An unnamed witness, testifying in Mr. Lubanga’s defense, said an agent acting on behalf of ICC prosecutors and referred to in court as ‘Mr. X,’ wrote the threatening letter after the witness became reluctant to honor an earlier promise to the intermediary that he would lie to prosecution investigators that he was a former child soldier.

Continuing his evidence from yesterday, the witness said his family rebuked him when they were informed that he was part of a plot to fabricate evidence implicating Mr. Lubanga. When he informed ‘Mr. X’, the intermediary drafted a letter to a person whom the witness believes was an investigator for the ICC prosecution.

The witness said he objected when ‘Mr. X’ tried to append the name of Mr. Dieudonne Mbuna, an investigator for Lubanga’s defense in the Congolese province of Ituri, as the author of the letter. Subsequently, the letter was sent with only a thumbprint and no author’s name.

The letter was read out in court today, and was tendered by the defense as an exhibit. It was purported to be from “authorities of the UPC” and it labeled the witness an enemy. “Know that wherever you move to, we will not rest until we find you. You should know that it is your corpse that will go before the court with Thomas Lubanga,” said the letter.

It added: “We know that wherever you are going to move to, we are going to find you. Do you think that our strength is finished? Even your offspring, we are going to wipe it out. Do whatever you like but know that you can not escape death. And do not imagine that it is going to come from elsewhere. It will come from us the authorities of the UPC.”

The witness told the trial of Mr. Lubanga that he had several times received money from this intermediary on the understanding that he would lie to OTP investigators that he was a former child soldier. ‘Mr. X’ also asked him to convince other people to lie to the investigators that they were also former child soldiers in the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), and that they knew the commanders of the militia group.

This witness is the eighth to appear for the defense of Mr. Lubanga, who is on trial over the UPC’s use of child soldiers in inter-ethnic conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) during 2002 and 2003. Mr. Lubanga’s lawyers have said their first 16 witnesses will provide evidence that OTP intermediaries concocted evidence and coached witnesses.

The defense also contends that all prosecution witnesses who were presented as child soldiers, as well as their parents in some cases, deliberately lied to the court.

Defense counsel Jean-Marie Biju-Duval today showed the witness three receipts and asked him whether he recognized the signatures on them. The witness said he recalled signing those receipts when ‘Mr. X’ gave him money while they were in Kampala, Uganda in September 2005 for meetings with OTP investigators.

“Do you remember having received this sum of money – $400?” asked Mr. Biju-Duval.

“I was not given this sum in one swoop. I was not given it on one day,” replied the witness.

According to the receipt, the $400 was a “reimbursement of services provided and expenses incurred”.

The defense counsel then asked the witness about another document with his signature acknowledging receipt of $700. “Do you remember having received this sum?” Mr. Biju-Duval asked.

“Truth be told, I have no recollection of the precise sum,” responded the witness.

Two other documents titled ‘loss of earnings’ (for $30) and ‘transport’ ($10) were shown to the witness. He said he recognized his signature on the documents but he did not recall receiving the money.

The witness said he did not receive any money from the OTP investigators; it was ‘Mr. X’ who gave him all the money, he said.

Another receipt showed the witness had his bill at a store in Kampala paid for, but he declined to discuss those expenses in public session.

Previous defense witnesses have testified that intermediaries bribed, coerced or duped some people into claiming to the OTP investigators that they were former child soldiers and to tell stories intended to incriminate Mr. Lubanga.

Tomorrow the witness will be cross-examined by the prosecution.

The agents – or intermediaries – arranged a series of meetings with the man and ICC prosecution investigators in the eastern Congolese town of Bunia and in the Ugandan capital Kampala, today’s defense witness told court.

The eighth witness to appear for the Lubanga defense, who started giving testimony today, said at one time he spent two weeks in a Kampala hotel while he and the intermediary had a series of meetings with ICC prosecution investigators. The witness gave evidence with his voice and face distorted to protect him against possible reprisals.

This witness mostly testified in open session but neither his name nor that of the intermediary was mentioned in court sessions that were open to the public. The intermediary was referred to as ‘Mr. X’.

Defense counsel Jean-Marie Biju-Duval asked the witness to explain his initial meetings with ‘Mr. X’.

“He told me that he was working with ICC,” said the witness. “He told me that he needed someone to say something about Mr Thomas Lubanga, so that is what we planned during the meetings: to tell lies.”

Mr. Lubanga is on trial at the ICC over the use of child soldiers in inter-ethnic conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) during 2002 and 2003.  ICC prosecutors say Mr. Lubanga was the president of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) and the commander-in-chief of its armed wing, the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC).

Some weeks after the witness met ‘Mr. X’, he met prosecution investigators, first in a nightclub in Bunia, and then in Kampala, Uganda, he told the court.

