The Prosecutor v. Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona
Original: English No. ICC-01/14-01/18 Date: 28 April 2020
TRIAL CHAMBER V
Before: Judge Bertram Schmitt, Presiding Judge Judge Péter Kovács Judge Chang-ho Chung
SITUATION IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC II
IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. ALFRED YEKATOM AND PATRICE-EDOUARD NGAÏSSONA
Public
Decision on the Yekatom Defence’s Admissibility Challenge
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 1/12 28 April 2020
Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to:
The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Alfred Yekatom
Fatou Bensouda Mylène Dimitri James Stewart Peter Robinson Kweku Vanderpuye
Counsel for Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona
Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops
Legal Representatives of Victims Legal Representatives of Applicants
Abdou Dangabo Moussa Elisabeth Rabesandratana Yaré Fall Marie-Edith Douzima-Lawson Paolina Massidda Dmytro Suprun
Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants for Participation/Reparations
The Office of Public Counsel for Victims The Office of Public Counsel for the Defence
States Representatives Amicus Curiae
Central African Republic
REGISTRY Registrar Counsel Support Section
Peter Lewis
Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section
Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 2/12 28 April 2020
TRIAL CHAMBER V of the International Criminal Court, in the case of The
Prosecutor v. Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, having regard to
Articles 17, 19, 64(2) and 68 of the Rome Statute (the ‘ Statute ’) , issues this ‘ Decision
on the Yekatom Defence’s Admissibility Challenge’ .
I. Procedural history and submissions
1 On 30 May 2014, the Central African Republic (the ‘CAR’) referred the
situation in the CAR since 1 August 2012 to the Office of the Prosecutor (the
1 ‘Prosecution’).
2 On 11 November 2018, Pre- Trial Chamber II (the ‘PTC II’) issued a warrant of
2 arrest against Mr Yekatom. On 17 November 2018, the CAR authorities
surrendered him to the Court. On 23 November 2018, Mr Yekatom made his
4 initial appearance before PTC II.
3 On 11 December 2019, PTC II confirmed several charges against Mr Yekatom
5 ( the ‘Confirmation Decision’ ).
4 On 17 March 2020, the Registry transmitted the record of the proceedings to
6 this Chamber, including the Confirmation Decision.
5 On the same day, the Yekatom Defence (the ‘Defence’) challenged the
admissibility of the case against Mr Yekatom (the ‘Admissibility Challenge’
7 and ‘Mr Yekatom’s Case’ , respectively). In essence, the Defence requests that
1 Presidency, Annex 1 to the Decision Assigning the Situation in the Central African Republic II to Pre-Trial Chamber II, 18 June 2014, ICC-01/14-1- Anx1 (the ‘Referral’). 2 Warrant of Arrest for Alfred Yekatom, ICC-01/14-01/18-1-Conf-Exp, confidential ex parte, only available to the Prosecution and the Yekatom Defence (public redacted version notified on 17 November 2018). See Decision on the confirmation of charges against Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona 11 December 2019, ICC-01/14-01/18-403-Conf (public redacted version notified on 20 December 2019, ICC-01/14-01/18-403-Red), para. 3. 4 See transcript of hearing, ICC-01/14-01/18-T-001-ENG. 5 Confirmation Decision, ICC-01/14-01/18-403-Red. 6 Transmission to Trial Chamber V of the record of the proceedings, including the Decision on the confirmation of charges against Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, ICC-01/14-01/18-455 (with Annex 1, under seal ex parte, only available to the Registry; and Annexes 2 and 3, confidential ex parte, only available to the Registry). 7 Yekatom De fence’s Admissibility Challenge – Complementarity, ICC-01/14-01/18-456.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 3/12 28 April 2020
th e Chamber declare Mr Yekatom’s C ase inadmissible on the grounds that the
CAR authorities are ‘ now capable to prosecute him in their own Special
8 Criminal Court ’ (the ‘SCC’). At the same time, the Defence requests that the
Chamber take a step-by-step approach by (i) inviting ‘ written submissions from
the CAR authorities addressing whether, notwithstanding the OTP’s invocation
9 of Article 37 [of the CAR’s Organic Law 15/003 (the ‘Organic Law’) ], it
would be willing and able to investigate and prosecute Mr. Yekatom’s case if
given the opportunity to do so ’ ; (ii) ‘ if the answer is in the affirmative, giv[ing]
the CAR authorities a fixed period of time to open an investigation and/or
commence a prosecution of Mr. Yekatom and encourage the OTP to share the
results of its investigation with the SCC to enable it to act expeditiously’ and
(iii) ‘ if an active investigation and/or prosecution has been commenced during
this period, declar[ing] Mr. Yekatom’s case inadmissible and order his transfer
10 to the custody of the CAR authorities’ (the ‘ Sequential Approach’).
