In the previous videos, we've discussed international crimes and individual criminal responsibility. So how does this all relate to the Lubanga case? Thomas Lubanga is the first person who was tried and convicted by the ICC. He was the president of the Union of Congolese Patriots, the UPC. The UPC was one of the main actors in the Second Congolese War, the conflict between the Hema and the Lendu ethnic groups in Ituri which, took place between 2001 and 2004. Lubanga was charged with a war crime of conscripting, enlisting, and using child soldiers under the age of 15 in the war. The UN Special Representative on Children in Armed Conflict testified as an expert during the trial. She argued that the use of child soldiers is particularly abusive, since children under the age of 15 have an underdeveloped notion of death. The lack of the concept of death makes them fearless in battle. Lubanga was arrested in March, 2005, and transferred from the DRC to the ICC a year later, in March, 2006. The prosecution, the defense, and civil society, all had very different perspectives on the trial, and on Lubanga's role. In this video, we will investigate their standings, and we will discuss some of their main arguments. We've seen in previous videos that international criminal justice places a special emphasis on the evil nature of crimes and leadership accountability, and this is exactly what the prosecution did in this case. The prosecution strategy was to bring out the evil nature of the crime of using child soldiers. Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo could not gather enough evidence to charge Lubanga with other crimes, such as sexual violence, even though it was widely known that young girls had been used as sex slaves by the UPC. The prosecution focused on the leadership role of Lubanga, in line with the control theory. It presented Lubanga as a military leader of a rebel group, and argued that he was in charge of UPC and <br>its military wing, the FPLC. The prosecution submitted that the group had a common plan to gain power of the gold-mining parts of Ituri, and that it used child soldiers for that purpose. According to the prosecution, Lubanga took part in recruiting child soldiers, trained them, and used them in the armed conflict. Whether children joined voluntarily or <br>parents entrusted them to the UPC or the FPLC, was irrelevant, argued the prosecution. At the start of the trial, prosecutor <br>Ocampo stated that the children were launched into battle zones where they were instructed to kill everyone regardless of whether their opponents were military or civilian, regardless of whether they were men, women, or children. They were forced to kill all ethnic Lendu because the Lendu were the enemy. We've seen that the focus on criminal responsibility may single out perpetrators. The defense used this exact argument as a line of defense in the case, and attempted to show that Lubanga was only a small fish, and that he was selectively picked and charged in place of those who should have been charged. It claimed that Lubanga never recruited or used child soldiers. He was presented as a political leader that played no active role in the creation of the UPC military forces, and did in no way take part deliberately in the common plan to recruit minors. According to the defense, Lubanga did all he could to demobilize the minors who were present among the ranks of the FPLC, and also alleged that prosecution witnesses where coached by intermediaries of the ICC's prosecution investigators. Civil society organizations, and victims groups had yet another perspective, they complained that sexual and gender based crimes had not been included in the charges. For this reason, legal representatives of 27 participating victims filed a brief to broaden the charges against Lubanga. The Trial Chamber agreed by majority that <br>it would consider adding new charges, but the Appeals Chamber <br>overruled the Trial Chamber. It said only the prosecutor may add new charges. The trial started with a bang when the first witness, a former child soldier, withdrew his statement. The witness had previously told the court that he and his friends got abducted by UPC soldiers when they walked home from school. But when pressed by the Presiding Judge, the witness claimed that his statement was false. In the end, 129 victims testified during the trial. The trial was also suspended twice. First, because the prosecution had not disclosed all exculpatory information. The second time, because the prosecution refused to disclose the identity of an intermediary out of concern for the intermediary's safety. Both times, the Trial Chamber decided that this made <br>it impossible to maintain a fair trial. Lubanga was ultimately <br>convicted by the Trial Chamber. It found that there was sufficient evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Lubanga was involved in a recruitment drive for the UPC rebel group, and that he personally used children as his bodyguards. However, the Trial Chamber rejected all <br>testimonies of the child soldiers, and relied only on testimonies given by UN experts. It also based its decision on video footage showing Lubanga addressing children at a UPC training camp, who were his bodyguards and clearly under the age of 15. The majority did not reflect sexual violence in the war crimes conviction. Judge Odio Benito, however, submitted <br>that the crime of using children in hostilities includes not only support roles, but also the use of boys and girls for purposes of sexual violence and other ill treatment. Thomas Lubanga was ultimately sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. In this video we've examined the first case of the ICC. We've seen that the case involved complex assessments in relation to the scope of the charges, the responsibility of Lubanga, and the fairness of proceedings. One of the policy objectives of the prosecution was to shift the focus from children with arms to children who are affected by the arms. Many assumed that this would be a fast trial since it focused only on one defendant and war crimes charges. But the proceedings turned out to be much more difficult than expected. In module two, we will study the functioning of justice and justice institutions. I hope to see you there.