But before meeting the ICC prosecution investigators, ‘Mr. X’ coached him and other people about what to tell the investigators. In those coaching sessions, some of which lasted overnight, the witness and other people who were to claim to ICC prosecution investigators that they were former child soldiers were given names of former FPLC commanders which they were told to mention to the investigators.

“What kind of lies had to be planned with Mr X?” asked Mr. Biju-Duval.

“The lie that we had to plan was to say that he [Mr. Lubanga] had enrolled children in the army and that I myself was amongst those children and that I had seen those children. Furthermore that there had been young girls [in UPC’s militia],” replied the witness.

“Why did you agree to meet investigators to tell them lies?” Mr. Biju-Duval asked.

“Well, at that time there was money and they bought me drinks and they encouraged me to take action, they gave me some money and I agreed to lie. So that is how those things came to be,” the witness said.

“Who gave you money” Mr. Biju-Duval asked.

 ”It was ‘Mr. X’,” the witness stated.

 ”Did he tell you anything else? Did he promise anything else?” Mr. Biju-Duval asked.

“He didn’t promise me anything. He didn’t tell me anything, he said I was going to leave Bunia and go to the country of the white people,” the witness responded.

The witness did not say how much money the intermediary paid him. He also did not say what happened after he met ICC prosecution investigators in Kampala and told them that he had been a child soldier.  Tomorrow the defense will continue to question this witness.

Earlier today, the seventh defense witness completed giving his evidence. The 25-year-old said he served as the bodyguard of a brother to Bosco Ntaganda, who was reportedly the deputy chief of staff of the FPLC. He testified in full public view, although some parts of his testimony were in closed session.

Specifically, the defense protested that despite various interventions by judges, prosecutors were still failing to honor their disclosure obligations. Additionally, Mr. Lubanga’s lawyers reported that there were serious errors in the court reporting and translations, which they said jeopardized the quality of testimonies made in court.

But it was not these issues that prompted an early adjournment to the hearings on Friday. Instead, it was the realization by prosecutors that the defense had not disclosed some crucial information about the current witness.

The witness, who gave his age as 25 years old, had told the trial that he was a former soldier in the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), the group which prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim was led by Mr. Lubanga. Prosecutors told judges that the defense had withheld this fact from them, and they therefore were not ready to cross-examine this witness about certain aspects of his testimony.

Judge Adrian Fulford allowed the prosecution’s application for more time to prepare their cross-examination of the witness, but pointed out that judges were concerned that such requests could lead to unacceptable delays to the trial.

From the way testimony by this witness had progressed, it appeared that the defense had failed to inform the prosecution that he was a former UPC soldier.

Moments before this witness – the seventh called by the defense – took the witness stand, the defense had complained that the prosecution were not honoring their obligations to disclose certain information they held about both defense and prosecution witnesses.

Defense lawyer Jean-Marie Biju-Duval reported that on February 26, 2010, the defense received two documents related to three prosecution witnesses which were relevant to a defense witness who had just testified. Mr. Biju-Duval said the prosecution had been in possession of these documents since 2005. This information should therefore have been disclosed to the defense before the prosecution witnesses testified to allow the defense to question them more precisely, he said.

Mr. Biju-Duval related a second instance in which the prosecution had reportedly failed to honor their disclosure obligations. During the cross-examination of Witness 26 earlier in the week, he said, the defense got the impression that prosecutors were in possession of documents that were unknown to the defense.

The question then was whether or not the prosecution had the obligation to disclose all the information and the documents they planned to use in their cross-examination, argued Mr. Biju-Duval.

Judges gave prosecutors up to March 11, 2010 to provide a written response to the defense complaints.

Lubanga’s lawyers then told judges that it appeared that the defense team for Germain Katanga, another Congolese on trial at the ICC, had been given more information relating to four witnesses common to the two trials relative to what Lubanga’s team had received.

Prosecutors disputed this claim. Judge Fulford agreed with prosecutors, pointing out that, in fact, greater disclosure had been made to the Lubanga’s defense compared to Katanga’s.

Meanwhile, the first witnesses that testified this week said he was a member of the UPC and he identified some of the former UPC leaders in pictures showed to him by prosecutors. He said the photographs showed the UPC leaders wearing Ugandan army uniforms. The person he identified as Thomas Lubanga was not wearing military fatigues.

The UPC’s fighters were at one time trained and armed by Ugandan soldiers who were in Congo between 1997 and 2003.

The witness, who testified with face and voice distortion, also identified Bosco Ntaganda and Floribert Kisembo. According to prosecutors at the ICC, Mr. Ntaganda was the deputy chief of staff of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), an armed group that used child soldiers during 2002 and 2003. Although the ICC unveiled an arrest warrant for Mr. Ntaganda in April 2008, he remains at large in the DRC. Mr. Kisembo is said to have been the chief of staff of the FPLC.

