Victims’ Representative’s Closing Statement - 0003-0006

The victims’ representative first asserted that the judgment of the Kisangani Appeals Court, in relation to what it described as an illegal search and seizure operation, was of no effect in the Congo (as it could not be executed) and could not, therefore, influence the admissibility of evidence in the current proceedings.

The victims’ representative alleged that since the Prosecution witness had given evidence at the confirmation hearing, their clients had been under threat and that they ‘feared for their lives’. A search was underway for the people who may have given information to the UN witness. The victims’ representative stated that they were prepared to consider the concept that Mr Lubanga may not be the person responsible for the crimes charged (mentioning that some of his subordinate commanders were being prosecuted in the DRC for war crimes and crimes against humanity), but had not been convinced otherwise by the Defence evidence.

The victims’ representative disagreed with the Defence presentation of Mr Lubanga as similar to a head of state with a council of advisers, stating that the UPC power in Ituri had the features of a dictatorship and that its leader had the features of a warlord.

With regard to Mr Lubanga's criminal liability, the victims’ representative stated (in disagreement with the Defence) that the Chamber could resolve any ambiguity in the Charging Document without having to resort to an adjournment under Article 61. Further the victims’ representative stated that the Pre-Trial Chamber is not bound by the terms of the charging document as regards the precise forms of participation in the crimes committed.

The victims’ representative also commented upon the issue of admissibility of evidence and the principle of legality, particularly as it relates to the variations in subject matter jurisdiction between the ICC and the Congolese justice system.

The victims’ representative concluded by stating that Mr Lubanga must bear criminal responsibility for the recruitment of its under-age clients and called on the Chamber to confirm the charges in order that the ‘trial that the victims anticipated could take place’.

<back

<back to weeklist