A former investigator for the Office of the Prosecutor testifies on the allegations of misconduct against the Prosecution's intermediaries. Nicolas Sabire, who coordinated the activities of Intermediary 316, takes the stand to shed light on this individual's questioned behaviour. According to several Defence witnesses, Intermediary 316 bribed them into lying to the investigators by presenting themselves as child soldiers.
"The fib was to say that Thomas Lubanga had enrolled children in the army and I myself was amongst them," Defence Witness 16 told the judges. The youngster, an alleged former child soldier, told the Court that an OTP intermediary persuaded him to say that even children from his own family had been recruited by the UPC, the political-military movement allegedly led by Thomas Lubanga. The intermediary, who has also testified in this trial, denied all allegations.
Mr. Sabire told the Court that he used the services of Intermediary 316 to contact potential witnesses for the Prosecution team. As he explained, this individual was an important mediator because he had provided relevant information and contact to members of the UPC. The witness told the judges he never thought that Intermediary 316 might have induced any witness to give false testimony. "[Intermediary 316] was not present during the interviews [with witnesses] and the questions put to them were not at his disposal," he added.
However, Mr. Sabire admits the existence of some "incidents" regarding the intermediary's conduct. The Defence referenced an email dated May 2006 in which Mr. Sabire told his investigation team that he had difficulties in justifying some payments made to 316. At that point in time, Sabire thought that some "bizarre" information had been provided by the intermediary and needed to be double-checked. As the witness explained, the difficulties in justifying the payments were due to the lack of regulation of payments made to ICC non-staff. He also added that the "bizarre" information was merely "surprising information," and not necessarily "suspicious".
The Defence reminded the witness that OTP investigators from the other team had raised concerns about 316, accusing him of lying about threats to certain witnesses. In addition, witnesses who were introduced to the OTP by this individual also claimed that 316's behaviour was inappropriate. Witness 35, a UPC commander who the Prosecution eventually decided not to call, alleged that the OTP intermediary kept the money allocated to pay witness expenses during their stay in Kampala (Uganda), where interviews with the OTP were taking place. Mr. Sabire cannot confirm nor deny this allegation. As the witness stated, Intermediary 316 assured him that Witness 35 was spending that money improperly. He simply believed him.
Witness 35 submitted more complaints. According to the so-called UPC commander, the intermediary had promised him that the OTP would pay for the products he needed. Mr. Sabire told the judges that making promises is not a practice within the Prosecution and that he personally ensured Witness 35 that the OTP would not pay for any product.
The Defence, in its attempt to trap the investigator, suggested that Witness 35 was not a commander in the UPC and referred to a notebook that the witness used during the course of his interviews with the investigators. In the notes, names are legible that were supposedly familiar to the so-called commander - names such as Bosco Ntaganda and Floribert Kisembo, who had high ranking in the military armed group allegedly led by Mr. Lubanga. As the Defence explained, Witness 35 did not even remember the name of the military arm of the UPC, Le Front Patriotic pour la Liberation du Congo. Mr. Sabire cannot deny this allegation. He did not have the opportunity to review Witness 35's statements made five years ago. What he could say is that he was not delighted by the way Witness 35 was telling his story.
Mr. Sabire also came in contact with Witness 15 through Intermediary 316. The youngster, who had claimed to be a child soldier in the UPC, testified in court for the first time in June 2009. On that occasion, he told the judges that he had given false testimony to the investigators. He mentioned a third individual as the person responsible for these lies: Intermediary 316. As part of his tasks, the OTP intermediary facilitated the meetings with the witness and MONUC personnel or investigators.
In light of certain concerns regarding the credibility of Witness 15, the Defence asked Mr. Sabire whether or not he verified the identity of this witness. "I checked the archive and tried to obtain access to the Congolese voters database but that was not possible. I did not obtain any result." Further details with regards to Witness 15's activities and his sincerity have been discussed in private session.
"In March 2010, you had contact with the OTP with regards the behaviour of Intermediary 316 and the credibility of Witnesses 15 and 35," says the Defence. "During the phone conversation, was there anything said that was not set out in the writing email?" asks the Counsel. "In emails, we used different terms, but [the phone conversation] was a repetition of what was said before. I expressed my surprise."