11 6. The Defence further submits that (i) the SCC is now operational; (ii) the
Chamber should give the CAR authorities the opportunity to open an
investigation and prosecution, in accordance with the so-called ‘qua lified
12 deference approach’; (iii) States have the primary responsibility to exercise
13 criminal jurisdiction in line with the complementarity principle; (iv) the
14 Appeals Chamber’s established ‘inactivity test’ (the ‘Inactivity Test’) has been
15 criticised as ‘insufficiently encouraging State capacity’ ; (v) finding the case
inadmissible could ‘remove the impediment to an investigation and prosecution
of Mr. Yekatom by the SCC imposed by Article 37’ of the CAR’s Organic Law ,
16 which gives primacy to the ICC; (vi) Article 37 of the Organic Law might be
17 irreconcilable with the principle of complementarity; (vii) Mr Yekatom ’s
8 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 1. 9 Loi organique n. 15/003 portant création, organisation et fonctionnement de la Cour Pénale Spéciale, https://cps-rca.com/documents/Loi_Cour_penale_speciale_.pdf (last accessed on 28 April 2020). 10 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 60-63. See also paras 38-41. 11 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 11. 12 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 14-15, 34-37. 13 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 16-23. 14 See para. 17 below. 15 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 26-27. 16 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 31. 17 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 27-30.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 4/12 28 April 2020
prosecution at the SCC together with other lower level zone commanders would
avoid ‘vertical impunity’ between those most responsible and those who are
18 not; and (viii ) Mr Yekatom’s transfer to the Court should not serve as an
19 impediment to his transfer to the SCC.
7 Nonetheless, the Defence acknowledges that there are currently no active
investigations or prosecutions against Mr Yekatom for the events for which he
20 is being prosecuted at the Court and that the Inactivity Test is thus currently
21 not satisfied. The Defence, however, argues that this absence of investigations
and prosecutions in the CAR results from the fact that the SCC did not exist at
the time the Prosecution opened its investigations and that by the time it did
exist, Article 37 of the Organic Law precluded it from investigating cases due to
22 the Court’s primacy.
8 On 30 March 2020, the Prosecution filed its response to the Admissibility
23 Challenge. The Prosecution requests that the Chamber reject the Admissibility
Challenge for the following reasons: (i) the case is admissible as a matter of fact
24 and law; and (ii) the Admissibility Challenge ‘effectively amounts to a request
for the Chamber to defer its proper exercise of jurisdiction in favour of
“promoting” a theoretical and presently non -existent investigation or
25 prosecution of his alleged crimes in the [CAR].’
9 In the Prosecution’s submission (i) the Defence’s concession that there are
presently no active investigations or prosecutions is ‘fatal to [its] article 17
challenge’ and the Defence fails to meet this provision ’s ‘ clear and
26 unambiguous ’ test; (ii) the Defence’s Admissibility Challenge represents
27 merely a policy recommendation; (iii) that finding the case inadmissible on the
18 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 44. See also paras 51-52. 19 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 55. 20 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 13, 32. 21 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 33. 22 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 32. 23 Prosecution’s Response to the “Yekatom Defence’s Admissibility Challenge – Complementarity ”, ICC-01/14-01/18-466 (the ‘Prosecution Response’). 24 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, para. 1. 25 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, para. 1. 26 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, paras 2, 4. See also para. 6. 27 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, para. 6.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 5/12 28 April 2020
basis of a theoretical possibility that a domestic jurisdiction may eventually
28 investigate and prosecute ‘ risks impunity, rather than combats it ’ . With regard
to the Defence’s submission s on Article 37 of the Organic Law, the Prosecution
argues that (i) the Court should not assess the validity of the CAR’s national
29 legislation; (ii) the Court cannot force a State that has chosen to relinquish its
30 jurisdiction to pursue a case in lieu of the Court; and (iii) any conflict between
Article 37 of the Organic Law and Article 17 of the Statute only arises where
national authorities wish to exercise their rights, which is presently not the
31 case.
