court: icc

doctype: admissibility

identifier: ICC-01/04-01/06 (Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19 (2) (a) of the Statute)

caseName: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

chamber: Pre-Trial Chamber I

decisionType: admissibility

publisher: International Criminal Court

text: ECHR

text: the Statute

text: the Statute, article 19

text: the Statute, article 21

text: the Statute, article 55

text: the Statute, article 58

text: the Statute, article 59

text: Rome Statute, article 60

text: the Statute, article 85

text: Cour

type: stycke

text: Pénale l/ATA\ Internationale V OIO V

text: u

text: International Criminal Court

text: Original : English No.: ICC-01/04-01/06 Date: 3 October 2006

text: PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I

type: rubrik

text: Before: Judge Claude Jorda, Presiding Judge Judge Akua Kuenyehia Judge Sylvia Steiner

text: Registrar: Mr Bruno Cathala

text: SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

text: Public Document

text: Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2) (a) of

text: the Statute

text: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Mr Luis Moreno Ocampo Mr Jean Flamme Ms Fatou Bensouda Ms Véronique Pandanzyla Mr Ekkehard Withopf Other Participant Legal Representatives for Victims Democratic Republic of the Congo a/0001/06 to a/0003/06 Mr Luc Walleyn Mr Franch Mulenda

text: N° ICC-01/04-01/06 1/12 3 October 2006

text: PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I ("the Chamber") of the International Criminal Court ("the Court");

text: NOTING the "Application for Release"1 filed by the Defence on 23 May 2006, in which the Defence requested the release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo;

text: NOTING the "Ordonnance relative à la requête aux fins de mise en liberté"2 issued by the Chamber on 29 May 2006;

text: NOTING the "Submissions relative to the Order of 29.5.2006"3 filed by the Defence on 31 May 2006, in which the Defence specified that the request was not an application for interim release pursuant to

text: article 60

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: the Statute

text: ") but rather an application for release under rule 185 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("the Rules");

text: NOTING the "Prosecution's Response to Application for Release"4 filed by the Prosecution on 13 June 2006, whereby the Prosecution submitted its observations on the Application for Release and in which it assumed that the application was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: of

text: the Statute

text: NOTING the "Demande de Réplique à la Réponse du Procureur du 13 juin 2006 à la Requête de mise en liberté"5 filed by the Defence on 19 June 2006;

text: 'lCC-01/04-01/06-121. 2ICC-01/04-01/06-128. 3ICC-01/04-01/06-131. 4 ICC-01/04-01706-149-Conf. 5 ICC-01/04-01/06-159-Conf. N° ICC-01/04-01/06 2/12 3 October 2006

text: NOTING the "Décision sur la requête de la Défense sollicitant l'autorisation de déposer une réplique"6 issued by the Chamber on 29 June 2006;

text: NOTING the "Conclusions en réplique à la réponse du Procureur à la demande de mise en liberté"7 filed by the Defence on 10 July 2006, in which the Defence states that the Application for Release is grounded, on the one hand, on

text: article 55

text: (1) (d) juncto

text: article 85

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , and, on the other hand, on the inadmissibility of the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo;

text: NOTING the "Order relating to the Application for Release"8 issued by the Chamber on 13 July 2006;

text: NOTING the "Conclusions suite à l'ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006"9 filed by the Defence 17 July 2006, whereby the Defence re-characterises its application as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to

text: article 19

text: 2 (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: the Statute

text: ") based on the abuse of process doctrine;

text: NOTING the "Décision invitant la République démocratique du Congo et les victimes de l'affaire en cause à présenter leurs observations sur les procédures menées en vertu de l'article 19 du Statut"10, issued by the Chamber on 24 July 2006, whereby the Chamber invites the Democratic Republic of the Congo ("the DRC") and the victims of the case to submit their observations on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in application of

text: article 19

text: of

text: the Statute

text: 6 ICC-01/04-01/06-173. 7 ICC-01/04-01/06-188-Conf. 8ICC-01/04-01/06-191. 9ICC-01/04-01/06-197. 10ICC-01/04-01/06-206. n° ICC-OV04-01/06 3/12 3 October 2006

text: NOTING the "Request to file a reply to any observations filed by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Victims"11 filed by the Defence on 28 July 2006, in which the Defence requests leave to file a reply to any observations filed by the DRC and the victims;

text: NOTING the "Observations de la République Démocratique du Congo"12 filed by the Auditeur Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo on 25 August 2006, in which the Court is requested (i) to deny the Defence challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the said challenge has no legal basis; (ii) to reject the Defence assertion based on the alleged illegal detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in the DRC; (iii) to reject the Defence assertion concerning the irregularities surrounding the arrest and surrender to the Court of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo; and (iv) to declare the Defence Application for Release admissible but without merit and thereby dismiss the request;

text: NOTING the "Observations des victimes a/0001/06, a/0002/06 et a0003/06 quant à l'exception d'incompétence soulevée par la défense dans la requête du 23 mai 2006"13 filed by the Legal Representatives of Victims a/0001/06 to a0003/06 on 25 August 2006, in which they consider that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case and that the Defence motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Court must be denied;

text: NOTING the "Decision on the Defence's Request to file a Reply14 issued by the Chamber on 28 August 2006, in which it grants the request of the Defence to file a Reply to the observations filed by Government of the DRC and Victims a/0001/06 to a0003/06;

text: 11ICC-01/04-01/06-215. 12ICC-01/04-01/06-348. 13ICC-01/04-01/06-349. 14ICC-01/04-01/06-359. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 4/12 3 October 2006

text: NOTING the "Prosecution's response to the Observations of the DRC and the Observations of the Victims in Application of

text: Article 19

text: of

text: the Statute

text: "15 filed by the Prosecution on 7 September 2006;

text: NOTING the "Defence Response to the Observations of the DRC and the Observations of the Victims in the Application of

text: Article 19

text: of

text: the Statute

text: "16 filed by the Defence on the 8 September 2006;

text: NOTING

text: articles 19

text: and

text: of

text: the Statute

text: and rules 58, 59 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("the Rules");

text: CONSIDERING that, in the present case, the Defence allegations are confined to (i) the alleged arbitrary arrest by the DRC authorities on 13 August 2003 and the alleged subsequent illegal detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in the DRC prior to 16 March 2006; and (ii) certain alleged irregularities in the execution of the Court's cooperation request for the arrest and surrender of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ("the Court's Cooperation Request") sent to the DRC on 14 March 2006;17

text: CONSIDERING that the Defence is challenging the jurisdiction of the Court under

text: article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: and on the basis of the abuse of process doctrine;18 and that, in relation to the arrest and surrender to the Court of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in execution of the Court's Cooperation Request, the Defence alleges that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's rights under

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: were infringed; 15 ICC-01/04-01/06-401-Conf 16 ICC-01/04-01/06-406-Conf 17"Report from the Registrar on the Execution of the Request for Arrest and Surrender", filed by the Registry on 23 March 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06-53-Conf. See in particular ICC/-01/04-01/06-53-Conf- Anx2, p.l, and ICC-01/04-01/06-53-Conf-Anx5.5, p. 3. 18ICC-01/04-01/06-197. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 5/12 3 October 2006

text: CONSIDERING that, according to

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , "a person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that: (a) the warrant applies to that person; (b) the person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and (c) the person's rights have been respected";

text: CONSIDERING that in the Chamber's view, the words "in accordance with the law of the State" means that it is for national authorities to have primary jurisdiction for interpreting and applying national law19;

text: CONSIDERING however, that this does not prevent the Chamber from retaining a degree of jurisdiction over how the national authorities interpret and apply national law when such an interpretation and application relates to matters which, like those here, are referred directly back to that national law by the Statute20;

text: CONSIDERING that, pursuant to

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: , the competent DRC authorities were obliged to determine whether, in the execution of the Court's Cooperation Request, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's rights were respected and the arrest was carried out with due regard for the proper process;

text: CONSIDERING nevertheless that

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: does not impose any obligation on the competent DRC authorities to review the lawfulness of the arrest and detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo prior to 14 March 2006 insofar as that detention was related solely to national proceedings in the DRC;

text: 19ECHR, Klaus Altmann v/ France, Decision of 4 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application, application N°10689,1984, p.234. 20

text: ECHR

text: , Winterwerp v/, The Netherlands, 24 October 1979, para. 46. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 6/12 3 October 2006

text: CONSIDERING that according to the Report of the Registrar, signed by Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the Registrar transmitted to the Procureur Général de la République the Court's Cooperation Request on 14 March 2006;21

text: CONSIDERING that, prior to the transmission of the Court's Cooperation Request, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was detained in relation to proceedings before the Congolese Military Courts;22 and that therefore, according to articles 42 to 47 juncto 207 of the Congolese Code Judiciaire Militaire, the competent Congolese organ pursuant to

