michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

Occasionally the best defense is an offense. More often, however, the best defense is to keep silent, admit nothing, be circumspect in word and deed – at least until all facts are known (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

Many under investigation – especially those who have tasted raw power and have enjoyed the esteem and adulation of their peers, of the influential, and of the beautiful cause-driven socialites – have gone on to be charged, and have made their defense much more challenging, if not outright impossible, by indulging their ego and sense of self-importance.

Many of the powerful and popular tend to think that because of their present position or past accomplishments, or because of their confidence in their brimming gravitas (why else would they be on Mount Olympus while the rest of us are mere yeomen toiling in obscurity), or because of who they are, they can make unpleasant and inconvenient truths disappear. All they need do is talk, to explain away. Continue reading “MORENO OCAMPO’S TACIT ADMISSION TO BENSOUDA  “

I never did something wrong because I am very careful. I don’t like to work on things that are awful. I reject cases for million dollars if I don’t like the case. I believe in my career, fighting people committing crimes from power.

Luis Moreno Ocampo((As quoted in Svan Becker, Marian Blasberg and Dietmar Pieper, The Ocampo Affair: A Former ICC Chief’s Dubious Links, Der Spiegel, 5 October 2017))

Someone is trying to blackmail me using illegally-obtained information

Louis Moreno Ocampo((As quoted in Barney Thompson, Former ICC Prosecutor in Row Over Lucrative Consultancy Work, Financial Times, 6 October 2017))

The cat is out of the bag.((A colloquial phrase for when a secret is made known. The phrase originates from the fraud of substituting a cat for a piglet at markets. If you let the cat out of the bag you disclosed the trick – and avoided buying a pig in a poke (bag). )) By now, the world over, titillating information – facts beyond change, inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence, and speculations based on rumor and innuendo – has surfaced concerning Luis Moreno Ocampo’s conduct and activities while serving as the first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and thereafter.

The image that emerges is a picture of a marginally competent, appreciably unethical, excessively greedy, cheekily narcissistic, and deeply flawed Shakespearian figure who sees himself as the victim of untruths, allusions, and distortions.

Trickle, trickle. Many of the facts based on the leaked 40,000 documents (internal documents from the ICC, contracts, diplomatic dispatches, bank records and emails) remain unknown. But from what has been revealed thus far, it is not a pretty picture.  And with each new revelation, Moreno Ocampo must be feeling the effects of Chinese water torture – drip, drip, drip. Continue reading “Moreno Ocampo’s Game: and the sordidness keeps coming”

 

Doubt, benefit of the doubt, reasonable doubt. These are words embedded in the DNA of all defense lawyers.  Whether championing a client’s case or reading a salacious story in the press, doubt is always front of mind. Defense lawyers are trained not to prejudge, not to form opinions without knowledge of all the facts, and without testing the evidence. And since facts can get in the way of a good story, it’s impulsive to accept as accurate and true what is reported in the news without question. Occasionally, however, there comes an article that so shocks the conscience that it’s too difficult not to take it at face value, or muster the kind of skepticism that is our professional default.

Such is a story reported about the first and former International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo’s seedy (and greedy) conduct involving Hassan Tatanaki – a client who forked over USD $750,000 to Moreno Ocampo for what Moreno Ocampo characterized as “consultancy services” on the use of international law in reducing the ongoing violence and securing peace in Libya. Continue reading “The Moreno Ocampo identity: hubris abandoned”

 

The quality of the legal representation victims receive is essential to their meaningful and effective participation in ICC proceedings.¹

ICC court decisions have repeatedly articulated the need to “ensure that the participation of the victims, through their legal representative, is as meaningful as possible, as opposed to purely symbolic.”²

Victims’ choice matters because it can be a way for the victims represented to develop confidence that the counsel who stands for them before the court will represent their views, in turn building confidence in the court process itself.³

Last year, in a post following the establishment of the International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA), I raised an issue which, quite evidently, was on the mind of many Counsel who are on the ICC List of Counsel: the Office of Public Counsel for Victims’ (OPCV) taking over the legal representation of victims, and the subordination of (and running roughshod over) Counsel selected by the victims to the OPCV.

Many Counsel representing, or on the List to represent, victims before the ICC perceived, rightly or wrongly, that they, along with their clients, were being disenfranchised. Perceptions count, especially if the purpose for introducing victims’ participation was to permit victims to present “their views and concerns”((Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Rome Statute”), Art. 68(3). )) and make the proceedings more relevant and meaningful for the victims. Continue reading “The Human Rights Watch Report on the Ongwen Case and Beyond: Who should represent the victims at the ICC?”

1. Independent Panel of Experts, “Report on Victim Participation at the ICC”, July 2013, para. 12 [↩]
2. Human Rights Watch, “Who Will Stand for Us? Victims’ Legal Representation at the ICC in the Ongwen Case and Beyond”, August 2017, p. 9 quoting Prosecutor v. Ruto and Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-460, Decision on victims’ participation and representation, 3 October 2012, para. 59 [↩]
3. Human Rights Watch, “Who Will Stand for Us? Victims’ Legal Representation at the ICC in the Ongwen Case and Beyond”, August 2017, p. 11 [↩]