Inhumane acts, constituting a crime against humanity in violation of article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute
The pre-trial chamber found substantial grounds to believe Muthaura and Kenyatta were criminally responsible for the alleged crimes as indirect co-perpetrators. The charges against Ali were rejected.
On January 23, 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that the prosecutor’s evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required under the Rome Statute to bring Kosgei and Ali to trial. Specifically, in regards to Kosgei, the chamber found that the prosecutor relied on one anonymous and insufficiently corroborated witness. The chamber also determined that Kosgei suffered prejudice due to the redaction of certain dates related to a number of meetings that he allegedly attended, which proved to be essential for his defense and for the finding on his criminal responsibility. …show more content…
On 11th March 2013 prosecution withdrew charges against Kenyatta’s co-accused Francis Muthaura and on 30 the same month Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta became Kenya’s fourth President. The Hague and people worldwide thought what happened during the 2007-2008 would re-occur but elections were peaceful that year. In the same year on 21st September there was an attack by the Al-Shabaab on one of Kenya’s malls- Westgate Mall and this did not affect the ICC hearing however the trial chamber rules in a majority decision that Kenyatta does not have to be continuously present at his trial The Hague due to his exceptional nature of his position as sitting head of state on 18th October 2013. From March 2013 to October 2014 President Kenyatta’s lawyers had requested three times that the case against Kenyatta be dropped: March 2013, January 2014 and October 2014 thus the trial chamber decided that he, President Kenyatta, did not have to continuously be present at his
The pre-trial chamber found substantial grounds to believe Muthaura and Kenyatta were criminally responsible for the alleged crimes as indirect co-perpetrators. The charges against Ali were rejected.
On January 23, 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber II found that the prosecutor’s evidence failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold required under the Rome Statute to bring Kosgei and Ali to trial. Specifically, in regards to Kosgei, the chamber found that the prosecutor relied on one anonymous and insufficiently corroborated witness. The chamber also determined that Kosgei suffered prejudice due to the redaction of certain dates related to a number of meetings that he allegedly attended, which proved to be essential for his defense and for the finding on his criminal responsibility. …show more content…
On 11th March 2013 prosecution withdrew charges against Kenyatta’s co-accused Francis Muthaura and on 30 the same month Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta became Kenya’s fourth President. The Hague and people worldwide thought what happened during the 2007-2008 would re-occur but elections were peaceful that year. In the same year on 21st September there was an attack by the Al-Shabaab on one of Kenya’s malls- Westgate Mall and this did not affect the ICC hearing however the trial chamber rules in a majority decision that Kenyatta does not have to be continuously present at his trial The Hague due to his exceptional nature of his position as sitting head of state on 18th October 2013. From March 2013 to October 2014 President Kenyatta’s lawyers had requested three times that the case against Kenyatta be dropped: March 2013, January 2014 and October 2014 thus the trial chamber decided that he, President Kenyatta, did not have to continuously be present at his