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

Judiciary – Key Decisions Protection and Protective Measures
The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura,
Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed
Hussein Ali
On 12 September 2011 the Common Legal
Representatives of Victims in the Muthaura, Kenyatta
and Ali case submitted his observations on disclosure
of the identity of his 233 clients after consultation with
them. Similar to the submission by LRV Chana in the
Ruto et al case, LRV Anyah stressed that many of his
clients evidenced an ‘appreciable degree of anxiety
regarding the security situation in Kenya and also
expressed concerns about their personal security’. 2084
The LRV managed to consult with 94 of the 233 victims
and none of them wished their identity to be disclosed
to the Defence. The reason for this varies, but includes
the current circumstances of many victims, who are
IDPs facing critical needs for daily survival. 2085 Of those
139 victims with whom he did not consult, LRV Anyah
recommended that the status quo ante be maintained,
ie non-disclosure of their identity to the Defence. 2086
The LRV endeavoured to travel to Kenya after the
confirmation hearing to consult with the remaining
139 victims and to inform the Chamber about their
preferences by 31 October 2011.
Consistent with the Court’s prior jurisprudence, Pre-
Trial Chamber II, in the early stage of the Muthaura et
al and Ruto et al cases, requested an assessment by the
VWU 2087 ‘with respect to the existence of an objectively
justifiable risk to the safety of a witness and/or a
family member of his, arising from the disclosure of
identifying information to the Defence’. 2088
The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
In November 2010, Trial Chamber III issued directions
on, inter alia, redactions to documentary evidence, to
be decided on a case-by-case basis. 2089 In January 2011,
the Chamber evaluated a request by the Prosecution
to lift redactions from previously confidential
information in witness statements related to the
names of family members of witnesses or individuals
who may have contributed to the Prosecution’s
investigations. 2090 The Chamber analysed this request
on a case-by-case basis by determining both ‘whether
or not there is a risk to the security of the third parties
concerned and whether or not they may benefit from
protective measures other than redactions’. 2091
2084 ICC-01/09-02/11-314, para 4.
2085 ICC-01/09-02/11-314, para 3.
2086 ICC-01/09-02/11-314, para 6.
2087 ICC-01/09-2/11-106; ICC-01/-09-01/11-103.
2088 ICC-01/09-02/11-106, para 5; ICC-01/-09-01/11-103,
para 5.
2089 ICC-01/05-01/08-1023.
2090 ICC-01/05-01/08-977-Red.
2091 ICC-01/05-01/08-977-Red, para 9.
321