NAIROBI, KENYA: Appeals Chamber judgement on William Ruto’s presence at trial will be delivered in open court on Friday October 25.
On Tuesday, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court ( ICC) said it will deliver its judgment on the Prosecutorâs appeal against the decision by Trial Chamber V(a) granting William Samoei Ruto a conditional excusal from being present at his trial.
On 18 June 2013, Trial Chamber V(a) had conditionally granted, by majority, William Samoei Rutoâs request to be excused from being physically present continuously throughout the trial, with the exception of a number of sessions including the opening and closing statements of all parties and participants; when victims present their views and concerns in person during the trial; the delivery of judgment in the case and, if applicable, sentencing and reparations; and any other attendance that may be ordered by the Chamber.
After authorization by the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor filed its appeal against this decision on 29 July 2013.
On 20 August 2013, the Appeals Chamber granted suspensive effect to the Prosecutorâs appeal against Trial Chamber V(a)âs decision, pending a final determination on Mr Rutoâs presence at trial.
Consequently, Mr Ruto was requested to be present during all trial hearings pending the Appeals Chamber judgment, which will be delivered this Friday.
The trial in the case The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang opened on 10 September 2013 in the presence of the accused.
Mr. Ruto is accused of being criminally responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator pursuant to article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute for the crimes against humanity of: murder (article 7(l)(a)), deportation or forcible transfer of population (article 7(l)(d)); and persecution (article 7(l)(h)).
Mr Sang is accused of having otherwise contributed (within the meaning of article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute) to the commission of the following crimes against humanity: murder (article 7(l)(a)); deportation or forcible transfer of population (article 7(l)(d)); and persecution (article 7(l)(h)).
They have both denied the charges before the court.
