Wednesday, 31 March 2010 - Prosecution goes back to Witnesses 297 and 298

Prior to returning to the evidence on Defence Witness 14, the morning hearing focuses on two witnesses to whom the Prosecution team wants to go back: Prosecution witnesses 297 and 298.

The Prosecution was allowed to interview the witnesses in a brief meeting prior to their testimony in Court. The team did so with the witnesses called by the Defence. But at this time, both the Defence and Prosecution teams disagree on the manner the pre-testimony interview with Witness 297 must take place.

Lubanga´s lawyers say that the meetings should be short, between 30 and 40 minutes; that they should take place in The Hague; and that the Defence team must also be present. Contrarily the Prosecution indicates it needed more time to investigate any matter that may arise in the course of the meeting, and it should be entitled to meet the individuals separately, as Witness 297 do not return to the Court as Defence witnesses, but as Prosecution witnesses.

With respect to Witness 297, the Defence says: "The OTP wants to conduct a full and lengthy questioning of Witness 297. We believe this is not proper. [The witness] was already examined during sixteen hours and a half in two sessions. (...) The OTP has all the material necessary to prepare the examination of the witness," says Mr. Biju-Duval. The Lubanga Defence team says it does not oppose the Prosecution interviewing these witnesses, but the conditions should be the same as the other meetings with Defence witnesses.

Defence Counsel Catherine Mabille also wants to raise her concerns on the OTP disclosure obligations with respect to Prosecution Witness 157. She states that they have learnt that the Prosecution in the case of German Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo -the mirror side of the Lubanga case- seems to have a different disclosure regime. According to the Counsel, the OTP is adopting a position that is inconsistent in both cases: the OTP submitted to the Trial Chamber II a filing which stated that the evidence given by Witness 157 is not regarded as evidence provided as a child soldier, the Prosecution does not intend to call the mother of this witness and they will not rely on the opinion of the expert on determination of age through dental X-ray assessment, Caroline Rey-Salmon. Additionally, the Chamber reminded the Prosecution of the need to "harmonize" its two disclosure regimes in both cases.

Once the debate was concluded, the Court connected once again with Ituri via video link. Defence Witness 14 gives her entire testimony in private session. The Chamber allowed the Defence to use the remote facility in order to protect the witness´ psychological well-being.

The Court will sit again on the 21^st of April.