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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Protection and Protective Measures
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga &
Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui
As explained in greater detail in the Victim
Participation section, Trial Chamber II took steps to
ensure crucial in-court protection measures to victims
authorised to testify as witnesses in the Katanga
& Ngudjolo case. This decision followed the first
authorisation of victims to appear as witnesses by
Trial Chamber I in the Lubanga case in June 2009, after
the issuance of a 2008 Appeals Chamber decision on
the modalities of victim participation. 2037 The three
victim-witnesses were granted protective measures in
the form of image and voice distortion. In the Katanga
& Ngudjolo case, on 27 January 2011, as part of a
lengthy decision authorising four participating victims
to testify as witnesses, Trial Chamber II affirmed
the use of protective measures, including voice and
image distortion, partial in camera hearings and the
maintenance of their anonymity. 2038 The Chamber
found that the victims, all Hema women who lived in
Bogoro at the time of the attack, were likely to present
incriminating evidence and thus be objects of reprisal
by those supporting the accused. These witnesses
expressed fears of intimidation if the fact of their
testimony before the ICC became known to members
of their family or community, compromising their
ability to speak with the necessary freedom before the
Court.
Despite the lengths to which the Chamber went to
ensure their meaningful participation in the trial
and their security, upon the request of their legal
representative, it later authorised the withdrawal from
the list of witnesses of three victims included in the
decision for lack of credibility. 2039 The minor victim,
who had been called to testify by the Prosecution,
and her representative, who had also been called as
a Chamber witness to testify regarding questions
beyond the personal interest of the minor, were
withdrawn as a result of contradictions in the
representative’s statements, and concerns about the
2037 ICC-01/04-01/06-2002-Conf, as cited in ICC-01/04-01/06-
2032-Anx, para 39. A public redacted version of the
decision became available on 9 July 2009, ICC-0/04-01.
For more information on this decision, see <strong>Gender</strong> <strong>Report</strong>
<strong>Card</strong> 2010, p 137.
2038 The initial decision was filed confidentially. A public
redacted version of this decision was issued on 22
February 2011: ICC-01/04-01/07-2663-Red.
2039 ICC-01/04-01/07-2699-Red; ICC-01/04-01/07-2674-tENG.
As described in greater detail in the section on Victim
Participation, the Chamber authorised the withdrawal of
victims a/0381/09 and a/0363/09 (who is a minor) and
also withdrew a/0363/09’s representative pan/0363/09.
The remaining two victims a/0018/09 and a/0191/08
testified on 21 – 25 February 2011.
veracity of the photograph of the victim’s allegedly
deceased parents attached to her application to
participate. 2040 After its disclosure by the Victim’s
Legal Representative, the Prosecution provided
information that the photo allegedly taken during
the 24 February Bogoro attack depicting the dead
bodies of the family members of the victim, actually
depicted the aftermath of the June 2003 attack on the
village of Kasenyi. The relevant footage in the photo
can be seen in several portions of a video disclosed
by the Prosecution as incriminating evidence on 29
January 2009. 2041 In addition to the withdrawal of
the minor victim-witness, her representative who
had been called as a witness of the Chamber was also
withdrawn. 2042 The other victim was withdrawn from
the list of witnesses, for reasons kept confidential in
the Court filings. 2043 The Chamber requested that the
LRV and the Prosecution appropriately redact all of
the filings related to these two victims to ensure their
accessibility to the public. 2044
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
Vulnerable witnesses in the Bemba case were accorded
a combination of in-court protective measures. They
received face and voice distortion, use of a pseudonym
and were afforded the presence of a support person
from the VWU as well as the presence of a psychologist
to assess the witness during testimony. Trial Chamber
III authorised closed-session testimony on an
exceptional basis 2045 and three witnesses testified
almost completely in closed session. 2046 In addition,
Presiding Judge Steiner reminded the parties several
times to ask short, simple and open-ended questions
so as not to unnecessarily upset or re-traumatise the
witnesses. These issues are described in more detail in
the Trial Proceedings section of this <strong>Report</strong>.
2040 ICC-01/04-01/07-2699-Red.
2041 ICC-01/04-01/07-2688-Conf.
2042 ICC-01/04-01/07-2699-Red.
2043 ICC-01/04-01/07-2674-tENG.
2044 The Prosecution and the Legal Representative of Victims
complied with this order in February 2011.
2045 ICC-01/05-01/08-T-33-Red-ENG; see also ICC-01/05-
01/08-1023.
2046 Witnesses 75, 63 and 169.
316