court: icc

doctype: confirmation

identifier: ICC-02/11-01/11 (Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute)

caseName: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo

chamber: Pre-Trial Chamber I

decisionType: confirmation

publisher: International Criminal Court

title: Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute

text: the Statute

text: Rome Statute, article 15

text: the Statute, article 21

text: the Statute, article 25

text: the Statute, article 54

text: the Statute, article 58

text: Rome Statute, article 61

text: the Statute, article 66

text: the Statute, article 67

text: the Statute, article 7

text: the Statute, article 74

text: Cour Pénale

type: stycke

text: / >ä>

text: I n t e r n a t i o n a l e

text: I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Court

text: Original: English No.: ICC-02/11-01/11 Date: 3 June 2013

text: PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I

type: rubrik

text: Before: Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, Presiding Judge Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert

text: SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF COTE DTVOIRE IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR V. LAURENT GBAGBO

text: Public

text: Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 1/25 3 June 2013

text: Decision to be notified, in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court, to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor Emmanuel Altit Eric Macdonald, Senior Trial Lawyer Agathe Bahi Baroan

text: Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants

text: Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparation

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

text: States Representatives Amicus Curiae

text: REGISTRY Registrar & Deputy Registrar Defence Support Section Herman von Hebel, Registrar Didier Preira, Deputy Registrar Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section

text: Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 2/25 3 June 2013

text: Pre-Trial Chamber I (the "Chamber") of the International Criminal Court (the "Court") issues the following decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (the "Statute"). I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

text: On 3 October 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III, by majority, authorised the commencement of an investigation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire ("Côte d'Ivoire") with respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed since 28 November 2010.^ On 22 February 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber III expanded the authorisation for the investigation to encompass crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court allegedly committed between 19 September 2002 and 28 November 2010.^

text: On 23 November 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III issued a warrant of arrest for Laurent Gbagbo ("Mr Gbagbo"), having found reasonable grounds to believe that he was criminally responsible as an "indirect co-perpetrator" pursuant to

text: article 25

text: (3)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: for the crimes against humanity of murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, other inhumane acts and persecution, committed in Côte d'Ivoire during the period between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.^ The decision on the

text: ^ Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 15

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, 3 October 2011, ICC-02/11-14, and corrigendum, ICC-02/ll-14-Corr, filed on 15 November 2011. Judge Fernandez de Gurmendi issued a separate and partially dissenting opinion on the decision (Judge Fernandez de Gurmendi's separate and partially dissenting opinion to the Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 15

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, 3 October 2011, ICC-02/11-15, and corrigendum, ICC-02/ll-15-Corr, with Annex 1, filed on 5 October 2011). 2 Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the "Prosecution's provision of further information regarding potentially relevant crimes committed between 2002 and 2010", 22 February 2012, ICC-02/11-36. 3 Pre-Trial Chamber III, Warrant of Arrest for Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, 23 November 2011, ICC- 02/11-01/11-1. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 3/25 3 June 2013

text: Prosecutor's application for the warrant of arrest was issued on 30 November 2011.'^

text: Mr Gbagbo was surrendered to the Court on 30 November 2011.

text: On 5 December 2011, Mr Gbagbo made his initial appearance before the Court.

text: During the hearing, Pre-Trial Chamber III satisfied itself that Mr Gbagbo had been

text: informed of the crimes he was alleged to have committed and of his relevant rights

text: and scheduled the confirmation of charges hearing (the "Hearing") for 18 June 2012.^

text: On 15 March 2012, the situation in Côte d'Ivoire was reassigned to Pre-Trial

text: Chamber I.^

text: On 12 June 2012, following a Defence request for postponement on the

text: grounds, inter alia, that their resources were insufficient to properly prepare for the

text: Hearing,^ the Single Judge^ issLied a decision postponing the Hearing to 13 August

text: On 2 August 2012, the Single Judge issued a decision postponing the Hearing

text: pending the resolution of the issue of Mr Gbagbo's fitness to take part in the

text: proceedings.^°

text: ^ Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application Pursuant to Article 58 for a warrant of arrest against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, 30 November 2011, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-9-US-Exp, and public redacted version,

text: -Red, filed on 20 December 2011. 5 Pre-Trial Chamber III, Transcript of Hearing, 5 December 2011, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-l-ENG, p. 8. ^ Presidency, Decision on the constitution of Pre-Trial Chambers and on the assignment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur, Sudan and Côte d'Ivoire situations, 15 March 2012, ICC- 02/11-01/11-59. ^ Requête de la Défense en report de l'audience de confirmation des charges prévue le 18 juin 2012, 5 June 2012, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-140-Conf, and public redacted version, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-140-Red. ^ Pre-Trial Chamber I, Décision portant désignation d'un juge unique, 16 March 2012, ICC-02/11- 01/11-61. 9 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Requête de la Défense en report de l'audience de confirmation des charges prévue le 18 juin 2012", 12 June 2012, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-152-Conf, and public redacted version ICC-02/ll-01/ll-152-Red. ^0 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on issues related to the proceedings under rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and postponing the date of the confirmation of charges hearing, 2 August 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-201, with annex.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 4/25 3 June 2013

text: On 2 November 2012, the Chamber issued the "Decision on the fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to take part in the proceedings before this Court", finding that Mr Gbagbo was fit to take part in the proceedings." On 29 November 2012, the Chamber rejected the Defence application for leave to appeal this decision.^^ 8. On 14 December 2012, the Chamber issued the "Decision on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto", setting 19 February 2013 as the date for the commencement of the Hearing and establishing, inter alia, the time limits for the disclosure and presentation of evidence.^^

text: On 17 January 2013, the Prosecutor filed the amended document containing the charges (the "Amended DCC"), list of evidence and consolidated Elements Based Chart.^^ In the Amended DCC, the Prosecutor alleges that Mr Gbagbo is criminally responsible for crimes against humanity committed in Côte d'Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.i=^

text: On 1 February 2013, the Defence filed the list of evidence that it intended to present at the Hearing.^^

text: The Hearing was held from 19 until 28 February 2013.^^ The final written submissions of the Prosecutor^^ and the Office of Public Counsel for victims^^ were

text: 11 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the fitness of Laurent Gbagbo to take part in the proceedings before this Court, 2 November 2012, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-286-Conf and public redacted version, ICC- 02/11-01/11-286-Red. 1- Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on three applications for leave to appeal, 29 November 2012, ICC- 02/11-01/11-307. 13 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto, 14 December 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-325. 1^ Soumission de l'Accusation du Document amendé de notification des charges, de l'Inventaire amendé des éléments de preuve à charge et des Tableaux amendés des éléments constitutifs des crimes, 17 January 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-357, with confidential annexes 1-3; and public redacted version, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-357-Anxl-Red. 15 Amended DCC, paras 92-108. 1^ Communication de l'inventaire des éléments de preuve à décharge de la Défense, 1 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-381, with confidential annex. 17 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG; id., Transcript of Hearing, 20 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-15-ENG, and public redacted version No. ICC-02/11-01/11 5/25 3 June 2013 filed on 14 March 2013, and the final written submissions of the Defence were filed

text: on 28 March 2013.^° The Chamber announced on the last day of the Hearing that the

text: decision would be issued within 60 days after the final written submissions of the

