The case of The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta is a case that had been tried on the issue of crimes against humanity regarding the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya under article 7 of Rome Statutes. The case started when President Mwai Kibaki was being re-elected as president and led to series of protest, fight and demonstration. This is because it was likely that the opposite side candidate will win the election. But because of the President Mwai Kibaki used inhuman way to win the election, it causes conflict in Kenya which the supporters of Raila Odinga accused the government of electrical fraud and rejected the decision.
This case was later being referred to ICC in 2010 after failed in attempts to conduct a criminal investigation
…show more content…
Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta consist of three judges. The judges that involved during the trial are consisting of Judge Kuniko Ozaki as the Presiding Judge, Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji.
For the first issue of the case, it is regarding to the legal basis on witness preparation in International Criminal Court. For this issue, the court held that it is neither practical nor reasonable to prohibit pre-testimony meetings between parties and the witnesses they will call to testify at the trial. This is because regarding to the article 64 of the Statute, it is stated that “The Trial Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses”. The judges refer to this article which give the judges a significant degree of discretion concerning the procedure so that the right of the victims and witnesses will be protected. In addition, the Chamber adds that the preparation of judicious witness which aimed at clarifying a witness's evidence while being carried out with full respect for the rights of the accused will help in enabling a more accurate and complete presentation of the evidence and assisted in the truth finding function of the
In order for the us, the jury, to agree with the prosecutors, they brought witnesses to the stand. Jacinta Waruiru was the first be called to the stand. She was a witness to the vicious Mau Mau attack. She told us that her family was a loyalist to the British. She was Chief Luka Wa Kahangara’s wife. Mrs. Waruiru told us about the day she and her family were attacked. She told us that the Mau Mau came to her house and killed thirteen members of her family. They killed her husband first and her housewives and their husbands housewives too. While running with a child in her arms, the Mau Mau shot her in the leg, head, and back. At that time she dropped the child, and he/she got shot while on the ground. As Mrs. Jacinta was seeking shelter behind a tree she saw her family get tortured and killed by the Mau Mau. Also she told us that all of her cattle were killed, her family’s house was burned down, and her husband’s body was cut up into pieces by the Mau Mau. The Prosecution also brought Ian Henderson to the stand, a colonial police officer. He was responsible for the capture of the Mau Mau leader, Dedan Kimathi. He came up to the stand and told us about how all he wanted was peace in Kenya. He said that since the Mau Mau have been in Kenya, it had become more tense. Prosecution also brought Evelyn Baring to the stand. he was the governor of Kenya. He told us
In 2 years the trial ended with the verdict of guilty on the account of
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court.
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
Linking this back to my previous statement, the accused needed to be trialed. The first problem that arises is the fact that the judges can rule how they please towards the accused. We all have times when we feel better than others and this can affect our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to the judges when they are in court. Naturally they are supposed to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime that has happened and come up with a reasonable and suitable punishment but some judges let their personal affairs get in the way. While this might sound strictly unjust to the accused, the judge displays signs of inequality when he or she lets signs of weakness from the victim affect their final verdict. The judge is there to assign a verdict as well as give out the proper punishment that is associated with the crime that was committed. If the judge changes their decision based on their point of view as well as how they feel towards the accused this means that the judge is bias. This creates an inequality between the accused members because if different people have been accused of the same crime and get the same judge they might get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria states that ‘‘we see the same court
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
(a) Prosecutors have nearly limitless discretion in the most critical matters they must consider, yet they are held to very high ethical standards.
According to Pollock, (2017) a prosecutor’s duties are to a system, or society and not an individual. In this incident, a prosecutor has the responsibility to represent the system and review the evidence that a crime has been committed. The media is the problem in this incident. As we all know the media is always in a hurry to break a story that they commonly get their facts incorrect. Or they speculate on what little information they have. In this incident, as a prosecutor I would not arrest the individual on probable cause, but instead I would refer this incident to the grand jury. This would take several months and by that time the media story would have quietly disappeared from the public. Then I would proceed with criminal charges
In order to do that, first, the essay will define what understand by “jurisdiction” and the elements of the extraterritorial jurisdiction. Next, it analyses some key decisions and advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and the European regional system in order to prove that extraterritoriality jurisdiction is already applicable and therefore, if the State fails to guarantee the rights contemplated in the human rights treaties, it incurs in international responsibility. Lastly, the essay will sum up the analysis and make some final remarks.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
Public International law International law contains of rules and principles, which preside over the relations and communication of nations with each other. International Law that is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law concerns itself only with questions of rights among more than a few nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In dissimilarity, Private International Law deals with controversies among confidential persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having important association to further than one nation. In current years the line up connecting public and private international law have became more and more doubtful. Issues of private international law may also associate issues of public international law and numerous matters of private international law nave considerable meaning for the international group of people of nations. International Law consists of the basic, classic concepts of law in nationwide legal systems, status, property, responsibility, and tort. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in receipt by the nation states, which comprise the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states trail convinced practices usually and time after time out of an intelligence of legal responsibility. Lately the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may obtain any appearance that the constricting parties have the same opinion upon. Agreements may be complete in admiration to any substance except for to the leve...
About the power of the subjects of international law, it is the basic properties, the special legal ability of the subjects that inherited the rights and shoulder the obligations, legal responsibility in international legal relations. Subjects' power includes two aspects, and only when ones get all these two aspec...
Witness tampering: A never-ending challenge to the International Criminal Court? Introduction Jeremy Bentham, an eminent philosopher and jurist, portrayed the significance of witnesses in criminal trials when he stated: “Witnesses are the eyes and the ears of Justice.” The term ‘witness’ is neither defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) nor under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) to the Rome Statute. Per Black’s Law dictionary, “witness is a person who has knowledge of an event and whose declaration under oath is received as evidence.” There are several types of witnesses who can testify before the International Criminal Court (ICC).