining

text: 7413 information through public radio broadcasts. Sinia, and more generally LRA

text: members, especially those of lower rank, suffered from hunger and lack of adequate

text: 7414 7415 clothing. They regularly slept outside on the ground. There was no or very limited

text: 7416 treatment available in case of sickness or injury.

text: The Chamber found that for the attack on Pajule IDP camp, soldiers were selected from

text: 7417 the Control Altar, as well as Trinkle and Sinia brigades. As explained above, Sinia

text: 7402 See para. 129 above. 7403 See para. 129 above. 7404 See para. 130 above. 7405 See para. 130 above. 7406 See para. 130 above. 7407 See para. 130 above. 7408 See para. 131 above. 7409 See para. 131 above. 7410 See para. 132 above. 7411 See para. 132 above. 7412 See para. 132 above. 7413 See para. 132 above. 7414 See para. 133 above. 7415 See para. 133 above. 7416 See para. 133 above. 7417 See para. 146 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 995/1077 4 February 2021 was a typical LRA brigade, and the below conclusions can also be drawn with respect to 7418 the LRA generally.

text: It is the conclusion of the Chamber that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on a reliable pool of persons. Also taking into account that several hundred LRA soldiers went for the attack on Pajule IDP camp and that these fighters were selected from an even larger pool of 7419 available persons, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual LRA soldiers was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers selected and sent for the attack on Pajule IDP camp as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders, through which they were able to execute their agreement to attack Pajule IDP camp, including the commission of crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual LRA fighters in the execution of the crimes during the attack on Pajule IDP camp must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders as their own. c. Dominic Ongwen’s control over the crime Following the findings that (i) Dominic Ongwen was a participant to the agreement with Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, and other LRA commanders, pursuant to which the attack on Pajule IDP camp took place, including the commission of crimes, and (ii) the conduct of the LRA fighters who executed the material elements of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders as their own, the Chamber must specifically assess the involvement of Dominic Ongwen in those crimes in order to determine whether he had control over the crime by virtue of his essential contribution to it and the resulting power to frustrate its commission, and accordingly whether his individual criminal responsibility can be qualified under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . For this purpose, the Chamber takes into account Dominic Ongwen’s involvement in maintaining the LRA as an organisation with the capacity to conduct armed attacks, his involvement in the

text: 7418 See para. 883 above. 7419 See paras 146-147 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 996/1077 4 February 2021 planning and preparation of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, his involvement in the execution of the attack itself, as well as the fact that he benefited from the attack.

text: As found by the Chamber, at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen had been appointed second-in-command of the Sinia brigade, after having been 7420 commander of Oka battalion since at least 1 July 2002. He joined Vincent Otti in advance of the attack on Pajule IDP camp with a number of soldiers under his 7421 command. As an LRA commander, by virtue of his position, Dominic Ongwen was crucial in maintaining the organisation. The Chamber made specific findings to the effect that Dominic Ongwen personally ordered disciplinary measures, issued threats to LRA members that they would be killed if they attempted to escape, and ordered killings of 7422 abductees in front of LRA members to illustrate this threat.

text: Concerning the planning and preparation of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen participated in a meeting with Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, and other LRA commanders the day before the attack at a location east 7423 of Pajule IDP camp. It was following this meeting in which Dominic Ongwen was a participant that LRA soldiers were selected for the attack, Raska Lukwiya was designated as the overall commander for the attack, the attackers were briefed about the attack and instructed to attack the UPDF at the barracks, as well as civilian areas of the camp in 7424 order to loot radio equipment, food and other items, and told to abduct civilians.

text: The Chamber also found that Dominic Ongwen participated on the ground in the attack 7425 on Pajule IDP camp. He led a group of attackers to fight at the barracks, before 7426 directing them to attack the trading centre within the camp. Dominic Ongwen ordered 7427 a subordinate to abduct civilians and this order was immediately executed. Dominic Ongwen personally ordered LRA attackers to loot within the trading centre, ordering them to loot items from shops and homes within the camp, and the LRA attackers

text: 7420 See paras 134-136 above. 7421 See para. 145 above. 7422 See paras 131-132 above. 7423 See para. 146 above. 7424 See para. 146 above. 7425 See paras 144, 149, 150, 153 above. 7426 See para. 149 above. 7427 See para. 153 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 997/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7428 complied with this order. Dominic Ongwen also led a group of abductees and ordered 7429 abductees to carry looted goods and instructed them not to drop items. These findings demonstrate that Dominic Ongwen carried out a commanding role, through the exercise of which he personally determined the specific actions undertaken on the ground by the LRA fighters under his control, and thereby also the extent of the commission of crimes.

text: The Chamber also found that after the fighters returned from the camp, Dominic Ongwen spoke to a group of abductees, telling them that anyone who escaped or dropped looted 7430 goods would be killed and that abductees would be trained as soldiers. Also 7431 significantly, some abductees were distributed among Dominic Ongwen’s group. 7432 Looted items were also distributed within Dominic Ongwen’s group. Considering that abducting civilians and looting was, as explained above, one of the principal objectives 7433 of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, the fact that some abductees were placed under the control of Dominic Ongwen, and looted items distributed also within his group, is an important indicator of his control over the crime. Taking into account all of the above, and in particular Dominic Ongwen’s position in the LRA at the relevant time, his participation at the meeting in which the attack was planned and prepared and his subsequent command of LRA fighters on the ground in the context of the attack, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen had control over the crimes committed during the attack on Pajule IDP camp by virtue of his essential contribution to them, and the resulting power to frustrate their commission.

text: d. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes committed during the attack on Pajule IDP camp, i.e. his participation in the planning and in the execution of the attack, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: 7428 See para. 150 above. 7429 See para. 153 above. 7430 See para. 156 above. 7431 See para. 157 above. 7432 See para. 155 above. 7433 See para. 146 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 998/1077 4 February 2021

text: Furthermore, in relation to the required mental elements the Chamber reiterates again that Dominic Ongwen took part in the attack on Pajule IDP attack on the ground after having participated in a prior meeting with Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, and after being present on location where the LRA soldiers were selected for the attack, briefed about the attack and instructed to attack the UPDF at the barracks, as well as civilian areas of the camp in order to loot radio equipment, food and other items, 7434 and also told to abduct civilians. He led a group of attackers to attack the trading centre within the camp and ordered them to pillage food items and supplies from shops 7435 7436 and homes within the camp. He also ordered a subordinate to abduct civilians. He led a group of abductees and ordered abductees to carry looted goods and instructed them 7437 not to drop items. After the fighters returned from the camp, some abductees were 7438 distributed among Dominic Ongwen’s group.

text: On the basis of these facts, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen: (i) meant for civilians to be attacked during the attack on Pajule IDP camp; (ii) meant for civilians to be abducted and forced to carry away looted goods; and (iii) meant for food items and other property to be looted during the attack.

text: The Chamber found that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda as 7439 associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort against the 7440 government and should be killed by the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as 7441 associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for civilian residents of Pajule IDP camp to be severely deprived of their rights by reason of their identity as perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda.

text: 7434 See para. 146 above. 7435 See paras 149-150 above. 7436 See para. 153 above. 7437 See para. 153 above. 7438 See para. 157 above. 7439 See para. 140 above. 7440 See para. 140 above. 7441 See para. 141 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 999/1077 4 February 2021

text: Furthermore, as an LRA commander, Dominic Ongwen was necessarily aware of the features of the organisation, including that recruits were not taught, as part of their training which included training in military discipline, to distinguish between civilians 7442 and combatants, or between civilian objects and military objectives. He was also aware, at the time of the attack on Pajule IDP camp, that the LRA in Northern Uganda had already killed, injured and enslaved a large number of civilians in numerous attacks 7443 on individual civilians, IDP camps and other civilian locations. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen was aware that the execution of the attack on Pajule IDP camp as planned and with the instructions that were given to LRA fighters, would lead to, in the ordinary course of events, (i) the killings of civilians; and (ii) forcing abducted civilians to carry heavy loads for long distances, beatings of civilians, and threats of beatings or death.

text: Accordingly, the general mental elements under

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 1-10. The Chamber turns to the additional mental elements imposed by

text: the Statute

text: in relation to some of these crimes.

text: In relation to the requirement that the perpetrator be aware of the victims being either hors de combat, or civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, applicable to the crimes of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 2) and torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 5), the Chamber found that following a meeting of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders, the LRA fighters selected for the attack were, inter alia, specifically 7444 instructed to attack the civilian areas of Pajule IDP camp. Dominic Ongwen also attended the attack on the ground, where he led a group of attackers to attack the trading centre within the camp and ordered them to pillage food items and supplies from shops 7445 and homes within the camp. After the attack, Dominic Ongwen also spoke to a group of abductees, telling them that anyone who escaped or dropped looted goods would be

text: 7442 See para. 130 above. 7443 See para. 143 above. 7444 See para. 146 above. 7445 See paras 149-150 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1000/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7446 killed and that abductees would be trained as soldiers. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that this specific requirement of knowledge is met.

text: In relation to the special intent requirement applicable to torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 5), the Chamber recalls its finding that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the 7447 enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen intended to inflict 7448 such pain or suffering as discussed above, for the purpose of punishment and/or intimidation of the residents of Pajule IDP camp, on account of their perceived support for the Government of Uganda.

text: In relation to the special intent requirement applicable to pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 9), the Chamber notes that following the meeting of Dominic Ongwen, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo and other LRA commanders prior to the attack, an explicit instruction to loot radio equipment, food and other items was given to the LRA fighters before the attackers, including 7449 Dominic Ongwen, set out for the attack. Also on the ground, Dominic Ongwen issued an order to pillage food items and supplies from shops and homes within the camp to the 7450 group of soldiers he led into the civilian camp. He also ordered civilians to carry 7451 looted goods and instructed them not to drop items. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dominic Ongwen intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. The circumstances of the appropriation do not allow for consideration of military necessity as a justification. The special intent requirement is therefore met.

text: iii. Conclusion

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that, within the context of the attack carried out by the LRA on the Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003, Dominic Ongwen committed, jointly with Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, and

text: 7446 See para. 156 above. 7447 See para. 141 above. 7448 See paras 2829-2830 above. 7449 See para. 146 above. 7450 See paras 149-150 above. 7451 See para. 153 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1001/1077 4 February 2021 other LRA commanders and through LRA soldiers, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the following crimes: (i) attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 1); (ii) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 2); (iii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 3); (iv) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 4); (v) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 5); (vi) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 8); (vii) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 9); and (viii) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 10).

text: Attack on Odek IDP camp (Counts 11 to 23)

text: a. Attack against the civilian population as such (Count 11) Under Count 11, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 29 April 2004, at or near Odek IDP camp.

text: The Chamber finds that the specific material elements of the crime, namely that the perpetrator directed an attack and that the object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking part in hostilities, are met, considering that at least 30 LRA attackers, including children under the age of 15, executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders and, with an assortment of arms, including AK guns, a mortar, an RPG, 7452 a PK and a ‘B-10’ gun, attacked Odek IDP camp from the northern side of the camp. Specifically, a group of fighters spread into the civilian area, including the trading centre, where they dispelled several government soldiers and proceeded to attack the civilian 7453 residents, shooting, beating, abducting and forcing them to carry looted goods. The facts establish that the object of the attack was the civilian population of Odek IDP camp as such.

text: 7452 See para. 163 above. 7453 See para. 164 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1002/1077 4 February 2021 b. Murder (Counts 12-13) Under Counts 12 and 13, Dominic Ongwen is charged with murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the attack, LRA fighters fired their weapons at civilians, and that at least 52 civilians died as a result of the injuries sustained in the camp or on 7454 the course of the retreat.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the first legal element of both murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: Furthermore, the Chamber, considering in particular that the victims of the killings were 7455 civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the person or persons killed were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: c. Attempted murder (Counts 14-15) Under Counts 14 and 15, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , and attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that at least ten civilians were shot, shot at or otherwise injured by 7456 LRA fighters during the attack on Odek IDP camp, and survived. On the facts, the requirements of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: are met: the shooting of the victims represented a substantial step commencing the execution of the crime against humanity

text: 7454 See para. 167 above. 7455 See paras 168, 174-175 above. 7456 See para. 169 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1003/1077 4 February 2021 and the war crime of murder, whereas the completion of the crime, i.e. the death of the victims, did not occur due to independent circumstances.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber, considering in particular that the persons whom the LRA 7457 fighters attempted to kill were civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: d. Torture (Counts 16-17) Under Counts 16 and 17, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that LRA fighters severely mistreated civilians during the attack on Odek IDP camp and in its aftermath. Civilians suffered instances of grave physical abuse 7458 at the hands of the LRA fighters, such as beatings with sticks and guns. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads for long distances under constant threat of harm; some 7459 civilians walked these long distances barefoot. Abductees were under armed guard to 7460 prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. If the 7461 abductees walked too slowly, they were beaten. A female LRA attacker raped , a civilian resident of the camp, with a comb and a stick used for cooking, 7462 while the victim’s husband was forced to watch. The assault was committed with such 7463 force that the victim started to bleed.