text: Defence.^^

text: IL THE APPLICABLE LAW

text: The Chamber notes

text: articles 21

text: and

text: of

text: the Statute

text: Article 61

text: (7) of the

text: Statute provides:

text: The Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the basis of the hearing, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged. Based on its determination, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall:

text: (a) Confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is sufficient evidence, and commit the person to a Trial Chamber for trial on the charges as confirmed; (b) Decline to confirm those charges in relation to which it has determined that there is insufficient evidence; (c) Adjourn the hearing and request the Prosecutor to consider: (i) Providing further evidence or conducting further investigation with respect to a particular charge; or (ii) Amending a charge because the evidence submitted appears to establish a different crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

text: ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-15-Red-ENG; id., Transcript of Hearing, 21 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-16- ENG, and public redacted version ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-16-Red-ENG; id., Transcript of Hearing, 22 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-17-ENG, and public redacted version ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-17-Red- ENG; id., Transcript of Hearing, 25 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-18-ENG, and public redacted version ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-18-Red-ENG; id.. Transcript of Hearing, 26 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11- T-19-ENG, and public redacted version ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-19-Red-ENG; id.. Transcript of Hearing, 27 February 2013, 1CC-02/11-01/11-T-20-ENG, and public redacted version ICC-02/11-01/1 l-T-20-Red- ENG; id., Transcript of Hearing, 28 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-21-ENG. IS Prosecution's submission on issues discussed during the Confirmation Hearing, 14 March 2013, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-420-Conf, with Annex A, and public redacted version ICC-02/11-01/11-420-Red, filed on 21 March 2013. 1^ Final written submissions of the Common Legal Representative of Victims following the confirmation of charges hearing, 14 March 2013, lCC-02/11-01/11-419. -0 Soumissions écrites de la défense portant sur un certain nombre de questions discutées lors de l'audience de confirmation des charges, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-429-Conf, with confidential annex, and public redacted version, ICC-02/11-01/11-429-Red, filed on 3 April 2013. 21 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 28 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-21-ENG, p. 51, lines 5-9.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 6/25 3 June 2013

text: The Chamber notes that Pre-Trial Chamber III previously issued a decision pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: and agrees with its determination that an adjournment of the Hearing may take place "subsequent to the oral sessions and as long as the Chamber has not made its final determination on the merits and issued a decision whether or not to confirm the charges".^^ In the same decision, Pre-Trial Chamber III assessed

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: as follows: Under sub-paragraph (i), the Chamber makes an evaluation of the evidence presented and its sufficiency to reach the "substantial grounds to believe" threshold of the chapeau in

text: article 61

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: . In its determination, pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber adjourns the hearing because the evidence presented does not meet the required threshold for confirming the charges as required by

text: article 61

text: (7)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , and because such evidence is not irrelevant and insufficient to a degree that merits declining to confirm the charges under

text: article 61

text: (7)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: . In this case the Chamber decides that some further evidence is needed. Only after this evidence is provided will the Chamber be in a position to make its final determination on the merits. This process requires analysis and evaluation of the evidence and related documents already before the Chamber in order to justify the request for further evidence.-^ 14. As to the phrase "with respect to a particular charge" in

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber considers that this phrase does allow for the Chamber to adjourn the Hearing with respect to one or more charges, including any element within the charge(s) in question. This interpretation also reconciles

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: with rule 127 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the "Rules"), which contemplates the possibility of adjourning the Hearing under

text: article 61

text: (7)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: with respect to multiple charges.^^

text: III. ANALYSIS

text: As developed further below, the Chamber considers that the Prosecutor's evidence, viewed as a whole, although apparently insufficient, does not appear to be so lacking in relevance and probative value that it leaves the Chamber with no 22 Pre-Trial Chamber III, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Combo, Decision Adjourning the Hearing pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(c)(ii) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 3 March 2009, ICC-01/05-0iy08-388, para. 37. '-Ubid., para. 16. 2^^ Rule 127 of the Rules provides, in relevant part and with emphasis added: "[i]f the Pre-Trial Chamber is ready to confirm some charges but adjourns the hearing on other charges under article 61, paragraph 7 (c) [...]". No. ICC-02/11-01/11 7/25 3 June 2013 choice but to decline to confirm the charges under

text: article 61

text: (7)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: . Rather than making a final determination on the merits at this time, the Chamber considers it appropriate in this case to adjourn the Hearing pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: . 1. Evidentiary threshold

text: Pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber "shall, on the basis of the hearing, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged".

text: It is recalled that the drafters of

text: the Statute

text: established progressively higher evidentiary thresholds applicable in the course of the different stages of the proceedings.^^ The evidentiary threshold of "substantial grounds to believe" required for the confirmation of charges is higher than the threshold required for the issuance of a warrant of arrest ("reasonable grounds to believe")^^ but lower than the threshold required for the conviction of an accused ("beyond reasonable doubt").^^ With a view to giving concrete meaning to the term "substantial grounds", Pre-Trial Chamber I emphasized that "[a]fter an exacting scrutiny of all the evidence, the Chamber will determine whether it is thoroughly satisfied that the [Prosecutor's] allegations are sufficiently strong to commit [the person] to trial" (emphasis added).^^ Pre-Trial Chamber II understood the term "substantial" to mean "significant".

text: 25 Pre-Trial Chamber II, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, 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 Kenya, 31 March 2010, ICC-01/09-19-Corr, para. 28; Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the "Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir", 3 February 2010,

text: , para. 30; Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, 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: , para. 40. 26

text: Article 58

text: (1) of

text: the Statute

text: . 27

text: Article 66

text: (3) of

text: the Statute

text: . 28 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007,

text: -tEN, para. 39. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 8/25 3 June 2013

text: "solid", "material", "well built", "real" rather than "imaginary" .^^ Pre-Trial

text: Chambers have consistently held that to meet the evidentiary burden of "substantial

text: grounds to believe", the Prosecutor must "offer concrete and tangible proof

text: demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning [the] specific allegations".^°

text: The higher evidentiary threshold at this juncture of the proceedings accords

text: with the gatekeeper function of the Pre-Trial Chamber according to which (i) only

text: those cases proceed to trial for which the Prosecutor has presented sufficiently

text: compelling evidence going beyond mere theory or suspicion; (ii) the suspect is

text: protected against wrongful prosecution; (iii) and judicial economy is ensured by

text: distinguishing between cases that should go to trial and those that should not.^^

text: 29 Pre-Trial Chamber II, 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. 29. 30 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Liibanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007,

text: -tEN, para. 39; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008, ICC-01/04- 01/07-717, para. 65; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 8 February 2010,

text: -Red, para. 37; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011, ICC- 01/04-01/10-465-Red, para. 40; Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , para. 29; Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, 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: , para. 40. 31 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA 4), para. 39; Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Articles 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012, ICC-01/09-02/ll-382-Red, para. 52; Pre-Trial Chamber II, 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, ICC- 01/05-01/08-424, para. 28; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 41; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008,

text: , para. 63; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007,

text: -tENG, para. 37.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 9/25 3 June 2013

text: Evidentiary threshold applicable to all 'facts and circumstances" 19. As has been repeatedly held, the proposed charges are composed of the "facts and circumstances"^^ and their legal characterization.^^ It is incumbent on the Prosecutor to clearly define in the document containing the charges all the facts and circumstances and to propose therein their legal characterization.^^ At the present stage of the proceedings, it is the Chamber's duty to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence for each of the "facts and circumstances" advanced by the Prosecutor in order to satisfy all of the legal elements of the crime(s) and mode(s) of liability charged. The standard by which the Chamber scrutinizes the evidence is the same for all factual allegations, whether they pertain to the individual crimes charged, contextual elements of the crimes or the criminal responsibility of the suspect.

