LTD Logo

Metadata of the document in the Legal Tools Database:

The Legal Tools Database uses persistent URLs. That means that the URL-address of each document will not change. Documents can in other words be referred to with their URL-address in the Database.

Download "Judgment on the appeal of [...]" (3.0 M)
Database Record Number:191239
Persistent URL:
Title:Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled "Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) [...]
External identifier:ICC-01/09-01/11-307
Content type:Judicial document
Source:Appeals Chamber
Source type:Judicial body
Organisation / State of source:International Criminal Court (ICC)
Related organisation / state:International Criminal Court (ICC)
Organisation / State of judicial body:International Criminal Court (ICC)
Date created:30.08.2011
Abstract:Judgment confirmed Pre-Trial Chamber II’s decision (ICC-01/09-01/11-101) to reject Kenya’s admissibility challenge. The Pre-Trial Chamber committed no legal error in its application of the “same person/same conduct” test. No procedural errors were found in the Pre-Trial Chamber’s rejection of additional investigative reports, its refusal to hold an oral hearing, or its refusal to decide on Kenya’s request for assistance prior to determining the admissibility challenge since there was no abuse of the Chamber’s broad discretion under rule 58 in relation to the conduct of admissibility proceedings. Judge Ušacka dissented at ICC-01/09-01/11-336. Key Findings: 1. When the Court has issued a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear, for a case to be inadmissible under article 17 (1) (a) of the Statute, national investigations must cover the same individual and substantially the same conduct as alleged in the proceedings before the Court. The words 'is being investigated' in this context signify the taking of steps directed at ascertaining whether this individual is responsible for that conduct, for instance by interviewing witnesses or suspects, collecting documentary evidence, or carrying out forensic analysis. 2. If a State challenges the admissibility of a case, it must provide the Court with evidence with a sufficient degree of specificity and probative value that demonstrates that it is indeed investigating the case. It is not sufficient merely to assert that investigations are ongoing. 3. Save for express stipulations in rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a Chamber seized of an admissibility challenge enjoys broad discretion in determining how to conduct the proceedings relating to the challenge.
Case name (ICC naming convention - EN):The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang
Case name (ICC naming convention - FR):Le Procureur c. William Samoei Ruto et Joshua Arap Sang
Case name (ICC naming convention):The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang
Alternative and / or short case title:The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang
Alternative and / or short case title (FR):Le Procureur c. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey et Joshua Arap Sang
Case/Document number:ICC-01/09-01/11
Key judicial document:Judgement on appeal against other decisions (article 83 and rule 158)
Phase of case:Interlocutory appeal
Place of court:The Hague, The Netherlands
Type of court:International(ised) jurisdiction
Accused / Defendant:RUTO, William Samoei; SANG, Joshua Arap
Is court record:Yes
ICC situation name:Situation in the Republic of Kenya
Number of pages:44
Document type:Adobe PDF (application/pdf)
Responsible partner:Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
Date published in Legal Tools:07.01.2012
Origin:Download from authoritative source
Download "Judgment on the appeal of [...]" (3.0 M)