text: The Chamber finds that by way of these acts, LRA fighters inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon the civilian residents of Pajule IDP camp. The first legal

text: 7457 See para. 169 above. 7458 See para. 173 above. 7459 See para. 172 above. 7460 See para. 172 above. 7461 See para. 173 above. 7462 See para. 166 above. The Chamber observes in this regard that the Prosecution did not charge Dominic Ongwen with the crime of rape in relation to this fact. The rape of this civilian resident of Odek IDP camp falls within the factual scope of the charges under Counts 16 to 19 (see para. 35 of the charges, in Confirmation Decision, p. 79). 7463 See para. 166 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1004/1077 4 February 2021 element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and of torture as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Considering that these acts were committed against civilians whom the LRA fighters 7464 abducted or physically constrained, the Chamber finds that the victims were in the custody, or under the control of the LRA fighters who attacked Odek IDP camp. The second legal element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the pain or suffering inflicted did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanction, the Chamber notes that it did not find, on facts, any nexus between the acts under consideration and a context of lawful sanctions. The element is therefore likewise met.

text: Turning to the distinct element of torture as a war crime, the Chamber, considering in 7465 particular that the relevant acts were committed against civilians, finds that the third element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: e. Other inhumane acts (Count 18) Under Count 18, Dominic Ongwen is charged with other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity under Count 18 are identical to those underlying the charge of torture as a crime against humanity under Count 16. The permissibility of this concurrence of crimes must therefore be considered by the Chamber. In this regard, the Chamber recalls the residual 7466 character of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: 7464 See paras 166, 171-173 above. 7465 See paras 166, 172-173 above. 7466 See para. 2745 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1005/1077 4 February 2021

text: article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . That said, and in light of the established facts, the Chamber observes that there is no act underlying the charge under Count 18 which may be considered as different but of similar character, in terms of harm and protected interests involved, compared to those already qualified as a crime against humanity of torture under Count 16. In these circumstances, due to the residual nature of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , concurrent legal qualification under this provision is not possible. For this reason, the charge of other inhumane acts under Count 18 will not be further considered by the Chamber.

text: f. Cruel treatment (Count 19) Under Count 19, Dominic Ongwen is charged with cruel treatment as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of torture as a war crime under Count 17 and the charge of cruel treatment as a war crime under Count 19 are identical. This is therefore a further situation of concurrence of crimes, the permissibility of which must be specifically 7467 considered by the Chamber. In this regard, and as observed above, the Chamber recalls that the legal elements of the war crime of cruel treatment are entirely encompassed within the legal elements of the war crime of torture, with the latter 7468 containing an additional (mental) constitutive element. In these circumstances, and as 7469 explained, while the same facts under consideration indeed fulfil the legal elements of both crimes, concurrence of crimes (and consequent cumulative conviction) are not permissible. For this reason, and considering the finding below as to the additional mental 7470 element required for the crime of torture as a war crime under Count 17, the charge of cruel treatment under Count 19 will not be further considered.

text: 7467 See paras 2700-2707 (torture) and para. 2754 (cruel treatment) above. 7468 Indeed, in addition to the otherwise identical legal elements, torture as a war crime requires the following additional element which is not required for cruel treatment as a war crime: ‘[t]he perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any discrimination of any kind’. 7469 See para. 2792 above. 7470 See para. 2925 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1006/1077 4 February 2021 g. Enslavement (Count 20) Under Count 20, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp LRA fighters 7471 abducted at least 40 civilian residents from the camp: men, women and children. Abductees, including children as young as 11 or 12 years old, were forced to carry looted 7472 items away from the camp. Some abductees were released after a few days in the bush; others were killed in the bush or integrated into the LRA, including into Dominic 7473 Ongwen’s household. The Chamber also found that civilians were forced to carry heavy loads for long distances under constant threat of harm; some civilians walked these 7474 long distances barefoot. Abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape 7475 and were under constant threat of beatings or death.

text: Considering that the LRA fighters, by committing the acts referred to, deprived the civilian abductees of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, subjected them to forced labour, and engaged in physical and psychological abuse of the abductees, the Chamber finds that by way of abducting civilians and placing them in the situation as found, the LRA fighters exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the abductees by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: h. Pillaging (Count 21) Under Count 21, Dominic Ongwen is charged with pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the attack, LRA attackers broke into homes and shops and looted food and other items from the camp, both from shops in the trading centre and from civilian homes, including items such as beans, cooking oil, maize, flour, soda and

text: 7471 See para. 171 above. 7472 See para. 172 above. 7473 See para. 176 above. 7474 See para. 172 above. 7475 See para. 172 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1007/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7476 other beverages, biscuits, sugar, salt, posho, soap, clothes, saucepans, bedding, shoes. The food aid which had been recently distributed to the camp was looted by the 7477 attackers.

text: The Chamber finds, on the basis of the facts, that the first element of pillaging as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: Further, the Chamber finds that the circumstances of the appropriation, which took place during an armed attack on Odek IDP camp by LRA fighters, who raided the trading centre 7478 and broke into shops and homes, indicate that the appropriation took place without the consent of the owners of the property looted. Accordingly, the corresponding legal element of pillaging as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: i. Outrages upon personal dignity (Count 22) Under Count 22, Dominic Ongwen is charged with outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that one abductee was forced to kill another abductee with a club 7479 and forced to inspect corpses. Another abductee was forced to watch someone being 7480 killed. Further, the Chamber found that some mothers were forced to abandon their 7481 children on the side of the road; one child was left on a rubbish pit.

text: The Chamber finds that forcing an abductee to kill another abductee with a club and to inspect corpses, forcing an abductee to watch someone being killed, as well as forcing mothers to abandon their children on the side of the road, in the circumstances of the attack on Odek IDP camp, constituted a violation of the dignity of the victims, and that this violation of the dignity was so severe as to be generally recognised as an outrage

text: 7476 See para. 165 above. 7477 See para. 165 above. 7478 See para. 165 above. 7479 See para. 173 above. 7480 See para. 173 above. 7481 See para. 173 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1008/1077 4 February 2021 upon personal dignity. The first and second elements of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: are met.

text: Furthermore, considering in particular that these acts were committed against civilians 7482 abducted during the attack from Odek IDP camp, the Chamber finds that the third element of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the victims were either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: j. Persecution (Count 23) Under Count 23, Dominic Ongwen is charged with persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber finds that as required by the first legal element of the crime against humanity of persecution, LRA attackers severely deprived, contrary to international law, civilians of fundamental rights in the course of the attack on Odek IDP camp. Specifically, 7483 the LRA attackers deprived civilians of the right to life, the right not to be subjected 7484 7485 to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to personal liberty, the right 7486 7487 not to be held in slavery or servitude, and the right to private property. Based on the circumstances of the victimisation, the Chamber finds that the deprivation was severe.

text: The Chamber also finds that the LRA fighters targeted civilians during the attack on Odek IDP camp by reason of their identity as perceived supporters of the Ugandan government, and therefore on political grounds. This is because the LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in 7488 Northern Uganda. In this context, the selection of Odek IDP camp as a target for the LRA attack indeed constituted targeting on political grounds.

text: 7482 See para. 173 above. 7483 See paras 167-168, 174-175 above. 7484 See paras 166, 172-173 above. 7485 See paras 171-173 above. 7486 See paras 171-173 above. 7487 See para. 165 above. 7488 See para. 140 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1009/1077 4 February 2021

text: Finally in this regard, the Chamber deems the requirement that persecution as a crime against humanity be committed in connection with any act referred to in

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court met, in light of the other legal findings of the Chamber in relation to the attack on Odek IDP camp.

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crimes under Counts 11 to 23 ‘jointly with’ and ‘through’ others within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: a. Existence of an agreement or common plan The Chamber found that shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp, Joseph Kony ordered that the people of Odek be attacked, to punish their perceived failure to support 7489 7490 the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew of Joseph Kony’s order before the attack. Dominic Ongwen decided that LRA soldiers under his command would attack Odek IDP 7491 camp. He coordinated with subordinate commanders and appointed them to lead the 7492 attack on the ground. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and 7493 also instructed them to loot food and abduct civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers for the attack, and participated in a ritual and prayer before they set 7494 out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including 7495 civilians, to loot and to abduct civilians. In this regard, the Chamber recalls that the LRA, including Dominic Ongwen, perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular 7496 those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda. Furthermore, it is also noted in this context that recruits in the LRA, who were given training inter alia in military discipline, were not taught, as part of their training, to

text: 7489 See para. 160 above. 7490 See para. 160 above. 7491 See para. 161 above. 7492 See para. 161 above. 7493 See para. 161 above. 7494 See para. 161 above. 7495 See para. 161 above. 7496 See paras 140-141 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1010/1077 4 February 2021 distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between civilian objects and military 7497 objectives.

text: The Chamber also found that after the attack, the attackers joined the rest of the group 7498 commanded by Dominic Ongwen. The subordinate commanders briefed Dominic 7499 Ongwen, who thanked the fighters. Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters successfully carried out an attack on Odek IDP camp, shooting people, 7500 abducting civilians and looting in the camp.

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber finds that the attack on Odek IDP camp took place pursuant to an agreement involving Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders. It is noted that this agreement was not concluded in a specific direct communication between Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and others, but the sequence of events, in particular Joseph Kony’s order, followed by Dominic Ongwen’s planning and instructions prior to the attack, and his reporting of the results of the attack after it occurred, demonstrate clearly that such meeting of the minds existed in substance. The Chamber also finds, on the basis of the above, that the agreement was to attack everyone at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, to loot and to abduct civilians. As such, the agreement was specifically directed at engaging in conduct which amounted to: (i) attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (ii) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iv) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (v) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (vi) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (vii) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (viii) outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: and (ix) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: 7497 See para. 130 above. 7498 See para. 177 above. 7499 See para. 177 above. 7500 See para. 177 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1011/1077 4 February 2021 b. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons Above, the Chamber found that during the attack on Odek IDP camp LRA fighters executed the material elements of the crimes charged under counts 11-23. The Chamber also found that the LRA fighters attacked Odek IDP camp after Dominic Ongwen 7501 decided that LRA soldiers under his command would attack the camp. Dominic Ongwen coordinated with subordinate commanders and appointed them to lead the attack 7502 on the ground. Dominic Ongwen ordered the fighters to attack the camp in two groups, one focused on the military barracks in the camp and the other focused on the civilian 7503 areas. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and also instructed them 7504 to loot food and abduct civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers 7505 for the attack, and participated in a ritual and prayer before they set out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including civilians, 7506 to loot and to abduct civilians.

text: The Chamber also refers to its above analysis and the resulting finding that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on 7507 a reliable pool of persons. Also taking into account that at least 30 LRA fighters participated in the attack, and that they were selected from an even larger pool of 7508 available persons, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual LRA soldiers was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers selected and sent for the attack on Odek IDP camp as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders, through which they were able to execute their agreement to attack Odek IDP camp, including the commission of crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual LRA fighters in the execution

text: 7501 See para. 161 above. 7502 See para. 161 above. 7503 See para. 161 above. 7504 See para. 161 above. 7505 See para. 161 above. 7506 See para. 161 above. 7507 See paras 2856, 2858 above. 7508 See para. 161, 163 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1012/1077 4 February 2021 of the crimes during the attack on Odek IDP camp must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders as their own.

text: c. Dominic Ongwen’s control over the crime

text: Following the findings that (i) Dominic Ongwen was a participant to the agreement with Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders, pursuant to which the attack on Odek IDP camp took place, including the commission of crimes, and (ii) that the conduct of the LRA fighters who executed the material elements of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders as their own, the Chamber must specifically assess the involvement of Dominic Ongwen in those crimes in order to determine whether he had control over the crime by virtue of his essential contribution to it and the resulting power to frustrate its commission, and accordingly whether his individual criminal responsibility can be qualified under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: In this regard, the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen decided that LRA soldiers under 7509 his command would attack Odek IDP camp. He coordinated with subordinate 7510 commanders and appointed them to lead the attack on the ground. Dominic Ongwen ordered the fighters to attack the camp in two groups, one focused on the military 7511 barracks in the camp and the other focused on the civilian areas. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and also instructed them to loot food and abduct 7512 civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers for the attack, and 7513 participated in a ritual and prayer before they set out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including civilians, to loot and to abduct 7514 civilians. Afterwards, Dominic Ongwen moved with the attackers in the direction of 7515 Odek IDP camp, although he did not enter the camp with the fighters sent to attack.