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: mentions the "facts and circumstances as described in the charges", which clearly refers to "the charges as confirmed" in the article 61 (7)(a) decision. Any other general background information, albeit informative or helpful, will not be central to the charges^^"^ as it will not "support the legal elements of the crime charged".^^ 21. For example, the individual incidents alleged by the Prosecutor in support of her allegation that there was an "attack directed against any civilian population" are 32

text: Article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: . 33 Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Articles 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012, ICC-01/09-02/ll-382-Red, para. 56. 3^ Regulation 52 of the Regulations of the Court dictates that the document containing the charges include a "statement of the facts" and a "legal characterisation of the facts". 35 Trial Chamber V, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Order regarding the content of the charges, 20 November 2012, ICC-01/09-02/11-536, para. 13; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007,

text: -tEN, para. 152. 36 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 entitled "Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulations 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court", 8 December 2009,

text: , footnote 163. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 10/25 3 June 2013 part of the facts and circumstances for the purposes of

text: article 74

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: and therefore must be proved to the requisite threshold of "substantial grounds to believe". This is especially so in this case in which the Prosecutor identifies particular incidents that constitute the attack against the civilian population. In other words, the incidents are "facts" which "support the [contextual] legal elements of the crime charged". 22. Taking into consideration that contextual elements form part of the substantive merits of the case,^" the Chamber sees no reason to apply a more lenient standard in relation to the incidents purportedly constituting the contextual element of an "attack" for the purposes of establishing the existence of crimes against humanity than the standard applied in relation to other alleged facts and circumstances in the case. Accordingly, each incident underlying the contextual elements must be proved to the same threshold that is applicable to all other facts. This is not to say that there is no difference between crimes that underlie a suspect's individual criminal responsibility and crimes being committed as part of incidents which only establish the relevant context. The crimes which are alleged to prove the suspect's individual criminal responsibility must be linked to the suspect personally, whereas incidents proving the contextual circumstances do not require such an individualised link. As such, the former set of crimes will inevitably need to be proven in greater detail than the latter. Indeed, in order to be considered relevant as proof of the contextual elements, the information needed may be less specific than what is needed for the crimes charged but is still required to be sufficiently probative and specific so as to support the existence of an "attack" against a civilian population. The information needed must include, for example, details such as the identity of the perpetrators, or at least information as to the group they belonged to, as well as the identity of the

text: 37 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the appeal of Mr Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled "Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ", 24 May 2012,

text: , paras 33-36. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 11/25 3 June 2013 victims, or at least information as to their real or perceived political, ethnic, religious or national allegiance(s). 23. When alleging the existence of an "attack directed against any civilian population" by way of describing a series of incidents, the Prosecutor must establish to the requisite threshold that a sufficient number of incidents relevant to the establishment of the alleged "attack" took place. This is all the more so in case none of the incidents, taken on their own, could establish the existence of such an "attack".

text: Chamber's Approach to Evidence

text: The Chamber notes

text: article 61

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: , which provides that "the Prosecutor shall support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed the crime charged. The Prosecutor may rely on documentary or summary evidence and need not call the witnesses expected to testify at the trial".

text: Even though

text: article 61

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: only requires the Prosecutor to support each charge with "sufficient" evidence at the confirmation hearing, the Chamber must assume that the Prosecutor has presented her strongest possible case based on a largely completed investigation. As the Appeals Chamber highlighted, "the investigation should largely be completed at the stage of the confirmation of charges hearing. Most of the evidence should therefore be available, and it is up to the Prosecutor to submit this evidence to the Pre-Trial Chamber" .^^ This approach ensures continuity in the presentation of the case and safeguards the rights of the Defence, which should not be presented with a wholly different evidentiary case at trial.^9 It also ensures that the commencement of the trial is not unduly delayed and

text: 38 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA 4), para. 44. 39 See also Trial Chamber V, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on defence application pursuant to Article 64(4) and related requests, 26 April 2013, ICC-01/09-02/11-728, paras 118-123. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 12/25 3 June 2013 conforms with the right of the Defence to be tried without undue delay pursuant to

text: article 67

text: (l)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . 26. In relation to the quality of individual items of evidence, the Chamber considers that it would be unhelpful to formulate rigid formal rules, as each exhibit and every witness is unique and must be evaluated on its own merits. Nevertheless, the Chamber does consider it useful to express its general disposition towards certain types of evidence. 27. As a general matter, it is preferable for the Chamber to have as much forensic and other material evidence as possible. Such evidence should be duly authenticated and have clear and unbroken chains of custody. Whenever testimonial evidence is offered, it should, to the extent possible, be based on the first-hand and personal observations of the witness. 28. Although there is no general rule against hearsay evidence before this Court, it goes without saying that hearsay statements in the Prosecutor's documentary evidence will usually have less probative value. Reliance upon such evidence should thus be avoided wherever possible. This is all the more so when the hearsay in question is anonymous, in the sense that insufficient information is available about who made the observation being reported or from whom the source (irrespective of whether the source is a witness interviewed by the Prosecutor or a documentary item of evidence) obtained the information. 29. Heavy reliance upon anonymous hearsay, as is often the basis of information contained in reports of nongovernmental organizations ("NGO reports") and press articles, is problematic for the following reasons. Proving allegations solely through anonymous hearsay puts the Defence in a difficult position'*^ because it is not able to

text: -^0 See, for example, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 27 February 2013, ICC-02/ll-Ol/ll-T- 20-Red-ENG, p. 48 lines 17-25 and p. 49, lines 1-17 and p. 60, lines 16-25; id.. Transcript of Hearing, 25 February 2013, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-T-18-Red-ENG, p. 31, lines 1-25. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 13/25 3 June 2013 investigate and challenge the trustworthiness of the source(s) of the information, thereby unduly limiting the right of the Defence under

text: article 61

text: (6)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: to challenge the Prosecutor's evidence, a right to which the Appeals Chamber attached "considerable significance".^^ Further, it is highly problematic when the Chamber itself does not know the source of the information and is deprived of vital information about the source of the evidence. In such cases, the Chamber is unable to assess the trustworthiness of the source, making it all but impossible to determine what probative value to attribute to the information.^^

text: In relation to corroboration, it should be noted that it will often be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether and to what extent anonymous hearsay in documentary evidence corroborates other evidence of the same kind. This is because it will usually be too difficult to determine whether two or more unknown sources are truly independent of each other, and the Chamber is not allowed to speculate in this regard. The Chamber does not exclude the possibility that in exceptional cases it may be apparent from the evidence that two or more anonymous hearsay sources in documentary evidence corroborate each other because they are clearly based on independent sources. However, since even in such cases the Chamber may still not have enough information about the trustworthiness of these sources, it will be extremely cautious in attributing the appropriate level of probative value.

