Duty to ensure the welfare of the acquitted person
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Relocation - 18.11.2008 |
NTAGERURA André (ICTR-99-46-A28) |
|
|
19 […] While the Tribunal does not have the ability to direct any State to accept the Appellant on its territory or to fully investigate whether the Appellant’s life or liberty would be at risk should he be returned to Rwanda or to another African country, it has nonetheless a duty to ensure the welfare of the acquitted person, and to that extent, to enquire whether the Appellant’s life or liberty would be at risk upon relocation to a given country. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber notes that, notwithstanding the limitations on the capacity of the Tribunal to secure relocation for the Appellant, the Registrar is continuing his efforts to find a solution to the present situation.[1] As part of such efforts, the Appeals Chamber requests the Registrar to make enquiries with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and solicit its assistance in relocating the Appellant. [1] Response, para. 15. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Corrigendum to Decision on an Appeal of a Decision on Request for Temporary Humanitarian Aid Issued on 2 August 2023 - 04.08.2023 |
Nahimana, Ferdinand (MICT-23-127) |
|
|
8. […] neither the Statute nor the Rules of the Mechanism […] expressly provides for an appeal as of right against a decision issued by a Single Judge on a matter concerning financial assistance to a convicted person released pending his relocation. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber considers that the matter before it relates to the Mechanism’s duty to ensure the welfare of released persons pending their relocation.[1] Further, the Appeals Chamber notes that it has considered appeals of decisions rendered by a Single Judge in matters that dispose of discrete litigation after the close of trial and appeal proceedings.[2] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds that the present matter raises issues over which the Appeals Chamber may exercise jurisdiction and will consider the Appeal. […] 15. […] there is nothing in the Mechanism’s legal framework. including in the Appeals Chamber’s binding jurisprudence on the matter, or in the provisions in the Mali Enforcement Agreement that requires the Mechanism to provide financial assistance to a convicted person who has completed serving his or her sentence and has been released on the territory of the enforcement State. [1] See In the Matter of François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye et al., Case No. MICT-22-124, Decision on Motions to Appeal Decision of 8 March 2022, For Reconsideration of Decision of 15 March 2022, and to Appear as Amicus Curiae, 27 May 2022, paras. 14, 24 and references cited therein. [2] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Case No. MICT-13-43, Decision on the Appeal of the Single Judge’s Decision of 22 October 2018, 17 April 2019; Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33, Decision on Appeal of Decision Declining to Rescind Protective Measures for a Deceased Witness, 14 November 2016, para. 6. |
||