text: 7509 See para. 161 above. 7510 See para. 161 above. 7511 See para. 161 above. 7512 See para. 161 above. 7513 See para. 161 above. 7514 See para. 161 above. 7515 See para. 162 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1013/1077 4 February 2021

text: It follows from the above that Dominic Ongwen had full operational control of the attack on Odek IDP camp. He designed the attack, gave instructions and set the attack in motion. It is also significant that after the attack, Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters successfully carried out an attack on Odek IDP camp, shooting people, 7516 abducting civilians and looting in the camp.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen had control over the crimes committed during the attack on Odek IDP camp by virtue of his essential contribution to them, and the resulting power to frustrate their commission.

text: d. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes committed during the attack on Odek IDP camp, i.e. his participation in the planning and in the execution of the attack, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber reiterates, also in relation to the required mental elements, that Dominic Ongwen decided that LRA soldiers under his command would attack Odek IDP 7517 camp. He coordinated with subordinate commanders and appointed them to lead the 7518 attack on the ground. Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians, and 7519 also instructed them to loot food and abduct civilians. Dominic Ongwen ordered the selection of soldiers for the attack, and participated in a ritual and prayer before they set 7520 out. He encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders to target everyone, including 7521 civilians, to loot and to abduct civilians. After the attack, the returning attackers 7522 briefed Dominic Ongwen, and Dominic Ongwen thanked them. Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on military radio to other LRA commanders and

text: 7516 See para. 177 above. 7517 See para. 161 above. 7518 See para. 161 above. 7519 See para. 161 above. 7520 See para. 161 above. 7521 See para. 161 above. 7522 See para. 177 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1014/1077 4 February 2021 to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters successfully carried out an attack on Odek 7523 IDP camp, shooting people, abducting civilians and looting in the camp.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen: (i) meant for civilians to be attacked during the attack on Odek IDP camp; (ii) meant for civilians to be killed; (iii) meant for civilians to be severely physically and psychologically abused; (iv) meant for civilians to be abducted and forced to carry away looted goods; and (v) meant for food items and other property to be looted during the attack.

text: The Chamber reiterates its finding that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern 7524 Uganda, as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort 7525 against the government and should be killed by the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda 7526 as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the enemy. The Chamber also found that shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp, Joseph Kony ordered that 7527 the people of Odek be attacked, to punish their perceived failure to support the LRA. 7528 Dominic Ongwen knew of Joseph Kony’s order before the attack. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for civilian residents of Odek IDP camp to be severely deprived of their rights by reason of their identity as perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda.

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 11-23. The Chamber turns to the additional mental elements imposed by

text: the Statute

text: in relation to some of these crimes.

text: In relation to the requirement that the perpetrator be aware of the victims’ being either hors de combat, or civilians, medical personnel or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, applicable to the crimes of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: 7523 See para. 177 above. 7524 See para. 140 above. 7525 See para. 140 above. 7526 See para. 141 above. 7527 See para. 160 above. 7528 See para. 160 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1015/1077 4 February 2021

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 13 and Count 15 – attempted murder), torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 17), and outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 22), the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen and his subordinate commanders ordered LRA 7529 soldiers to target everyone they find at Odek IDP camp, including civilians. Before the attackers set out, Dominic Ongwen encouraged the soldiers and repeated the orders 7530 to target everyone, including civilians. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that this specific requirement of knowledge is met.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 17), the Chamber recalls once again its finding that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and 7531 thus as the enemy. The Chamber also found that shortly before the attack on Odek IDP camp, Joseph Kony ordered that the people of Odek be attacked, to punish their 7532 perceived failure to support the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew of Joseph Kony’s order 7533 before the attack. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen intended to 7534 inflict such pain or suffering as discussed above, for the purpose of punishment and/or intimidation of the residents of Odek IDP camp, on account of their perceived support for the Government of Uganda.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 21), the Chamber notes that before 7535 the attack on Odek IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen gave the instruction to loot. The items looted from Odek IDP camp were distributed to the household of different 7536 commanders, including Dominic Ongwen. After the attack, Dominic Ongwen reported to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony that his fighters successfully 7537 carried out an attack on Odek IDP camp, inter alia, looting in the camp. The only

text: 7529 See para. 161 above. 7530 See para. 161 above. 7531 See para. 141 above. 7532 See para. 160 above. 7533 See para. 160 above. 7534 See paras 2885-2886 above. 7535 See para. 161 above. 7536 See para. 165 above. 7537 See para. 177 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1016/1077 4 February 2021 reasonable conclusion is that Dominic Ongwen intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. The circumstances of the appropriation do not allow for consideration of military necessity as a justification. The special intent requirement is therefore met.

text: iii. Conclusion

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that, within the context of the attack carried out by the LRA on the Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004, Dominic Ongwen committed, jointly with Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders and through LRA soldiers, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 11); (ii) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 12); (iii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 13); (iv) attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 14); (v) attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 15); (vi) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 16); (vii) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 17); (viii) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 20); (ix) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 21); (x) outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 22); and (xi) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 23).

text: Attack on Lukodi IDP camp (Counts 24 to 36)

text: a. Attack against the civilian population as such (Count 24) Under Count 24, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP camp.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1017/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber finds that the specific material elements of the crime, namely that the perpetrator directed an attack and that the object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking part in hostilities, are met, considering that LRA fighters who on Dominic Ongwen’s orders attacked Lukodi camp also went into the 7538 7539 civilian areas of the camp. LRA fighters targeted civilians within the camp. 7540 Civilians in Lukodi IDP camp were shot, burnt and beaten and huts were set on fire. The facts establish that the object of the attack was the civilian population of Lukodi IDP camp as such.

text: b. Murder (Counts 25-26) Under Counts 25 and 26, Dominic Ongwen is charged with murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that LRA fighters killed civilians in Lukodi IDP camp: men, women 7541 7542 and children. At least 48 civilians died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. 7543 Civilians were shot, burnt and beaten to death. The killing of civilians was not 7544 confined to the area of Lukodi IDP camp. After they left Lukodi, LRA fighters killed 7545 persons they had abducted from the camp.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: Furthermore, and considering in particular that the victims of the killings were 7546 civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the person or persons killed were

text: 7538 See paras 179-181 above. 7539 See para. 181 above. 7540 See paras 182, 184, 186 above. 7541 See para. 182 above. 7542 See para. 182 above. 7543 See para. 182 above. 7544 See para. 182 above. 7545 See para. 188 above. 7546 See paras 182-183, 188 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1018/1077 4 February 2021 either hors de combat, or were civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: c. Attempted murder (Counts 27-28) Under Counts 27 and 28, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that the LRA fighters attempted to kill at least 11 civilians during 7547 7548 the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. The fighters shot at civilians and wounded them. 7549 Civilians were beaten and left for dead. Civilians, including children, were thrown 7550 into burning houses. On such facts, the requirements of Article 25(3)(f) are met: the shooting, beating and burning of the victims represented a substantial step commencing the execution of the crime against humanity and the war crime of murder, whereas the completion of the crime, i.e. the death of the victims, did not occur due to independent circumstances.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber, considering in particular that the persons whom the LRA 7551 fighters attempted to kill were civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: d. Torture (Counts 29-30) Under Counts 29 and 30, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that LRA fighters severely mistreated civilians during the attack and in its aftermath. Civilians were forced to carry heavy loads, some for long distances while

text: 7547 See para. 184 above. 7548 See para. 184 above. 7549 See para. 184 above. 7550 See para. 184 above. 7551 See para. 184 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1019/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7552 tied together and under constant threat of harm. Civilians were also injured by the

text: 7553 LRA. Witness P-0187 was wounded by an LRA fighter. She was also raped by an

text: 7554 LRA fighter. Witness P-0024 was beaten throughout her abduction as were other

text: 7555 7556 civilians. LRA fighters kept slapping and threatening her. Mothers were forced to

text: 7557 abandon their children in the bush. LRA fighters threw small children, including

text: babies, into the bush because the children were crying and making it difficult for their

text: 7558 mothers to carry looted goods.

text: The Chamber finds that by way of these acts, LRA fighters inflicted severe physical or

text: mental pain or suffering upon the civilian residents of Pajule IDP camp. The first legal

text: element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and of

text: torture as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Considering that these acts were committed against civilians whom the LRA fighters

text: 7559 abducted, the Chamber finds that they were in the custody of the LRA fighters who

text: attacked Lukodi IDP camp. The second legal element of torture as a crime against

text: humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the pain or suffering inflicted did not arise only

text: from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanction, the Chamber notes that it

text: did not find, on facts, any nexus between the acts under consideration and a context of

text: lawful sanctions. The element is therefore likewise met.

text: Turning to the distinct element of torture as a war crime, considering in particular that

text: 7560 the relevant acts were committed against civilians, the Chamber finds that the third

text: element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the

text: persons on whom pain or suffering was inflicted were either hors de combat, or were

text: 7552 See para. 187 above. 7553 See para. 187 above. 7554 See para. 187 above. The Chamber observes in this regard that the Prosecution did not charge Dominic Ongwen with the crime of rape in relation to this fact. In the charges, the rape of P-0187 is contained within the factual scope of the charges under Counts 29 to 32 (see para. 49 of the charges, in Confirmation Decision, p. 83). 7555 See para. 187 above. 7556 See para. 187 above. 7557 See para. 187 above. 7558 See para. 187 above. 7559 See para. 187 above. 7560 See para. 187 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1020/1077 4 February 2021 civilians, medical personnel, or religious personnel taking no active part in the hostilities, is also met.

text: e. Other inhumane acts (Count 31) Under Count 31, Dominic Ongwen is charged with other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity under Count 31 are identical to those underlying the charge of torture as a crime against humanity under Count 29. The permissibility of this concurrence of crimes must therefore be considered by the Chamber. In this regard, the Chamber recalls the residual 7561 character of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . That said, and in light of the established facts, the Chamber observes that there is no act underlying the charge under Count 31 which may be considered as different but of similar character, in terms of harm and protected interests involved, compared to those already qualified as a crime against humanity of torture under Count 29. In these circumstances, due to the residual nature of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , concurrent legal qualification under this provision is not possible. For this reason, the charge of other inhumane acts under Count 31 will not be further considered by the Chamber.

text: f. Cruel treatment (Count 32) Under Count 32, Dominic Ongwen is charged with cruel treatment as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of torture as a war crime under Count 30 and the charge of cruel treatment as a war crime under Count 32 are identical. This is therefore a further situation of concurrence of crimes, the permissibility of which must be specifically 7562 considered by the Chamber. In this regard, and as observed above, the Chamber

text: 7561 See para. 2745 above. 7562 See paras 2700-2707 (torture) and para. 2754 (cruel treatment) above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1021/1077 4 February 2021 recalls that the legal elements of the war crime of cruel treatment are entirely

text: encompassed within the legal elements of the war crime of torture, with the latter 7563 containing an additional (mental) constitutive element. In these circumstances, and as 7564 explained, while the same facts under consideration indeed fulfil the legal elements

text: of both crimes, concurrence of crimes (and consequent cumulative conviction) are not

text: permissible. For this reason, and considering the finding below as to the additional mental

text: 7565 element required for the crime of torture as a war crime under Count 30, the charge

text: of cruel treatment under Count 32 will not be further considered.

text: g. Enslavement (Count 33)

text: Under Count 33, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against

text: humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 19 May 2004, at or near

text: Lukodi IDP camp.