text: The Chamber is mindful of the Prosecutor's right to "rely on documentary or summary evidence and [that she] need not call the witness expected to testify at the trial" ."^^ However, the fact that during the confirmation process the Prosecutor is

text: '^i Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA 4), para. 40. 42 The Chamber observes, in this regard, that the problem with anonymous hearsay may not necessarily be resolved by the fact that the Chamber has some generic information about the source. What matters is that enough information about the trustworthiness of the source of the information is available in order to allow the Chamber to attribute the appropriate level of probative value to the information. 43

text: Article 61

text: (5) of

text: the Statute

text: . No. ICC-02/11-01/11 14/25 3 June 2013 allowed to present most, if not all, of her evidence in documentary form, does not diminish the intrinsic shortcomings of the type of evidence discussed in the previous paragraphs. 32. The Chamber notes, in this regard, that the presentation of anonymous hearsay evidence that is contained in documentary evidence, such as press articles and NGO reports, must be clearly distinguished from the presentation by the Prosecutor of anonymous or summary witness statements at the confirmation hearing. In relation to the former, unless the Prosecutor conducts further investigations, there is no prospect of more information becoming available about the source of the evidence. However, in relation to the latter, the situation is different because the Chamber knows the identity of the witness and it may also be assumed that the witness will later be called at trial. 33. As stated by the Appeals Chamber, the "Prosecutor's reliance on documentary or summary evidence in lieu of in-person testimony will limit the Pre-Trial Chamber's ability to evaluate the credibility of the witness",'^^ and therefore any such evaluation will "necessarily be presumptive" ."^"^ The Appeals Chamber took pains to warn that Pre-Trial Chambers should "take great care in finding that a witness [whose statement was presented in summary or anonymous form] is or is not credible."^^ 34. Moreover, in relation to (anonymous) summaries of witness statements, the Chamber must be sensitive to the fact that the Defence will regularly not be in a position to exercise its right to challenge such evidence, in particular its probative

text: 44 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, "Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA 4), para. 48. 45 I b i d . 46 I b i d . No. ICC-02/11-01/11 15/25 3 June 2013 value."*^ In this regard, the Chamber adopts a similar position to the one held by

text: other Pre-Trial Chambers, according to which the Chamber may, in order to

text: counterbalance the disadvantageous position of the Defence, decline to confirm

text: allegations that are supported only by anonymous or summary witness statements.^^

text: In light of the above considerations, the Chamber notes with serious concern

text: that in this case the Prosecutor relied heavily on NGO reports and press articles with

text: regard to key elements of the case, including the contextual elements of crimes

text: against humanity. Such pieces of evidence cannot in any way be presented as the

text: fruits of a full and proper investigation by the Prosecutor in accordance with article

text: 54(l)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . Even though NGO reports and press articles may be a useful

text: introduction to the historical context of a conflict situation, they do not usually

text: constitute a valid substitute for the type of evidence that is required to meet the

text: evidentiary threshold for the confirmation of charges.

text: The Evidentiary Record of the Prosecutor in the Present Case

text: During the Hearing, the Prosecutor made clear that besides the four charged

text: incidents,'^^ she is relying upon further 41 incidents to establish her allegation for the

text: existence of an "attack directed against any civilian population" under article 7 of

text: 47 Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Articles 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012,

text: -Red, para. 90. 48 Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Articles 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 23 January 2012,

text: -Red, para. 90; Pre-Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , para. 50; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 16 December 2011,

text: -Red, para. 49; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, Corrigendum of the "Decision on the Confirmation of Charges", 7 March 2011, ICC-02/05- 03/09-121-Corr-Red, para. 41; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 8 February 2010,

text: -Red, para. 52; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008,

text: , para. 160. 49 The Chamber notes the Prosecutor's contention that the four charged incidents alone, in and of themselves, are sufficient to establish the existence of a widespread or systematic attack, see ICC- 02/11-01/11-420-Red, para. 30.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 16/25 3 June 2013

text: the Statute

text: .'^^ Of these 45 incidents, the majority of them are proven solely with anonymous hearsay from NGO Reports, United Nations reports and press articles. As explained above, the Chamber is unable to attribute much probative value to these materials. Moreover, many of these incidents are described in very summary fashion, making it difficult for the Chamber to determine whether the perpetrators acted pursuant to or in furtherance of a policy to attack a civilian population as required by

text: article 7

text: (2)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: . The Chamber is also presented with an incomplete picture as to: (i) the structural connections between the so-called "pro- Gbagbo forces" acting across the incidents; and (ii) the presence and activities of the armed forces opposing them. Ultimately, the Chamber is asked by the Prosecutor to draw numerous inferences from actions or conduct of Mr Gbagbo, his inner circle and the "pro-Gbagbo forces", but the Chamber does not have enough information to determine whether these inferences are sufficiently supported by the evidence in order to meet the required threshold for confirmation.

text: Despite these difficulties in the evidentiary record of the Prosecutor, the Chamber considers that this does not automatically have to lead to the immediate refusal to confirm the charges. Although the Chamber is not prepared to accept allegations proven solely through anonymous hearsay in documentary evidence, the Chamber notes that past jurisprudence, which predates the abovementioned decisions of the Appeals Chamber, "^^ may have appeared more forgiving in this regard. Therefore, the Prosecutor in this case may not have deemed it necessary to present all her evidence or largely complete her investigation, following all relevant incriminating and exonerating lines of investigation in order to establish the truth. 50 See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 20 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/1 l-T-15-Red-ENG, pp. 38-45. 51 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA4), para. 44; Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the appeal of Mr Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled "Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to

text: Article 61

text: (7)(a) and (b) of the

text: Rome Statute

text: ", 24 May 2012,

text: , paras 33-36. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 17/25 3 June 2013

text: The Chamber does not exclude that the Prosecutor might be able to present or collect further evidence and is therefore, out of fairness, prepared to give her a limited amount of additional time to do so. As the Appeals Chamber noted when discussing summary evidence, when the evidence is insufficient the "Pre-Trial Chamber need not reject the charges but may adjourn the hearing and request the Prosecutor to provide further evidence"."^^

text: Rights of the Defence

text: In deciding whether or not to activate

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Chamber considered the effect of this decision on the right of Mr Gbagbo "to be tried without undue delay" pursuant to

text: article 67

text: (l)(c) of

text: the Statute

text: . In the present case, the relevant period"^^ began to run as soon as Mr Gbagbo was first notified of the warrant of arrest on 29 November 2011 and subsequently surrendered to the Court on 30 November 2011.^^^

text: Whether or not the activation of

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: unduly infringes the right of the suspect to be tried without undue delay must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particularities of the case and in accordance with internationally recognized human rights."^"^

text: 52 Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012,

text: (OA 4), para. 48. 53 According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR"), the beginning of the relevant period starts at the moment a suspect is notified that he/she is charged with a criminal offence, ECtHR, Case of Eckle v Germany, Judgment, 15 July 1982, Series A No. 51, p. 33, para. 73; id.. Case of Metzger v Germayiy, Judgment of 31 May 2001, Application no. 37591/97, para. 31; id.. Case of Corigliano v Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Application no. 8304/78, para. 34. In a similar vein. Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("lACtHR"), Case of Suarez-Rosero v Ecuador, Judgment of 12 November 1997, Series C No. 35, para. 70. 54 ICC-02/011-01/ll-12-Conf-Exp, pp. 4-5. 55 In this regard, the Chamber pays heed to the criteria established by the ECtHR including the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities. See, for example, ECtHR, Case ofPhilis v Greece (No 2), Judgment of 27 June 1997, Application no. 19773/92, para. 35; id.. Case of Gast and Popp v Germany, Judgment of 25 February 2000, Application no. 29357/95, para. 70; id.. Case of Lukenda v Slovenia, Judgment of 6 October 2005, Application no. 23032/02, para. 74; See also No. ICC-02/11-01/11 18/25 3 June 2013

text: The Chamber is aware of the fact that the pre-trial proceedings in this case have already lasted approximately one and a half years before this Court. In this respect, the Chamber recalls that during that time it was requested by the Defence to examine the question of Mr Gbagbo's fitness to take part in the proceedings which involved, inter alia, the appointment of three medical experts and a hearing for this purpose.

