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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Legal Representation
truth to be known. 1885 LRV Nice and LRV Dixon also
challenged the ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unsupported’
assertions of the Prosecution and Defence regarding
their motivations and loyalties. 1886 They went on to
argue that
[n]egative views about the ICC or about
the prosecution of this case are quite
without significance to the issue of whether
someone qualifies as and can and should
be represented at the trial as a victim. It
is easy enough to contemplate a possible
conflict where an NGO wholly favourable to
the prosecution identifies those who share
its views as potential witnesses or victims
for participation in the trial. That process
of identification in no way disqualifies the
people concerned from being involved… Here
there is no suggestion of any impropriety
and the process of identification of victims is
without basis for complaint. 1887
They thus requested the Chamber to reject the
requests made by the Prosecution and Defence.
On 8 December 2010, in an oral decision at the start
of the confirmation hearing, the Pre-Trial Chamber
denied the Prosecution and Defence objections to the
continued representation of victims a/1646/10 and
a/1647/10 by LRV Nice and LRV Dixon. 1888 The Chamber
noted that victims a/1646/10 and a/1647/10 had been
granted the right to participate in the proceedings
on 29 October 2010, but no objections to their legal
representation had been raised by either of the parties
to the case until 48 hours before the confirmation of
charges hearing. The Chamber found that no concrete
evidence of a conflict of interest had been presented
and therefore rejected the request regarding
termination of representation.
Common legal representation in the
Banda & Jerbo case
On 21 April 2011, the Trial Chamber ordered the
Registry to consult with the 89 participating victims
in the Banda & Jerbo case regarding common legal
representation. 1889 The Registry held consultations
with all the legal representatives of victims at the
ICC on 20 May 2011. At this meeting, LRV Nice and
LRV Dixon advanced arguments for the separate
representation of the Darfuri victim participants in
the Banda & Jerbo case, which was followed up with a
written submission on 30 July setting out the reasons
justifying separate legal representation. On 21 June,
the Registry filed a report with the Trial Chamber
on its progress in implementing the Chamber’s
decision on common legal representation. 1890 The
Registry noted that it had not yet consulted directly
with the participating victims, and acknowledged
that the preferences and interests of victims ‘should
be the paramount consideration in organising
common legal representation’, 1891 but concluded
that ‘conducting further meetings with the victims
at this stage will not in practice enable the victims
themselves, as a group, to choose common legal
representatives’. 1892 The Registry recognised the
potential necessity of grouping the Darfuri victims
under a separate legal representation team, but
concluded that it required more information to assess
whether there was a sufficient justification for this
course of action. The Chamber ordered the Registry to
finalise its consultations and to inform the Chamber
of the common legal representatives chosen by the
participating victims (or, if the victims were unable to
choose, the Registry’s recommendations on common
legal representation) by 15 August 2011.
On 18 July, the legal representatives of all of the
victims in the case filed joint observations on the
procedure being followed by the Registry in relation
to the appointment of common legal representation,
expressing concern that the Registry had disregarded
the Chamber’s order, which required consultation with
the victims first, and arguing that it would violate
both the Chamber’s order and Rule 90 of the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence for the Registry to select a new
legal representative and to ‘impose such a person(s) on
the victims without consulting them or giving effect
to their agreement as to legal representation’. 1893 On
5 August, the Registry submitted an additional report
to the Chamber, claiming to have been unable to meet
1885 ICC-02/05-03/09-115, paras 12-14.
1886 ICC-02/05-03/09-115, paras 17-22.
1887 ICC-02/05-03/09-115, para 26.
1888 ICC-02/05-03/09-T-9-Red-ENG, p 3 – p 7.
1889 ICC-02/05-03/09-138.
1890 ICC-02/05-03/09-164-Red.
1891 ICC-02/05-03/09-164-Red, para 10.
1892 ICC-02/05-03/09-164-Red, para 14.
1893 ICC-02/05-03/09-182, para 12.
298