In particular, the Chamber “deprecated” the Prosecution’s use of a public interview, first, to misrepresent the evidence and to comment on its merits and weight, and including by way of remarks on the credibility of its own witnesses in the context of a trial where much of the evidence has been heard in closed session with the public excluded; second, to express views on matters that are awaiting resolution by the Chamber, thereby intruding on the latter’s role; third, to criticise the accused without foundation; and, finally, to purport to announce how the Chamber will resolve the submissions on the abuse of process application, and, moreover, that the accused will be convicted in due course and sentenced to lengthy imprisonment at the end of the case.
The Chamber reminded that in the Lubanga trial, for reasons of security, a very considerable part of the proceedings took place in camera. Given that members of the public have been excluded from a significant part of the trial, anyone interested in the case is significantly hampered in understanding “first-hand” what has occurred during these lengthy proceedings. Accordingly, the numerous closed-session hearings have increased the responsibility of the parties to be scrupulously accurate and balanced in public interviews.
The Chamber emphasized that as a matter of professional ethics a party to proceedings is expected not to misrepresent the evidence, to misdescribe the functions of the parties or the Chamber, or to suggest or imply without proper foundation that anyone in the case, including the accused, has misbehaved.
Lubanga, Decision on the Press Interview with Ms Le Fraper Du Hellen, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, T. Ch., 12 May 2010