Another Terrible Day for the OTP

Another Terrible Day for the OTP

Readers are no doubt aware that Germain Katanga was convicted by the ICC yesterday. What may be less obvious is that the verdict nevertheless represents the Trial Chamber’s complete rejection of the OTP’s case against Katanga. The OTP alleged that Katanga was responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for seven counts of war crimes (using children under the age of fifteen to take active part in hostilities, directing an attack against civilians, wilful killing, destruction of property, pillaging, sexual slavery, and rape) and three counts of crimes against humanity (murder, rape, and sexual slavery). The Trial Chamber acquitted Katanga on all of the charges concerning rape, sexual slavery, and the use of child soldiers. And although it convicted him of one crime against humanity (murder) and four war crimes (murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging), the Trial Chamber rejected the idea that he was responsible for those crimes as an indirect co-perpetrator, choosing to “recharacterize” the facts to support finding him guilty as an accessory under Art. 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute (contribution to a group crime).

The OTP, in short, failed to prove any of its legal claims — just as it did with regard to Katanga’s co-defendant, Mathieu Ngudjolo, who was acquitted on all charges in 2012. Indeed, had the Trial Chamber not been willing to substitute an uncharged and unconfirmed mode of participation for the charged and confirmed one, Katanga would have simply walked, as well.

(Which is, by the way, exactly what should have happened. The Trial Chamber’s “recharacterization” of the facts in the case, which was motivated solely by the desire to ensure Katanga’s conviction — thereby saving the OTP from itself — was fundamentally inconsistent with Katanga’s right to a fair trial. But that will be the subject of my next post.)

All in all, another terrible day for the OTP.

Topics
Courts & Tribunals, Featured, International Criminal Law, International Human Rights Law, Organizations
Notify of
Martin Holterman

Did the Court recharacterise the facts or the charges filed by the OTP? Because I don’t even know what the former would mean. He’s an accessory or he’s not. Do you mean to say that the Court found a set of facts and then decided those facts justified a conviction as an accessory when they shouldn’t have?

Martin Holterman

Ah, so the Court went ultra petita?

Robert Clarke

Often the compendious indictments at the ad hoc tribunals allege criminal responsibility on multiple bases and in the end not all of them are made out beyond reasonable doubt. So the fact that the ICC Prosecutor was able to unable to do the same in respect of an Article 25(3)(a) case is not surprising. If such an outcome is ‘terrible’ well I guess we will have to expect that most if not all ICC prosecutions will end ‘terribly’ for the prosecutor unless the Court stops committing Article 25(3)(a) charges for trial altogether.

Robert Clarke

In fact, on the subject of Article 25(3)(a), it would appear from my cursory reading of the judgment (bearing in mind I don’t read French), that the Trial Chamber has broadly followed the Lubanga’s judgment’s interpretation. Which is actually a significant win for the Prosecutor given that this is the interpretation they have always pushed, and on an important legal point.

Robert Clarke

It does not miss the point. It merely doesn’t make the same point you make.
 
The point am making is that experience at the ad hoc tribunals has shown that not infrequently, the case under one head of criminal responsibility will not be made beyond reasonable doubt. Seen in that light, failing to prove an Article 25(3)(a) case but succeeding in proving an Article 25(3)(d) is not a ‘terrible’ outcome forensically.
 
And I might add that the state parties and other actors probably will not even notice anything beyond ‘convicted’. To a large extent the same will be true of Mr Katanga, who now faces the likely prospect of a lengthy gaol sentence. No one apart from academics and lawyers notices what paragraph of the treaty gets him here.

Manuel Ventura
Manuel Ventura

Rob, given the sentence that Lubanga got as a principal under Article 25(3)(a), don’t get your hopes up about Katanga’s sentence since, in contrast, he was only convicted as an accessory.
Kevin, no comment on what was said about the OTP’s investigation?

PBP
PBP

Calling this judgement a “terrible day for the OTP” is cheap  sensationalism. An acquittal would have  been a terrible day. A conviction under 25(3)(a) would have been a great day. A conviction under 25(3)(d) is decent result – even amongst professionals who may differ in opinion on the details.    To say that the “PTC assured Katanga during the confirmation hearing that complicity was off the table” is legally incorrect. The PTC confirmed on 25(3)(a). However, it made no statement about whether re-characterization (or for that matter, amendment of charges) would or would not occur during trial. Such a statement would not be within its mandate. The PTC (and counsel for Mr. Katanga) knew full well of the existence of Regulation 55, and related case-law, and hence of the possibility of re-characterization.  To say “The OTP did not prove that Katanga was responsible for the crimes under Art. 25(3)(d)” is to make a  rather disingenuous  semantic point. The OTP did not charge 25(3)(d)  – but it led the evidence on the which the conviction is based. It also made submissions under Regulation 55 relating to Article 25(3)(d). There are genuine concerns to be discussed about 1) the timing of the deployment… Read more »

trackback

[…] result in Katanga is that, as Kevin Jon Heller points out, the Prosecutor essentially did not prove any of his allegations and the case was only saved by the […]

trackback

[…] (critical) comments on the Katanga Trial Judgment: here by Dov Jacobs and here by Kevin Jon […]

trackback

[…] of all, the  Katanga verdict represents another failure for the Prosecutor, as pointed out by Kevin Jon Heller. The only thing that saved the case from total disaster was the Trial Chamber […]

trackback

[…] of all, the Katanga verdict represents another failure for the Prosecutor, as pointed out by Kevin Jon Heller. The only thing that saved the case from total disaster was the Trial Chamber […]

trackback

[…] in his post is a bit too hard on the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) at the ICC, and unfairly so. Like Kevin Jon Heller, he describes the Katanga case as “another failure” for the OTP (Kevin described it as a […]