home > SESSION 4 > 14

contribution 14 - CONDÉ Aïcha

français english

tags

Civil law vs Common law

Aïcha CONDÉ

transtlated version

Yes. I had asked to take the floor. I am sorry. I wanted to backtrack to what was said this morning because I find it sad that the Judges were last to take the floor and that we were unable to respond. It is pretty sad. And since this afternoon’s topic relates to judgement, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to say one or two things.

The trial is ongoing. We are required to submit our briefs in a short time limit. And I remember that I had to wait for 12 months after I was asked to tender my brief for the judgement. I know, Your Honours, that you have many trials to handle while I was required to submit my brief within two months and the judgement comes 12 months later.

Also, Judge Khan stated that since judges have come from different legal systems, sometimes you find judges who interfere with the proceedings. And I like those interfering judges because they kind of take it hard on the Prosecutor, and that obtains in my legal system. And I believe that the judges have to push the parties hard. That is what I expect of them. And I enjoy saying, Judge Arrey, trying to push everybody hard. I don’t like pleading before her, but I enjoy the way she handles it.

I would also like to state that in respect of the closure of the Tribunal, Judge Arrey talked about trials in absentia, but what happens about reviews, judgements in review? If there are provisos in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, who will handle this business after the closure of the Tribunal? There have been unsuccessful attempts.

The Appeals Chamber, which we call infamously the Chamber of Confirmation, we believe there will be a day when there will be a review and we wonder what Bench will handle that review.

And to conclude, in respect of Judge Short’s intervention, I enjoyed I liked it, what he said, because it is the first time that I hear a judge saying that perhaps the solution lies elsewhere. Maybe the solution lies in the investigations.

I am persuaded that the solution lies in the investigation. Duval is against, and he says there would be two prosecutors, that is, the Office of the Prosecutor proper and the examining magistrate. And I believe that the investigation gives us access to all the exculpatory evidence or material.

Ms. Fall was saying, what is exculpatory is exculpatory, which is just what is against the Prosecution case. And that system will enable her to have access and enable us to use all the tools to have access to the material we can’t access because Defence lawyers are unable to access or do not have the same par as the Office of the Prosecutor.

Yes, in the absence of an examining magistrate, there should be a magistrate who controls the work or the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor. These are the thoughts prompted to me by the Judges.

A. GARAPON

Thank you very much. We do not really want to leave this issue.