Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06

Prosecutor v. Thoman Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (July 2, 2008).

Cour

Pénale

Internationale

International

Criminal

Court

Original: English

No.: ICC-01/04-01/06

Date: 2 July 2008

TRIAL CHAMBER I

Before:

Judge Adrian Fulford, Presiding Judge

Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito

Judge René Blattmann

SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. THOMAS LUBANGA DYILO

Public

Decision on the release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

1/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 2/17 VW T

Decision/Order/Judgment to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the

Court to:

The Office of the Prosecutor

Counsel for the Defence

Ms Fatou Bensouda

Ms Catherine Mabille

Mr Ekkehard Withopf

Mr Jean-Marie Biju-Duval

Legal Representatives of the Victims

Legal Representatives of the Applicants

Mr Luc Walleyn

[1 name per team maximum]

Mr Franck Mulenda

Ms Carine Bapita Buyangandu

Unrepresented Victims

Unrepresented Applicants for

Participation/Reparation

The Office of Public Counsel for

The Office of Public Counsel for the

Victims

Defence

[2 names maximum]

States Representatives

Amicus Curiae

REGISTRY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrar

Defence Support Section

Ms Silvana Arbia

Victims and Witnesses Unit

Detention Section

Victims Participation and Reparations

Other

Section

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

2/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 3/17 VW T

Trial Chamber 1 ("Trial Chamber" or "Chamber") of the International Criminal

Court ("Court" or "ICC") in the case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga

Dyilo, issues the following decision on the release of the accused:

Procedural history

1. On 13 June 2008 the Chamber rendered its "Decision on the consequences of

non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e)

agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused,

together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June

2008" ("Decision"). ₁ In the Decision, the Chamber indefinitely stayed the

proceedings against Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo following the failure of the

Office of the Prosecutor ("prosecution") to disclose potentially exculpatory

materials which the Chamber was told are covered by confidentiality

agreements, and it scheduled a Status Conference for 24 June 2008 to consider

the release of the accused.₂

2. During the Status Conference of 24 June 2008₃ the Bench ordered that, as the

issues of leave to appeal the 13 June Decision and the release or continued

detention of Mr Lubanga were inextricably linked, written submissions

should be filed addressing both of these issues. Accordingly, the parties and

the participants were ordered to file written submissions by 4pm on Friday 27

June.₄ However, they were also given the opportunity to make oral

submissions.₅

1 Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e)

agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at

the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-1401

2 Ibid., paragraph 94.

3 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG.

4 Ibid., page 2, lines 4-5 and page 2, lines 15-20

5 Ibid., page 2, lines 23-25

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

3/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 4/17 VW T

3. It is to be noted that both the prosecution₆ and the defence₇ agreed that in

addition to any oral submissions advanced on 24 June 2008, there should be

an opportunity to file written submissions on the linked issues of leave to

appeal and detention.

II.

Submissions of the parties and the participants

4. The prosecution submitted that it was premature to consider the release of the

accused while an application for leave to appeal the Decision was pending,

and after a recent letter had been received from the United Nations setting out

a framework for the judges to view some of the non-disclosed materials,

thereby, it was contended, 'remov[ing] any basis for the stay.'₈ The suggested

solution contained in the letter was the subject of a detailed exchange between

the Presiding Judge and prosecuting counsel,₉ following which the Bench set

out its preliminary views on the proposal.₁₀

5. In its written submissions₁₁, the prosecution contended that the Trial Chamber

should not decide on release pending a determination of the application for

leave to appeal and the outcome of any subsequent appeal, should leave be

granted.₁₂

6. It was argued that if the Appeals Chamber in due course rejects the

substantive appeal, releasing the accused at this stage may irreversibly

frustrate the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction.₁₃ The prosecution submitted

that part of the Chamber's inherent authority to control the proceedings was

6 Ibid., page 3, lines 14-20.

7 Ibid., page 3, lines 22-25 and page 4, lines 10-12.

8 Ibid., page 19, lines 21-25 and page 20, lines 5-6.

9 Ibid., page 26, line 9-page 30, line 13

10 Ibid., page 30, line 21-page 33, line 4.

11 Prosecution's Submission on the Effect of the Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision of the Trial

Chamber to Stay the Proceedings on the Detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 27 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-

