Skip to main content

Ntaganda Asks to be Released From ICC Detention « Thomas Lubanga Trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Ntaganda Asks to be Released From ICC Detention

By Wairagala Wakabi

Bosco Ntaganda, the Congolese militia commander who voluntarily surrendered to the International Criminal Court (ICC) last March, has asked judges to release him from the court's detention.

His lawyer, Marc Desalliers, said Mr. Ntaganda's willingness to cooperate could not be disputed at this stage of the proceedings because he voluntarily surrendered to the court and on numerous occasions stated his desire to appear before a judge.

In the August 20, 2013 application, the lawyer said the war crimes accused would not leave Dutch territory for the duration of the proceedings against him. Furthermore, Mr. Ntaganda would comply with any conditions judges attached to his release, including appearing at hearings and not obstructing investigations and court proceedings.

Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova has asked the Dutch government to comment on any conditions that would have to be met to enable the Netherlands to accept Mr. Ntaganda on its territory. Prosecutors were also asked to file a response to the release request.

On March 18, 2013, Mr. Ntaganda turned up at the American embassy in the Rwandan capital Kigali and asked to be transferred to The Hague, where there were two arrest warrants on his head.

The first warrant – issued in 2006 – alleged that Mr. Ntaganda, along with Thomas Lubanga, recruited, enlisted, and used child soldiers in armed conflict during 2002 and 2003.

Whereas the Congolese government handed Mr. Lubanga to the world court, his co-accused remained at large until this year, oscillating between service with the national army and command of anti-government militia groups. The Lubanga trial was the first conducted by the court and resulted in a March 2012 conviction. Mr. Lubanga is currently appealing his 14 year jail sentence.

The second arrest warrant for Mr. Ntaganda, issued in July last year, accused him of the crimes against humanity of murder, rape, and sexual slavery, and war crimes of murder, attacks against a civilian population, pillaging, rape, and sexual slavery.

Prosecutors charge that Mr. Lubanga was the head of the Patriotic Force for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), a group that used children under the age of fifteen in armed conflict, while Mr. Ntaganda was the group's deputy chief of staff.

In the application for the second warrant of arrest, prosecutors said the circumstances that led to issuing the first warrant still subsisted, including Mr. Ntaganda's "potential, continued commission" of crimes and intimidation of potential witnesses.

In the application for interim release, the defense said arguments made years earlier could not "satisfy the requisite threshold" to warrant pre-trial detention, particularly given more recent developments.

Mr. Desalliers stated that Mr. Ntaganda surrendered to the court eight months after the July 6, 2012 order by Congolese president Joseph Kabila for his dismissal from the country's army. The surrender was made "once he had planned his voluntary surrender to ensure that it took place in conditions guaranteeing its effectiveness and security."

He added that Mr. Ntaganda never sought to evade justice and surrendered when he was in a position to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Desalliers said, the prosecution had confirmed to the court that it had been informed of Mr. Ntaganda's place of residence, "which, in any case, he had never sought to conceal."

The defense lawyer also submitted that because Mr. Ntaganda was considered indigent by the court and was a subject of United Nations resolutions that imposed a travel ban and an asset freeze, he could not abscond from justice. He also said the accused did not hold a passport or other travel document that could make him a flight risk.

Mr. Desalliers stated that Mr. Ntaganda wanted to make "an active contribution to the preparation of his defense," and if released he would be able to communicate readily with his defense team.

The defense argued that the conditions for Mr. Ntaganda's detention were not justified at this stage in the proceedings. "It rests with the prosecution to establish the necessity for detention and the defense must be afforded the opportunity to respond to the prosecution arguments," said Mr. Desalliers.

A request by the public counsel for victims, Paolina Massidda, to make comments to the release application, was rejected by Judge Trendafilova. The judge said no victims had been permitted yet to participate in the proceedings.

The confirmation of charges hearing for Mr. Ntaganda is scheduled for February 2014.

 

Tags: ,,,


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute