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
(a) Prosecutors have nearly limitless discretion in the most critical matters they must consider, yet they are held to very high ethical standards.
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/
The justice system is something that should be made available to everyone, but in this case it’s not. Basically if you can’t be able to prove to the court why you should win the case, then you won’t win the case (Law and Society at Kwathlen). Another option to win over the court is often demonstrated in court cases today, and that is bribery. The Law and Society at Kwathlen page stated: “Officials and authority figures may be corrupt, and they may take bribes from individuals who are trying to get ahead in life without having to wait or go around obstacles” (Law and Society at Kwathlen). The detectives investigating Lobato’s case just ignored the evidence found, and assume she is guilty. Here in this article explains why the two detectives made the choice to arrest Kirstin: “The only way Thowsen and LaRochelle could protect themselves financially, and avoid the professional consequences of being publicly identified as responsible for a young woman being wrongly arrested and charged with murder, was to make the tragic choice to pretend she is guilty” (Kirstin Blaise Lobato Has Been Twice Wrongfully Convicted Because Of ‘Tragic Choices’). The use of tragic choices such as using quick and dirty solutions to close cases, have led to the corruption of our justice
This paper explores accusations of selective justice regarding the ICC, made by the African Union. It argues that the ICC can effectively contribute to peace and peacebuilding, so long as it involves a comprehensive approach to international justice that extends beyond criminal trials. The argument is reinforced through utilization of African case studies where the ICC has not been entirely effective. Furthermore a solution focusing on progressive initiatives of restorative international justice is outlined. The African case studies demonstrate a Western centric bias of the ICC; however, the progressive initiatives show a willingness to go forward with international justice and a shift toward a new consciousness. It is imperative that the world recognize the potential for the ICC and exercise patient while its identity and role is established. Key leaders must recognize that the ICC is still in its infancy, having been formed in 2002 (ICC, 2011).
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
While Deskovic and the court fight and got him in jail, Deskovic still find research for his justice and the court finding the truth of which side are lying or something not really find out. What I can learn from this doesn't anybody and take care yourself in every time. Like Deskovic that say "To hear the judge who put procedure over innocence could be moving to a higher court is very upsetting to me" which mean that he has to go to jail that he didn't do anything wrong and the jury didn't believe
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.
In this paper I will be analyzing two trials, the O.J. Simpson trial and the Oscar Pistorius trial. The O.J. Simpson trial by jury was conducted in California, while Oscar Pistorius’s trial by judge was conducted in South Africa. Both criminal cases dealt with high profile athletes whom were accused of murder. Public opinion on both cases disagreed with the final verdict. In order to fully understand if one system is more effective in reaching the goal of justice. We must look at how judges are selected in each system as well as how criminal cases are conducted in each geographical area. In California, the defendant was found not guilty by a jury, while in South Africa the defendant was found guilty by the judge. I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a court trial and a trial by judge. In the context of the O.J. Simpson trial and the Oscar Pistorius trial, we are left with one question is one system more efficient in reaching justice?
Moore, R., (1987) “Courts, Law, Justice and Criminal Trials” – International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice.
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 judge is essential to the courts as are prosecutors and the attorneys of defense. The text states these are the three key actors of court if either one of the three are not present court will not proceed to session (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 104). In this essay I will discuss the three ways in which judges are selected, the advantages and disadvantages of the three methods used, and which selection method is most equitable.
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.
This case investigates the murder of a woman by her husband, the Applicant, Anton Mulder, who has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder. The hearing for this case had been interfered by parties outside of the jury. There had been confrontation in the courtroom where there were remarks shouted by the public. Also, the judge hearing the case, Judge Carney swore in jury as he felt that the plea of guilty to manslaughter was unacceptable to the prosecution.
The sala of Judge Cresencio Tan was kind enough to allow us to observe cases where evidences were presented in the form of witnesses and documents. The first case was simple enough as it was for the initial reception of the prosecution’s evidence. In this proceeding, the prosecutor merely requested for the markings of the evidences she presented in court and the counsel for the accused was asked if he admits it or not. I was waiting for some evidence that would not be admitted by the counsel for the accused in order to see what would happen next, however, all evidences were admitted. With that, that particular session ended. The second case called was for the continuation of reception of prosecution’s evidence. In this case, a witness was presented and the counsel for the accused addressed the witness. I observed that his line of questioning was set on establishing doubt in relation to his personal knowledge of the crime and the drugs in question. The counsel for the accused was able to establish that since the witness himself admitted that he was not really there during the arrest. This case illustrated to me the importance of the element of personal knowledge of a a crime in the determination of a person’s
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...