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, LRA fighters

text: abducted at least 29 civilians, men, women and children, to carry looted goods from the 7566 7567 camp. Some of the abductees were tied together. The abductees were under armed 7568 guard to prevent their escape and were under constant threat of beatings or death. 7569 Many of the women abductees were subsequently released. Some abductees, 7570 particularly men were killed in the bush. Some of the abducted children remained 7571 with the LRA.

text: Considering that the LRA fighters, by committing the acts referred to, deprived the

text: civilian abductees of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement,

text: including by physically restraining them and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected

text: them to forced labour, and engaged in physical and psychological abuse of the abductees,

text: the Chamber finds that by way of abducting civilians and placing them in the situation

text: 7563 Indeed, in addition to the otherwise identical legal elements, torture as a war crime requires the following additional element which is not required for cruel treatment as a war crime: ‘[t]he perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any discrimination of any kind’. 7564 See para. 2792 above. 7565 See para. 2971 below. 7566 See para. 187 above. 7567 See para. 187 above. 7568 See para. 187 above. 7569 See para. 187 above. 7570 See para. 187 above. 7571 See para. 187 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1022/1077 4 February 2021 as found, the LRA fighters exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the civilian abductees by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: h. Pillaging (Count 34) Under Count 34, Dominic Ongwen is charged with pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the attack, LRA fighters entered civilian homes and 7572 shops in Lukodi IDP camp and looted food and other property from them. Among the items stolen by the attackers were beans, maize, cooking oil, soap, cooking utensils, 7573 chickens, money and clothes.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: Further, the Chamber finds that the circumstances of the appropriation, which took place during an armed attack on Lukodi IDP camp by the LRA fighters, indicate that the appropriation took place without the consent of the owners of the property looted. Accordingly, the corresponding legal element of pillaging as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: i. Destruction of property (Count 35) Under Count 35, Dominic Ongwen is charged with destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP camp. 7574 The Chamber found that during their attack on the camp, LRA fighters set huts on fire. 7575 Approximately 210 civilian huts in the camp were burnt. Civilians’ household goods, 7576 including food stocks, were destroyed in these fires. Domestic animals such as goats

text: 7572 See para. 185 above. 7573 See para. 185 above. 7574 See para. 186 above. 7575 See para. 186 above. 7576 See para. 186 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1023/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7577 were also burnt by the LRA. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the first element of the war crime of destruction of property, i.e. that the perpetrator destroyed certain property, is met.

text: The property in question belonged to the residents of Lukodi IDP camp. The Chamber reiterates its finding that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda, as 7578 associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. Accordingly, the second element of the war crime of destruction of property, i.e. that the property was property of an adversary, is also met.

text: Considering that the objects destroyed were civilian huts, household goods, including 7579 food stocks, and domestic animals, the Chamber also finds that no circumstances are indicated on facts which could mean that they constituted military objectives and finds that the property destroyed was protected from that destruction under the international law of armed conflict. There is also no indication on facts that the destruction was required by military necessity. The third and fifth elements of the war crime of destruction of property are therefore established.

text: j. Persecution (Count 36) Under Count 36, Dominic Ongwen is charged with persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber finds that as required by the first legal element of the crime against humanity of persecution, LRA attackers severely deprived, contrary to international law, civilians of fundamental rights in the course of the attack on Lukodi IDP camp. 7580 Specifically, the LRA attackers deprived civilians of the right to life, the right not to 7581 7582 be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to personal liberty,

text: 7577 See para. 186 above. 7578 See para. 140 above. 7579 See para. 186 above. 7580 See paras 182-183, 188 above. 7581 See para. 187 above. 7582 See para. 187 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1024/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7583 7584 the right not to be held in slavery or servitude, and the right to private property. Based on the circumstances of the victimisation, the Chamber finds that the deprivation was severe.

text: The Chamber also finds that the LRA fighters targeted civilians during the attack on Lukodi IDP camp by reason of their identity as perceived supporters of the Ugandan government, and therefore on political grounds. This is because the LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in 7585 Northern Uganda. In this context, the selection of Lukodi IDP camp as a target for the LRA attack indeed constituted targeting on political grounds.

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court met, in light of the other legal findings of the Chamber in relation to the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crimes under Counts 24 to 36 through’ others within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: a. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons 7586 The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen decided to attack Lukodi IDP camp. For the purpose of the attack, he gathered soldiers from Sinia as well as from the nearby Gilva 7587 brigade sickbay. At a gathering the morning of the day before the attack, Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and everyone present at that 7588 location, including civilians, and to take food from the camp. Dominic Ongwen 7589 selected his subordinate Ocaka to be commander on the ground. Pursuant to Dominic

text: 7583 See para. 187 above. 7584 See paras 185-186 above. 7585 See para. 140 above. 7586 See para. 179 above. 7587 See para. 179 above. 7588 See para. 179 above. 7589 See para. 179 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1025/1077 4 February 2021

text: Ongwen’s instruction, the attackers left for Lukodi IDP camp; they executed his orders 7590 and attacked the camp. After the attack, LRA fighters returned and reported to 7591 Dominic Ongwen about the success of their mission. Dominic Ongwen also reported his soldiers’ attack on Lukodi IDP camp to other LRA commanders, including Joseph 7592 Kony and Vincent Otti. Dominic Ongwen took responsibility for the attack on Lukodi 7593 IDP camp.

text: The Chamber refers to its above analysis and the resulting finding that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on a 7594 reliable pool of persons. Also taking into account that at least 80 LRA fighters – 7595 selected from an even larger pool of available persons – participated in the attack, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual LRA soldiers was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers selected and sent for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, through which he was able to execute his plan to attack Lukodi IDP camp, including the commission of crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual LRA fighters in the execution of the crimes during the attack on Lukodi IDP camp must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen as his own.

text: b. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes committed during the attack on Lukodi IDP camp, i.e. his participation in the planning and in the execution of the attack, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber’s findings to the effect that Dominic Ongwen decided to 7596 attack Lukodi IDP camp are relevant also with respect to the required mental elements.

text: 7590 See paras 179-180 above. 7591 See para. 189 above. 7592 See para. 189 above. 7593 See para. 189 above. 7594 See paras 2856, 2858 above. 7595 See paras 179-180. 7596 See para. 179 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1026/1077 4 February 2021

text: In this regard, the Chamber reiterates that at a gathering the morning of the day before the attack, Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and 7597 everyone present at that location, including civilians, and to take food from the camp. As an LRA commander, Dominic Ongwen was necessarily aware of the features of the organisation, including that recruits were not taught, as part of their training which included training in military discipline, to distinguish between civilians and combatants, 7598 or between civilian objects and military objectives. After the attack, LRA fighters 7599 returned and reported to Dominic Ongwen about the success of their mission. Dominic Ongwen also reported his soldiers’ attack on Lukodi IDP camp to other LRA 7600 commanders, including Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti. Dominic Ongwen took 7601 responsibility for the attack on Lukodi IDP camp.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen: (i) meant for civilians to be attacked during the attack on Lukodi IDP camp; (ii) meant for civilians to be killed; (iii) meant for civilians to be severely physically and psychologically abused; (iv) meant for civilians to be abducted and forced to carry away looted goods; (v) meant for food items and other property to be looted during the attack; and (vi) meant for the property of civilian residents of Lukodi IDP camp to be destroyed.

text: The Chamber found that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda, as 7602 associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort against the 7603 government and should be killed by the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as 7604 associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for civilian residents of Lukodi IDP

text: 7597 See para. 179 above. 7598 See para. 130 above. 7599 See para. 189 above. 7600 See para. 189 above. 7601 See para. 189 above. 7602 See para. 140 above. 7603 See para. 140 above. 7604 See para. 141 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1027/1077 4 February 2021 camp to be severely deprived of their rights by reason of their identity as perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda.

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 24-36. The Chamber turns to the additional mental elements imposed by

text: the Statute

text: in relation to some of these crimes.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 26 and Count 28 – attempted murder) and torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 30), the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack Lukodi IDP camp and 7605 everyone present at that location, including civilians. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that this specific requirement of knowledge is met. Similarly, on the 7606 basis of the fact that Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack an IDP camp, the Chamber concludes that he was aware of the factual circumstances that established the protected status of property in the camp. Accordingly, the specific knowledge requirement of destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: , is met.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 30), the Chamber recalls its finding that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as 7607 the enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen intended to inflict 7608 such pain or suffering as discussed above, for the purpose of punishment and/or intimidation of the residents of Lukodi IDP camp, on account of their perceived support for the Government of Uganda.

text: 7605 See para. 179 above. 7606 See para. 179 above. 7607 See para. 141 above. 7608 See paras 2938-2939 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1028/1077 4 February 2021

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 34), the Chamber notes that before the attack on Lukodi IDP camp Dominic Ongwen gave the attacking fighters the 7609 instruction to loot. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion is that Dominic Ongwen intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. The circumstances of the appropriation do not allow for consideration of military necessity as a justification. The special intent requirement is therefore met.

text: iii. Conclusion

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that, within the context of the attack carried out by the LRA on the Lukodi IDP camp on or about 19 May 2004, Dominic Ongwen committed, through LRA soldiers, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 24); (ii) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 25); (iii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 26); (iv) attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 27); (v) attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 28); (vi) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 29); (vii) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 30); (viii) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 33); (ix) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 34); (x) destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 35) and (xi) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 36).

text: 7609 See para. 179 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1029/1077 4 February 2021

text: Attack on Abok IDP camp (Counts 37 to 49)

text: a. Attack against the civilian population as such (Count 37) Under Count 37, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attack against the civilian population as such as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , on or about 8 June 2004, at or near Abok IDP camp.

text: The Chamber finds that the specific material elements of the crime, namely that the perpetrator directed an attack and that the object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking part in hostilities, are met, considering that as LRA fighters attacked Abok IDP camp, they went past the old barracks in the south of 7610 the camp and entered the camp, firing their guns, and specifically considering that the LRA attacked the civilians in the camp, shooting, burning and beating them, and burning 7611 several hundred civilian homes. The facts establish that the object of the attack was the civilian population of Abok IDP camp as such.

text: b. Murder (Counts 38-39) Under Counts 38 and 39, Dominic Ongwen is charged with murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack, LRA fighters killed civilians by 7612 shooting, burning and/or beating them. The attackers killed at least 28 civilian 7613 residents of the camp.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: 7610 See para. 194 above. 7611 See paras 196-197 above. 7612 See para. 197 above. 7613 See para. 197 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1030/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7614 Furthermore, considering in particular that the victims of the killings were civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: c. Attempted murder (Counts 40-41) Under Counts 40 and 41, Dominic Ongwen is charged with attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack on Abok IDP camp, LRA fighters 7615 attempted to kill at least four civilians. On such facts, the requirements of Article 25(3)(f) are met: the shooting, burning or beating of the victims represented a substantial step commencing the execution of the crime against humanity and the war crime of murder, whereas the completion of the crime, i.e. the death of the victims, did not occur due to independent circumstances.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber, considering in particular that the persons whom the LRA 7616 fighters attempted to kill were civilians, the Chamber finds that the second element of attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: d. Torture (Counts 42-43) Under Counts 42 and 43, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that many civilians were severely mistreated by LRA fighters. On the march from the camp through the bush, LRA fighters forced civilians to carry heavy

text: 7614 See para. 197 above. 7615 See paras 199, 202 above. 7616 See paras 199, 202 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1031/1077 4 February 2021 looted goods, as well as an injured fighter, for long distances oftentimes under the threat 7617 of beatings or death. LRA fighters beat civilians as a means of punishment for not being able to continue walking and to intimidate other abductees to continue without 7618 stopping or resisting. LRA fighters forced an abductee to kill another abductee with 7619 a club, as a lesson to others who were thinking of escaping.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: and of torture as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Considering that these acts were committed against civilians whom the LRA fighters 7620 abducted so that they would carry away the goods looted by the attackers, the Chamber finds that they were in the custody of the LRA fighters who attacked Abok IDP camp. The second legal element of torture as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Turning to the distinct element of torture as a war crime, the Chamber, considering in 7621 particular that the relevant acts were committed against civilians, finds that the third element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: 7617 See paras 201-202 above. 7618 See paras 201-202 above. 7619 See para. 201 above. 7620 See paras 201-202 above. 7621 See paras 201-203 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1032/1077 4 February 2021 e. Other inhumane acts (Count 44) Under Count 44, Dominic Ongwen is charged with other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity under Count 44 are identical to those underlying the charge of torture as a crime against humanity under Count 42. The permissibility of this concurrence of crimes must therefore be considered by the Chamber. In this regard, the Chamber recalls the residual 7622 character of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . That said, and in light of the established facts, the Chamber observes that there is no act underlying the charge under Count 44 which may be considered as different but of similar character, in terms of harm and protected interests involved, compared to those already qualified as a crime against humanity of torture under Count 42. In these circumstances, due to the residual nature of

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , concurrent legal qualification under this provision is not possible. For this reason, the charge of other inhumane acts under Count 44 will not be further considered by the Chamber.

text: f. Cruel treatment (Count 45) Under Count 45, Dominic Ongwen is charged with cruel treatment as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The facts underlying the charge of torture as a war crime under Count 43 and the charge of cruel treatment as a war crime under Count 45 are identical. This is therefore a further situation of concurrence of crimes, the permissibility of which must be specifically 7623 considered by the Chamber. In this regard, and as observed above, the Chamber recalls that the legal elements of the war crime of cruel treatment are entirely encompassed within the legal elements of the war crime of torture, with the latter

text: 7622 See para. 2745 above. 7623 See paras 2700-2707 (torture) and para. 2754 (cruel treatment) above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1033/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7624 containing an additional (mental) constitutive element. In these circumstances, and as 7625 explained, while the same facts under consideration indeed fulfil the legal elements of both crimes, concurrence of crimes (and consequent cumulative conviction) are not permissible. For this reason, and considering the finding below as to the additional mental 7626 element required for the crime of torture as a war crime under Count 43, the charge of cruel treatment under Count 45 will not be further considered.

text: g. Enslavement (Count 46) Under Count 46, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that in the course of the attack, the LRA fighters deprived many civilians of their liberty by abducting them and forcing them to carry looted goods, as 7627 well as an injured fighter, for long distances. Some of the abductees were tied to each 7628 other. The abductees were under armed guard to prevent their escape and were under 7629 constant threat of beatings or death. Some abductees were killed in captivity, at times for failing to keep up with their captors, others eventually escaped and returned home, 7630 some remained with the LRA.