1414

12 Ibid., introduction

13 Ibid., introduction and paragraph 7.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

4/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 5/17 VW T

the power to defer determining an issue until its merits were resolved.₁₄ It

added that a resolution of the substantive issues on the appeal was of "crucial

importance" for the determination of the application for release, and this

provided grounds for granting suspensive effect.₁₅ Therefore, the prosecution

submitted, a decision on the release of the accused prior to a decision of the

Appeals Chamber on suspensive effect would prevent the Appeals Chamber

from properly exercising its jurisdiction.₁₆

7. The prosecution also referred to the Chamber's decision reviewing the

detention of the accused of 29 May 2008₁₇ in which it had highlighted that the

prosecution had not caused an "inexcusable" delay and that factors without

the prosecution's control had "significantly contributed" to the delay to the

start of the trial. It submitted that the rationale for the continued detention of

the accused reflected in that decision had not materially changed as a result of

the Trial Chamber's subsequent stay of the proceedings.₁₈

8. If the application for leave to appeal is refused and if the Chamber orders the

accused's release, the Prosecutor submitted that his detention should be

maintained in order to enable the prosecution to appeal the latter decision.₁₉ It

took issue with the argument of the defence that the arrest warrant is void.₂₀

9. Finally, the prosecution submitted that, in the event that the Chamber orders

the release of the accused, the arguments for his continued detention during

an appeal of the substantive Decision apply equally, if not with greater force,

pending the prosecution's appeal of a decision to release the accused.₂₁ It

14 Ibid., paragraph 5

15 Ibid., paragraph 6

16 Ibid., paragraph 8

17 Decision reviewing the Trial Chamber's ruling on the detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in accordance with

Rule 118(2), 29 May 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-1359.

18 ICC-01/04-01/06-1414, 27 June 2008, paragraph 9.

19 Ibid., introduction.

20 Ibid., paragraph 10.

21 Ibid., paragraph 12

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

5/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 6/17 VW T

therefore repeated the argument that the Trial Chamber has the power to

defer the implementation of a decision, particularly pending an appeal

against the decision or at least pending the determination of an application on

suspensive effect.₂₂ In support of this contention, the prosecution noted that

the 5-day time limit for filing an appeal from a decision releasing the accused

pursuant to Rule 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") was

in itself an institutional safeguard against an undue infringement of the rights

of the accused.₂₃

10. In its oral submissions the defence submitted that it was 'obvious' that the

stay in proceedings should lead to the release of the accused, on the basis that

the arrest warrant is now void.₂₄ It contended that the conditions of Article 60

of the Rome Statute ("Statute") and Rule 118₂₅ of the Rules are no longer

relevant₂₆ and that, since there has been (at the relevant time) no grant of

leave to appeal the Decision by the Trial Chamber and no order for

suspensive effect from the Appeals Chamber, there is no 'legal decision'

legitimising further detention.₂₇

11. The defence noted that not only has there been no further disclosure of

potentially exculpatory materials since the Decision was issued but additional

materials have very recently been 'unearthed' by the prosecution in their

offices.₂₈ Furthermore, it observed that no solution has been proposed in

relation to evidence provided to the prosecution by two sources other than

the United Nations who are refusing to allow the Chamber to view the

22 Ibid., paragraph 14

23 Ibid., paragraph 15

24 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG, page 4, lines 17-19.

