ICL Database & Commentary

Legal Texts and CommentaryCase LawSearchContributorsAbout

ICC-01/04-01/06
Case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
 

During the status conference in the case The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo held on 24 August 2006, Judge Sylvia Steiner, acting as single judge for Pre-Trial Chamber I, the single judge has issued the following decision on the specific request of the Prosecution to order the Defence to inform the Pre-Trial Chamber by 24 August 2006 at the latest whether the Defence will request the postponement of the Confirmation Hearing

The Hague, 26 April 2006

 

In the view of the single judge, only after the Filing of the Prosecution Charging Document and List of Evidence and after the Defence has had access to all incriminating evidence referred to in such a filing, including the statements of those witnesses for which the Prosecution intends to file rule 81 motions by Monday 28 August 2006, will the Chamber be able to properly assess all aspects concerning the question of whether or not the Defence will be in a position to comply with the deadlines provided for in the 24 May 2006 “Decision on the Postponement of the Confirmation Hearing and the Adjustment of the Timetable Set in the Decision on the Final System of Disclosure”. For this reason, the status conference of 5 September 2006 will be, in the view of the single judge, the best forum to deal with this issue.

Furthermore, the single judge is of the view that no additional risk is undertaken in relation to Prosecution witness if the request for the postponement of the confirmation hearing is made after the filing of the Prosecution Charging Document and List of Evidence. In this regard, the single judge points out that the name of those witnesses for which rule 81 (4) motions have been granted or are still pending on 28 August 2006 do not have to be revealed to the Defence on the Prosecution Charging Document and List of Evidence.

Finally, the single judge agrees with the Defence that the request for the issuance of such an order imposes on the Defence an obligation not provided for in the Statute nor in the Rules. 

For these reasons, the single judge decides to:
REJECT the Prosecution request.