Submissions by Ms. Catherine Mabille

On behalf of the Defence Ms. Catherine Mabille indicated her agreement with the scheduled timing of the hearings on 1 October and 30 October 2007. With respect to the Hearing of 6 November 2007 Counsel admitted to needing more time to prepare the related submissions adequately.

Ms. Mabille advised the Court that the Defence Team was almost fully constituted but they were still absent a co-Counsel. They had however now moved to offices at the Court in Voorburg and the new offices appeared to be very useful. She then made the following comments concerning issues which could potentially affect the ability of the Defence to adequately prepare itself for trial.

-          The team was experiencing serious difficulties with the computer system, which seriously undermined their work. Due to these problems the team had worked on paper copies since 1 August 2007 whenever these were available;

-          The security settings were currently being applied too strictly and the team was having some difficulties accessing relevant data through the available system; Mr. Marc Desalliers of the defence team did not have access to Ringtail so he was unable to access the evidence being relied on by the Prosecution.

-          The aforementioned difficulties had made it difficult for the lead Counsel to work outside of The Hague and thus resulted in serious delays in the preparation for the trial.

-          The issue of disclosure. Counsel submitted that based on the schedule as proposed by the OTP, evidence would be disclosed on 15 November 2007 less than two weeks in advance of a proposed December trial date. Such a short period of two weeks for disclosure of evidence was unacceptable and was not accepted practice even within international tribunals such as the ICTY.

Judge Fulford requested that Counsel file a written summary of the difficulties being experienced by the end of the week and Ms. Mabille agreed to do so. With respect to the matters of disclosure and evidence, Judge Fulford confirmed their value and agreed that these matters were properly clarified at the earliest possible stage.

 Ms. Mabille also indicated that she had no objection with respect to the reading of the charges as long as this was merely of an informative nature and did not entail a plea by her client.

Submissions by Ms. Carine Bapita and Mr. Luc Walleyn, Victim Counsel

The representative for the Victims confirmed their agreement with the amended time table but nevertheless sought to address the following substantive issues:

1. Whether the criteria of victim participation as applied by the Pre-Trial Chamber, would be evaluated or amended by the Trial Chamber;
2. Whether the Trial Chamber would consider allowing new victims to participate during the Trial;
3. The issue concerning the status of anonymous victims and whether their rights to participate in the Trial would be reduced;
4. The modalities of victims’ participation during the trial generally and I particular whether victims would have a right to question witnesses during the Trial.

The Presiding Judge recognized the importance of these matters but did not entertain the substantive submissions of Counsel reiterating that the sole purpose of the hearing was to consider procedural matters.

Submissions by Mr. Withopf, Office of the Prosecutor

Mr. Withopf expressed the OTP’s agreement with the proposed timetable and did not object to the Defence Counsel’s request for an adjournment of the final hearing. He also had no objections to the amended charges being read out. With respect to the determination of a possible trial date Mr. Withopf submitted the following:

-          The primary authority to determine the date of the commencement of the Trial rests with the Trial Chamber but the OTP would prefer the Trial to start before the end of 2007. The right of the accused to be tried without undue delay, the right to adequate time for the preparation of the Trial as well as the participation of victims and witnesses should be taken into account as part of this determination.

-          The present case had an unusual scope of impact on the situation of victims and witnesses. Given the charges against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo most witnesses and victims are young and in a vulnerable position. On the basis of recent OTP investigation in the Congo there are allegations that witnesses, specifically in Ituri, may be receiving threats from the UPC and supporters of Mr. Lubanga.

The Presiding Judge again suggested that Counsel refrain from making submissions on substantive issues due to the procedural nature of the hearing and because the defence had not had advance notice of the recent allegations.

Concluding remarks by the Presiding Judge

Before concluding the hearing the Court Officer read out the amended charges against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.