text: At the same time, the Chamber is also attentive to the following: first, the seriousness of the charges presented against Mr Gbagbo; second, the complexity of the case which involves a myriad of incidents allegedly committed by a multitude of perpetrators over several months, necessitating a complex investigation; and third, the fact that requesting further evidence under article 61(7)(c)(i) is a procedural avenue which is explicitly provided for in

text: the Statute

text: and which has been recalled by the Appeals Chamber as an appropriate one."^^

text: In light of the foregoing, the Chamber is of the view that allowing the Prosecutor to provide more evidence or conduct further investigation for a limited period of time will not unduly infringe the right of the Defence to be tried without undue delay. 43. The Chamber also highlights that this procedural avenue does not affect any of the rights of the Defence under

text: article 61

text: (6) of

text: the Statute

text: , since the Defence will be given appropriate time to respond to the new evidence presented by the Prosecutor.

text: Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, 23 August 2007, CCPR/C/GC/32, para. 35; lACtHR, Case of Genie-Lacayo v Nicaragua, Judgment of 29 January 1997, Series C No. 30, para. 77', id.. Case ofValle Jaramillo v Colombia, Judgment of 27 November 2008, Series C No. 192, para. 155. 56 Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled "Decision on the confirmation of charges", 30 May 2012, ICC- 01/04-01/10-514 (OA 4), para. 48 No. ICC-02/11-01/11 19/25 3 June 2013

text: IV. CONCLUSIONS OF THE CHAMBER

text: For these reasons, the Chamber, by majority, decides to adjourn this hearing

text: pursuant to

text: article 61

text: (7)(c)(i) of

text: the Statute

text: . Accordingly, the Chamber requests the

text: Prosecutor to consider providing, to the extent possible, further evidence or

text: conducting further investigation with respect to the following issues:

text: The position(s), movements and activities of all armed groups opposed to the "pro-Gbagbo forces" (for example Commando Invisible and Forces Nouvelles) in Côte d'Ivoire (including particularly in and around Abidjan) between November 2010 and May 2011, including specific information about confrontations between those armed groups and the "pro-Gbagbo forces" between November 2010 and May 2011.

text: The organizational structure of the "pro-Gbagbo forces", including how the different subgroups interacted within the overall structure and especially how the "inner circle" coordinated, funded and supplied the means for the activities of the different sub-groups; any changes or evolution in the aforementioned structure and/or operating methods, taking place between November 2010 and May 2011.

text: How, when and by whom the alleged policy/plan to attack the "pro-Ouattara civilian population" was adopted, including specific information about meetings at which this policy/plan was allegedly adopted as well as how the existence and content of this policy/plan was communicated or made known to members of the "pro-Gbagbo forces" once it was adopted.

text: For each of the incidents allegedly constituting the attack against the "pro-Ouattara civilian population":

text: a. whether the alleged physical perpetrators were acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the alleged policy. b. to which sub-group(s) of the "pro-Gbagbo forces" the several alleged physical perpetrators belonged. If different sub-groups were involved in the same incident, identify to which of these the alleged physical perpetrators belonged and to what extent they are alleged to have cooperated in the perpetration of the crimes. c. information as to the number of victims, the harm they suffered as well as their real or perceived political, ethnic, religious or national allegiance(s). d. information as to the links between the several incidents inside and outside57 Abidjan.

text: In relation to the alleged compound incidents taking place on 16-19 December 2010 ("RTI incidents") and 12 April 2011 ("Yopougon incidents"), more specific evidence for each of the sub-incidents, including more detailed evidence for the alleged cases of sexual violence.

text: 57 With regard to events in the West, see Amended DCC, para. 27; with regard to the events in Agboville, see Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 20 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-15- Red-ENG, p. 43, lines 1-2.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 20/25 3 June 2013

text: In relation to the alleged incidents taking place on 3 March 2011 ("Women's march") and 17 March 2011 ("Shelling of Abobo"), any forensic or other evidence"« indicating who fired the ammunitions and what their alleged target was. 45. With a view to informing the Defence in detail of the content of the charges,"^^ the Chamber considers it appropriate that the Prosecutor submit a new Amended DCC setting out in detail and with precision^" the facts of the case, including all incidents forming the contextual elements of crimes against humanity. Together with the Amended DCC, the Prosecutor is instructed to submit a new list of evidence setting out the entirety of the evidence on which she intends to rely for the purposes of the confirmation of charges^^ and an updated consolidated Elements Based Chart covering the entirety of the charges.^- In this context, the Chamber makes reference to its "Decision establishing a disclosure system and a calendar for disclosure"^^^ which specifies the details of the system of disclosure, the procedure related to the requests for redactions and protective measures, and the registration procedure. With a view to expediting the proceedings, the Chamber wishes to add that the evidence must be made available to the Chamber the moment it is disclosed between the parties. In this context, the Chamber puts special emphasis on the necessity that the Prosecutor comply with her disclosure obligations without waiting for the deadlines to expire.^-^

text: The Defence will have the right to object to the charges, challenge the new evidence presented by the Prosecutor and present new evidence in response to the further evidence submitted by the Prosecutor. 58 The Chamber is led to believe that there exists at least one UN report in this regard, see Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Côte d'Ivoire, 14 June 2011, CIV-OTP-0002-0598 at 0604, para. 16. 59

text: Article 67

text: (l)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: and regulation 52 of the Regulations of the Court. 60 Special reference is made to regulation 52(b) of the Regulations of the Court. 61 The Chamber suggests that the Prosecutor highlight the new pieces of evidence so as to make easier their identification in the list of evidence. 62 The Chamber suggests that the Prosecutor highlight the new pieces of evidence so as to make easier their idenfication in the Element Based Chart. 63 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision establishing a disclosure system and a calendar for disclosure, 24 January 2012, lCC-02/11-01/11-30 with Annexes I-III. 64 Ibid., para. 38. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 21/25 3 June 2013

text: Upon receipt of all submissions and evidence of the parties and participants, the Chamber will issue a final decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Mr Gbagbo committed each of the crimes charged. The calendar established hereunder is subject to any further decision of the Chamber to resume the hearing on the confirmation of charges at the request of the participants or on its own motion if there is a need to hear further oral submissions or viva voce testimony of one or more witnesses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE CHAMBER, BY MAJORITY a) Decides to adjourn the Hearing; b) Requests the Prosecutor to consider providing further evidence or conducting further investigation with respect to all charges, mindful of the questions in paragraph 44 of the present decision; c) Adopts the following calendar for disclosure of evidence and submissions. To this end, the Chamber orders the Prosecutor (i) to disclose to the Defence by no later than Friday, 5 July 2013 all evidence in her possession for which she does not intend to present any requests for redactions to the Chamber; (ii) to submit to the Chamber as soon as practicable and no later than Friday, 5 July 2013 any requests for redactions with regard to the evidence which is in her possession and on which she intends to rely for the purposes of the confirmation of charges; (iii) to agree with the Defence on a location and time to permit the inspection of any material within the meaning of rule 77 of the Rules which is in the Prosecutor's possession starting as soon as practicable and by no later than Friday, 5 July 2013;