text: Considering that the LRA fighters, by committing the acts referred to, deprived the civilian abductees of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, including by physically restraining them and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected them to forced labour, and engaged in physical and psychological abuse of the abductees, the Chamber finds that by way of abducting civilians and placing them in the situation as found, the LRA fighters exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the

text: 7624 Indeed, in addition to the otherwise identical legal elements, torture as a war crime requires the following additional element which is not required for cruel treatment as a war crime: ‘[t]he perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any discrimination of any kind’. 7625 See para. 2792 above. 7626 See para. 3018 below. 7627 See para. 201 above. 7628 See para. 201 above. 7629 See para. 201 above. 7630 See para. 203 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1034/1077 4 February 2021 abductees by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: h. Pillaging (Count 47) Under Count 47, Dominic Ongwen is charged with pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during the attack on the camp, the LRA fighters looted civilian houses and shops at the trading centre, taking away food items such as sugar, flour, beans, maize, goats, cooking oil, biscuits and salt, as well as a radio, money, clothing, cooking 7631 utensils and medicine. At times, while demanding the goods, LRA fighters would use 7632 violence.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: Further, the Chamber finds that the circumstances of the appropriation, which took place during an armed attack on Abok IDP camp by the LRA fighters, who raided the trading centre and broke into shops, indicate that the appropriation took place without the consent of the owners of the property looted. Accordingly, the corresponding legal element of pillaging as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: i. Destruction of property (Count 48) Under Count 48, Dominic Ongwen is charged with destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that during their attack on the camp, LRA fighters set huts on fire, 7633 taking grass from burning thatched roofs to set other huts on fire. Several hundred

text: 7631 See para. 195 above. 7632 See para. 195 above. 7633 See para. 196 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1035/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7634 civilian homes were burnt during the attack. Civilians’ food stocks were also 7635 destroyed.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the first element of the war crime of destruction of property, i.e. that the perpetrator destroyed certain property, is met.

text: The property in question belonged to the residents of Abok IDP camp. The Chamber found that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda, as associated with 7636 the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. Accordingly, also the second element of the war crime of destruction of property, i.e. that the property was property of an adversary, is met. 7637 Considering that the objects destroyed were civilian huts and food stocks, the Chamber also finds that no circumstances are indicated on facts which could mean that they constituted military objectives and finds that the property destroyed was protected from that destruction under the international law of armed conflict. There is also no indication on facts that the destruction was required by military necessity. The third and fifth elements of the war crime of destruction of property are therefore established.

text: j. Persecution (Count 49) Under Count 49, Dominic Ongwen is charged with persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber finds that as required by the first legal element of the crime against humanity of persecution, LRA attackers severely deprived, contrary to international law, civilians of fundamental rights in the course of the attack on Abok IDP camp. Specifically, 7638 the LRA attackers deprived civilians of the right to life, the right not to be subjected 7639 7640 to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to personal liberty, the right

text: 7634 See para. 196 above. 7635 See para. 196 above. 7636 See para. 140 above. 7637 See para. 196 above. 7638 See paras 197-198 above. 7639 See paras 201-202 above. 7640 See para. 201 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1036/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7641 7642 not to be held in slavery or servitude, and the right to private property. Based on the circumstances of the victimisation, the Chamber finds that the deprivation was severe.

text: The Chamber also finds that the LRA fighters targeted civilians during the attack on Abok IDP camp by reason of their identity as perceived supporters of the Ugandan government, and therefore on political grounds. This is because the LRA perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy, the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in 7643 Northern Uganda. In this context, the selection of Abok IDP camp as a target for the LRA attack indeed constituted targeting on political grounds.

text: Article 7

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, met in light of the other legal findings of the Chamber in relation to the attack on Abok IDP camp.

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crimes under Counts 37 to 49 ‘through’ others within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: a. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons 7644 The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen chose to attack Abok IDP camp. Prior to the attack, Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA fighters subordinate to him to attack this camp, 7645 including civilians. At a gathering in the foothills of Atoo, Dominic Ongwen addressed the troops before the attack and gave instructions to go and collect food, abduct 7646 people, attack the barracks and burn down the camp and the barracks. Dominic 7647 Ongwen did not go to Abok as part of the fighting force. He appointed Okello 7648 Kalalang to command the attackers on the ground according to his instructions.

text: 7641 See para. 201 above. 7642 See paras 195-196 above. 7643 See para. 140 above. 7644 See para. 192 above. 7645 See para. 192 above. 7646 See para. 192 above. 7647 See para. 192 above. 7648 See para. 192 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1037/1077 4 February 2021

text: Kalalang led the LRA fighters in the attack on the camp on behalf of Dominic 7649 7650 Ongwen; the LRA fighters executed Dominic Ongwen’s orders. After the attack, Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on the LRA military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters carried out an attack on Abok IDP camp, directing fire and burning everything that was there including 7651 huts in the camp.

text: The Chamber refers to its above analysis and the resulting finding that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on a 7652 reliable pool of persons. Also taking into account that at least 20 LRA fighters participated in the attack, and that they were selected from an even larger pool of 7653 available persons, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual LRA soldiers was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers selected and sent for the attack on Abok IDP camp as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, through which he was able to execute his plan to attack Abok IDP camp, including the commission of crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual LRA fighters in the execution of the crimes during the attack on Abok IDP camp must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen as his own.

text: b. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes committed during the attack on Abok IDP camp, i.e. his participation in the planning and in the execution of the attack, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met. Furthermore, the Chamber’s findings to the effect that Dominic Ongwen chose to attack Abok IDP camp are of particular relevance also in this regard. This is the case in relation to the Chamber’s finding that, prior to the attack, Dominic Ongwen ordered LRA fighters

text: 7649 See para. 192 above. 7650 See para. 193 above. 7651 See para. 204 above. 7652 See paras 2856, 2858 above. 7653 See paras 192-193 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1038/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7654 subordinate to him to attack this camp, including civilians. The Chamber reiterates that, at a gathering in the foothills of Atoo, Dominic Ongwen addressed the troops before the attack and gave instructions to go and collect food, abduct people, attack the barracks 7655 and burn down the camp and the barracks. Dominic Ongwen, who did not go to Abok 7656 as part of the fighting force, appointed Okello Kalalang to command the attackers on 7657 the ground according to his instructions. As an LRA commander, Dominic Ongwen was necessarily aware of the features of the organisation, including that recruits were not taught, as part of their training which included training in military discipline, to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or between civilian objects and military 7658 objectives. After the attack, Dominic Ongwen communicated the results of the attack on the LRA military radio to other LRA commanders and to Joseph Kony, reporting that his fighters carried out an attack on Abok IDP camp, directing fire and burning 7659 everything that was there including huts in the camp.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen: (i) meant for civilians to be attacked during the attack on Abok IDP camp; (ii) meant for civilians to be killed; (iii) meant for civilians to be severely physically and psychologically abused; (iv) meant for civilians to be abducted and forced to carry away looted goods; (v) meant for food items and other property to be looted during the attack; and (vi) meant for the property of civilian residents of Abok IDP camp to be destroyed.

text: The Chamber found that the LRA perceived the civilians living in Northern Uganda, in particular those who lived in government-established IDP camps in Northern Uganda, as 7660 associated with the Government of Uganda, and thus as the enemy. LRA commanders routinely declared that civilians were failing to support the LRA in its effort against the 7661 government and should be killed by the LRA. Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as 7662 associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as the enemy. On this basis,

text: 7654 See para. 192 above. 7655 See para. 192 above. 7656 See para. 192 above. 7657 See para. 192 above. 7658 See para. 130 above. 7659 See para. 204 above. 7660 See para. 140 above. 7661 See para. 140 above. 7662 See para. 141 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1039/1077 4 February 2021 the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for civilian residents of Abok IDP camp to be severely deprived of their rights by reason of their identity as perceived as associated with the Government of Uganda.

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 37-49. The Chamber turns to the additional mental elements imposed by

text: the Statute

text: in relation to some of these crimes.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 39 and Count 41 – attempted murder) and torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 43), the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen instructed LRA fighters to attack the Abok IDP camp, including civilians, and to go and collect food, abduct people, attack the barracks and 7663 burn down the camp and the barracks. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concludes that this specific requirement of knowledge is met. Similarly, on the basis of the instruction given by Dominic Ongwen, which was to attack an IDP camp, and in 7664 particular noting the specific reference to the ‘camp’ as opposed to the barracks, the Chamber also concludes that Dominic Ongwen was aware of the factual circumstances that established the protected status of property in the camp. Accordingly, the specific knowledge requirement of destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: , is met.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 43), the Chamber recalls its finding that Dominic Ongwen knew that the LRA perceived, and also himself perceived, the civilians living in Northern Uganda as associated with the Government of Uganda – and thus as 7665 the enemy. On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen intended to inflict 7666 such pain or suffering as discussed above, for the purpose of punishment and/or

text: 7663 See para. 192 above. 7664 See para. 192 above. 7665 See para. 141 above. 7666 See paras 2984-2985 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1040/1077 4 February 2021 intimidation of the residents of Abok IDP camp, on account of their perceived support for the Government of Uganda.

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 47), the Chamber recalls that before the attack on Abok IDP camp, Dominic Ongwen gave the instruction to go and collect 7667 food. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dominic Ongwen intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. The circumstances of the appropriation do not allow for consideration of military necessity as a justification. The special intent requirement is therefore met.

text: iii. Conclusion

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that, within the context of the attack carried out by the LRA on the Abok IDP camp on or about 8 June 2004, Dominic Ongwen committed, through LRA soldiers, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 37); (ii) murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 38); (iii) murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 39); (iv) attempted murder as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 40); (v) attempted murder as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , in conjunction with

text: Article 25

text: (3)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 41); (vi) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 42); (vii) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 43); (viii) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 46); (ix) pillaging as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(v) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 47); (x) destruction of property as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 48) and (xi) persecution as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 49).

text: 7667 See para. 192 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1041/1077 4 February 2021

text: Sexual and gender-based crimes perpetrated directly by Dominic Ongwen

text: (Counts 50 to 60)

text: i. Forced marriage (Count 50)

text: Under Count 50, Dominic Ongwen is charged with forced marriage as an other inhumane

text: act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , of (P-0099) between 1 July

text: 2002 and September 2002; (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July

text: 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005;

text: (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; (P-0227)

text: between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: The Chamber found that P-0099 had been abducted by LRA fighters from Purongo,

text: 7668 Northern Uganda in February 1998 and from there taken by the LRA to Sudan. By 1

text: July 2002, while in Sudan, she had been forced to become Dominic Ongwen’s so-called

text: 7669 7670 ‘wife’. P-0099 escaped in September 2002. P-0099 was in Uganda from 1 July

text: 7671 2002 until her escape. She was placed by Dominic Ongwen in a sickbay where she

text: 7672 continued her life under identical circumstances. P-0101 had been personally

text: abducted by Dominic Ongwen from Northern Uganda in August 1996 and was

text: 7673 immediately taken by him into his household where she stayed until her release from

text: 7674 the LRA in July 2004. P-0214 had been abducted from Laliya, Northern Uganda, by

text: 7675 LRA fighters in June 2000 and from there taken by the LRA to Sudan. In September

text: 7676 2002, she was ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen. P-0227 was abducted from Pageya,

text: Northern Uganda by LRA fighters under Dominic Ongwen’s command in approximately

text: 7677 7678 April 2005. She joined Dominic Ongwen’s household. P-0214 and P-0227

text: remained in Dominic Ongwen’s household beyond 31 December 2005, the end date of

text: 7679 the period relevant to the charges, and escaped in 2010. P-0226 had been abducted

text: 7668 See para. 205 above. 7669 See para. 205 above. 7670 See para. 211 above. 7671 See para. 211 above. 7672 See para. 211 above. 7673 See para. 205 above. 7674 See paras 205, 211 above. 7675 See para. 205 above. 7676 See para. 205 above. 7677 See para. 205 above. 7678 See para. 205 above. 7679 See para. 211 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1042/1077 4 February 2021 from her home at Patiko Cetkana, Lukome, Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters under 7680 Dominic Ongwen’s command around 1998. By 1 July 2002, she was a ting ting in 7681 Dominic Ongwen’s household. She was captured by government soldiers in 2003 in 7682 Koch.

text: P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227, who were ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen, 7683 7684 were not allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. 7685 They were told or came to understand that if they tried to escape they would be killed. These women were ultimately considered Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wives’ and had 7686 to maintain an exclusive conjugal relationship with him. Being Dominic Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’ did not cease until P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 escaped 7687 or were released from the LRA.

text: The Chamber makes reference to its discussion of the applicable law in relation to forced 7688 marriage as qualifying within other inhumane acts under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: . In the present circumstances, as concerns P-0099, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 at the relevant times during the period of the charges going from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2005, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen executed the specific legal elements of forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: As concerns the mental elements, due to the nature of the acts performed by Dominic Ongwen and due to the sustained character of the acts over a long period of time, the Chamber considers that Dominic Ongwen meant both to engage in his relevant conduct and to cause the consequence.

