[quote=freiks]Ocampo seems to be left with little choice as the days goes by.
Ama ile briefcase iliachwa hague.
If he did shoddy work he will have to pee on his pants
http://www.nation.co.ke/...4/-/7qwhc5/-/index.html[/quote]


I have always maintained that the evidence being held by Ocampo is substandard according to any court and thats why he has always wanted to keep it secret so that he can ambush the suspect by releasing it in small doses to appear strong.
Kudos to the ICC judges.

This case may prove to be a hard-nut-to-crack for Ocampo, more so if he just borrowed largely from KNCHR report without doing a thorough investigation of his own

So Ocampo relied on reports from Human rights body and Waki reports to form his evidence. This will be trashed down the drain since most of it was hearsay and not necessarily the truth

If Ocampo relied on third party reports how is he to get credible witnesses. Imagine a situation where NSIS give information and NSIS cannot be a witness,Ocampo did a shody job,most of this reports were based on hearsays hence finding credible witnesses will be a challenge

.
I understand that the ROme statute allows for third party and or hearsay evidence...there was a post on it sometime back....The legal experts in the house can clarify this.

From: Questions and Answers on the article
“Hearsay and the Rights of the Accused: A Comparison of U.S. Law and
Anticipated Practices of the International Criminal Court”

What are the two approaches to hearsay?
The ICC and common-law jurisdictions like the United States have different rules for admission of hearsay evidence. However, their practical effects are usually much the same. In the US, hearsay evidence is generally barred, however, it can be admitted if it falls into one of several categories of exceptions. For example, a witness may be allowed to report the statements of someone who spoke in excitement and spontaneously. In any case, hearsay will be admitted if no one objects to it even if it does not fit into one of the exceptions. At the ICC, hearsay evidence is generally admissible, but judges can exclude it or disregard it if they believe it is unreliable. The main operational difference between the two is that in the US system, the types of hearsay that can be admitted are specifically described in the rules, whereas before the ICC, the reliability of hearsay is evaluated on an item-by-item basis. In both systems, hearsay will not be excluded unless objected to by one side or the other.

What about testimonial hearsay?
There is a special kind of hearsay evidence that has been described in the US as “testimonial hearsay.” This is testimony taken outside the trial but under official auspices such in a grand jury proceeding or by police or prosecutors. US and ICC approaches to the use of testimonial hearsay both require that the defense have a chance to crossexamine the person testifying if the testimony is to be introduced as evidence at trial. In the United States, the cross-examination would take place when the testimony is initially given since testimonial hearsay may not be admitted in court if the witness is present. At the ICC, defense counsel must consent to admission of testimonial hearsay and, if the witness is also available at trial, must have the right to cross-examine the witness at trial as well as in the original proceeding.

Ocampo now offers mungiki 'disappearance' in the hands of police as evidence against ICC suspects!

I thought the ICC cases were on PEV!

http://www.nation.co.ke/.../-/12vw163z/-/index.html