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: was the Auditeur Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo or his representative before the Congolese Military Courts (Auditeur Militaire);

text: CONSIDERING that on 14 March 2006 the Procureur Général de la République transmitted to the Auditeur Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo the Court's Cooperation Request for execution;23

text: CONSIDERING that on 14 March 2006, execution of the Court's Cooperation Request by the DRC authorities was set into motion and, as a result, on 16 March 2006, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was taken from the Centre Pénitentiaire et de Reeducation de Kinshasa and brought before the Premier Avocat Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo acting as the representative and under the instructions of the Auditeur Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo;24

text: 21 Report of the Registrar, annex 2, p. 1, and annex 5.5, p. 3. 22 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.5, p.l. 23 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.5, p. 3 and annex 5.6, p. 2. 24 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.5, p. 1. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 7/12 3 October 2006

text: CONSIDERING that the Premier Avocat Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo: (i) notified Thomas Lubanga Dyilo that as of that moment he was under arrest pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court; (ii) provided to Thomas Lubanga Dyilo all materials attached to the Court's Cooperation Request, including (a) a copy of the arrest warrant for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo issued by this Chamber on 10 February 2006, (b) a copy of the Chamber's Decision of 10 February 2006, (c) a copy of the relevant provisions of

text: the Statute

text: and the Rules in a language that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo understands and speaks, including those relating to his rights under

text: the Statute

text: and the Rules; and (iii) informed Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of his right to oppose his arrest under a Court's arrest warrant and his surrender to the Court;25

text: CONSIDERING that Thomas Lubanga Dyilo did exercise his right to oppose his arrest under a Court's arrest warrant and his surrender to the Court;26 and that, prior to confirming Thomas Lubanga's Dyilo's arrest and surrender to the Court, the Auditeur Général des Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo ruled on the merits of the grounds put forward by Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in support of his claim;27

text: CONSIDERING therefore that in executing the Court's Cooperation Request, Thomas Luganga Dyilo was promptly brought before the Congolese national authority which, because he was being detained at that time in relation to national proceedings before the Congolese Military Courts, was competent under Congolese

text: 25 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.5, p.3, and annex 5.6. 26 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.6, p. 4. 27 Report of the Registrar, annex 5.6, p. 5. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 8/12 3 October 2006 law to conduct the proceedings in the custodial State provided for in

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: ; and that, in the view of the Chamber, contrary to the Defence's claim, no material breach of

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: can be found in the procedure followed by the competent Congolese national authorities during the execution of the Court's Cooperation Request;

text: CONSIDERING further that during Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's First Appearance on 20 March 2006, the Presiding Judge of the Chamber asked him if he had been informed of the crimes of which he was charged and whether the arrest warrant had been read to him; and that Defence Counsel, speaking for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, stated that the arrest warrant had indeed been read to him;28

text: CONSIDERING that the Defence is currently challenging the jurisdiction of the Court by stating that "Article 21 (3) [...] vests the Court with the obligation to consider whether its exercise of personal jurisdiction over Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is consistent with such general principles of human rights, or whether, given the serious violations of his human rights, it would be an abuse of process to exercise personal jurisdiction over him in such circumstances"29,

text: CONSIDERING that

text: article 21

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: states that the "application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights"; and that, according to those standards, any violations of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo's rights in relation to his arrest and detention prior to 14 March 2006 will be examined by the Court only once it has been established that there has been concerted action between the Court and the DRC authorities30;

text: 28 ICC-01/04-01/06-T-3 pp. 6-7 29ICC-01/04-01/06-406, para. 8. 30 See Stocké v Germany before the European Court of Human Rights, 11755/85 [1991]

text: ECHR

text: 25 (19 March 1991), para 51-54;

text: ECHR

text: , Klaus Altmann vs. France, Decision of 4 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application, application No. 10689, 1984, p. 234. Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has n° ICC-01/04-01/06 9/12 3 October 2006

text: CONSIDERING however that whenever there is no concerted action between the

text: Court and the authorities of the custodial State, the abuse of process doctrine