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that Dominic Ongwen committed, as an individual, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crime of forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 50),

text: 7680 See para. 205 above. 7681 See para. 205 above. 7682 See para. 211 above. 7683 See para. 206 above. 7684 See para. 206 above. 7685 See para. 206 above. 7686 See para. 206 above. 7687 See para. 206 above. 7688 See section V.A.1.ii.h above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1043/1077 4 February 2021 of (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002, (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: ii. Torture (Counts 51-52)

text: Under Counts 51 and 52, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; (P- 0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: The Chamber found that P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were subjected to beating 7689 7690 at Dominic Ongwen’s command at any time. They were hit with canes and sticks. Some beatings knocked them unconscious, left them unable to walk and left permanent 7691 scars. On this basis, the Chamber finds that the first element of torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , i.e. that the perpetrator inflicted on the victim severe physical or mental pain or suffering, is met.

text: At the relevant times P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were abducted and as so-called ‘wives’ they were in custody and under control of Dominic Ongwen. The second element of torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: is also met.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: 7689 See para. 208 above. 7690 See para. 208 above. 7691 See para. 208 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1044/1077 4 February 2021 did not find, on facts, any nexus between the acts under consideration and a context of lawful sanctions. The element is therefore likewise met.

text: Considering in particular the circumstances of their abduction, as well as of their stay 7692 within the LRA, and more specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household, the Chamber is also satisfied that P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were civilians at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the third element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: As concerns the mental elements, due to the nature of the acts performed by Dominic Ongwen and due to the sustained character of the acts over a long period of time, the Chamber considers that Dominic Ongwen meant to engage in his relevant conduct and to cause the consequence. Considering that Dominic Ongwen knew the victims personally, he also knew of their civilian status.

text: Finally, and recalling again that failure on the part of P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 7693 to perform the domestic duties assigned to them led to punishment by beating, the Chamber is also satisfied that Dominic Ongwen acted with the purpose of coercing, intimidating or punishing, and that the special intent requirement applicable to torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , is therefore met.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crimes of torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 51), and torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 52), of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: 7692 See paras 205-208 above. 7693 See para. 208 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1045/1077 4 February 2021 iii. Rape (Counts 53-54)

text: Under Counts 53 and 54, Dominic Ongwen is charged with rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: At the outset, the Chamber notes the Defence argument, albeit apparently only with respect to P-0226, that the charges of rape and those of sexual slavery are based on the ‘same alleged conduct of intercourse without consent’ and that concurrence of crimes is 7694 not permissible. In light of the findings below in relation of the charges of sexual 7695 slavery, the Chamber considers it appropriate to address this matter at this juncture.

text: The Chamber observes that in application of the test based on the principle of speciality – i.e. whether each statutory provision involved has a materially distinct element not included in the other, requiring proof of at least one additional fact – concurrence of the crimes of rape and sexual slavery is in principle permissible, on the ground that each of the crimes requires an element not required by the other. Indeed, the crime of rape requires the invasion of the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, committed under certain specific circumstances, while for the crime of sexual slavery any act of a sexual nature in which the victim is caused to engage, would suffice without the need for penetration; conversely, the crime of sexual slavery requires the exercise by the perpetrator of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over the victim – an element which is not required for the commission of the crime of crime of rape. It is worth reiterating in this regard that, significantly, the crime of sexual slavery, as defined under

text: the Statute

text: , may be committed through subjecting the victim to any act of sexual nature and not only rape. The Chamber is mindful of the Appeals Chamber’s consideration that, beyond the operation of the principle of speciality, a bar to the permissibility of concurrence of crimes may also result from the full consumption of one crime by another in the concrete

text: 7694 Motion for Immediate Ruling on Standard to Assess Multiple Charging and Convictions, paras 40-42. 7695 See paras 3044-3049 below.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1046/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7696 circumstances. The Chamber is of the view that this is not the case as concerns the facts at issue; to the contrary, the full scope of Dominic Ongwen’s culpable conduct may only be reflected by the concurrence of the crimes of rape under Counts 53 and 54 and those of sexual slavery under Counts 55 and 56.

text: Accordingly, on the basis of the principle of speciality in abstracto and considering in addition that the crimes of rape cannot be said to be fully consumed within the crimes of sexual slavery nor that there exists a relation of subsidiarity between the two crimes, the Chamber considers that concurrence of the two sets of crimes on the basis of the same facts, i.e. the same repeated acts of rape on the part of Dominic Ongwen, is permissible. The Chamber notes that the same was also held recently in analogous circumstances by 7697 Trial Chamber VI. The Defence submissions in this regard are therefore rejected.

text: That said, the Chamber recalls that it found above that during the period relevant to the 7698 charges, Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227. 7699 This happened on a repeated basis whenever Dominic Ongwen wanted. On this basis, the Chamber finds that the first legal element of rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: , is met.

text: Likewise, considering that P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227 were abductees, detained 7700 and beaten on Dominic Ongwen’s command, and thus living under threat of force in a coercive environment, the Chamber finds that the second legal element of rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: As concerns the mental elements, due to the nature of the acts performed by Dominic Ongwen and due to the sustained character of the acts over a long period of time, the Chamber considers that Dominic Ongwen meant to engage in the relevant conduct.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crimes of rape

text: 7696 Bemba et al. Appeals Judgment, para. 751. 7697 Ntaganda Trial Judgment, paras 1204-1205. 7698 See para. 207 above. 7699 See para. 207 above. 7700 See paras 206, 208 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1047/1077 4 February 2021 as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 53), and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 54), of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: iv. Sexual slavery (Counts 55-56)

text: Under Counts 55 and 56, Dominic Ongwen is charged with sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and sexual slavery as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: , of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: The Chamber found that the seven women ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen were not 7701 7702 allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. They were 7703 told or came to understand that if they tried to escape they would be killed. They were 7704 also subjected to beating at Dominic Ongwen’s command at any time. They were hit 7705 with canes and sticks. Some beatings knocked them unconscious, left them unable to 7706 walk and left permanent scars. The seven women had to perform different domestic duties, including cooking, working in the garden, doing laundry, fetching and chopping wood, carrying Dominic Ongwen’s dishes, fetching water, washing, nursing Dominic 7707 Ongwen when he was injured and taking things to him. Failing to perform these tasks 7708 led to punishment by beating.

text: The above findings of the Chamber are relevant for Counts 55-56 insofar as they concern P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227. Considering that Dominic Ongwen, as described, deprived them of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, including

text: 7701 See para. 206 above. 7702 See para. 206 above. 7703 See para. 206 above. 7704 See para. 208 above. 7705 See para. 208 above. 7706 See para. 208 above. 7707 See para. 208 above. 7708 See para. 208 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1048/1077 4 February 2021 by threats and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected them to forced labour, and physically and psychologically abused them, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over these women by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 8(2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: . The first element of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: The Chamber further found that Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with P-0101, P-0214, 7709 P-0226 and P-0227. This happened on a repeated basis whenever Dominic Ongwen wanted during the time in which these women were deprived of their personal 7710 freedom. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the second element of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: – i.e. that the victims were caused to engage in one or more acts of sexual nature, which, in the present case took the form of repeated rapes – is also met.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crimes of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 55), and sexual slavery as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 56), of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, and (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.

text: v. Enslavement (Count 57)

text: Under Count 57, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: , of (P-0099) between 1

text: 7709 See para. 207 above. 7710 See para. 207 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1049/1077 4 February 2021

text: July 2002 and September 2002; (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; (P- 0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005; (P-0235) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; (P-0236) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005.

text: At the outset, the Chamber notes that Count 57 is charged cumulatively with Count 55 as concerns P-0101, P-0214, P-0226 and P-0227, based on the same facts. The Defence argued that ‘the elements of the crime of enslavement are not distinct from sexual slavery 7711 and the charges of enslavement should be dismissed’. The Chamber agrees with the 7712 Defence. Indeed, as is clear already from the analysis of the applicable law above, enslavement as a crime against humanity is in the abstract entirely encompassed within sexual slavery. In other words, sexual slavery, as a crime against humanity, is a specific form of enslavement, qualified by the additional fact that the victim is also caused to engage in at least one act of a sexual nature. Thus, concurrence of these crimes is not permissible. Accordingly, the Chamber considers the charge of enslavement under Count 57 only in relation to P-0099, P-0235 and P-0236.

text: The Chamber recalls its finding that P-0099 had been abducted by LRA fighters from Purongo, Northern Uganda in February 1998 and from there taken by the LRA to Sudan, and that by 1 July 2002, while in Sudan, she had been forced to become Dominic 7713 7714 Ongwen’s so-called ‘wife’. P-0099 escaped in September 2002. P-0099 was in 7715 Uganda from 1 July 2002 until her escape. She was placed by Dominic Ongwen in a 7716 sickbay where she continued her life under identical circumstances. As regards P- 0235, the Chamber found that she was abducted by the LRA fighters in Kitgum town in 7717 September 2002, and, after her abduction, placed in Dominic Ongwen’s household. Finally, the Chamber found that P-0236 was abducted from Wang’yaa in Ogule, Pajule,

text: 7711 Defence Closing Brief, para. 466. See also Motion for Immediate Ruling on the Request for Dismissal of the Charge of Enslavement, 10 January 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15-1708. 7712 See para. 2715 above. 7713 See para. 205 above. 7714 See para. 211 above. 7715 See para. 211 above. 7716 See para. 211 above. 7717 See para. 205 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1050/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7718 Northern Uganda, by LRA fighters in September 2002. She was then ‘distributed’ to 7719 Dominic Ongwen. The Chamber also recalls its finding that P-0235 and P-0236 were 7720 released from the LRA only in April 2015.

text: Considering that Dominic Ongwen, as described, deprived these women of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, including by threats and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected them to forced labour, and physically and psychologically 7721 abused them, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over these women by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Article 7

text: (2)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: As concerns the mental elements, due to the nature of the acts performed by Dominic Ongwen and due to the sustained character of the acts over a long period of time, the Chamber considers that, Dominic Ongwen meant to engage in the relevant conduct.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crime of enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 57), of (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002, (P- 0235) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, and (P-0236) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005.

text: vi. Forced pregnancy (Counts 58-59)

text: Under Counts 58-59, Dominic Ongwen is charged with forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and forced pregnancy as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: , of (P-0101, two pregnancies), between 1 July 2002 and July 2004 and (P-0214), sometime in 2005.

text: The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with his so-called ‘wives’, 7722 including with P-0101 and P-0214. This happened on a repeated basis whenever

text: 7718 See para. 205 above. 7719 See para. 205 above. 7720 See para. 211 above. 7721 See para. 3045 above. 7722 See para. 207 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1051/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7723 Dominic Ongwen wanted. P-0101 became pregnant and gave birth to a girl fathered 7724 by Dominic Ongwen sometime between July 2002 and July 2004. In 2004, P-0101 7725 became pregnant and gave birth to a boy fathered by Dominic Ongwen. In 2005, P- 0214 became pregnant and, in December 2005, gave birth to a girl fathered by Dominic 7726 Ongwen.

text: The Chamber also found that during the time relevant to the charges the seven women ‘distributed’ to Dominic Ongwen, including P-0101 and P-0214 during their pregnancies, 7727 7728 were not allowed to leave. Dominic Ongwen placed them under heavy guard. 7729 They were told or came to understand that if they tried to escape they would be killed.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen confined P-0101 and P-0214, who had been forcibly made pregnant. The objective element of forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: Moreover, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen confined P-0101 and P-0214, who had been forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of sustaining the continued commission of other crimes found, in particular of forced marriage, torture, rape and sexual slavery. The special intent requirement of the crime of forced pregnancy is therefore equally met.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crimes of forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 58), and forced pregnancy as a war crime, pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(vi) of the

text: 7723 See para. 207 above. 7724 See para. 207 above. 7725 See para. 207 above. 7726 See para. 207 above. 7727 See para. 206 above. 7728 See para. 206 above. 7729 See para. 206 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1052/1077 4 February 2021

text: Statute (Count 59), of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004 (two pregnancies) and (P-0214) sometime in 2005.

text: vii. Outrages upon personal dignity (Count 60)

text: Under Count 60, Dominic Ongwen is charged with outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: of (P-0226) sometime in 2002 or early 2003 close to Patongo, and (P-0235) sometime in late 2002 or early 2003 at an unspecified location in Northern Uganda.

text: The Chamber found that on 1 July 2002, Dominic Ongwen forced P-0226 to beat to death 7730 a captured UPDF soldier near Patongo, Northern Uganda. P-0226 hit him once, as did 7731 7732 other girls. She had blood splattered on her clothes. P-0226 had never killed anyone before, and this was part of the reason Dominic Ongwen gave as to why he 7733 7734 selected her to do this. This experience caused her severe anguish. In late 2002 or early 2003 in Northern Uganda, soon after P-0235’s abduction, Dominic Ongwen ordered her to, along with other abductees, beat people to death until their blood splashed 7735 on the abductees. This caused her severe anguish, although she eventually did not 7736 have to carry out the killings.

text: The Chamber finds that by forcing P-0226 to beat a person to death, in the circumstances as described, constituted a violation of her dignity, and that this violation of the dignity was so severe as to be generally recognised as an outrage upon personal dignity. The Chamber reaches the same conclusion in respect of Dominic Ongwen’s order to P-0235 to beat people to death. In the circumstances, soon after the abduction of P-0235, the fact that in the end P-0235 did not have to kill is not decisive. The first and second elements of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: are met.

text: 7730 See para. 209 above. 7731 See para. 209 above. 7732 See para. 209 above. 7733 See para. 209 above. 7734 See para. 209 above. 7735 See para. 210 above. 7736 See para. 210 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1053/1077 4 February 2021

text: Considering in particular the circumstances of their abduction, as well as of their stay within the LRA, and more specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household, the Chamber is 7737 also satisfied that P-0226 and P-0235 were civilians at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Chamber finds that the third element of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: As concerns the mental elements, due to the nature of the act performed by Dominic Ongwen, the Chamber considers that he meant to engage in the relevant conduct. Considering that Dominic Ongwen knew the victims personally, he also knew of their civilian status.