The ICC prosecutors claim Lubanga was the commander-in-chief of the FPLC, and has charged him with the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in armed conflict.

The prosecution’s Olivia Struyven asked the witness whether he knew when the pictures were taken, and he replied that he did not. He also said he did not know where the photographs were taken from, but added, “It seems like the office in Mandro [village] that was burned up”. He did not elaborate on what the office was and who had set it on fire.

“If I suggest the picture was taken before the mutiny, before people [UPC fighters] were taken to Kyankwanzi and Jinja [military training camps in Uganda] would it change your testimony?” the prosecutor asked.

“I do not have any additional information,” said the witness, who went on to give most of his testimony in closed session.

The case resumes on Monday.

The witness, the seventh called by Mr. Lubanga’s attorneys, testified in public view and said he was born in Bunia in Ituri province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He gave his age as 25 years, and said he joined UPC in 2002 when he had just gotten out of his teens.

Prosecutor Nicole Samson said it appeared the defense had deliberately removed the information about the involvement of this witness in the UPC militia from the brief which they prepared for the prosecutors. Accordingly, the prosecution requested for additional time to study this evidence to be able to question the witness about it.

Judge Adrian Fulford granted the application but warned that judges were concerned that such requests could lead to unacceptable delays to the trial. The judge observed that the prosecution had made a similar application about the previous defense witness. He advised the prosecution to always investigate not only the information contained in the summaries provided to them by the defense, but also other possibilities that could emerge during the course of testimony by witnesses.

Earlier in the day, the sixth defense witness completed his testimony. He testified mostly in closed session and had protective measures such as face and voice distortion to protect his identity. Although he said he was a former member of UPC, the gist of his evidence was not disclosed in public session.

Mr. Lubanga, the first person to be tried at the ICC, is accused of committing the war crimes of using child soldiers during 2003 and 2003.

Earlier today, the defense complained to judges that prosecutors were not honoring their disclosure obligations. The defense also reported that there were serious problems in court reporting and translations.

The prosecution’s Olivia Struyven showed the photographs to the unnamed witness, and asked him to identify the people in them. In two of the photographs, the witness who has said he was a member of the UPC identified Thomas Lubanga, as well as Bosco Ntaganda and Floribert Kisembo.

According to the prosecution, Ntaganda was the deputy chief of staff of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), an armed group that used child soldiers during 2002 and 2003. Although the ICC unveiled an arrest warrant for Ntaganda in April 2008, he remains at large in the DRC. The ICC prosecutors say Lubanga was the commander-in-chief of the FPLC.

Kisembo, the other person identified by the witness, is said to have been the chief of staff of the FPLC. The witness identified other former UPC leaders such as Rafiki Saba, whom the prosecution says was the chief of security in UPC.

Struyven asked the witness whether he knew when the pictures were taken, and he replied that he did not. He also said he did not know where the photographs were taken from, but added, “It seems like the office in Mandro [village] that was burned up”. He did not elaborate what the office was and who had set it on fire.

The witness was also questioned about the uniforms most of the people in the picture were wearing, and he said they were Ugandan military uniforms. The person he identified as Thomas Lubanga was not wearing military fatigues. Ugandan soldiers who were in Congo between 1997 and 2003 at some stage trained and armed the UPC’s fighters.

Because today’s witness gave most of his testimony in closed session, it was not known what the intent of showing him the pictures was. Lubanga is facing the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 into the FPLC and using them to participate effectively in armed conflict. He has denied the charges.

At the opening of his defense case on January 27, 2010, his lead counsel Catherine Mabille said they would produce witnesses to prove that “Lubanga the political leader played no active role in the creation of the UPC military forces and in no way did he take part deliberately in a common plan to recruit minors.”

But the prosecution contends that Lubanga was in charge of the FPLC and that he visited and inspected FPLC military training camps, oversaw the conduct of military affairs and appointed the senior ranks within the FPLC, secured financing for the UPC/FPLC and negotiated the provision of their weapons and other military equipment.

A new witness – the seventh called by the defense – is expected to start giving evidence on Friday.

The witness, the sixth called by the defense, mostly testified in closed session and had protective measures such as face and voice distortion to protect his identity. During the few moments when his testimony was in public session, he was questioned by defense counsel Jean-Marie Biju-Duval about the time he spent with UPC, and also about his brother.

It was not possible to know how the brother to the witness was connected to the trial, or to the UPC. Equally, from the small bits of evidence given by the witness in open session, it was not possible to get an idea of what the gist of his testimony was.

