Gender Report Card on the International Criminal ... - YWCA Canada

Trial Proceedings
2007. 1371 Throughout the proceedings, Katanga
had argued that his French was not proficient
to allow him to participate in the proceedings
without a Lingala interpreter present in
the courtroom and the translation of court
documents. He later withdrew his request for the
translation of documents. 1372
In its decision, the Chamber explicitly noted
that the costs of translation were justifiable
when deemed necessary ‘because Article 67 of
the Statute stipulates that a language should
be used that is understood and spoken by
the suspect’. 1373 The Chamber requested that
when putting questions to the accused for the
remainder of the proceedings, they ‘should
be short and phrased in simple language. …
The French used should be easily accessible’ to
him. 1374
At the conclusion of its observations during the
hearing, the Ngudjolo Defence team stated that
its client would testify in Lingala. 1375 Language
issues also arose in the Mbarushimana case and
the Banda & Jerbo case, discussed further in the
OTP section of this <strong>Report</strong>.
Judicial site visit
On 26 August 2011, the Chamber requested the
parties and participants to confirm their wish to
make a judicial site visit to Bogoro. 1376 The parties
were asked to submit detailed observations
regarding: the specific locations to be visited;
the precise points of interest at these locations;
what unresolved issue such a visit would
assist in clarifying; the timing of a site visit;
and, any procedural matters to be addressed.
The Chamber noted in its request that the
proposed site visit would necessarily be of a
limited duration and ‘must make a meaningful
contribution to the fact-finding process’, urging
the parties to reply with precision. 1377
The issue of a potential site visit was first raised
on 13 November 2008, when the Chamber, in
preparation for its first status conference, invited
the parties and participants to make written
observations on such a visit. 1378 The Chamber
explained that travel to the DRC was intended
‘to gain better knowledge of the situation
which should enable us to clarify certain points
that have been held in abeyance during the
presentation of the case’. 1379 The Chamber
had requested observations on the proposed
location, whether the participants believed a
judicial site visit to Bogoro ‘could afford [the
Court] a greater understanding of the case’, and
if such a visit was sought, whether it would be
more appropriate prior to or during the hearing
on the merits.
All participants had responded in the
affirmative. The Prosecution initially expressed
support for the proposed site visit, having
argued during a 29 November 2010 status
conference that a judicial site visit would
allow the Chamber to understand not only
the geography but also the cultural and social
1371 ICC-01/04-01/07-78.
1372 ICC-01/04-01/07-522, para 19.
1373 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-315-ENG, p 10 lines 2-3.
1374 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-315-ENG, p 9 lines 16-18.
1375 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-315-ENG, p 6 line 1.
1376 ICC-01/04-01/07-3131.
1377 ICC-01/04-01/07-3131, para 11.
1378 ICC-01/04-01/07-747-tENG, para 13(3).
1379 ICC-01/04-01/07-3131, para 8. The Chamber did not note
what those ‘certain points’ regarded.
232