32 10. On 17 April 2020, after an extension of deadlines, the Common Legal
Representatives of the Former Child Soldiers and the Common Legal
Representatives of the Victims of Other Crimes (jointly, the ‘C LRV ’) submitted
33 their response to the Admissibility Challenge. The CLRV request that the
Admissibility Challenge be rejected due to the absence of any active
34 investigation or prosecution against Mr Yekatom in the CAR. In this regard,
the CLRV recall the Appeals Chamber’s ‘ settled case law ’ on the Inactivity
35 Test, and its two-step analysis, according to which the Chamber must first
assess whether there are ongoing investigations or prosecutions and, only if the
36 answer is in the affirmative, address the question of unwillingness or inability.
37 11. Nonetheless, the CLRV submit that the CAR authorities are unwilling and that
38 the SCC is unable to conduct investigations or prosecutions against Mr
Yekatom. Notably, the CLRV submit that (i) by adopting Article 37 of the
Organic Law, the CAR authorities expressed their will to defer cases falling
28 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, para. 11. 29 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, paras 16-17. 30 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, paras 18-19. 31 Prosecution Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-466, para. 20. 32 Email from the Chamber to the CLRV, the Prosecution, the Yekatom and the Ngaissona Defence, 25 March 2020, at 18:18. 33 Common Legal Representatives’ Joint Observations on the “Yekatom Defence’s Admissibility Challenge – Complementarity”, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Conf (public redacted version notified the same day, ICC-01/14-01/18-482- Red) (the ‘CLRV Response’). 34 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 23-25, 44. 35 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 54-62. See also para. 17 below. 36 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 20-22. 37 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 27-45. 38 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 47-52.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 6/12 28 April 2020
39 under both jurisdictions to the Court; (ii) the CAR authorities have expressed
40 their preference for Mr Yekatom being tried before the Court; (iii) the CAR
41 has never challenged the admissibility Mr Yekatom’s Case; and (iv) the SCC
does presently not have an operational structure in place to assist and protect
42 hundreds and possibly thousands of victims and witnesses.
12 Moreover, the CLRV argue that the Defence’s proposed Sequential Approach is
43 impracticable and unacceptable for the victims, inter alia, because: (i) given
the advanced stage of proceedings and the Court’s finite resources, the Chamber
44 should not serve as a monitoring body to national authorities; (ii) the CAR
does not have the resources to investigate and prosecute Mr Yekatom and the
45 SCC is struggling financially; (iii) Mr Yekatom ’s prosecution in the CAR
46 might be hindered by his parliamentary immunity; and (iv) the Sequential
Approach would delay the proceedings and not be in the victim’s interests , who
47 have been awaiting justice for over six years.
13 Finally, the CLRV present the following victims ’ views of and concerns: (i) the
victims are concerned that the late timing of the Admissibility Challenge will
48 delay the proceedings; (ii) the victims consider the national jurisdiction unable
to investigate and prosecute Mr Yekatom and fear that the SCC would not take
49 the rights afforded to them by the Court’s framework into account , in
50 particular with respect to their protection; (iii) the victims believe that
51 Mr Yekatom may still have some influence over armed Anti-Balaka elements;
(iv) the victims fear that their right to reparations would be lessened if the SCC
39 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 3, 28. 40 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 3, 30. 41 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 3, 36. 42 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 50. 43 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 63-71. 44 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 67. 45 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 68. 46 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 69. 47 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 70. See also para 85. 48 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 5, 73. 49 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 5, 76, 78. 50 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 80. 51 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 76.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 7/12 28 April 2020
52 tried Mr Yekatom; and (v ) they fear that Mr Yekatom’s presence in Bangui 53 54 will endanger their safety and well-being, and that he may evade detention.
II. Analysis
14 The Chamber notes at the outset that it is not entirely discernible from the
Defence’s Admissibility Challenge whether the requested relief at this point is 55 to find the case inadmissible ( the ‘Inadmissibility Request’ ), or that the
Chamber adopt the proposed Sequential Approach (the ‘ Sequential Approach 56 Request ’) . However, the Chamber interprets the Admissibility Challenge to
contain two alternative requests and will therefore address them separately in
the following.
