Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I am a lawyer. I always worked as a lawyer.
My first case as prosecutor was against the top generals of my country: three former presidents.
And suddenly my world was different.
I was trained to face people in power.
So I'm a lawyer who was always working against powerful people.
No one prepares you to be the chief prosecutor of the ICC.
Interestingly, I was the deputy prosecutor of the Junta trial when I was 32.
In fact, that was my first trial.
I was totally not prepared for that but I learned a lot.
And the rest of my life, I was thinking the most important work of my life was when I was 32...
because I would never have a bigger case than my Junta trial.
And then, when I was 51, I was appointed...
chief prosecutor of the ICC. The junta trial was my training.
I never was thinking this way.
I don't think my eyebrows define something.
It's the only black hair I have, so I'm very happy but that's it.
The fact that in Kenya and other countries, people put my name to their sons...
is showing how useful the idea of the International Criminal Court was for them.
My view is...
as a chief prosecutor, I was basically a lawyer of the people who were victims of these massive atrocities.
The fact that some of them recognized that...
and gave me the honour to put my name to their sons is showing that we achieved something there.
How I feel on the Kenyan cases?
I feel the Kenyan case shows the possibilities and the limits of international justice...
because in some way we helped Kenyans...
to have peaceful elections in 2013, mostly peaceful.
People were killed but not so many.
And that was the big worry before.
Everyone was worried in 2009, 2010, everyone was worried about the next election.
In some way we helped it to have a peaceful election.
The outcome was unexpected.
But it showed that international justice is not just about judges and prosecutors.
You need political leaders because basically what I see in Kenya is...
Kenyatta and Ruto were allegedly killing each other, their groups...
and then they were smart. They made an alliance...
and they presented themselves as the reconciliation process.
And Odinga, who was the other candidate, said no word about post-election violence or about the ICC.
So the only candidate who addressed really important issues before Kenyans were Kenyatta and Ruto.
And that's why people voted for them, in addition to the tribal affiliation
So I think it's a good example of how...
you can help but you cannot transform Kenya into Sweden.
That was exactly my thinking when I was in the Junta trial.
When I started, my dream was Argentina will become Sweden. It was not Sweden.
But we never went back to the massive violence.
I hope in Kenya it's the same. The problem is...
showing that the countries need a political leadership.
And I hope Mr. Kenyatta, as a new leader...
elected by his people, can understand that and help them to move ahead.
The Waki Commission collected interesting evidence in the Ruto case.
It was less successful in the killings...
committed, allegedly led by Mr. Kenyatta.
It was more difficult because in the time of the Waki Commission...
Mr. Kenyatta was part of the government, so it was probably more difficult for them to collect evidence.
In our investigation, when we started we had much more evidence against Mr. Ruto than against Kenyatta.
But then, at the end of the process, we had more evidence against Kenyatta than against Ruto.
Then, these things are evolving because sometimes a witness changes their mind or they have problems.
I don't know. The situation now is complicated. Mrs. Bensouda...
said the witnesses are withdrawing and this is...
related with the idea that people have fears.
But in any case, that's it.
I don't think you could do anything to avoid the problems we have now because...
we protected our witnesses. We transferred them from Kenya to different places.
But in some cases, we know families in Kenya were affected or threatened.
When we investigate we don't need to disclose who are the witnesses.
But when you arrive at trial time - and that's the difference between the ICC and human rights groups...
we should disclose our witnesses. And then the defence has the right to know them.
And after that, it's much more difficult because they can go to see them in London or wherever they are.
And people can threaten their families. So, it's part of the process.
The prosecutor cannot bribe witnesses. He has no budget for that.
The prosecutor cannot bribe witnesses. There were allegations that someone was bribing them.
Yes, I have some evidence on that in my time, and I suppose now that there are more problems.
People have to understand. We have very clear protocols on how to treat witnesses.
They are very complex. First it's about security.
So we have a very complex protocol on how to protect before we are even in touch with them.
And then in particular with those victims, those witnesses who were victims...
we have a psychological assessment before we interview them to protect them.
And then for interviews, there are a lot of protocols too. You have to start the interview explaining to the witness
what is the ICC, the meaning of the ICC, then the meaning of a trial.
You have to ask them to tell the truth. You have to ask them...
to be detailed. So there are a lot of protocols that we follow.
This will be scrutinized by the judges...
and the defence can challenge So it's a very complex and rigorous process.
The standard is: I asked my investigators...
give me clarity: who are those most responsible?
They collected the evidence and made the first call.
They presented me their evidence and these are our candidates.
I challenged them: do you have evidence against this or that?
