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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Legal Representation
representation impossible’. 1938 Lastly, the victims
stated that the legal representatives with whom they
have been working for the last four years had not been
consulted by the Registry upon the selection of the
common legal representative.
In addition, the victims also argued that their right
under Regulation 79(3), pursuant to which victims
have 30 days to review the Registrar’s choice of a
common legal representative, ‘has been rendered
ineffective and inapplicable by the Chamber’s decision’,
which was rendered four days after the Registry’s
proposal for common legal representation, discussed
above.
On 5 September 2011, the Registry submitted
additional information relating to the victims’
motion. 1939 Having already set out the steps taken
to incorporate the views of the victims regarding
participation in its proposal for common legal
representation of 5 August 2011, the Registry
submitted information to the Chamber relating to
the former legal representation of the four victims.
The Registry observed that in November/December
2009, these four victims submitted applications
for reparations through their legal representatives
Liesbeth Zegveld (LRV Zegveld), Mbuthi Gathenji (LRV
Gathenji), Arthur Igeria (LRV Igeria) and Boniface
Njiru (LRV Njiru). It was only in June 2011 that three
of the four victims produced new powers of attorney
indicating that LRV Gathenji and LRV Njiru intended to
withdraw their representation and that LRV Zegveld,
LRV Igeria, Göran Sluiter (LRV Sluiter) and Mary
Rambui Njogu (LRV Njogu) continued to represent
them. 1940 LRV Gathenji and LRV Njiru, however, did
not file a request under Regulation 82 to withdraw
their representation. In light of these observations,
the Registry noted that, contrary to the motion, the
lawyers have not represented these victims ‘for the
last nearly four years’ as the power of attorney was
only submitted in June 2011, one of the victims never
actually submitted a power of attorney appointing
LRV Njogu and LRV Sluiter, and – pending the request
for withdrawal from LRV Gathenji and LRV Njiru – the
legal representation of victims a/0041/10, a/0045/10
and a/0051/10 remained unclear prior to LRV Chana’s
appointment. 1941 The Registry also brought to the
attention of the Chamber the fact that two of the
four victims (a/0041/10 and a/0056/10) had actually
met with LRV Chana and the Registry on 24 August
in Nairobi. The contentions by these victims that they
have ‘never spoken to her’ are thus moot. 1942 The
1938 ICC-01/09-01/11-314, para 13.
1939 ICC-01/09-01/11-320.
1940 ICC-01/09-01/11-320, para 4.
1941 ICC-01/09-01/11-320, para 5.
1942 ICC-01/09-01/11-320, para 8.
Registry stressed that the victims also did not object to
LRV Chana’s representation at this meeting. 1943
In a decision on 9 September 2011, Judge Trendafilova,
acting as Single Judge of Pre-Trial Chamber II,
recalled a previous decision concerning a request for
reconsideration by the Defence, in which she rejected
the approach of reconsideration of previous judicial
rulings, in particular when the Chamber ‘has ruled on
the issue sub judice in good faith and considering the
information available to it as correct and reliable’. 1944
The Single Judge noted that the victims’ motion is
again a motion for reconsideration and as such must
be rejected.
However, given the sensitivity of the issues raised,
the Single Judge did provide some considerations
and clarifications on the issues raised by the victims.
First, the Single Judge noted that her decision
appointing LRV Chana as the victims’ Common
Legal Representative was not made pursuant to
Regulation 79(3), as argued by the victims, but
was rendered under Regulation 80(1), pursuant to
which ‘the Chamber, following consultation with
the Registrar, may appoint a legal representative of
victims where the interests of justice so require’. In
those circumstances, the Single Judge noted that
there had thus been no violation of the victims’ right
under Regulation 79(3). The Single Judge also observed
that the fact that victims a/0041/10 and a/0056/10
signed a declaration that they did not know LRV Chana
while having met her in August 2011 was ‘incorrect
and misleading’. 1945 The Single Judge noted that
this ‘undermine[d] the credibility of the Applicants’
submissions’. 1946
The Single Judge also recalled Article 28 of the Code
of Professional Conduct, pursuant to which ‘counsel
shall not address directly the client of another counsel
except through or with the permission of that counsel’.
Since the victims at the time of the filing were
already represented by LRV Chana, the Single Judge
noted that she ‘does not find it appropriate that the
Applicants did not bring the matter of the victims’
alleged discontent with regard to their common legal
representation to the attention of Ms Chana, before
pursuing any further steps’. 1947 The Single Judge
concluded by reaffirming that LRV Chana ‘is and
remains’ the legal representative of the 327 victims in
the case. 1948
1943 ICC-01/09-01/11-320, para 10.
1944 ICC-01/09-01/11-330, para 11 citing ICC-01/09-01/11-
301 para 18.
1945 ICC-01/09-01/11-330, para 16.
1946 ICC-01/09-01/11-330, para 16.
1947 ICC-01/09-01/11-330, para 17.
1948 ICC-01/09-01/11-330, para 18.
303