Wednesday, 27 January 2010 - Defence: "There cannot be true justice if a significant part of this trial is based on fabricated evidence"
It has been one year and one day since the Lubanga trial started. It is now time for the Defence lawyers to open their case. Lubanga has been waiting for this moment for some time: the chance to prove to Trial Chamber I that he is innocent. His lawyers open their case with a serious allegation: a substantial part of the trial so far has been based on false testimonies.
"The Prosecution brought 26 witnesses before the Court, if we put aside the three experts," says Ms. Mabille. "The Defence´s intention is to prove that many of the prosecution witnesses came to testify knowing they were giving inaccurate information and that some of these false testimonies were fabricated by intermediaries that collaborated with the prosecution."
Lubanga Trial at the ICC. Defense case opening statement from Aegis Trust on Vimeo.
Ms. Mabille gives an example, referring back to the initial statement given by the first prosecution witness one year ago: "´statements did not come from my own free will. I was taught this statement for three and a half years, I don't like this. I want to say my own version´ ...´This story you have told us is true or false? ´ ´It is false...´ "This initial statement confirms that certain witnesses have been manipulated," says Ms. Mabille.
The Lead Counsel explains the Defence's intentions. "We intend to demonstrate that all individuals presented as child soldiers deliberately lied before this court. Six of them were never child soldiers; the 7th lied about his age and the conditions under which he was enrolled and the 8th never belonged to the UPC," says the lawyer. To prove their case, the Defence will call "parents and friends of these so- called child soldiers, representatives of various schools, as well as people who themselves took part in this process of fabricating false testimony." Ms. Mabille goes on to say that "this fraudulent process affects not just the evidence relating to child soldiers but also will lead us to ask significant questions about the credibility of all the testimonies heard before this court."
The Defence Counsel alleges that the Prosecution has failed in respect of its obligations to investigate exculpatory evidence and has not managed to control intermediaries. "We do not intend to demonstrate that there were not minors within the UPC, but the reality at that time must not be distorted as it was by the Prosecution," says the lawyer.
The Defence case will focus on two fundamental arguments: Firstly, that Thomas Lubanga played no active role in the creation of the UPC military forces and therefore did not deliberately take part in a common plan to recruit minors. Secondly, that Thomas Lubanga, "at the time he was responsible for them," did all he could to demobilize minors. "These are, your Honour, the major thrusts of the Defence of Thomas Lubanga."
Closed session and the first Defence witness enters into the court room.
"Mr. Witness could you tell us the professional activities performed by your son in the year 2002 and 2003?" Defence lawyer, Mark Desalliers, asks Witness 02.
Witness 02 tells the court his son was never absent from home for any activity during the indictment period between 2002 and 2003.
-"He lived at home for his entire life," says Witness 02
-"It is possible your son was a member of an armed group?" asks Mr. Desalliers
-"No. I am sure... never, never''.
Produced in partnership with 3 Generations