In this way, we reached the conclusions.
The information is coming from the investigators and it's about the evidence they collected.
We have no information about Mr. Odinga being involved in the killings.
Yes. He was part of the Ruto alliance...
but we have information that Ruto was allegedly involved in organizing the attacks but nothing about Odinga himself.
Same. Zero. There were zero allegations that Kibaki himself was involved.
There were some people talking about his wife but...
it was marginal. But zero about Kibaki.
In Kenya, the biggest challenge was to...
to collect the evidence in a free way because the Kenyan government was really worried and there were people in the Kenyan government who were...
involved in the crimes. We had evidence against Francis Muthaura.
The evidence was not enough to go to trial but we had evidence against him.
And Muthaura was one of the most powerful persons in Kenya in those days.
So it was very difficult to collect evidence against them. And then, when we tried to interview people,
the Kenyan government was asking us for a very formal process where we were going nowhere.
When we extracted witnesses from there and we took people outside the country...
protection was a big issue because...
it's difficult to be protected. Imagine a Kenyan person living in a European country.
Some of them became drunkards. Some of them had problems with our security people.
So it's a very complex process.
That's why I think we are very proud...
that at least we can confirm the charges...
against most of the suspects before the elections and people can have clarity.
People voted. It was not my business.
There were some diplomats asking me to do something more...
to prevent Kenyatta or Ruto to run in the elections.
And I said, it's not my job. Judges in Kenya should do that.
And if they authorize them to run, people will vote.
and if people vote for them we have nothing to say.
It's not very special. You need...
physical evidence. So in some cases, there were doctors' reports about rapes.
And they were collecting physical evidence.
There were some pictures.
There were sites - so a burnt church.
We did some site analysis.
And witnesses, victims, explaining what happened to them.
And inside witnesses because...
part of the crimes were allegedly committed by the Mungikis.
Some of the witnesses were Mungiki members.
Mungikis were using violence and committing crimes.
It's complicated because then people can say the Mungikis are criminals.
You cannot trust them. So that's why we tried to have very high standards...
to evaluate if they were saying the truth or not.
So we compared the information with other information we had.
And we selected those who we believe could stand on trial.
In our type of crimes, you first analyze what happened...
and you find their patterns. And see that something was not spontaneous. It was ordered.
The question is: who ordered it?
In one case, the evidence we had in those days was that Mr. Ruto...
was planning the attacks and organising a group to do it.
And as a consequence, Mr. Muthaura and Mr. Kenyatta, in accordance with our evidence...
were involved in the retaliation. That's the evidence we had in those days.
Now this issue should be checked in court. Ruto is on trial.
He has a right to present his evidence and the judges will decide.
I don't know what will be the outcome of the trial.
We are presenting the case.
But the defense also has the right to present their own case.
The judges are impartial. They have to make a decision. So it's a very high threshold. We'll see what happens.
Justice is a long journey.
I'm Argentinian.
We're pretty successful but it took 7 years to have a trial against the top commanders.
Then there were the rebellions. The trial was stopped.
And almost 15 years later, the trials started again.
I did the best I could to move the cases. Fatou Bensouda is doing the same now.
How far the International Criminal Court will arrive? I don't know.
And probably the victims will keep asking for justice for many years in Kenya.
But justice is not just putting people in jail. For me...
it's a shame that there are still people displaced in Kenya.
And people who are not receiving some kind of help...
for the crimes they suffered. So justice includes...
reparations for the victims. Justice includes truth.
There are different types of justice, and I hope...
Kenyans will get justice. I know it will be a long journey.
I left because I had to leave.
It was my job.
So I had a tenure for 9 years...
and in June 2012, I had to be replaced.
I could not stay. The law says I should go
That's why I was very pleased that I could finish the confirmation of charges.
But after that, it's an institution. It's not my place.
Fatou Bensouda was with me, so she knew the cases very well. And she's doing the best she can.
I could not do it better than Fatou.
No, I cannot.
Look, my responsibility was to build an institution.
You build institutions doing cases and that's what I did.
But it's not my place.
My heart is with the Kenyans. I always think...
about how much they suffer and probably they are disappointed. I understand that.
I did the best I could.
I know it's a long journey. And I know at the end, there will always be people who are disappointed.
I suppose there are many Kenyans who feel frustrated...
and could express anger against me because for them I was a big hope.
The fact that they had a peaceful election is probably not enough for them.
The fact that Ruto is on trial is not enough for them.
So, I understand that. I regret... I did the best I could.
I started the case, I investigated the case. I reached the confirmation of the charges.