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crime of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 60), of (P-0226) sometime in 2002 or early 2003 near Patongo and (P-0235) sometime in late 2002 or early 2003 in Northern Uganda.

text: Sexual and gender based crimes not directly perpetrated by Dominic

text: Ongwen (Counts 61 to 68)

text: a. Forced marriage (Count 61) Under Count 61, Dominic Ongwen is charged with forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: , from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005.

text: The Chamber found that Sinia brigade soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted civilian women and girls in 7738 Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. At any time during

text: 7737 See paras 205-210, above. 7738 See para. 213 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1054/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7739 this period, there were over one hundred abducted women and girls in Sinia brigade. Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership designated abducted 7740 women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ of male members of Sinia brigade. Occasionally, 7741 ceremonies were performed to mark the so-called ‘marriage’. Frequently no such ceremony occurred, and abducted women and girls were considered so-called ‘wives’ from the time they were first forced to have sex with the man they had been assigned 7742 7743 to. The abducted women and girls were not able to refuse. The abducted women and girls were not allowed to have sexual or romantic relations to any man other than the 7744 so-called ‘husband’ assigned to them.

text: The Chamber makes reference to its discussion of the applicable law in relation to forced 7745 marriage as qualifying within other inhumane acts under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: . In light of the facts as found above, the Chamber finds that the specific legal elements of forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: are met.

text: b. Torture (Counts 62-63) Under Counts 62 and 63, Dominic Ongwen is charged with torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that the abducted women and girls were severely beaten for 7746 attempting escape or if they failed to perform the work demanded of them. Furthermore, the Chamber found that Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted 7747 women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual intercourse. The women and girls were coerced, due to the physical force used by the Sinia brigade members and due to the threat of punishment for disobedience and their dependence on

text: 7739 See para. 213 above. 7740 See para. 216 above. 7741 See para. 216 above. 7742 See para. 216 above. 7743 See para. 216 above. 7744 See para. 219 above. 7745 See section V.A.1.ii.h above. 7746 See paras 215, 220 above. 7747 See para. 218 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1055/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7748 the Sinia brigade members for survival. As a result of the sexual and physical violence, and the living conditions to which they were submitted, the abducted women and girls 7749 suffered severe physical and mental pain.

text: On this basis, and also in light of the duration of the time in which each abducted woman or girl was subjected to the acts described, the Chamber finds that the first element of torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: Since these acts were committed against women and girls who had been abducted and were therefore in custody and under control of Sinia brigade members, the second element of torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: is also met.

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Moreover, considering in particular that the women and girls were abducted as civilians, 7750 as well as the circumstances of their stay within Sinia brigade, the Chamber finds that the third element of torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: c. Rape (Counts 64-65) Under Counts 64 and 65, Dominic Ongwen is charged with rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: 7748 See para. 218 above. 7749 See para. 221 above. 7750 See paras 213-220 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1056/1077 4 February 2021

text: The Chamber observes that the crimes of rape charged under Counts 64-65 and the crimes of sexual slavery under Counts 66-67 are based (partly) on the same underlying conduct. Indeed, the acts of sexual nature – which are required for the commission of the crimes of sexual slavery – are identified in the charges against Dominic Ongwen exclusively as repeated acts of rape. This situation is therefore identical to the one concerning the relationship between Counts 53-54, on the one hand, and Counts 55-56. Thus, the 7751 considerations expressed above in this regard equally apply. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that concurrence of the crimes of rape under Counts 64-65 and the crimes of sexual slavery under Counts 66-67 is permissible.

text: That said, the Chamber recalls that it found that Sinia brigade members regularly forced 7752 abducted women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual intercourse. The women and girls were coerced, due to the physical force used by the Sinia brigade members and due to the threat of punishment for disobedience and their dependence on 7753 the Sinia brigade members for survival. On this basis, the Chamber finds that the first legal element of rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is met. Likewise, the Chamber finds that the second legal element of rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: d. Sexual slavery (Counts 66-67) Under Counts 66 and 67, Dominic Ongwen is charged with sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that following their abduction, the abducted women and girls were 7754 ‘distributed’ to members of Sinia brigade. The abducted women and girls were 7755 threatened with death if they attempted to escape. In some cases, women and girls

text: 7751 See paras 3036-3039 above. 7752 See para. 218 above. 7753 See para. 218 above. 7754 See para. 214 above. 7755 See para. 215 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1057/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7756 were in fact killed for attempting to escape. In other cases, they were severely 7757 7758 beaten. In addition, they were placed under heavy guard. Abducted women and girls were also forced to beat or kill other abductees for attempting escape or breaking 7759 rules. The abducted women and girls were forced to perform work, such as household 7760 work and carrying items. Also this rule was strictly enforced by physical 7761 punishment.

text: Considering that members of Sinia brigade, as described, deprived the abducted women and girls of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, including by threats and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected them to forced labour, and physically and psychologically abused them, the Chamber finds that members of Sinia brigade exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the abducted women and girls by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 8(2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: is therefore met.

text: Furthermore, Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted women and girls who were deprived of their personal freedom and had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual 7762 intercourse. On this basis, the Chamber finds that the second element of sexual slavery, i.e. that the perpetrator caused the victim to engage in one or more acts of a sexual nature – in the present case, acts of rape – is also met.

text: e. Enslavement (Count 68) Under Count 68, Dominic Ongwen is charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: 7756 See para. 215 above. 7757 See para. 215 above. 7758 See para. 215 above. 7759 See para. 215 above. 7760 See para. 220 above. 7761 See para. 220 above. 7762 See para. 218 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1058/1077 4 February 2021

text: As discussed above, since the legal elements of enslavement as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: are wholly included within the legal elements of 7763 sexual slavery as a crime against humanity under

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , sexual 7764 slavery and enslavement cannot concur on the basis of the same facts. Thus, and insofar as the definition of sexual slavery is met, the same facts are not further considered as enslavement. However, the factual findings of the Chamber reveal that even though sexual abuse of the abducted women and girls was systematic in the LRA, not all abducted women and girls were immediately subjected to institutionalised sexual abuse. As found by the Chamber, this had to do with a determination which was made in each 7765 case as to whether an abducted girl was ‘mature enough’ to become a so-called ‘wife’. Younger abducted girls not yet considered mature enough were used as household 7766 servants, referred to as ting tings. While the Chamber’s factual finding that Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them into sexual intercourse is not limited to so-called ‘wives’, and in fact noted that ting ting status did not effectively protect abducted girls from sexual abuse, the Chamber nevertheless considers that there existed, systemically, a sub-category of abducted girls in the LRA who were not sexually enslaved, but enslaved. It is to this specific category that the Chamber’s affirmative conclusions under Count 68 are limited.

text: In respect of the specific objective element of enslavement, the considerations expressed 7767 above apply also at this place. Considering that members of Sinia brigade, as described, deprived the abducted women and girls of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated their movement, including by threats and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected them to forced labour, and physically and psychologically abused them, the Chamber finds that members of Sinia brigade exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over the abducted girls by imposing on them a deprivation of liberty similar to those explicitly stated in

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 8(2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: . The specific objective element of enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: , is therefore met.

text: 7763 See para. 2715 above. 7764 See para. 2792 above. See also para. 3051 above. 7765 See para. 217 above. 7766 See para. 217 above. 7767 See para. 3082 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1059/1077 4 February 2021 ii. Individual criminal responsibility of Dominic Ongwen

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crimes under Counts 61 to 68 ‘jointly with’ and ‘through’ others within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: a. Existence of an agreement or common plan The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct women and girls in Northern Uganda and force them to serve in Sinia 7768 brigade as so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia brigade, and as domestic servants. On these facts, the Chamber finds that there existed among them an agreement to engage in conduct which amounted to: (i) forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iii) rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: , and rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (iv) sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: ; (v) sexual slavery as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: and (vi) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: b. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons As found by the Chamber, the material elements of the crimes charged under Counts 61- 68 were executed by Sinia brigade members. Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership relied on the LRA soldiers under their control for the execution 7769 of their agreement defined just above.

text: The Chamber refers to its above analysis and the resulting finding that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on a 7770 reliable pool of persons. Taking into account also the systemic nature of the crimes in question, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual Sinia brigade members

text: 7768 See para. 212 above. 7769 See para. 212 above. 7770 See paras 2856, 2858 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1060/1077 4 February 2021 was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership, through which they were able to execute their agreement and commit the crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual Sinia brigade members in the execution of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders as their own. c. Dominic Ongwen’s control over the crime Following the findings that (i) Dominic Ongwen was a participant to the agreement with Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership, pursuant to which the crimes charged under Counts 61-68 were committed, and (ii) the conduct of the Sinia brigade members who executed the material elements of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership as their own, the Chamber must specifically assess the involvement of Dominic Ongwen in those crimes in order to determine whether he had control over the crime by virtue of his essential contribution to it and the resulting power to frustrate its commission, and accordingly whether his individual criminal responsibility can be qualified under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: In this regard, the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct women and girls in Northern Uganda and force them to serve in Sinia brigade as so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia brigade, and as 7771 domestic servants. Sinia brigade soldiers abducted civilian women and girls in 7772 execution of Dominic Ongwen’s orders. In the exercise of his authority, Dominic 7773 Ongwen personally decided on the ‘distribution’ of abducted women and girls. Dominic Ongwen personally assigned women and girls as so-called ‘wives’ and used his 7774 authority as LRA commander to enforce the so-called ‘marriage’ in Sinia brigade.

text: These facts reveal that Dominic Ongwen was among the persons who helped define and, through their actions over a protracted period, sustained the system of abduction and

text: 7771 See para. 212 above. 7772 See para. 213 above. 7773 See para. 214 above. 7774 See para. 216 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1061/1077 4 February 2021 victimisation of civilian women and girls in the LRA. Within Sinia, his role was crucial and indispensable.

text: Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen had control over the crimes charged under Counts 61-68 by virtue of his essential contribution to them, and the resulting power to frustrate their commission.

text: d. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes charged under Counts 61-68, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: Furthermore, the Chamber reiterates, also with respect to the required mental elements, its findings to the effect that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct women and girls in Northern Uganda and force them to serve in Sinia brigade as so-called ‘wives’ of members of Sinia brigade, and as domestic 7775 servants. Dominic Ongwen ordered Sinia brigade soldiers to abduct civilian women 7776 and girls. In the exercise of his authority, he personally decided on the ‘distribution’ 7777 of abducted women and girls. He also personally assigned women and girls as socalled ‘wives’ and used his authority as LRA commander to enforce the so-called 7778 ‘marriage’ in Sinia brigade. The Chamber also found that some abducted women and girls were placed in Dominic Ongwen’s household under heavy guard, and some of them 7779 were made his so-called ‘wives’. Dominic Ongwen had sex by force with his so-called 7780 ‘wives’. Abducted women and girls ‘distributed’ to him were subjected to beating at 7781 7782 his command at any time. They also performed domestic duties in his household.

text: 7775 See para. 212 above. 7776 See para. 213 above. 7777 See para. 214 above. 7778 See para. 216 above. 7779 See para. 206 above. 7780 See para. 207 above. 7781 See para. 208 above. 7782 See para. 208 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1062/1077 4 February 2021