25 This was wrongly described as Rule 78

26 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG, page 4, lines 20-22

27 Ibid., page 5, lines 10-19.

28 Ibid., page 6, line 14 to page 7, line 1; referring to Prosecution's request to reclassify its previous information

regarding the discovery and examination of additional material in the possession of the Prosecutor, ICC-

01704/01706- 1408-Anxl.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

6/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 7/17 VW T

material. It submitted that the solution proposed by the United Nations₂₉

creates difficulties for the functioning of international justice not only because

it impairs the independence of the judges and creates certain practical

difficulties, but also because summaries of evidence are unacceptable

substitutes for the disclosure of the evidence itself. In these circumstances the

defence submitted there can be no effective challenge to the Decision, and

accordingly the prosecution should not be entitled to use that possibility as a

credible reason for arguing for the continued detention of Mr Thomas

Lubanga Dyilo.₃₀

12. In its written submissions₃₁ the defence contended that the Decision ought to

be executed in full (i.e. both the stay of the proceedings and the release of the

accused).₃₂ In the alternative, the defence suggested that the accused should

be released pursuant to Article 60(2) and (4) of the Statute.₃₃ It submitted, in

the event of a resumption of the trial, the accused would be available to the

Court because he will remain in the Netherlands, given the travel ban against

him imposed by the United Nations and his lack of travel documents.₃₄

13. The defence contended that Article 60(4) of the Statute justified the release of

the accused in the current circumstances, namely a sine die postponement of

an already unreasonably delayed trial brought about by the inexcusable

behaviour of the Prosecutor.₃₅

Prosecution's provision of the letter of the United Nations dated 20 June 2008 concerning documents that

were obtained by the Office of the Prosecutor from the United Nations pursuant to Article 54(3)(e) on the

condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence and that potentially contain

evidence that falls under Article 67(2), 23 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-1409-Anxl.

30 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG, page 10, lines 20-23.

31 Observations de la Défense sur la mise en liberté de M Thomas Lubanga, 27 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-

1415

32 Ibid., paragraphs 11-16

33 Ibid., paragraphs 17-24.

34 Ibid., paragraphs 19-20

35 Ibid., paragraphs 22-25.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

7/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 8/17 VW T

14. In its oral response the prosecution argued that there is no proper legal basis

for releasing the accused.₃₆ In particular, the prosecution relied on the

Chamber's decision of 29 May 2008 reviewing Mr Lubanga Dyilo's

detention,₃₇ which it argued is still valid. Moreover, the prosecution averred

that there has been no delay in the proceedings that is attributable to the

prosecution.₃₈ It submitted that the recently discovered documents which fell

within the prosecution's disclosure obligations were limited to 35, and only

some of them are subject to confidentiality restrictions.₃₉

15. The legal representative of victims a/0001/06 to a/0003/06 drew the Chamber's

attention to the perception of the Court within the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, and to the wider implications of the Chamber's decisions.₄₀ The legal

representative noted the possibility that future defendants could rely on

confidentiality agreements,₄₁ along with other more general consequences of a

decision to release the accused.₄₂

16. The legal representative for victim a/0105/06 accepted that the accused should

be given interim release but cautioned the Bench to consider the consequences

of such a release.₄₃ The legal representative in her submissions relied on

policy grounds - the 'realities of the field'₄₄ - including igniting further

tensions in Ituri, sparking revenge attacks₄₅ and increasing risks to

intermediaries and victims.₄₆ She also cautioned that release of the accused

could undermine the Court₄₇ and give legitimacy to Mr Lubanga's

36 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG, page 21, lines 10-15.

37 Decision reviewing the Trial Chamber's ruling on the detention of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo in accordance with

Rule 118(2), 29 May 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-1359.

