The fate of Deputy President William Ruto and radio journalist Joshua arap Sang now rests withthe International Criminal Court (ICC) judges after the counsel for the defence and prosecutioncompleted their submissions on the no case-to-answer motion.
The trial chamber led by Judge Osuji Eboe said that it would scrutinise the evidence rendered in court and make a determination in three days. Ruto and Sang are expected to be physically present during the ruling.
The close of the session came on the day Ruto's and Sang's lawyers Karim Khan and Katwa Kigen respectively told the judges that they will decide whether to call witnesses once the judges make a determination on whether their clients have a case to answer. “We will look at the evidential matter and all the arguments, for now, we have done what we hoped to do,” said Osuji.
The prosecution as well as the victims’ lawyers on the other hand insisted that they have enough evidence for a conviction. In his opening remarks, the victims lawyer Wilfred Nderitu told the court that there had been a misunderstanding of the no-case-to-answer hearing and the standard of proof over the last two days.
Nderitu told the trial chamber that the threshold required at this stage was very low on the prosecution as compared to the defence. He argued that the defence had the bigger role to play to convince the judges that there was no case to answer as opposed to the prosecution which he said is not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the duo had a case to answer.
"It cannot be disputed that the burden of proof of facts constituting a crime rests with the prosecution, however, it is important to recognise the fact that the submission of no-case-to-answer is not about proving of facts,” he said.
Nderitu told the chamber that the defence evidence is not periphery but central evidence as they also have the burden of persuading the judges that Ruto and Sang have no case to answer.
According to him, the case of proving beyond reasonable doubt came up yet during the approval a similar motion in June 2104 this was not part of the requirement. Asked by Osuji whether the onus of proof had changed from the prosecution to the defence, Nderitu said that while this had not changed, the defence team still had a bigger role to play in order to convince the chamber that the two are innocent.
“What is required is no more than looking for beyond reasonable doubt, it is a question of existence rather than one of strength,” he said. And on its part the prosecution led by the lead trial council Anton Steinberg said that the defense bears the burden of persuasion just like the prosecution bears the burden of proof.
According to Steinberg, it is up to the prosecution to convince to the chamber that their clients are innocent and thus the trial should not proceed. On the alleged network Steinberg, said that although the Rome Statute requires there be a one, the network is not one that will even have offices and members but it is proving that the attack was planned.
But Khan and Kigen dismissed the prosecution allegations saying the prosecution had failed to address the glaring deficiencies that had been pointed out.
The post Ruto, Sang to know fate of case within three days appeared first on Mediamax Network Limited.