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for the crimes charged under Counts 61-68 to occur. Accordingly, the general mental elements under

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 61-68.

text: As concerns the special intent requirement of torture as a war crime under

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber finds, on the basis of the facts as found, that Dominic Ongwen intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering on the abducted women in girls for the purpose of coercion. The requirement is therefore met.

text: iii. Conclusion

text: On the basis of the above, the Chamber therefore finds that, between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, Dominic Ongwen committed, jointly with Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership and through LRA soldiers, within the meaning of

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the following crimes: (i) forced marriage as an other inhumane act, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(k) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 61); (ii) torture as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(f) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 62); (iii) torture as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 63); (iv) rape as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 64); (v) rape as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 65); (vi) sexual slavery as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(g) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 66); (vii) sexual slavery as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 67); and (viii) enslavement as a crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: (Count 68).

text: Conscription and use of children under the age of 15 years and their use

text: in armed hostilities (Counts 69-70)

text: i. Specific objective elements of the charged crime

text: Under Counts 69-70, Dominic Ongwen is charged with conscription of children and their use in armed hostilities as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: , between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005 in Northern Uganda.

text: The Chamber found that Sinia soldiers, in execution of orders of Joseph Kony, Dominic Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership, abducted a large number of children under 15

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1063/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7783 years of age in Northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005.

text: Children under the age of 15 were also abducted during the four attacks relevant to the

text: 7784 7785 charges. Dominic Ongwen also abducted children himself. Following their

text: abduction, children under the age of 15 years were integrated into Sinia with the aim of

text: 7786 using them in hostilities. The abducted children were trained, in some cases received

text: 7787 guns, and were assigned to service in Sinia. The children served as escorts in Sinia

text: 7788 brigade in general and specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: Children under 15 years of age serving as soldiers in Sinia brigade took part in

text: 7789 fighting. They further facilitated LRA attacks by raising alarms, burning and pillaging

text: civilian houses, collecting and carrying pillaged goods from attack sites and serving as

text: 7790 scouts. During all four attacks relevant to the charges, children under the age of 15

text: 7791 participated in the hostilities.

text: The Chamber finds, on the basis of these facts, that the first two legal elements under

text: Article 8(2)(e)(vii), i.e. that the perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons

text: into an armed force or group or used one or more persons to participate actively in

text: hostilities, and that such person or persons were under the age of 15 years, is met.

text: Dominic Ongwen is charged with the commission of the crime under Counts 69-70

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: The Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership

text: engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their

text: control, to abduct children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda and force them to

text: 7792 serve as Sinia fighters. On these facts, the Chamber finds that there existed among

text: 7783 See para. 223 above. 7784 See para. 223 above. 7785 See para. 223 above. 7786 See para. 224 above. 7787 See para. 224 above. 7788 See para. 224 above. 7789 See para. 225 above. 7790 See para. 225 above. 7791 See para. 225 above. 7792 See para. 222 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1064/1077 4 February 2021 them an agreement to engage in conduct which amounted to conscription of children and their use in armed hostilities.

text: b. Execution of the material elements of the crime through other persons As found by the Chamber, the material elements of the crimes charged under Counts 69- 70 were executed by Sinia soldiers. Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership relied on the LRA soldiers under their control for the execution of their 7793 agreement defined just above.

text: The Chamber refers to its above analysis and the resulting finding that the conditions of recruitment, initiation and training, and service in the LRA generally of its members were such that LRA commanders could rely for obedience in the execution of orders on a 7794 reliable pool of persons. Also taking into account that abduction of children under 15 years of age and forcing them to serve as Sinia fighters took place pursuant to a coordinated and methodical effort, the Chamber considers that the will of the individual Sinia brigade members was irrelevant in the execution of a given order. The LRA soldiers as a whole functioned as a tool of Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership, through which they were able to execute their agreement and commit the crimes. Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the conduct of the individual Sinia brigade members in the execution of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and other Sinia brigade leaders as their own. c. Dominic Ongwen’s control over the crime Following the findings that (i) Dominic Ongwen was a participant to the agreement with Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership, pursuant to which the crimes charged under Counts 69-70 were committed, and (ii) the conduct of the Sinia soldiers who executed the material elements of the crimes must be attributed to Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership as their own, the Chamber must specifically assess the involvement of Dominic Ongwen in those crimes in order to determine whether he had control over the crime by virtue of his essential contribution

text: 7793 See para. 222 above. 7794 See paras 2856, 2858 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1065/1077 4 February 2021 to it and the resulting power to frustrate its commission, and accordingly whether his individual criminal responsibility can be qualified under

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: In this regard, the Chamber found that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda 7795 and force them to serve as Sinia fighters. Dominic Ongwen ordered Sinia soldiers to 7796 abduct children to serve as Sinia soldiers. Dominic Ongwen also abducted children 7797 himself. In some cases, Dominic Ongwen himself assigned abducted children to 7798 service within the Sinia brigade. The children served as escorts in Sinia brigade in 7799 general and specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household. It is also noted that during all four attacks relevant to the charges, and in the context of which the Chamber determined Dominic Ongwen’s involvement as indirect (co-)perpetrator, children under 7800 the age of 15 participated in the hostilities.

text: On this basis, the Chamber concludes that Dominic Ongwen had control over the crimes charged under Counts 69-70 by virtue of his essential contribution to them, and the resulting power to frustrate their commission.

text: d. Mental elements The conduct which Dominic Ongwen undertook in relation to the crimes charged under Counts 69-70, is such that, by its nature, it could only have been undertaken intentionally. Thus, the Chamber considers that the conduct-related requirement of

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: is met.

text: Further, also with respect to the required mental elements, the Chamber reiterates its findings to the effect that Dominic Ongwen, Joseph Kony and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort, relying on the LRA soldiers under their control, to abduct children under 15 years of age in Northern Uganda and

text: 7795 See para. 222 above. 7796 See para. 223 above. 7797 See para. 223 above. 7798 See para. 224 above. 7799 See para. 224 above. 7800 See para. 225 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1066/1077 4 February 2021

text: 7801 force them to serve as Sinia fighters. Dominic Ongwen ordered Sinia soldiers to 7802 abduct children to serve as Sinia soldiers. Dominic Ongwen also abducted children 7803 himself. Dominic Ongwen knew that children under 15 years of age were integrated 7804 into Sinia as soldiers. In some cases, Dominic Ongwen himself assigned abducted 7805 children to service within the Sinia brigade. The children served as escorts in Sinia 7806 brigade in general and specifically in Dominic Ongwen’s household.

text: On this basis, the Chamber finds that Dominic Ongwen meant for children under the age of 15 years old to be abducted, integrated into Sinia and used in hostilities. Accordingly, the general mental elements under

text: Article 30

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: are met with respect to the crimes charged under Counts 69-70, as is the specifically articulated knowledge element under Article (8)(2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: iii. Conclusion

text: Article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , conscription of children and their use in armed hostilities as a war crime, pursuant to

text: Article 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) of

text: the Statute

text: (Counts 69-70).

text: 7801 See para. 222 above. 7802 See para. 223 above. 7803 See para. 223 above. 7804 See para. 224 above. 7805 See para. 224 above. 7806 See para. 224 above.

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1067/1077 4 February 2021

text: VI. VERDICT

text: For the foregoing reasons and on the basis of the evidence submitted and discussed before this Chamber at trial and the entire proceedings, pursuant to

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: THE CHAMBER FINDS

text: DOMINIC ONGWEN

text: under Count 1 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on 10 October 2003, at or near Pajule IDP camp;

text: under Count 2 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 3 of the charges GUILTY of the war crime of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 4 of the charges GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 5 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 6 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the war crime of cruel treatment, pursuant to Articles 8(2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) or (c) or (d)(i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , on 10 October 2003, at or near Pajule IDP camp;

text: under Count 7 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts, pursuant to Articles 7(1)(k) and 25(3)(a), or (c), or (d)(i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on 10 October 2003, at or near Pajule IDP camp;

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1068/1077 4 February 2021 under Count 8 of the charges, GUILTY, of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 9 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of pillaging, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(v) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 10 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of persecution, on political grounds, of civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government, by attack against the civilian population, murder, torture, enslavement, and pillaging, committed on 10 October 2003 at or near Pajule IDP camp, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 11 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on 29 April 2004, at or near Odek IDP camp;

text: under Count 12 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 13 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 14 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 15 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 16 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1069/1077 4 February 2021 under Count 17 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 18 of the charges NOT GUILTY of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts, pursuant to Articles 7(1)(k) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d)(i) and (ii) or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , on 29 April 2004, at or near Odek IDP camp;

text: under Count 19 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the war crime of cruel treatment, pursuant to Articles 8(2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d)(i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on 29 April 2004, at or near Odek IDP camp;

text: under Count 20 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c), and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 21 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of pillaging, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(v) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 22 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(ii), and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 23 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of persecution, on political grounds, of civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government, by attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, outrages upon personal dignity and pillaging, committed on 29 April 2004 at or near Odek IDP camp, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 24 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP camp;

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1070/1077 4 February 2021 under Count 25 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 26 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 27 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3) (f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 28 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP Camp;

text: under Count 29 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 30 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 31 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts, pursuant to Articles 7(1)(k) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d)(i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP Camp;

text: under Count 32 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the war crime of cruel treatment, pursuant to Articles 8(2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d)(i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 33 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on or about 19 May 2004 at or near Lukodi IDP Camp;

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1071/1077 4 February 2021 under Count 34 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of pillaging, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(v) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 35 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of destruction of property, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 36 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of persecution, on political grounds, of civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government, by attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, pillaging and destruction of property committed on or about 19 May 2004, at or near Lukodi IDP camp, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 37 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , committed on 8 June 2004, at or near Abok IDP camp;

text: under Count 38 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 39 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 40 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(a) and 25(3)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 41 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of attempted murder, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: Rome Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1072/1077 4 February 2021 under Count 42 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 43 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 44 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts, pursuant to Articles 7(1)(k) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d)(i) and (ii) or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , on 8 June 2004, at or near Abok IDP camp;

text: under Count 45 of the charges, NOT GUILTY of the war crime of cruel treatment, pursuant to Articles 8(2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a), or (b), or (d) (i) and (ii), or 28(a), of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 46 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 47 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of pillaging, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(v) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 48 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of destruction of property, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(xii) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 49 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of persecution, on political grounds, of civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Ugandan government, by attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, pillaging and destruction of property, committed on 8 June 2004 at or near Abok IDP camp, pursuant to

text: Article 7

text: (1)(h) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 50 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime of forced marriage, an

text: inhumane act of a character similar to the acts set out in Article 7(1) (a)-(j), as a

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1073/1077 4 February 2021 crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(k) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002, of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, of (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, of (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, of (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005;

text: under Count 51 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, of (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, of (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, of (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005;

text: under Count 52 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 53 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of rape pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 54 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of rape pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 55 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of sexual slavery pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1074/1077 4 February 2021

text: (P-0101) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, of (P-0214) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005, of (P-0226) between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003, of (P-0227) between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005;

text: under Count 56 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of sexual slavery pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 57 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of (P-0099) between 1 July 2002 and September 2002, of (P-0235) from September 2002 to 31 December 2005, of (P-0236) between September 2002 and 31 December 2005;

text: under Count 58 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of forced pregnancy pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of (P-0101, two pregnancies) between 1 July 2002 and July 2004, of (P-0214) sometime in 2005;

text: under Count 59 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of forced pregnancy pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 60 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(ii) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: of (P-0226) sometime in 2002 or early 2003 close to Patongo, Northern Uganda, of (P-0235) sometime in late 2002 or early 2003 at an unspecified location in Northern Uganda;

text: under Count 61 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime of forced marriage, an

text: inhumane act of a character similar to the acts set out in Article 7(1)(a)-(j), as a

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1075/1077 4 February 2021 crime against humanity, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(k), and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005;

text: under Count 62 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(f) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 63 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of torture, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(c)(i) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 64 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of rape, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 65 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of rape, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 66 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of sexual slavery, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(g) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 67 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of sexual slavery, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vi) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Count 68 of the charges, GUILTY of the crime against humanity of enslavement, pursuant to

text: Articles 7

text: (1)(c) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: under Counts 69 and 70 of the charges, GUILTY of the war crime of conscripting

text: children under the age of 15 into an armed group and using them to participate

text: actively in hostilities, pursuant to

text: Articles 8

text: (2)(e)(vii) and 25(3)(a) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1076/1077 4 February 2021

text: Judge Bertram Schmitt, Presiding Judge

text: __________________________ __________________________

text: Judge Péter Kovács Judge Raul C. Pangalangan

text: Dated 4 February 2021 At The Hague, The Netherlands

text: No. ICC-02/04-01/15 1077/1077 4 February 2021

title: The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen