In a submission by the ICC registry to the Trial Chamber V, the registry argues that the process of setting up a perfect video link is an uphill task not only in monetary terms but also in time.
In the submission dated April 9th, 2013, the Registry said that this would be a burden to the ICC as it will be forced to supply, install and operate equipment.
“There is a higher risk of delays in court proceedings using video link than the accused being present in the courtroom,” said the ICC Registry.
“The Registry maintains that its view that a video link set up should be an ad hoc solution rather than a structural one.”
The ICC Registry further argued that “there would be no possibility to facilitate and guarantee telephone communication between the parties present in the courtroom and at the remote location”.
The Registry argues that there is no absolute guarantee of a perfect electricity supply or a perfect audio quality which is critical in the proceedings.
The Registry further noted that “during winter, the time difference between Kenya and Netherlands is 2 hours and the staff in Kenya would be required to work until 2100 hours in an event of afternoon hearings”.
According to the ICC Registry, the setting up of a fully functional video link would cost as high as 5.4 million Kenya shillings and therefore placing an unnecessary burden to the ICC.
The Hague Registry also noted that the minimum period required for the setting up of the system for an effective video-link trial would not be less than two months and that this would delay the cases further which will ultimately affect justice to both the victims and the accused.
The submission by Registry comes a week after the ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opposed the use of video link saying that it would delay delivery of justice.
Bensouda urged the court to dismiss the request by two suspects President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto on the grounds that this would give an impression of trial in absentia and that technology could fail during the trial and therefore affect the administration of justice.
In a written submission to the Trial Chamber V Judges, Bensouda argued that the use of video links in trials lack the legal basis that is the foundation of any judicial system.
Bensouda argued that the Rome Statute, which establishes the ICC, is clear that any person facing charges at the court must be physically present during the trials.
Article 62 of the Rome Statute defines the place of trial to be the seat of the court, unless otherwise decided.
According to the ICC prosecutor, Kenyatta did not give any convincing reason to be granted the request.
She described Kenyatta’s argument as an “unremarkable fact shared by every accused at the court”.
She further claimed that Kenyatta’s request lacks the basis to grant his request and if the reasons were substantive enough, she would not have opposed the move.
She argued that Kenyatta’s request is not a basis to grant the extraordinary relief sought and if it were, the court would quickly turn into a “virtual tribunal” where accused appear for trial only if it is convenient for them to do so.
Bensouda also argued that a video-link appearance is that technological problems are likely to interrupt and delay the proceedings even to the extent that the integrity of the proceedings could be questioned.
She said that video technology is vulnerable to frequent glitches caused by weather and other variables outside the control of the court’s technical staff.
However, the Rome Statute provides that an accused can observe trial via video link from outside the courtroom.
In her submission, the Hague-based court Prosecutor insisted that for the purposes of the Rome Statute the term “present” means physically present.
However, the final word remains with the Trial Chamber V judges who will give the way forward.
By Koome Kimonye, Citizen News
