Part 2
The Disciplinary Committee takes into consideration, however, that the investigations carried out were not sufficiently thorough, particularly with regard to the role played by Mr. Emmanuel Altit in the management methods that led to the inappropriate behavior denounced by the complainants … nevertheless noted the particular seriousness of the alleged offences, repeated over several years and resulting in deep-seated trauma from which some of the complainants are still suffering today, as evidenced by the tears and clear signs of suffering observed at the hearing.
The International Criminal Court’s award [fine] of costs is justified by the fact that Ms. Jennifer Naouri’s actions were reported by the plaintiffs to both the Registry and the CSS prior to the filing of the complaints, without the Court’s bodies having taken adequate measures (instructions, investigation, control, call to order) to stop or prevent them.
Disciplinary Committee Decision, Disciplinary proceedings against Ms Jennifer Naouri
Part 1 dealt with general context and why the Registry in no small measure is responsible for much of the persistent workplace harassment as it relates to the defence. Part 2 will focus on the Disciplinary Board’s (Board) findings against ICC Defence Counsel Jennifer Naouri. Without reading too much into the tea leaves and mainly relying on what was reported by the complainants/victims and now proven by the Board, as well as what I have heard and observed and surmised for nearly a decade, I will offer my take on why Naouri behaved as she did, and why others in like circumstances are susceptible to behaving likewise. My aim is neither to demean nor moralize. Rather, in examining the findings, I aim to see what lessons can be learned for improving workplace conditions for all members of defence teams. For this it will be necessary to examine how the Registry, Naouri, and all of us in the ICC List of Counsel might improve in providing the best possible representation to suspects and accused during pre-trial and trial and convicted persons on appeal.
Before turning to the Decision, it is important to consider three preliminary points and one key caveat. Continue reading “Workplace Harassment at the ICC Stubbornly Persistent — Part 2: willful blindness, callous indifference, blissful incompetence or institutional protectiveness? “