Decisions on Mr. Lubanga’s ‘Clarification’ and the Registrar’s Observations

Trial Chamber I
On 13 April 2007 the Trial Chamber I considered Mr. Lubanga’s Clarifications of 3 April 2007 and the Registrar’s Observations of 5 April 2007. Trial Chamber I affirmed the 6 March 2007 decision of the Presidency to suspend all procedures before Trial Chamber I, and thus, took no action regarding the Registrar’s requests.

Appeals Chamber

On 27 April 2007, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the Registrar’s requests. In its decision, the Appeals Chamber stated that the remedies the Registrar sought were not provided for in the Court’s Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence or Regulations. Additionally, the Appeals Chamber noted that the remedies sought by the Registrar required the exercise of original jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber but the Chamber did not have original jurisdiction except in two distinct cases identified by Articles 110 and 42(8) of the Statute. The Appeals Chamber had no jurisdiction regarding the administration and servicing of the court unless the Statute, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, or Regulations of the Court conferred such authority. The Appeals Chamber also pointed out that it was not an advisory body on the functions and duties of the Registrar and per Article 43(2) of the Statute the Registrar must look to the President for guidance on its duties.

The Presidency

In its ruling on the Registrar’s Observations the President pointed out that the Registrar’s Observations should have been filed only with the Presidency and not in both the Appeals Chamber and Trial Chamber I. This had the potential to cause delay and conflicting decisions. The President also highlighted that per Article 43(2) of the Statute, the President can address the administration of the court and under Article 38(3) (a) of the Statute the Presidency is responsible for the proper administration of the court. The Presidency also found that the Registry’s filing entitled “Désignation de Maitre Catherine Mabille comme conseil de la défense” on 20 March 2007 created confusion as to Ms Mabille’s appointment.  The Presidency did agree that the Registrar was within its power to refuse Ms Mabille additional resources since she lacked any legal basis to make the request without yet being Mr. Lubanga’s Counsel. The Presidency also stated that the Registrar had presented Mr. Lubanga with a list of possible Counsel pursuant to Article 67(1)(d) of the Statute, Rules 20(1)(c) and 21(3) of the Rules and Regulation 75 of the Regulations of the Court. The Presidency opined that the Registrar having given a specific deadline to Ms. Mabille within which to confirm acceptance and having received no confirmation up to the date of the ruling that it was for the Registrar to make a decision to facilitate the appointment of counsel without delay. The Presidency, therefore, decided to continue the suspension on the transmission of record from the Pre-Trial Chamber I to Trial Chamber I and required the Registrar to facilitate the appointment of counsel without delay. 

<back
<back to weeklist