A. Inadmissibility Request
15 Article 19(1) of the Statute mandates the Court to ‘satisfy itself that it has
jurisdiction in any case brought before it.’
16 Article 17 (1) of the Statute provides in its relevant part that:
[…] the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; […]
17 The Chamber recalls that the Appeals Chamber has repeatedly applied the 57 Inactivity Test in its admissibility assessments. According to this test, a
52 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 79. 53 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, paras 5, 81. 54 CLRV Response, ICC-01/14-01/18-482-Red, para. 84. 55 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras. 1 and 65. 56 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras in 38-41, 60-63. 57 The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 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, ICC-01/04-01/07- 1497 (the ‘ Katanga Appeals Judgment ’), paras 74 - 80; The Prosecutor v. William Somoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, 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 Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute", 30 August 2011, ICC-01/09-01/11-307 (the ‘ Ruto
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 8/12 28 April 2020
Chamber must ask (i) whether there are ongoing investigations or prosecutions,
or (ii) whether there have been investigations in the past, and the State having
58
jurisdiction has decided not to prosecute the person concerned. Only if the
answers to these questions are in the affirmative, does the question of
59
unwillingness or inability of a State become relevant. The assessment of
unwillingness or inability therefore necessarily depends on investigative and
60
prosecutorial activities by the State. Consequently, in the case of inactivity,
61
the question of unwillingness and inability does not arise. This assessment
must be made ‘on the basis of the facts as they exist at the time of the
62
proceed ings concerning the admissibility challenge.’
18 The Chamber agrees with the Appeals Chamber that a different interpretation of
Article 17(1) of the Statute would be irreconcilable with the wording of the
provision and the overarching aim of the Statute to ‘put an end to impunity’ and
ensure that ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community
et al. A ppeals Judgment’), para. 44; The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, 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 Ap plication by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute, 30 August 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11- 274 (the ‘ Kenyatta et al. Admissibility Judgment’), para. 40; The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Judgment on the appeal of Libya against the decision of Pre- Trial Chamber I of 31 May 2013 entitled “Decision on the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi", 21 May 2014, ICC-01/11-01/11-547- Red (the ‘ Gaddafi Appeals Judgment’), para. 213; The Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo, Judgment on the appeal of Côte d’Ivoire against the decision of Pre - Trial Chamber I of 11 December 2014 entitled “Decision on Côte d’Ivoire’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Simone Gbagbo”, 2 7 May 2015, ICC- 02/11-01/12-75-Conf (public redacted version notified the same day, ICC-02/11-01/12-75-Red) (the ‘ Simone Gbagbo Appeals Judgment’), paras 58 -59. 58 Katanga Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 78; Gaddafi Appeals Judgment, ICC- 01/11-01/11-547-Red, para. 213. 59 Katanga Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, paras 75-76; Kenyatta et al. Admissibility Judgment, ICC-01/09-02/11-274, para. 40; Gaddafi Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/11-01/11-547-Red, para. 213. 60 Katanga Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, paras 56, 76. 61 Katanga Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 78. See also Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Decision on the admissibility of the case under article 19(1) of the Statute, 10 March 2009, ICC-02/04-01/05-377, para. 52 (the ‘ Kony et al. Admissibility Decision’) . 62 Katanga Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, paras 56, 80; Pre-Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi , Decision on the ‘Admissibility Challenge by Dr. Saif Al -Islam Gad[d]afi pursuant to Articles 17(1)(c), 19 and 20(3) of the Rome Statute, 5 April 2019, ICC-01/1- 01/11-662, para. 56. See also Ruto et al. Appeals Judgment, ICC-01/09-01/11-307, para. 44; Kenyatta et al. Admissibility Judgment’, ICC-01/09-02/11-274, para. 40; Simone Gbagbo Appeals Judgment, ICC-02/11-01/12-75-Red, para. 59; Kony et al. Admissibility Decision, ICC-02/04-01/05-377, para. 52.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 9/12 28 April 2020
63 as a whole must not go unpunished.’ These aims would be jeopardised if, ‘ despite the inaction of a State, a case would be inadmissible before the Court, 64 unless that State is unwilling or unable to open investigations’. As pointed out by the Appeals Chamber, this would result in a situation, where the ‘Court would be unable to exercise its jurisdiction over a case as long as the State is theoretically willing and able to investigate and to prosecute the case, even 65 though that State has no intention of doing so.’
