ICC Trials Next Stop Seychelles

Weekly Summaries of proceedings: 22 - 26 and 29 - 31 October 2012

Weekly Summary 22 - 26 October 2012

Two defense witnesses testified this week: witness D04-64 (under protective measures), and witness D04-51 (under protective measures), both indicated that they were former officials in the Patassé regime.

22 October 2012
The trial continued with the testimony of the eighth defense witness going by the in-court pseudonym D04-64. The witness, who was questioned by the defense, testified under protective measures. During the open session the witness indicated that he was a former official in the Patassé regime.

• The arrival of the MLC and the logistical support: According to the witness the MLC troops arrived on 30 October 2001 aboard a ferry crossing the Ubangui River to the CAR. Upon their arrival General Bombayake allegedly provided the troops with the same uniforms as the Presidential Guard of President Patassé (USP) as well as communication devices, weapons and vehicles.
• Daily subsistence allowance: According to the witness, the MLC troops were given subsistence allowance by Central African authorities. The money allegedly came from the Treasury of the CAR and was handed to General Bombayake who allegedly, with Colonel Mustafa, jointly distributed the money to the soldiers on the ground. The witness testified that this ‘happened in front of us at the residence of the president.’
• Bemba did not command the MLC troops during 2002 and 2003: The witness stated that on a visit to the CAR, Bemba told the MLC troops that they were under the command of Central African authorities. According to the witness, Bemba told the MLC troops to respect Bombayake as they would him self.

23 October 2012
The prosecution commenced the cross-examination of witness D04-64 and the Legal Representatives for Victims also questioned the witness.

Upon questioning by the Prosecution the witness provided insight on:

• Communication devices not automatically operational in the CAR: The prosecution asked the witness if there was a possibility that the MLC troops carried their own communication devices when arriving in the CAR, and if so if they would have been able to use their own equipment to communicate with their headquarters in Gbadolite. The witness answered that such equipment would not be automatically operational in the CAR without changing the radio frequency, because the signal does not go across the border. It would, according to the witness, have been necessary for CAR officials to set the frequencies.

Upon questioning by the legal representative for victims, the witness provided testimony on:

• Communication devices not usually operational in the CAR: The Legal Representative of Victims, Mr. Zarambaud also questioned the witness on the possibility that the MLC troops carried their own communication devices in the CAR. The witness replied to this question with the same answer as that given to the prosecution. However, the witness added that in practice the frequencies were set by a specialized service that had to receive orders from Colonel Mustafa before doing so.

24 October 2012
The defense commenced its examination of the ninth defense - witness D04-51. Most evidence was given in closed session. During open session it was indicated that the witness was a former official in the Patassé regime.

• The MLC troops arrived in the CAR October 30 2002: According to the witness the MLC troops did not arrive in the CAR until 30 October 2002.
• Patassé was part of the command structure: The witness alleged President Patassé was part of the command structure governing the conduct of the MLC troops, and he followed all the field operations of the MLC troops through a communication system at his residence. Asked by the defense why President Patassé was not in the field himself, the witness replied that in his function of President he was not allowed to.
• General Bombayake in command: According to the witness General Bombayake was “running the show”. The witness testified that General Bombayake’s orders to the MLC troops were made in consultation with President Patassé and hereafter General Bombayake issued them to Colonel Mustafa.
• All operations against Bozizé’s rebels were joint-operations between Central African soldiers and MLC soldiers: The witness stated that all operations against Bozizé’s rebels were joint-operations between Central African soldiers and the MLC. According to the witness the coordination of movement and operations was done through radio using the same frequencies. The witness explained that Central African soldiers led MLC soldiers because the MLC soldiers did not know the terrain. Furthermore, some of the Central African soldiers acted as drivers for the MLC troops.

25 October 2012
The prosecution commenced the cross-examination of witness D04-51.

As per the defence questioning, the prosecution paid a lot of attention to the command structure governing the conduct of the MLC troops. The questions and the answers given to those questions were a reiteration of the evidence given during the examination by the defense. Upon further questioning the witness provided insight on:

• All orders to advance were issued by the CCOP: When asked by the prosecution, the witness testified that all orders for the joint troops to advance were given by the Center for Command Operations (CCOP) via radio over the frequency shared by the Central African troops and the MLC troops.

26 October 2012

The prosecution and the Legal Representatives for Victims, Mr. Zarambaud and Ms. Douzima, concluded their cross-examination of witness D04-51.

Upon cross-examination by the Prosecution the witness provided insight on:

• Crimes committed by both MLC and Bozizé’s rebels: The prosecution asked the witness whether he had witnessed any crimes committed. The witness told the court that he had not experienced any crimes in person, however, the witness alleged that came to hear about atrocities committed by Bozizé’s rebels as well as by MLC soldiers through the radio. However, according to the witness it was difficult to determine who exactly was committing the crimes, due to the confused state of affairs during the fighting.
• Prosecution questioning whether the witness have received payment and/or promises for his testimony: The prosecution asked the witness whether or not he had received payment from the defense or the Court in order to testify for Bemba. The witness denied this. Furthermore the prosecution asked the witness whether any promises were made to him in exchange for his testimony. The witness explained that he met with the defense once in Paris, and after he agreed to give testimony, all the arrangements regarding his travel to The Hague and his stay in the Hague were taken over by the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU). He added that shortly before traveling to the Hague, he discussed with the VWU the possibility of receiving compnesation for lost income due to his stay in the Hague. He stated that the VWU had replied that they would consider compensating him.

Upon questioning by the Legal Representative for Victims, the witness testified about:

• Harassment of 30 Central African soldiers: Mr. Zarambaud asked the witness whether he was aware that the MLC had at one point arrested 30 Central African soldiers, taken their weapons, undressed them and mistreated them. The witness responded that he was hearing about it for the first time.

Weekly Summary 29 - 31 October 2012

This week the trial continued with a new defense witness. The witness is the tenth defense witness under the in-court pseudonym D04-55.

29 October 2012
Prior to his testimony, the witness expressed concerns about his own safety as well as his family’s safety, and he requested to give evidence only during closed session. Presiding Judge Steiner dismissed his request and encouraged the parties to strive for open sessions. However, the hearing continued in closed session for the rest of the day.

30 October 2012
The hearing continued mostly in closed session. However during open session moments of open session the prosecution cross-examined the witness:

• Prosecution questioning whether the witness had been coached on what to say and/or received any financial contributions: The witness denied that defense lawyers had coached him on what to say during his testimony. Furthermore the witness denied receiving any financial contributions to his travel expenses for meetings with the defense. The number of meetings between the defense and the witness was not disclosed.

31 October 2012
Closed Session

1 & 2 November 2012
No hearings

This is an informal and unofficial summary of the trial hearings. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the CICC is not responsible for any omissions or inaccuracies contained within the following summary, which is provided for informational purposes only.