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 22/25 3 June 2013

text: (iv) to disclose to the Defence by no later than Tuesday, 15 October 2013 the first batch of evidence she has collected in the course of her further investigation and for which she does not intend to present any requests for redactions to the Chamber; (v) to submit to the Chamber as soon as practicable and no later than Tuesday, 15 October 2013 any requests for redactions with regard to the evidence she has collected in the course of her further investigation and on which she intends to rely for the purposes of the confirmation of charges; (vi) to agree with the Defence on a location and time to permit the inspection of any material within the meaning of rule 77 of the Rules which is in the Prosecutor's possession starting as soon as practicable and by no later than, Tuesday, 15 October 2013; (vii) to disclose to the Defence any evidence for which authorization for redactions is sought, as soon as practicable and no later than 5 days after the notification of the Chamber's decision on said request(s) for redactions; (viii) to disclose to the Defence by no later than Friday, 15 November 2013 the second batch of evidence she collected in the course of her further investigation and for which she does not intend to present any requests for redactions to the Chamber; and (ix) to submit by no later than Friday, 15 November 2013 the Amended DCC, amended list of evidence and updated consolidated Element Based Chart. With regard to the Defence, the Chamber orders it

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 23/25 3 June 2013

text: (x) to submit justified proposals for redactions, if any, pursuant to rule 81 of the Rules as soon as practicable and by no later than Friday, 15 November 2013; (xi) to agree with the Prosecutor on a location and time to permit the inspection of any material within the meaning of rule 78 of the Rules starting as soon as practicable and by no later than Monday, 9 December 2013; (xii) to submit its observations on the Prosecutor's evidence and to disclose to the Prosecutor the evidence it intends to present, if any, and to file its amended list of evidence by no later than Monday, 16 December 2013; (xiii) to submit to the Prosecutor its requests, if any, for the lifting of redactions to material covered by

text: article 67

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: or rule 77 of the Rules as soon as practicable following the disclosure of the relevant materials; and (xiv) to submit its requests, if any, for a ruling of the Chamber on any disagreement with the Prosecutor on the lifting of redactions applied to materials covered by

text: article 67

text: (2) of

text: the Statute

text: or rule 77 of the Rules no later than 5 days after the Prosecutor's response thereon; d) Orders the Registry to make available the evidence to the Chamber at the moment it is disclosed between the parties; e) Decides that the Prosecutor and the victims may file final written submissions in response to the Defence by no later than Friday, 24 January 2014; f) Decides that the Defence may submit final written submissions in response to the Prosecutor's and victims' observations by no later than 7 February 2014; g) Decides that the 60-day period required for the issuance of the decision on the confirmation of charges will start running anew as of the date of receipt of the last written submission.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 24/25 3 June 2013

text: Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi Presiding Judge

text: Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert Dated this Monday, 3 June 2013 At The Hague, The Netherlands

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 25/25 3 June 2013

title: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo


doctype: admissibility

identifier: ICC-02/11-01/11 (Decision on the "Requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut")

decisionType: admissibility

text: the Statute

text: Rome Statute, article 17

text: Rome Statute, article 19

text: Rome Statute, article 21

text: Cour Pénale I n t e r n a t i o n a l e

text: m.

text: I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l C o u r t

text: Original: English No.: ICC-02/11-01/11 Date: 11 June 2013

text: PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I

text: Before: Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, Presiding Judge Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert

text: SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR V. LAURENT GBAGBO

text: Public Redacted

text: Decision on the "Requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du S t a t u r

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 1/14 11 June 2013

text: Decision to be notified, in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court, to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor Emmanuel Altit James Stewart, Deputy Prosecutor Agathe Bahi Baroan Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants

text: Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparation

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

text: States Representatives Amicus Curiae Jean-Pierre Mignard Jean-Paul Benoit

text: REGISTRY Registrar & Deputy Registrar Defence Support Section Herman von Hebel, Registrar Didier Preira, Deputy Registrar Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section

text: Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 2/14 11 June 2013

text: Pre-Trial Chamber I (the "Chamber") of the International Criminal Court (the "Court") issues the following decision on the "Requête relative à la recevabilité de Vaffaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut".^ I. Procedural History

text: On 15 February 2013, the Defence filed a challenge to the admissibility of the case against Laurent Gbagbo ("Mr Gbagbo") before the Court under

text: articles 19

text: and

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (the "Admissibility Challenge"), supported by documents contained in 13 public annexes and 2 confidential annexes. 2. On 18 February 2013, the Chamber granted the Office of Public Council for victims (the "OPCV") access to the confidential version of the Admissibility Challenge as well as the confidential annexes thereto.^

text: On 19 February 2013, during the confirmation of charges hearing, the Defence, the Prosecutor and the OPCV made oral submissions regarding the Admissibility Challenge and the Chamber ordered the Prosecutor and the OPCV to submit their written responses by 28 March 2013.^

text: On 14 March 2013, the Chamber granted the request of Côte d'Ivoire for authorisation to submit observations on the Admissibility Challenge.^

text: 1 Requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut, 15 February 2013, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-404-Conf, and public redacted version ICC-02/11-01/11-404- Red. 2 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the OPCV's "Request to access documents related to the 'Requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut" filed by the Defence on 15 February 2013", 18 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-406. 3 Pre-Trial Camber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, pp. 6-14, pp. 26-27, pp. 34-38. 4 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Demande d'autorisation de la République de Côte d'Ivoire aux fins de déposer des observations sur la requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des articles 19 et 17 du Statut déposée par l'équipe de la défense de M. Laurent Gbagbo", 14 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-418. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 3/14 11 June 2013

text: On 28 March 2013, the Prosecutor, the OPCV and Côte d'Ivoire filed their observations on the Admissibility Challenge. ^ II. Submissions A. Defence's Admissibility Challenge 6. The Defence Admissibility Challenge is founded on the existence of ongoing proceedings against Mr Gbagbo for economic crimes allegedly committed during the post-electoral crisis. According to the Defence, on 18 August 2011, Mr Gbagbo was charged with economic crimes in Côte d'Ivoire, namely "vol aggravé, détournement de deniers publics, concussion, pillage et atteinte à l'économie nationale", which proceedings must be presumed to be ongoing in the absence of any indication that they have been terminated.^

text: In support of this contention, the Defence submits (i) two press articles, dated 18 August 2011 and 19 August 2011 respectively, indicating that Mr Gbagbo had been charged with economic crimes by the Ivorian authorities,^ and (ii) REDACTED.»