38 Transcript of hearing on 28 June 2008, ICC-01/04/01/06-T-91-ENG, page 21, lines 16-17.

39 Ibid., page 22, lines 6-24

40 Ibid., page 13

41 Ibid., page 13, lines 21-22

42 Ibid., page 15, lines 1-5

43 Ibid., page 15, lines 20-24.

44 Ibid., page 19, line 10

45 Ibid., page 16, lines 8-9 and page 17, lines 4-5.

46 Ibid., page 17, line 10

47 Ibid., page 17, lines 22-25.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

8/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 9/17 VW T

supporters.₄₈ Victims' rights generally, the legal representative submitted,

should be considered in any decision on the release of the accused.₄₉

17. In response to the oral submissions made by the legal representatives of

victims, the defence argued that, whilst such concerns regarding peace and

security were valid, ultimately the Chamber had to apply the law,₅₀

independently of pressures coming from the Democratic Republic of the

Congo.₅₁ Any other course, in the argument of the defence, would be contrary

to the underlying principles of the Court.₅₂ The Court's legal instruments, it

was submitted, indicated that the stay on proceedings should lead to the

release of the accused, and justice similarly dictated that outcome.₅₃

18. The legal representatives of victims a/0001/06 to a/0003/06 and a/0105/06

jointly filed written submissions₅₄ to the effect that the accused should not be

released.₅₅ They distinguished two scenarios, namely whether or not the

Chamber grants leave to appeal.₅₆

19. The legal representatives contended that if the Chamber grants leave to

appeal, the Chamber's decision on the review of the accused's detention of 29

May 2008 remains effective pending the appeal until the end of August,

pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules.₅₇ They submitted that the issue currently

before the Chamber should not be equated with a request for review of

detention pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules, since the defence had argued

48 Ibid., page 18, line 18.

49 Ibid., page 18, lines 23-24

50 Ibid., page 24, lines 19-24.

51 Ibid., page 25, lines 22-25 and page 26, lines 1-5

52 Ibid., page 24, lines 21-22

53 Ibid., page 25, lines 3-9

54 Observations communes des représentants légaux des victims sur la demande de mise en liberté de l'Accusé,

27 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-1413.

55 Ibid., page 8

56 Ibid., paragraph 1

57 Ibid., paragraph 3.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

9/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 10/17 VW T

only that the accused should be released following the stay of proceedings.₅₈

Citing the decision on the confirmation of charges and the decision on the

review of the accused's detention, the legal representatives added that the

requirements of Article 58(1) of the Statute still applied.₅₉ The legal

representatives therefore submitted that releasing the accused because of the

stay of proceedings while the matter was before the Appeals Chamber would

prejudice and undermine the outcome of the appeal' process.₆₀

20. In the event that the Chamber declines to grant leave to appeal, the legal

representatives argued that the stay of proceedings should not necessarily

result in release of the accused.₆₁ A suspension of the proceedings could not

be equated with an end of the proceedings, which the Chamber itself has

accepted by envisaging the possibility of lifting the stay.₆₂ They submitted that

the trial may yet occur because the prosecution is searching for solutions with

the information providers.₆₃ They recalled that when confronted with

problems of disclosure or fairness of the proceedings, the ad hoc tribunals had

resorted to remedies other than a stay of proceedings.₆₄ They referred

generally to jurisprudence from the ad hoc tribunals which they submitted

was to the effect that the detention of an accused continues during the entire

proceedings unless the Chamber decides otherwise. In accordance with this

approach, the legal representatives argued that the decision to stay the

proceedings was not a sufficient reason to justify his release.₆₅ Moreover, the

legal representatives argued that the ICTY had followed the practice that in

'exceptional circumstances' provisional, and not unrestricted, release was

appropriate.₆₆

58 Ibid., paragraph 4

59 Ibid., paragraph 5

60 Ibid., paragraph 7.

61 Ibid., paragraph 12

62 Ibid., paragraph 9.

63 Ibid., paragraph 10.

64 Ibid., paragraph 11.

65 Ibid., paragraph 13.

66 Ibid., paragraph 14

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

10/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 11/17 VW T

21. The legal representatives submitted that if the accused is released at this

stage, it should only be on a temporary or conditional basis.₆₇ The legal

representatives argued that unrestricted release may prevent a trial (if the stay

is later lifted).₆₈ Moreover, conditional release would enable the Chamber to

exercise control over the accused's actions, in particular with respect to the

security of victims and witnesses.₆₉ However, the legal representatives argued

that, at this stage of the proceedings, even provisional or conditional release

should not be contemplated, given the nature of the charges and the possible

consequences on public order if the accused is released.₇₀ The legal

representatives supported this argument by the suggestion that the European

Court of Human Rights has allowed derogations to the right to liberty in

order to maintain public order.₇₁

III.

Relevant Provisions

22. Article 58(1) of the Statute provides:

Issuance by the Pre-Trial Chamber of a warrant of arrest or a

summons to appear

1. At any time after the initiation of an investigation, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the

application of the Prosecutor, issue a warrant of arrest of a person if, having examined the

application and the evidence or other information submitted by the Prosecutor, it is satisfied

that:

(a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime within the

jurisdiction of the Court; and

(b) The arrest of the person appears necessary:

(i) To ensure the person's appearance at trial;

(ii) To ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the

court proceedings; or

67 Ibid., paragraph 15

68 Ibid., paragraph 15

69 Ibid., paragraph 16

70 Ibid., paragraphs 17-18

71 Ibid., paragraph 17.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

11/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 12/17 VW T

(iii) Where applicable, to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of

that crime or a related crime which is within the jurisdiction of the Court and which

arises out of the same circumstances

23. Article 82 of the Statute provides:

Appeal against other decisions

1. Either party may appeal any of the following decisions in accordance with the Rules of

Procedure and Evidence.

[...]

(b) A decision granting or denying release of the person being investigated or prosecuted;

[...]

3. An appeal shall not of itself have suspensive effect unless the Appeals Chamber so orders,

upon request, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

24. Rule 154(1) of the Rules provides:

Appeals that do not require the leave of the Court

1. An appeal may be filed under article 81, paragraph 3 (c) (ii), or article 82, paragraph 1 (a) or

(b), not later than five days from the date upon which the party filing the appeal is notified of

the decision.

25. Rule 185(1) of the Rules provides:

Release of a person from the custody of the Court other than upon completion of sentence

1 . Subject to sub-rule 2, where a person surrendered to the Court is released from the custody

of the Court because the Court does not have jurisdiction, the case is inadmissible under

article 17, paragraph 1 (b), (c) or (d), the charges have not been confirmed under article 61, the

person has been acquitted at trial or on appeal, or for any other reason, the Court shall, as

soon as possible, make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the transfer of the

person, taking into account the views of the person, to a State which is obliged to receive him

or her, to another State which agrees to receive him or her, or to a State which has requested

his or her extradition with the consent of the original surrendering State. In this case, the host

State shall facilitate the transfer in accordance with the agreement referred to in article 3,

paragraph 2, and the related arrangements.

IV.

Analysis and Conclusions

26. As set out above, the defence submitted that following the Decision to stay

the proceedings, the warrant of arrest is void, and that since the detention of

the accused was based on the warrant of arrest, his continued detention is

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

12/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 13/17 VW T

without legal justification. Additionally, it was contended that the current

situation is not one where the provisions relating to interim release (as

provided in Article 60 of the Statute and Rule 118 of the Rules) apply. The

defence argued that continued detention could only be lawful if the Appeals

Chamber grants suspensive effect to the Decision but in the absence of such

an order, the continued detention of the accused is impermissible.

27. These arguments do not survive careful scrutiny.

28. The arrest warrant was issued pursuant to Article 58(1) of the Statute. The

factual and legal elements which affect the validity of the warrant are

unaffected by the Chamber's Decision to impose a stay on the proceedings.

The issuance of the warrant was lawful because there were reasonable

grounds to believe that the accused had committed various crimes, as listed in

the warrant of arrest,₇₂ and the validity of that document is unaltered by the

stay in proceedings. The Court is under an obligation₇₃ to review periodically

(at least every 120 days) its decision on the release or detention of the

accused.₇₄ At all times, there have remained reasonable grounds to believe

that Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is criminally responsible under Article

25(3)(a) of the Statute for the crimes set out in the arrest warrant, as amended

by the Decision Confirming the Charges.₇₅ It is to be emphasised, therefore,

that the stay imposed on the proceedings does not undermine the validity of

the warrant since it is no more than the direct result of the present

impossibility of trying the accused fairly. Accordingly, the principle argument

as advanced by the defence fails.

