Tuesday, 16 February 2010- Re-examination of Defence Witness adjourned for interpretation problems
The testimony of the fourth Defence witness is still a mystery. It's his second day on the stand but little is known about him. Lubanga´s lawyers said that most of their evidence would be presented publicly. However yesterday, the Lead Counsel conducted her questioning entirely in private session. Exhaustive protective measures have been implemented to conceal the witness´ identity.
Today it is the turn of the Prosecution, but again, those in the public gallery are none the wiser. Private sessions, redactions on confidential information and unexpected interruptions dominate. Ms. Struyven´s words are few brush strokes which one must use to reconstruct a story. "He came to your village," she says to the witness. The witness mentions a name. Ms. Struyven wonders if the name poses a problem for the Defence and if it should be redacted. But she continues. "Did he come to see you alone? Did you know him? How long did you meet during the first visit?" The witness replies with short answers. He didn´t know anything about his visitor. That man came to meet the witness on two occasions.
The examination goes on in private. Once in a while the long silence is broken by sentences that the public audience cannot contextualise. Now it is Presiding Judge Fulford who wants to understand Ms. Struyven´s line of questioning. According to the Trial Attorney, there are discrepancies between the summary the Defence has provided to the Prosecution about this witness and his testimony in court.
All at once the Defence Lead Counsel announces there are mistakes in the live transcripts. "At page 30 in the French transcript, two names are mentioned [by the witness] but in the English transcript the second name has been omitted," she says. The Defence plans on questioning the witness again about this particular name so this is going to present a problem. Judge Fulford asks for a break to determine whether the second name has been mentioned.
After the break, the Defence team says they have double-checked the transcripts with their client and they had found "very serious interpretation problems." The defendant, Mr. Thomas Lubanga is hearing the witness testimony through the Swahili booth. "He says [the witness´s] answers have been very clear. There shouldn't be any difficulties apart from the fact that [the witness] speaks fast," says Maitre Mabille.
Under the circumstances, the Defence team asks the Chamber for adjournment once the Prosecution and the Legal Representatives of Victims conclude their examination. "We need to double cross-check interpretation of the transcript," says the Lead Counsel.
The Chamber grants the request. "You will not be required to conduct your re-examination this afternoon. It simply wouldn't be fair," says Judge Fuldford.
Produced in partnership with 3 Generations