text: The Defence further submits that the national proceedings for economic crimes constitute the same case as that under prosecution before the Court

text: 5 Prosecution's response to Defence's request challenging the admissibility of the case pursuant to

text: Article 17

text: and

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: , 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-428 (the "Prosecutor's Response"); Observations du Représentant légal commun des victimes à la Requête de la Défense déposée le 15 février 2013 aux fins de contestation de la recevabilité de l'affaire, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-426-Conf, public redacted version, ICC-02/11-01/11- 426-Red (the "the OPCV's Observations"); Observations de la République de Côte d'Ivoire sur la requête relative à la recevabilité de l'affaire en vertu des Articles 19 et 17 du Statut déposée par l'équipe de la défense de M. Laurent Gbagbo, 28 March 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11- 427-Conf-Exp, public redacted version, ICC-02/ll-01/ll-427-Red ("Côte d'Ivoire's Observations"). 6 Admissibility Challenge, para. 36. 7 Admissibility Challenge, Annexes 2 and 3. 8 Admissibility Challenge, para. 53; Annex 4. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 4/14 11 June 2013 because both relate to the same context, namely the post-electoral crisis and the alleged will of Mr Gbagbo to implement a policy to remain in power.^ 9. The Defence emphasises that the meaning of "substantially the same conduct" has not been definitively addressed in the jurisprudence of the Court,^° and invites the Chamber to interpret "conduct" in a flexible marmer, focusing on the general conduct of the suspect in relation to the context in which the crimes were committed rather than the conduct related to the direct commission of the crimes.^^ According to the interpretation of conduct forwarded by the Defence, the existence of national proceedings covering different crimes or factual allegations to those encompassed by the case before the Court, but involving the same general conduct on the part of the suspect would render a case inadmissible before the Court.^^

text: The Defence further submits that, once the existence of national proceedings in relation to the same person and the same conduct is established, it should be presumed that the State is able and willing to carry out such investigation or prosecution, and that the burden of proof in relation to the second limb of the admissibility test shifts to the party disputing this presumption. ^3

text: Nonetheless, the Defence provides information to the Chamber which, in its submission, establishes the willingness and ability of Côte d'Ivoire to investigate and prosecute the case. In particular, the Defence argues that the existence of numerous national proceedings related to the post-electoral crisis

text: 9 Admissibility Challenge, para. 52; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 9, line 22 - p. 10, line 12. 10 Admissibility Challenge, para. 39. 11 Admissibility Challenge, para. 43. 12 Admissibility Challenge, para. 43. 13 Admissibility Challenge, paras 57-58; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 10, line 23 - p. 11, line 5. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 5/14 11 June 2013 show both the ability and willingness of Côte d'Ivoire to carry out proceedings.^^ 12. In this regard, the Defence disputes the applicability and appropriateness of the form of "unwillingness" elaborated by Trial Chamber II in the case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, alleging that a State that is able to investigate or prosecute carmot relinquish its jurisdiction to the Court on the basis of mere convenience without jeopardising the complementarity principle.^^ The Defence argues that the form of "unwillingness" accepted by Trial Chamber II is not consistent with the text of

text: the Statute

text: or with the obligation of States under international law to prosecute serious crimes.^^ The Defence underscores that the short-sighted view of complementarity adopted by Trial Chamber II fails to take account of the wider goals of international criminal justice, in particular the need for national jurisdictions to build capacity to try such crimes domestically in order to involve the affected communities as part of the overall process of reconciliation and peace building.^^

text: B. Prosecution's Response 13. The Prosecutor submits that the Admissibility Challenge should be rejected on the basis that national proceedings are not ongoing in relation to the same case.^» It is emphasised that, although domestic proceedings against Mr Gbagbo for economic crimes have not been officially terminated, activity in relation to this case has been suspended since Mr Gbagbo's transfer to the

text: 14 Admissibility Challenge, paras 64-68, 72; Anxs 5-13; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 11, line 9 - p. 12, line 17. 15 Admissibility Challenge, paras 74-83; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 12, line 18 - p. 14, line 15. 16 Admissibility Challenge, paras 79-80. 17 Admissibility Challenge, para. 82. 18 Prosecutor's Response, paras 20-21. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 6/14 11 June 2013

text: Court in November 2011.^^ Therefore, the Prosecutor submits that, even if the domestic prosecution for economic crimes were considered to encompass "substantially the same conduct" as that underlying the charges before the Court, these domestic proceedings are currently inactive.^^

text: Regarding the definition of the same case, the Prosecutor disagrees with the Defence's interpretation of the same person/same conduct test. In particular, the Prosecutor contends that the "substantially the same conduct" test should not be interpreted in a manner that is so flexible that its purpose is undermined.^^ The Prosecutor argues that the threshold should be that "at a minimum, the national authorities are focused on the same course of conduct and series of events as the ICC, meaning that they are examining the person's criminal responsibility in the context of substantially the same incidents and underlying facts and allegations of criminal responsibility."^ Applying this test, the Prosecutor submits that the economic crimes referred to in the domestic proceedings relate to conduct aimed at obtaining funds, which is different from Mr Gbagbo's subsequent use of those funds to contribute to the crimes against humanity that form the basis of the charges before the Court.^

text: Finally, the Prosecutor disputes the Defence's allegations regarding the unwillingness test. The Prosecutor argues that Côte d'Ivoire has clearly demonstrated its will to prosecute perpetrators of crimes committed during the post-electoral crisis, but has validly relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Court in order for Mr Gbagbo to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.24

text: 19 Prosecutor's Response, paras 20-21. 20 Prosecutor's Response, para. 21. 21 Prosecutor's Response, paras 13 and 18. 22 Prosecutor's Response, para. 15. 23 Prosecutor's Response, para. 17. 24 Prosecutor's Response, paras 22-29. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 7/14 11 June 2013 c . OPCV's Observations 16. The OPCV contends that the only evidence provided by the Defence in support of its Admissibility Challenge is REDACTED.^s It is submitted that this document alone does not provide the slightest evidence that investigations or prosecutions against Mr Gbagbo for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court were REDACTED undertaken.^^

text: The OPCV contends that the domestic proceedings initiated against Mr Gbagbo relate to economic crimes only and do not encompass the same conduct as that which forms the basis of the charges before the Court. The OPCV disagrees with the Defence's broad understanding of the "same conduct" test and argues that, to the contrary, the test should be interpreted in a strict manner requiring identical incidents to be investigated at the national level for the case to be inadmissible before the Court.^^

text: In addition, the OPCV submits that, even if the Defence had proven the existence of national proceedings in relation to the same case, the second limb of the admissibility test would not be fulfilled because Côte d'Ivoire does not have the ability to genuinely carry out these proceedings.^»

text: D. Côte d'Ivoire's Observations 19. Côte d'Ivoire submits that the case against Mr Gbagbo is admissible because there are no relevant proceedings against him at the domestic level. Disagreeing with the Defence's contextual interpretation of the "substantially the same conduct" test. Côte d'Ivoire contends that it is only if the national

text: 25 OPCV's Observations, paras 24-25. 26 OPCV's Observations, para. 37. 27 OPCV's Observations, para. 40 ; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 36, line 4 - p. 37, line 6. 28 OPCV's Observations, paras 52-56 ; 22; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Transcript of Hearing, 19 February 2013, ICC-02/11-01/11-T-14-ENG, p. 37, line 11 - p. 38, line 8. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 8/14 11 June 2013 proceedings target "fondamentalement les mêmes faits" as the proceedings before the Court that the case would be inadmissible.^^ 20. Côte d'Ivoire clarifies that the REDACTED, submitted by the Defence as proof of the existence of proceedings against Mr Gbagbo, REDACTED as it was anticipated that a case against Mr Gbagbo would be brought before the Court.^ It is further submitted that the information contained in this document shows that REDACTED that no proceedings had been opened against Mr Gbagbo for the commission of violent crimes.^^

