No Release for Detained Counsel

Aimé Kilolo, Jean-Jacques Mangenda and Jean-Pierre Bemba

Aimé Kilolo, Jean-Jacques Mangenda and Jean-Pierre Bemba on trial at the IC

On 14 March 2014 and 17 March 2014, respectively, the requests for interim release of Me Aimé Kilolo Musamba, former lead counsel for Mr Bemba, and Mr Jean Jacques Mangenda, former case manager for Mr Bemba, were denied.

Under article 60(2) of the Statute, upon an application for interim release, the Chamber has to determine whether “the conditions set forth in article 58 paragraph 1 are met”. In the negative, the person shall be released “with or without conditions”.

It is worth noting that in the contempt case in relation to which Messrs Kilolo and Mangenda were detained, the Prosecution did not decide to make use of the alternative enshrined in the Statute at Article 58 (7), namely to request the Pre Trial Chamber to issue a summons for the person to appear. The accused did not therefore have the opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to appear voluntarily before the Court.

In its decisions, a Single Judge denied the requests for interim release on the basis that, in his view, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused have committed the crimes they are accused of, and, among other reasons, that there are concrete flight risks. Continue reading

ICJ Rules in Timor-Leste’s Request for Provisional Measures Against Australia

by Shehzad Charania*

International Court of JusticeOn 17 December 2013, Timor-Leste instituted proceedings at the International Court of Justice against Australia. The application related to the seizure and detention of “documents, data and other property” by “agents of Australia” from the offices of Timor-Leste’s legal adviser in Canberra, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Australian Attorney General under the Australian Security Intelligence Act.  Timor-Leste claimed that the material seized related to a pending arbitration in which the 2006 Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea was invalid because Australia had bugged the offices of the Timor-Leste cabinet room for a number of years, thereby gaining an unfair advantage in treaty negotiations.  In their application, Timor-Leste argued that the material should be returned, and copies retrieved and destroyed.  They demanded an apology, and a declaration from the ICJ that Australia’s actions were illegal under international law.

The same day, Timor-Leste submitted a request for provisional measures.  They sought the delivery of the seized documents to the ICJ; information relating to, and destruction of copies made; and an assurance that Australia would “not intercept or cause or request the interception of communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers, whether within or outside Australia or Timor-Leste”. Continue reading