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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Legal Representation
Objection to victims’ legal representative
in the Banda & Jerbo case
As described in more detail in the section on Victim
Participation, above, a total number of 89 victims have
been accepted to participate in the Banda & Jerbo
case. 1870 All 89 victims were accepted to participate in
a decision of 29 October 2010. 1871 As of 14 September
2011, all are represented by Hélène Cissé, with Jens
Dieckmann as her associate counsel. 1872 However, prior
to the confirmation of charges hearing, there were a
number of legal representatives acting in the case.
An objection to victims’ legal representation was filed
by both the Prosecution and Defence in the Banda
& Jerbo case in December 2010, immediately before
the confirmation of charges hearing. The Prosecution
objected to the representation of participating victims
a/1646/10 and a/1647/10 by Legal Representatives
of Victims Geoffrey Nice (LRV Nice) and Rodney Dixon
(LRV Dixon) in the confirmation hearing and any
subsequent proceedings. 1873 The Prosecution argued
that these two victims were actively supported in their
participation by the Sudan International Defence Group
(SIDG) and the Sudan Workers Trade Unions Federation
(SWTUF), two organisations, which were acting as
proxy for the Sudanese Government and President
Al’Bashir. 1874 The SIDG and SWTUF were allegedly acting
as intermediaries for the two participating victims
represented by LRV Nice and LRV Dixon. The Prosecution
expressed concern that the continued representation
of these two victims by LRV Nice and LRV Dixon would
significantly compromise the trial, and argued that ‘the
entities and counsel [had] previously tried several times
to inject themselves into the court’s proceedings to
make their political statements against its jurisdiction,
speaking ultimately on behalf of President Al’Bashir’. 1875
The Prosecution went on to argue that ‘President
Al’Bashir is using his authority to support and promote
the participation of Messrs Nice and Dixon in the
representation of these victims’. 1876 The Prosecution
called on the Pre-Trial Chamber to exercise its ‘inherent
duty to protect the integrity of its proceedings and
proper administration of justice to and to prevent
actions that will lead to an abuse of process’ and
requested the Chamber to substitute the victims’ legal
representatives. 1877
1870 According to figures provided by the VPRS by email dated
14 September 2011.
1871 ICC-02/05-03/09-89.
1872 ICC-02/05-03/09-215.
1873 ICC-02/05-03/09-110.
1874 ICC-02/05-03/09-110. For more information on the
involvement of the SIDG and SWTUF, see further <strong>Gender</strong>
<strong>Report</strong> <strong>Card</strong> 2010, p 108-109 and <strong>Gender</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>Card</strong>
2009, p 146-147.
1875 ICC-02/05-03/09-110, paras 4 and 27.
1876 ICC-02/05-03/09-110, para 28.
1877 ICC-02/05-03/09-110, para 30.
The Defence also expressed serious concerns about the
involvement of the intermediaries (SIDG and SWTUF)
and their legal representatives (LRV Nice and LRV
Dixon) in this case. 1878 The Defence alleged that the
legal representatives intended to make submissions
beyond the proper scope of confirmation and the
personal interests of their clients, 1879 and emphasised
that it was imperative for the orderly and fair progress
of the case that victims’ participation achieved what
it was intended to, and that victims do not become
surrogates or pawns for other parties in the court
room in a bid to advance other goals. 1880 The Defence
argued that there was every reason to be concerned
about whether the victims would feel confident or
even able to safely articulate any concerns they may
have to intermediaries that are so closely allied to
the State. 1881 Furthermore, the Defence argued that
there had been a violation of the Code of Professional
Conduct due to the lack of written consent from the
participating victims to their legal representation
and the payment of legal fees to LRV Nice and LRV
Dixon by the SIDG and SWTUF. Agreeing with the
Prosecution’s filing, the Defence argued that the
original clients of LRV Nice and LRV Dixon (namely the
SIDG and SWTUF) were now using victim participation
as a device to allow them to intervene in proceedings
‘to pursue the same goals and raise the same points
that they [had] sought to raise in other cases arising
out of the Situation’, 1882 and requested that the
legal representatives should be prevented from
participating any further in the proceedings.
In response, LRV Nice and LRV Dixon argued that no
conflict of interest of any kind had been identified by
them, nor was one forecasted. 1883 They acknowledged
that they were subject to the Court’s Rules and Code
of Conduct as legal representatives, but asserted
that they would comply with all requirements
of confidentiality in the case. 1884 They noted that
victims a/1646/10 and a/1647/10 were the only two
participating victims in the proceedings who were
currently living in Darfur, that they had witnessed
the attack on the Haskanita base and that, although
in their application for participation the victims had
questioned the appropriateness of the involvement
of an international court and the legitimacy and true
motivations of the proceedings, they merely wished
to inform the ICC judges of their concerns and for the
1878 ICC-02/05-03/09-113.
1879 ICC-02/05-03/09-113, para 7.
1880 ICC-02/05-03/09-113, para 18.
1881 ICC-02/05-03/09-113, para 23.
1882 ICC-02/05-03/09-113, para 29.
1883 ICC-02/05-03/09-115, para 7.
1884 ICC-02/05-03/09-115, para 9.
297