See previous post: “Lubanga case: disclosure related to Prosecution intermediaries”.The Prosecution argued that it has “an independent statutory obligation to protect persons put at risk on account of the Prosecution’s actions. It should not comply, or be asked to comply, with an Order that may require it to violate its separate statutory obligation by subjecting the person to foreseeable risk.”
Today, the Trial Chamber ordered the stay of the proceedings.
The Chamber emphasized that no criminal court can operate on the basis that whenever it makes an order in a particular area, it is for the Prosecutor to elect whether or not to implement it, depending on his interpretation of his obligations.
The Prosecutor, according to the Chamber, cannot be allowed to continue with the Prosecution if he seeks to reserve to himself the right to avoid the Court’s orders whenever he decides that they are inconsistent with his interpretation of his other obligations.
The Chamber concluded that in these circumstances, it is necessary to stay the proceedings.
Whilst the stay of the proceedings is in place, the Chamber will deal with any application for leave to appeal on this or any related issue that is filed.
Otherwise, the Chamber will only entertain submissions regarding the possible application of Article 71 of the Statute (“Sanctions for misconduct before the Court”) on 8 July and submissions on the accused’s detention on 15 July.
Lubanga, Redacted Decision on the Prosecution's Urgent Request for Variation of the Time-Limit to Disclose the Identity of Intermediary 143 or Alternatively to Stay Proceedings Pending Further Consultations with the VWU, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, T. Ch., 8 July 2010.See also See also “Lubanga case: Chamber’s orders are binding, but stay of proceedings was premature”, and "Lubanga case: disclosure related to Prosecution intermediaries" on this blog.