text: Côte d'Ivoire indicates that, in view of the initiation of proceedings before the Court against Mr Gbagbo, national authorities chose to refrain from opening an investigation into, or proceedings against Mr Gbagbo for violent crimes.^2 III. Analysis by the Chamber 22. The Chamber notes

text: articles 17

text: and

text: of the

text: Rome Statute

text: (the "Statute") and rules 58 and 59 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

text: In the view of the Chamber, the admissibility of a case must be determined on the basis of the factual situation in existence at the time of the admissibility proceedings. Pursuant to

text: article 17

text: (l)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the Court is required to determine that a case is inadmissible where "the case is being investigated or prosecuted". Thus, the investigation or prosecution must be ongoing at the time of the admissibility proceedings. Indeed, this has been the interpretation of the Appeals Chamber, which has provided guidance on the issue, as follows:

text: 29 Côte d'Ivoire's Observations, para. 13. 30 Côte d'Ivoire's Observations, para. 22. 31 Côte d'Ivoire's Observations, paras 23-26. 32 Côte d'Ivoire's Observations, para. 27. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 9/14 11 June 2013

text: "Generally speaking, the admissibility of a case must be determined on the basis of the facts as they exist at the time of the proceedings concerning the admissibility challenge. This is because the admissibility of a case under

text: article 17

text: (l)(a), (b) and (c) of

text: the Statute

text: depends primarily on the investigative and prosecutorial activities of States having jurisdiction. These activities may change over time."33

text: Therefore, in considering whether the case is admissible under article

text: 17(l)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: , the crucial question for the Chamber is whether active

text: steps are being taken in relation to the alleged prosecution of Mr Gbagbo in

text: Côte d'Ivoire at the time of the admissibility proceedings. To this end,

text: tangible proof must have been presented which supports the assertion that a

text: national investigation or prosecution is ongoing.^

text: The Defence contends that the case against Mr Gbagbo before the Court

text: is rendered inadmissible by proceedings that are alleged to be ongoing in

text: Côte d'Ivoire against Mr Gbagbo in relation to economic crimes.^^ As set out

text: above, in support of this contention, the Defence submits two press articles,

text: dated 18 August 2011 and 19 August 2011 respectively,^ and REDACTED.37

text: The Defence does not provide any tangible proof showing that active steps

text: have been taken in the alleged prosecution of Mr Gbagbo since August 2011,

text: relying instead on the absence of any indication that the proceedings have

text: been terminated as supporting the conclusion that they remain ongoing.^» The

text: Chamber cannot accept such an inference in light of the following.

text: 33 The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case, 25 September 2009,

text: (OA 8), para. 56. 34 The Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitied "Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to

text: Article 19

text: (2)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: ", 30 August 2011,

text: (OA), paras 2, 61 and 62. 35 Admissibility Challenge, para. 36. 36 Admissibility Challenge, Armexes 2 and 3. 37 Admissibility Challenge, para. 53, Annex 4. 38 Admissibility Challenge, para. 36.

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 10/14 11 June 2013

text: The Chamber notes that the Prosecutor has submitted documentary evidence confirming that Mr Gbagbo was formally charged with economic crimes in Côte d'Ivoire on 18 August 2011, a fact which was also disclosed in the Prosecutor's application for a warrant of arrest for Mr Gbagbo.^^ A number of other documents submitted by the Prosecutor shed light on the progress of these proceedings since Mr Gbagbo's surrender to the Court.

text: In particular, the Chamber notes that the Ivorian Ministre de la Justice, des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Publiques confirmed REDACTED that, to date, the proceedings in relation to economic crimes REDACTED are the only proceedings that have been initiated in Côte d'Ivoire against Mr Gbagbo.^^ REDACTED^i Furthermore, REDACTED the prosecution of Mr Gbagbo for economic crimes in Côte d'Ivoire has been impaired since his surrender to the Court and confirms that no action has been taken in relation to this file since November 2011.^^

text: In the view of the Chamber, the information and documents detailed above show that, although a prosecution for economic crimes may have been initiated against Mr Gbagbo REDACTED and that some initial procedural steps may have been undertaken prior to Mr Gbagbo's surrender to the Court in November 2011, there has been no activity in relation to the suspect since that date. In the circumstances, it has not been demonstrated that Mr Gbagbo "is being prosecuted" in Côte d'Ivoire, within the meaning of

text: article 17

text: (l)(a) of

text: the Statute

text: .4^ As a result, it is unnecessary for the Chamber to examine the

text: 39 Prosecutor's Response, para. 19; Prosecutor's Response, Annexes A, D, E, and F. 40 Prosecutor's Response, Annex A. REDACTED 41 Prosecutor's Response, Annex A; REDACTED 42 Prosecutor's Response, para. 20; Prosecutor's Response, Annex G; REDACTED. 43 The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled "Decision on the Application by the Govemment of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to

text: Article 19

text: (2)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: ", 30 August 2011,

text: (OA), para. 41: "The Appeals Chamber found that the No. ICC-02/11-01/11 11/14 11 June 2013 arguments of the parties and participants as to whether the alleged prosecution relates to the "same case". Similarly, it is unnecessary for the Chamber to consider the submissions on whether Côte d'Ivoire is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the prosecution.

text: In this connection, and taking into account the Defence's submissions with respect to the possibility of a State remaining inactive or relinquishing jurisdiction, the Chamber is guided by the findings of the Appeals Chamber in its judgment confirming the decision of Trial Chamber II in the Katanga case. The Appeals Chamber found that "in case of inaction, the question of unwillingness or inability does not arise; inaction on the part of a State having jurisdiction (that is, the fact that a State is not investigating or prosecuting, or has not done so) renders a case admissible before the Court" .^ Furthermore, the Chamber shares the view of the Appeals Chamber that "there may be merit in the argument that the sovereign decision of a State to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the Court may well be seen as complying with the 'duty to exercise [its] criminal jurisdiction' as envisaged in the [...] Preamble" .45

text: Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to

text: Article 19

text: (2)(b) of

text: the Statute

text: ", 30 August 2011,

text: (OA), para. 41: "The Appeals Chamber found that the words 'is being investigated' signify "the taking of steps directed at ascertaining whether those suspects are responsible for that conduct, for instance by interviewing witnesses or suspects, collecting documentary evidence, or carrying out forensic analyses [...] [U]nless investigative steps are actually taken in relation to the suspects who are the subject of the proceedings before the Court, it carmot be said that the same case is (currently) under investigation by the Court and by a national jurisdiction". 44 The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case, 25 September 2009,

text: (OA 8), paras 2, 75-78. 45 Idem, para. 85. No. ICC-02/11-01/11 12/14 11 June 2013

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 13/14 11 June 2013

text: ZlixJ. 'MlLjii

text: Judge Hans-Peter Kaul Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert Dated this 11 June 2013 At The Hague, The Netherlands

text: No. ICC-02/11-01/11 14/14 11 June 2013

title: The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo

type: avgorande