Why we acquitted Laurent Gbagbo, Charles Blé Goudé – ICC

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Criminal Court (ICC) today outlined reasons it acquitted former President of Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé of all criminal charges of crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Côte d’Ivoire between 2010 and 2011.

The Prosecutor alleged that Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé charges of crimes against humanity (murder, rape, other inhumane acts or – in the alternative – attempted murder, and persecution) allegedly committed in the context of post-electoral violence in Côte d’Ivoire between 16 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.

The ICC is outlining the reasons six months after the decision was reached in January 15, 2019. On 15 January 2019, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”), by majority, Judge Herrera Carbuccia dissenting, issued an oral decision acquitting Mr Laurent Gbagbo and Mr Charles Blé Goudé from all charges of crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Côte d’Ivoire in 2010 and 2011.

Today, 16 July 2019, Trial Chamber I issued its full reasons for the decision. The Majority, composed of Judge Tarfusser and Judge Henderson provided a detailed analysis of the evidence in Judge Henderson’s reasons.

According to the judges, the prosecutor failed to demonstrate that there was a “common plan” to keep Mr Gbagbo in power, which included the commission of crimes against civilians; it failed to demonstrate the existence of the alleged policy to attack a civilian population on the basis of the alleged patterns of violence and other circumstantial evidence cited in support; has failed to demonstrate that the crimes as alleged in the charges were committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organisational policy to attack the civilian population; has failed to demonstrate that public speeches by Mr Gbagbo or Mr Blé Goudé constituted ordering, soliciting or inducing the alleged crimes or that either of the accused otherwise knowingly or intentionally contributed to the commission of such crimes.

In the view of the Majority, one of the fundamental flaws of the Prosecutor’s case was that it presented an unbalanced narrative, which was built around a unidimensional conception of the role of nationality, ethnicity, and religion (in the broadest sense) in Cote d’Ivoire in general and during the post-electoral crisis in particular and which ignored essential information without which it was not possible to fully understand what happened and certainly not what motivated key political actors in this case.

Without making any findings in this regard, the Majority was of the view that the picture emerging from the evidence appeared to differ substantially from the one painted by the Prosecutor. The Majority also explains why it is of the view that the tendered evidence, most of which was circumstantial, was too weak to be capable of supporting the inferences the Prosecutor asked the Chamber to draw. 

As far as the five charged incidents are concerned, the Majority analysed the relevant evidence without putting into question the fact that crimes were committed and focused instead on whether it was possible to establish who was criminally responsible for those crimes. The Majority concluded, in this regard, that the available evidence did not support the allegation that the crimes were the result of a policy to target perceived political opponents. Furthermore, the Majority was not satisfied that the evidence relied upon by the Prosecutor was sufficient to establish a pattern of crimes from which such policy could be inferred.

In addition, in his concurring opinion, Judge Tarfusser focussed on some specific features of the case, including developments preceding the opening of the trial and before the Appeals Chamber following the acquittal; he also expressed criticism of the Prosecutor’s performance both at the investigative and prosecutorial stage, as well as of the Defence.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Herrera Carbuccia found that there is sufficient evidence, if accepted, on which a reasonable Trial Chamber could convict Mr Gbagbo and Mr Blé Goudé for crimes against humanity of murder, attempted murder, rape, inhumane acts and persecution committed against the civilian population within the context of post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire.