Friday, 22 January 2010 -Witness 229: 'Once the enemy was found, they were shot'

The morning's session starts with questions put by the Prosecution team. During the course of his examination, the third participating victim explains to Ms. Olivia Struyven how the Battle of Bunia was conducted and his role as a scout during the attack. "Mr. Witness, yesterday you indicated that you had to show the UPC soldiers where the enemy was. What happened when the enemy was found?" asks the Trial Attorney. "Once the enemy was found, they were shot," says Witness 229. The Prosecution asks more about the punishments meted out in the camps and the age of the new recruits. "You used the term kadogo," says Ms. Struyven, could you tell us the age of the youngest [child solider] that you saw? Witness 229 is unable to say.

It is now the Defence's turn.  The Lead Counsel, Catherine Mabille looks back in detail what the witness has said in court so far. "You said that you travelled for two days before reaching the second camp," says the Counsel. "Apparently you spent one week undergoing training in this second camp. After training you left to fight in Bunia," she continues. "Now on the first day of your arrival in Bunia you said you had been spy, correct?  And you said to get to Bunia it took you four days... you stay in Bunia for one week and you left Bunia and to get Mongwalu... You spent two days before the battle in Mongwalu, right? And you fled after the first day of the battle in Mongwalu. It is that true?" asks Ms. Mabille. "Yes it is true," answers the witness.

The Lead Counsel turns to the witness´ additional statement submitted in 2008. She reads out:  "...Thomas Lubanga´s militia men took me to Bule camp where I spent three months..."  "did training at Bule camp did last for one week or for three months?" asks Ms. Mabille.  "The training there was one week," reaffirms the witness.  This statement is incorrect.

Ms. Mabille continues and quotes: "...I took part in hostilities in Kubu at the beginning of 2003...". "Did you participate in hostilities in Kubu at the beginning of 2003?" Witness 229 denies this information.  "Does that mean that the additional statement regarding this aspect is incorrect?" Ms. Mabille persists.  "No it is true," says a confused witness.

The Defence Counsel now moves to the written statement of the witness, it is the transcript of an interview: "...with my weapon, I killed two enemies in the fight in Pitu against the Lendu combatants..."  "Mr. Witness did you take part in fighting in Pitu?" asks the Counsel.  Witness 229 said previously he had only participated in the battle of Bunia and Mongwalu. The answer he gives is inconsistent.

"Mr. Witness, who was the leader of the attack you were involved in Bunia?" Ms. Mabille continues.  "I did not know who was the commander at that time," the witness replies. "You participated in that Battle and you didn´t know who was commanding the troops? And your unit commander?''  the Lead Counsel asks once again. At this moment, Ms Struyven intervenes to remind the Chamber this information was examined in private session. The witness´ answer is redacted. The protected victim may be easily identified. "Private session, please," says Judge Fulford.

The Defence conducts the cross-examination almost entirely in private session.

The hearing comes to an end with a final request made by the Legal Representatives of Victims. The Defence case will commence next week and Mr. Walleyn wants to remind the Lubanga team that they are obliged to disclose information concerning the upcoming witnesses. "[The Defence] refuses to disclose these documents. Just few are accessible. We received the number of the witnesses but not the names. This has put us in a difficult situation," says Mr. Walleyn.

According to the Legal Representatives, the Chamber´s rules entitle them to receive this information. The Defence Lead Counsel looks uncomfortable. "It is unpleasant to have this debate" say Ms. Mabille. There is an obvious disagreement between the victims lawyers and the Defence team concerning the questioning of witnesses presenting exculpatory evidence. In the Defence´s view, only the participating victims mentioned by their witnesses should be allowed to put questions.

Presiding Fulford wants to conclude, and stresses that the Chamber has ruled on this on many occasions. "This is troubling. Ladies and gentleman have a discussion after we rise. We wish you a pleasant weekend- 9.30 Monday Morning." -"All rise!"