Frissítés!
***
Abu Garda önként állt a bíróság elé, míg két társa ellen nemzetközi elfogatóparancs van életben. Az ügyészség új bizonyítékok becsatolása után újra kérelmezheti Abu Garda tárgyalásra bocsátását.
A legfontosabb részek a következő paragrafusokban találhatóak: 151, 158, 163-233 (különösen 163, 173, 176-179, 189-191, 196, 208-209, 213, 215-216, 218-221, 228-233).
A döntés röviden:
The Chamber was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Bahar Idriss Abu Garda could be held criminally responsible either as a direct or as an indirect co-perpetrator for the commission of the crimes with which he was charged by the Prosecution. Abu Garda was charged with three war crimes, namely violence to life, intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units and vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission, and pillaging, allegedly committed during an attack carried out on 29 September, 2007, against the African Union Mission in Sudan (“AMIS”), a peace-keeping mission stationed at the Haskanita Military Group Site (“MGS Haskanita”), in the locality of Umm Kadada, North Darfur.
The Chamber stressed that the case was of sufficient gravity as the consequences of the attack had affected not only the AMIS personnel and their families, but also the local population as AMIS, involved in a peacekeeping mission, established under the auspices of the African Union, first suspended, and finally reduced its activities in the area. The Chamber also found that there were substantial grounds to believe that AMIS personnel and installations, material, units and vehicles stationed at the MGS Haskanita were entitled to protection given to civilians and to civilian objects under the international law of armed conflicts. The Chamber found, however, that the Prosecution’s allegations that Abu Garda participated in the alleged common plan to attack MGS Haskanita were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Cuno Tarfusser bíró különvéleménye (pp. 99-103) különösen érdekes:
4. The reasons justifying this Separate Opinion are rooted in fundamental principles of criminal law and procedure. The purpose of the pre-trial procedure is to determine whether one or more individuals should be committed for trial. It is critically important for such determination that the pre-trial judge be in a position to establish a link between the historical events as charged and the alleged perpetrator(s) as identified by the Prosecutor. Whenever the evidence gathered by the Prosecutor does not allow such a link to be established, because it is flimsy, inconsistent or otherwise inadequate, it is a pre-trial judge's duty to decline to confirm the charges and to refrain from conducting a detailed legal analysis of the facts, including the correspondence between the objective features of the facts, on the one hand, and the objective and subjective elements of a given crime, on the other.
6. It. is my firm view that the present case lacks evidence establishing a proper link between historical events: (the attack on MGS Haskanita, killings and the looting) and the suspect (Mr Abu Garda) in terms of either direct or indirect involvement. In this respect I do concur with the decision taken in paragraphs 163 to 233, whereby the Chamber established that the Prosecutor failed to prove his allegation as to Mr Abu Garda's involvement in the attack on the MGS Haskanita. As a direct consequence of what I said above, it is equally my view - and here I dissociate myself from the Majority - that, in the ascertained absence of a link between the events as charged and Mr Abu Garda, the Chamber should have refrained from legally characterising the historical events of the attack on the MGS Haskanita.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése