Defence Closing Statement

The Defence opened by mentioning that both the victims’ representatives and the Prosecution referred to the fact that the Defence had not proved certain facts. The Defence stated they did not have to prove anything, emphasising that the burden was on the Prosecution.

The Defence argued (as it had on previous occasions) that the Prosecution did not present an objective historical account of the conflict and in particular did not call in expert evidence from an anthropologist or similar with regard to the debate surrounding the term 'Hema-Gegere'. The Defence then proceeded to give an historical account of the roots of the conflict in the DRC, the development of various militias and the role of the DRC and foreign governments, emphasising in particular that this was a wider ethnic conflict, not limited to the Hema and Lendu.

The Defence denied that Mr Lubanga had received any military training as alleged by the Prosecution and stated that no details of this training had been provided by the latter. The Defence also reiterated its argument that although the Prosecution had mentioned some names it had not been specific as to the alleged co-perpetrators. The Defence also challenged the Prosecution’s commitment to investigating exonerating evidence and criticised the basis of various factual assertions made by the Prosecution. 

The Defence referred to a statement made by the Prosecution witness during cross-examination that during her only meeting with Mr Lubanga she had the impression that he was a cruel and evil man. The Defence argued that the witness perceived Mr Lubanga in a certain way and had ‘arrived with a particular task’. The Defence developed this argument to allege that MONUC itself took a negative stance towards the UPC.

The Defence concluded by stating that the Prosecution was conducting a political case and entangling the ICC in political proceedings. The Defence said it was seeking justice, affirming that it did not wish to exact the justice sought by the Prosecutor but instead, the justice of the judges. After the conclusion of the Defence closing statement, the Prosecution indicated it wished to intervene. The presiding judge indicated this would not be allowed unless it were to raise a procedural point as the Defence should have the last word. The Prosecution began to address the issue of the above-mentioned allegations but was again stopped by Judge Jorda who referred to the fundamental right of the Defence to the last word.

<back
<back to weeklist