After that, I could not run in the elections in Kenya.
I was thinking, OK, I finish the ICC, I go to be the prime minister of Kenya. I cannot.
So you need Kenyan politicians. We cannot rely on one person.
We should prepare many persons in Kenya.
And there are many good people in Kenya.
But it's still complicated.
But at least we move from a catastrophic situation to a situation...
It's bad, but it's not catastrophic. So it's an evolution. Is it enough? No.
Perfect. Fatou Bensouda is doing a perfect, great job.
Fatou Bensouda cannot define the elections in Kenya.
She cannot define the attitude of the government. She cannot define...
avoid that the witnesses are receiving bribes or threats. She cannot stop that.
But she was very tough. She was very firm.
There was a lot of pressure because as soon as Kenyatta became the president...
the international community wanted to please him.
So I read in newspapers that there is a lot of pressure on Mrs. Bensouda.
And she was very firm, staying the line.
During the last Assembly of States Parties, there was a lot of discussion and Fatou Bensouda was firm.
But, as a lawyer, she cannot go to trial with no evidence.
So that's why she decided not to go to trial. But I think Fatou Bensouda was perfect.
The International Criminal Court always faces new challenges.
When I started, the challenge was to put the system in motion.
Imagine, when I started it was the Iraq war.
Many of the judges were thinking that the court will close in two years.
So just arresting Lubanga was a huge achievement.
But now it's nothing because our expectations are also growing.
That's good. So in my time, the main challenge was to put the system in motion.
Now Fatou has to consolidate and keep growing, and that's always complicated.
For us, we don't care.
The fact that Mr. Kenyatta is president or vice-president...
or Mr. Bashir was president or Mr. Ghadaffi was the president of Libya, we really don't care.
We don't think in this way.
We criminal prosecutors. We look for evidence...
and we try to follow the evidence and we prosecute the most responsible. That's our policy.
What I found is OK, but that should not just be the policy of the prosecutor. It should be the policy of the states.
Diplomats have different relations.
They relate with states. They respect heads of states. So for them it's different. But for prosecutors...
we follow the case, really.
I know Fatou Bensouda since 2004.
She's very smart, and she's also very gentle.
She's a very, very nice person, and very gentle.
So it's very difficult to fight her because she's absolutely gentle.
I'm always ready to help if she needs me.
The last time I was in New York, she was there, so I invited her for dinner, for instance.
We have a nice conversation. And occasionally - once or twice a year...
she calls me to comment on some issue.
But this is her business.
Fatou Bensouda is the prosecutor. I'm the former prosecutor.
They had enough Ocampo for 9 years They have to be rid of Ocampo.
I don't know. In terms of the judicial process...
I think we did the best we could. The problem of the witnesses is difficult to control. Probably...
we can try do better investigations to avoid tampering of the witnesses.
I believe the Kenya case requires a strong commitment from the international community.
But in some way, the Kenya case...
is moving well in the sense that Kenya is evolving.
Look at what happened in Darfur. Nothing is working well. In Sudan, nothing is working well. In Kenya, it's going better.
Of course, it's not enough.
Answering your question better, I don't know. I think it's too early to draw lessons.
We need more time to see how this is evolving, to see if the efforts of Kofi Annan...
and the efforts of the ICC were enough or not.
But one lesson we can learn from Kenya is that...
international justice is not just about judges and prosecutors. It requires...
national leadership. And that was the missing part in Kenya.
I think the Kenyan case was very important because...
it shows something different. And in the Kenyan case...
basically the crimes were by militias or by brutal authoritarian regimes like the Bashir regime.
The Kenyan case was a case where politicians were using massive killings to get power.
And Gbagbo case is similar, the Ivory Coast case.
So showing them that there is a problem...
if you use violence to get power, you have a problem...
I think was a good and important lesson for the world, and Africa too.
The ICC is there to protect those victims when no one else protects them.
And in these seven cases we opened in Africa, that happened.
In Colombia, there are massive atrocities...
but there there are judges and prosecutors investigating the cases. They don't need us.
So for me...
the ICC is not about popularity or prejudices...
or media information. It's about clear standards.
And the standard is: when there are massive atrocities...
and no investigations, we are there.
It's funny because Bashir was the one who presented...
that there was an African bias to cover his genocide.
He's winning this battle. The journalists like you asking me about...
the African bias and not about genocide in Darfur.
I think that is something that journalists have to improve.
But the ICC is being criticized because we are in Africa. We are proud to be in Africa.
We are serving African victims...
and we are working in Africa because the African leaders...
decided to be part of the ICC.