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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Legal Representation
The Chamber later designated Marie Edith Douzima
Lawson (LRV Douzima Lawson) and Assingambi
Zarambaud (LRV Zarambaud), both CAR nationals,
as said representatives. Understandably, the victims
were distressed and upset by this decision as, until
that time, they had relied on the bond previously
established with representatives of the OPCV with
whom a relationship of trust had been formed. Victims
expressed their concern to the Women’s Initiatives
that their interests and the particularities of each of
their experiences may not be well represented given
the new legal representatives did not know them, their
circumstances, the crimes committed against them
and the impact of these acts. Five victims in the Kenya
case have also objected the appointment of LRV Chana
as their legal representative, citing similar concerns.
Their filing is discussed in detail, below. From the
public record of the case at the time of writing this
<strong>Report</strong>, victims in the case of Muthaura et al do not
appear to have objected to LRV Anyah’s appointment.
Objections to legal representation by
victims in the case of Ruto et al
Following the 5 August 2011 decision by Pre-Trial
Chamber II in the Ruto et al case on common legal
representation for victims, which appointed Sureta
Chana as the Victims’ Common Legal Representative
for the 327 victims accepted to participate, on 31
August 2011 four victims (a/0041/10, a/0045/10,
a/0051/10 and a/0056/10) filed a motion with the Pre-
Trial Chamber objecting to her appointment as their
legal representative. 1932 In a separate, confidential,
filing on 5 September 2011, another victim (victim
a/0061/11) requested to join the previous request. 1933
The victims expressed ‘serious concern’ about the
appointment of LRV Chana as their legal representative
and about the procedure followed in respect of this
appointment. 1934 The motion was submitted on behalf
of the victims by the legal representatives with whom
they have worked for almost four years. 1935 In their
motion, the victims indicated that they felt that LRV
Chana had been imposed upon them by the Chamber,
and stressed that the legal representation agreement
of 2008 between them and their previous legal
representatives had not yet been terminated. 1936 The
victims argued that the Registrar’s selection procedure
contained ‘serious errors’ and ‘violations of law’ and
that, as a result, their rights as victims under the Rome
Statute had been violated.
In particular, the victims raised a number of errors
in the Registrar’s selection procedure. 1937 First, the
victims stated they had not been involved in the
procedure regarding the appointment of the common
legal representative. Second, according to the victims,
the Registrar did not give any consideration to their
views in the matter. Third, the victims were not
afforded an opportunity to organise themselves to
arrange (common) legal representation themselves.
The victims also noted that they did not know LRV
Chana and expressed concern that the timing of her
appointment – three weeks prior to the confirmation
hearing – precluded the construction of a meaningful
relationship with the appointed common legal
representative. They also raised concerns about the
high number of victims represented by one legal
representative (327) which ‘makes a meaningful
1932 ICC-01/09-01/11-314.
1933 The Registry submitted the filing as a confidential annex
on 6 September 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-322.
1934 ICC-01/09-01/11-314, para 4.
1935 The motion was submitted by Liesbeth Zegveld, Wambui
Njogu, Göran Sluiter and Arthur Igeria.
1936 ICC-01/09-01/11-314, paras 6, 8.
1937 ICC-01/09-01/11-314, para 13.
302