72 ICC-01/04-01/06-2-tEN.

73 Article 60(3) of the Statute.

74 Rule 118(1) of the Rules

75 Decision on the confirmation of the charges, 29 January 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

13/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 14/17 VW T

29. However, there are other important factors that require consideration.

Pursuant to Article 58(l)(b) of the Statute, the accused's detention, prior to the

commencement of the trial, is only justified if it is necessary:

- to ensure his appearance at trial, or

- to ensure he does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court

proceedings, or

- where it is necessary to prevent the person from continuing with the

commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court, arising out of the

same circumstances.₇₆

30. As just set out, the Chamber's Decision stayed the proceedings sine die

because of the present impossibility of trying the accused fairly.₇₇ It follows

that the detention of the accused cannot be justified in order to ensure his

appearance at trial or to safeguard the investigation, because the trial (which

was the result of the investigation) has been stayed. Furthermore, in the

absence of the prospect of a trial, the accused cannot be held in custody or

subjected to provisional release as purely preventative measures to deter him

from committing further crimes.

31. In light of that conclusion - that the accused should be released

unconditionally - the Chamber has considered whether to order his

immediate release or to suspend its effect until the decision of the Appeals

Chamber on the appeal (for which the Chamber has granted leave)₇₈ .

76 Article 58(1)(b) and Article 60(2) of the Statute.

77 ICC-01/04-01/06-1401, 13 June 2008, paragraph 91.

78 Decision on the Prosecution's Application for Leave to Appeal the 'Decision on the consequences of non-

disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the

prosecution of the accused', 2 July 2008

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

14/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 15/17 VW T

32. Notwithstanding the grant of leave to appeal the Decision, the inevitable

result is that the Chamber must order the immediate release of the accused.

Although the prosecution has indicated that it intends to apply to the

Chamber to lift the stay, the outcome of any application of that kind is wholly

uncertain and the Chamber will address any submissions that may be

advanced in the future, on their own facts. As regards the effect of the grant of

leave to appeal, given the order for release is the direct consequence of the

Decision for which leave has been granted, it is for the Appeals Chamber and

not, as has been submitted, for the Trial Chamber to determine any

application for suspensive effect.₇₉

33. In reaching a conclusion on this issue the Bench has weighed with great care

all of the competing submissions. Given the potentially vulnerable position of

the victims, the Chamber particularly stresses that it has given full weight to

the fears of, and the possible consequences to, the victims as a result of a

decision to release the accused. The victims are entitled to have their views

and concerns taken into account on issues of this kind, and the Chamber has

given full effect to that important right.

34. However, for the reasons set out above and after careful reflection, the

Chamber has concluded that the logical - indeed the inevitable - consequence

of the Decision is that the only correct course is to order the release of the

accused, because, consistent with the Decision and on the basis of the

available information, a fair trial of the accused is impossible, and the entire

justification for his detention has been removed. It would be unlawful for the

Chamber to order him to remain in what, in reality, would be preventative

detention or to impose conditional release. The Chamber's order, therefore,

is that the accused is to be released without restrictions, but subject to the

matters set out below.

79 Article 82(3)

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

15/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 16/17 VW T

Conclusions

35. Trial Chamber I orders the release of the accused, but since by Rule 154 of the

Rules an appeal may be filed no later than 5 days from the date upon which

the party filing the appeal is notified of the decision, this order shall not be

enforced until the expiry of the 5 day time limit, and, furthermore, if an

appeal is filed within the 5 day time-limit against the order granting release

and if a request is made in the appeal for suspensive effect, the accused shall

not leave detention until the Appeals Chamber has resolved whether or not

the effect of the order granting release is to be suspended.

36. It is to be noted, finally, that by Rule 185 of the Rules, an order releasing the

accused shall only be put into effect after arrangements have been made for

his transfer to a State that is obliged to receive him. It follows that these

arrangements should not be implemented until the 5 day time-limit, set out

above, has expired.

No. ICC-01/04-01/06

16/17

2 July 2008

ICC-01/04-01/06-1418 02-07-2008 17/17 VW T

Done in both English and French, the English version being authoritative.

Judge Adrian Fulford

Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito

Judge René Blattmann

Dated this 2 July 2008

At The Hague, The Netherlands

No. ICC-

17/17