text: constitutes an additional guarantee of the rights of the accused;31 and that, to date,

text: the application of this doctrine, which would require that the Court decline to

text: exercise its jurisdiction in a particular case,32 has been confined to instances of torture

text: or serious mistreatment by national authorities of the custodial State in some way

text: related to the process of arrest and transfer of the person to the relevant international

text: criminal tribunal;33

text: CONSIDERING, however, that in the course of the present proceedings under

text: article 19

text: of

text: the Statute

text: , no issues has arisen to any alleged act of torture against or

text: serious mistreatment of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo by the DRC national authorities

text: prior to the transmission of the Court's Cooperation Request on 14 March 2006 to the

text: said authorities; and that therefore the issue before the Chamber is to determine

text: whether there was concerted action between the Court and the DRC authorities in

text: repeatedly stated that the Tribunal is not responsible for the illegal arrest and detention of the accused in the custodial State if the arrest and detention was not carried out at the behest of the Tribunal. See in particular the Semanza Case Appeals Chamber, 31 May 2000.,Case No. ICTR-97-20-A, para.79, where a distinction is made between the time Semanza was held at the request of the Rwandan authorities and the time he was held at the request of the ICTR. See also the Rwamakuba Case, Trial Chamber II, 12 December 2000, "Decision on the Defence Motion Concerning the Illegal Arrest and Illegal Detention of the Accused", Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, para.30 stating that, "[t]he Trial Chamber does therefore not consider that, from 2 August 1995 until 22 December 1995, when the Prosecutor notified the Namibian authorities of their knowledge that the accused was in their custody, the Tribunal was responsible for the accused's detention. The Tribunal having no jurisdiction over the conditions of that period of detention, any challenges in this respect are to be brought before the Namibian jurisdiction". 31 See Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic Case , "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest", 5 June 2003, Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, para. 30. See also Juvenal Kajelijeli vs. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, para. 206; and Prosecutor .vs. Slavko Dokmanovic, "Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused", 22 October 1997, Case No IT-95-13a-PT, paras. 70-75. 32See Jean Bosco Barayagwisa vs The Prosecutor, Appeals Chamber, 3 November 1999, Case No. ICTR-97- 19-AR72, paras. 74 - 77. See also Juvenal Kajelijeli vs. The Prosecutor, 23 May 2005, Case No. ICTR-98-44A- A para 206. 33 See Prosecutor vs. Dragan Nikolic Case , "Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest", 5 June 2003, Case No. IT-94-2-AR73, para. 30. See also Juvenal Kajelijeli vs. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44A-A, para. 206; and Prosecutor vs. Slavko Dokmanovic, "Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused", 22 October 1997, Case No IT-95-13a-PT, paras. 70-75.

text: n° ICC-01/04-01/06 10/12 3 October 2006 connection with the arrest and detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo prior to 14 March 200634;

text: CONSIDERING that there is no evidence indicating that the arrest and detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo prior to the 14 March 2006 was the result of any concerted action between the Court and the DRC authorities; and that the Court will therefore not examine the lawfulness of the arrest and detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo by the DRC authorities prior to 14 March 2006;

text: CONSIDERING therefore that no material breach of

text: article 59

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: can be found in the procedure followed by the competent Congolese national authorities during the execution of the Court's Cooperation Request, and that there is no evidence indicating that the arrest and detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo prior to the 14 March 2006 was the result of any concerted action between the Court and the DRC authorities;

text: CONSIDERING therefore that the Defence challenge to jurisdiction is unfounded;

text: ECHR

text: , Stocké v/ Federal Republic of Germany, para 51-54;

text: ECHR

text: , Klaus Altmann v/ France, Decision of 4 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application, application N° 10689, 1984, p. 234. n° ICC-01/04-01/06 11/12 3 October 2006

text: FOR THESE REASONS

text: DISMISSES the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court raised by Thomas Lubanga Dyilo pursuant to

text: article 19

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: and therefore reject the request for release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Done in English and French, the English version/being authoritative.

text: k

text: Judge Claude Jorda Presiding Judge Judge Akua Kuenyehia / Judge Sylvia Steiner

text: Dated this Tuesday 3 October 2006 At The Hague The Netherlands

text: n° ICC-01/04-01/06 12/12 3 October 2006

title: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

type: avgorande