AFTER heated four-day submissions at The Hague, focus now shifts to two critical decisions in the case against Deputy President William Ruto and journalist Joshua Sang.
The no-case-to-answer hearings ended last Friday, with judges questioning why the prosecution wanted them to look at the quantity and not the quality of evidence.
The first decision is on the use of recanted evidence at the Appeals Chamber, which will weigh heavily on the no-case-to-answer application.
The trial judges allowed ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to use primary statements of five witnesses who recanted their evidence, under Rule 68.
Ruto and Sang, however, appealed the decision while Kenya used diplomatic means to have the Assembly of States Parties restate that the rule cannot be used retroactively. Bensouda has told the Appeal judges to ignore the agreement reached by the ASP last year, saying it was irrelevant to the proceedings.
If the Appeals Chamber rules in favour of Ruto and Sang, she could lose what she has termed crucial evidence that can aid a conviction.
“Without the prior recorded statements the prosecution would be deprived of a significant portion of the incriminating evidence against the accused,” Bensouda told the trial judges before their decision.
The second decision will arise from last week’s hearings, in which Ruto and Sang are seeking to have the cases terminated.
Ruto said his case was in tatters even before the trial started, adding that the judges should not only consider the amount of evidence presented, but how credible it is.