13fpZ7l

Eboe-Osuji does not concur as to the reference to the "specific situation in Kenya",
as, in his view, the Chamber has not yet made a specific inquiry in that regard for
purposes of that determination). Those witnesses from Kenya who have expressed
strong concems in connection with their testimony are likely to benefit from such
pre-testimony meeting with the calling party.
Potential risks of witness preparation
38. The main arguments of the defence against witness preparation are (i) permitting
witness preparation immediately prior to in-court testimony is not the most
effective way of ascertaining the truth; (ii) there is a risk that it will be used to re-
interview witnesses with the aim of improving the calling party's case; and (iii) it
will result in late disclosure.^^
39. The defence submits that witness preparation at the seat of the Court, up to 24
hours prior to a witness's testimony, heightens the risk of an inadvertent
modification of the witness's testimony in response to the preparation. The
Chamber is not convinced that this risk is any higher immediately prior to
testimony than during the investigation phase. Nor is the Chamber convinced that
witness preparation, properly conducted, is likely to result in substantive
alterations to a witness's testimony at trial. While informing witnesses of the likely
topics of direct and cross-examination will presumably help them to focus on the
relevant issues, it does not follow that possessing such information will induce
witnesses to modify their testimony. On this point, the Chamber also notes that the
prosecution's proposed guidelines would prohibit giving a witness any information
during preparation conceming testimony provided by other witnesses at trial. This
^^ ICC-01-09-01/11-452.
ICC-01/09-01/11-524 03-01-2013 16/44 NM T
No. ICC-01/09-01/11 16/21 2 January 2013