19 With regard to Mr Yekatom’s Case, the Chamber notes, firstly, that the Defence itself concedes that there are presently no investigations or prosecutions against 66 Mr Yekatom at the SCC and that the Inactivity Test is currently not satisfied.
20 Second, there is no indication that the CAR authorities have any intention to investigate or prosecute Mr Yekatom. Notably, the Chamber recalls that the CAR authorities not only referred the situation in its territory since 1 August 67 2012 to the Court, but subsequently implemented the Court’s warrant of arrest 68 against Mr Yekatom by transferring him to the Court and have up to this date not challenged the Court’s jurisdiction . Moreover, the Chamber notes that 69 nothing in the recent CAR observations indicates that the CAR authorities intend to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction or to investigate or prosecute Mr Yekatom in the future.
21 In light of the above, the Chamber concludes that the CAR authorities, including the SCC, are presently inactive insofar as Mr Yekatom’s Case is concerned. For this reason alone, and irrespective of the CAR authorities’ hypothetical willingness or ability to investigate and prosecute, the Chamber is
63 Katanga Appeals Judgement, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 79, referring to the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Preamble of the Statute. 64 Katanga Appeals Judgement, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 79. 65 Katanga Appeals Judgement, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 79. 66 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, paras 13, 32-33. 67 Referral, ICC-01/14-1-Anx1. See also Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 6. 68 Confirmation Decision, ICC-01/14-01/18-403-Red, para. 3. 69 Annex II to the Transmission of observations from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Central African Republic on interim release of Alfred Yekatom, 14 April 2020, ICC-01/14-01/18-478-Conf- AnxII.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 10/12 28 April 2020
70 of the view that the case against Mr Yekatom is admissible. Consequently, the Chamber will not address the question of willingness and ability.
B. Sequential Approach Request
22 While the Chamber is mindful of the complementarity principle, it also stresses that increasing or encouraging State capacity for the investigation and prosecution of the most serious international crimes is not within the Chamber’s 71 purview. On the contrary, the Chamber must limit its decisions to the judicial 72 matters at hand. In this regard, the Chamber also recalls the findings by the Bureau on Complementarity that ‘[i]ssues arising from the admissibility o f cases before the Court under article 17 of the Rome Statute all remain a judicial 73 matter to be addressed by the judges of the Court. ’
23 Additionally, the Chamber notes that Articles 64(2) and 68 of the Statute mandate the Chamber to ensure that the trial is expeditious, with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard to the protection of victims and witnesses.
24 Accordingly, the Defence’s Sequential Approach Request is rejected.
25 Lastly, a s regards the Defence’s submission that other Chambers have sought 74 observations from States on admissibility before ruling on the challenge, the Chamber notes that in light of the Defence’s concession that there are currently no proceedings against Mr Yekatom and the other reasons listed above, no further observations were required to adjudicate the present Admissibility Challenge.
70 See also Katanga Appeals Judgement, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, para. 80. 71 See also Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on complementarity, ICC-ASP/17/34, para. 23 (IV. Views of the Court); Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on complementarity, ICC-ASP/18/25, para. 27 (IV. Views of the Court). 72 See also Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on complementarity, ICC-ASP/17/34, para. 16 (II. General findings), para. 23 (IV. Views by the Court); Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on complementarity, ICC-ASP/18/25, para. 27 (IV. Views of the Court). 73 See also Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Bureau on complementarity, ICC-ASP/17/34, para. 16 (II. General findings). 74 Admissibility Challenge, ICC-01/14-01/18-456, para. 38.
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 11/12 28 April 2020
FOR THESE REASONS, THE CHAMBER HEREBY
REJECTS the Inadmissibility Request, and
REJECTS the Sequential Approach Request.
Done in both English and French, the English version being authoritative.
________________________
Judge Bertram Schmitt
Presiding Judge
_________________________ _______________________
Judge Péter Kovács Judge Chang-ho Chung
Dated this Tuesday, 28 April 2020 At The Hague, The Netherlands
No: ICC-01/14-01/18 12/12 28 April 2020