It also found that it was necessary for the prosecutor “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” the allegations of witness tampering.
It agreed with the Prosecutor that, “that for procedural filings, such as this one, the existence of facts should be established by the relevant party on the basis of a balance of probabilities.”
“The chamber notes the element of systematicity of the interference of several witnesses in this case which gives rise to the impression of an attempt to methodically target witnesses of this case in order to hamper the proceedings. The chamber will not allow such hindrance and will safeguard the integrity of the Proceedings,” it made clear.
The defence had argued that the prior recorded statements shouldn’t be admitted into evidence as they were not taken under oath nor was there the threat of liability for false statements.
But the chamber found that the fact that the witnesses appended their signatures to the statements “to the best of their knowledge” the statements could in fact be admitted into evidence.
The defence also challenged the reliability of the statements on the grounds that they were written in English but when those who’d recanted their statements took the stand, it was clear that they were not fluent in the language “and (testimony) ended up being in Swahili with English interpretation.”
The motivation for making the prior recorded statements, the defence also argued, was suspect as a number of witnesses, when they took the stand, testified that they were motivated by the promise of an easier life in the West in exchange for their testimony.
But the chamber stated that it would exercise its discretion in determining the truth of the statements.
About The Author