The witness said he was in the UPC until 2003. He deserted the group when the Ugandan army clashed with UPC’s fighters in the town of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He went to the town of Mongwalu and joined the Peoples’ Armed Forces of Congo (FAPC), a militia group in that area.

The witness said he served with the FAPC for a year. Biju-Duval asked the witness whether during his time with FAPC he maintained contact with his mother, brothers and sisters. The witness responded that he had indeed maintained contact with them. Biju-Duval then asked that court goes into closed session for the witness to provide details about those contacts.

Earlier, the witness said his brother about whom he was questioned at length at one time fled to Uganda, but then he returned to Congo and stayed in Kasenyi and in Bunia. He said his brother went back to school when he returned to Congo.

“We did not meet all the time but he would come to my home to fetch some money in order to pay for his school fees,” the witness said of his brother.

The witness is expected to continue giving evidence tomorrow, and then the seventh defense witness will appear. Lubanga’s defense team has indicated that its first 16 witnesses will show that intermediaries of the ICC concocted evidence and coached prosecution witnesses .

Meanwhile, judges today granted the prosecution’s request to meet a defense witness who is expected to begin testifying this Friday. The meeting is anticipated to take place a day before the witness takes the witness stand.

The defense had opposed the application, arguing that the meeting would present an additional stress to the witness on the eve of his giving testimony in court. But the prosecution’s Nicole Samson said they wished to ask the witness about some additional aspects of his likely testimony which the defense had only recently provided to the prosecution.

While granting the prosecution’s application, Judge Adrian Fulford warned prosecutors against making similar applications when witnesses are about to appear in court.

“We will look at each of them very carefully on their merits and it will need new information of the kind indicated for us to give serious consideration to an application of this kind because it could be very stressful for the witness,” said the judge.

On February 18, 2010, court took a break to allow Lubanga’s lawyers to travel to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to conduct what Judge Adrian Fulford referred to as “critical research”.

Once the trial resumes, it is expected that the defense will present a new witness, the sixth to testify for Lubanga, who is accused of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in armed conflict. The ICC says he committed these crimes during 2002 and 2003 as various ethnically-based militia groups fought each others in the DRC’s Ituri Province.

Lubanga, who is alleged to have led the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) militia groups, is first to be tried by the ICC. His trial started on January 26, 2009. The defense case opened a year later on January 27, 2010.

Two other former Congolese leaders – Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui – are on trial at the ICC. They have been jointly charged over three crimes against humanity and seven war crimes.

Three of the witnesses so far called by the Lubanga defense have testified with protective measures such as voice and face distortion to three. Two others testified in full public view and also gave their names, although most of their testimony was given in closed session.

Judges Adrian Fulford, Elizabeth Odio Benito, and René Blattmann ruled on February 10, 2010 that the law allowed witnesses to testify electronically for various reasons.

However, they did not grant the defense request – instead, they directed the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) of the court to assess the matters raised by the defense, and then advise judges whether giving evidence in the Netherlands would be significantly detrimental to the witness and whether using a video link was a reasonable alternative for the witness.

The judges nonetheless pointed out that the suggested personal circumstances of the witness led to a strong prima facie conclusion that requiring her to travel to The Hague to give evidence would be detrimental to her psychological well-being and her dignity.

“On the basis of the defense submissions, the change in environment could be extremely destabilizing and upsetting for the witness, bearing in mind her domestic circumstances and her unfamiliarity with the basic norms of life in Europe,” the judges said.

The defense described the witness as “extremely vulnerable” and said she would suffer great prejudice and harm if she had to travel to the court to testify. She is in her mid forties, and resides in a country area that is relatively inaccessible, said the defense, adding that the witness lived in conditions of extreme poverty, and had never previously travelled.

The defense said the witness had never used a toilet, a sink, or a telephone. Given the length of time she would need to spend, first, in the Congolese capital Kinshasa obtaining a passport and, thereafter, in the Netherlands, the defense suggested that this would be a traumatic experience for her, and that she would be completely helpless and at a loss in these unfamiliar environs.

According to the defence, her evidence will relate to two prosecution witnesses. She will provide evidence contrary to one prosecution’s claim that he was sure his mother was dead, the defense said.

Legal representatives opposed the defense application, observing that it was not made on the basis that the witness was unable to travel to The Hague or that she had refused to testify in person, but instead it was founded on her alleged vulnerability.

The legal representatives also noted that the application was not made by the VWU or by the witness, but by the defense. They argued that because Lubanga’s supporters are influential in Bunia, they might have contact with the witness and influence her evidence.

Judges said the Rome Statute required the court to take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy, of victims and witnesses.

The statute also allows witness to testify through electronic means. Article 69(2) of the Statute provides that the court may “permit the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts…”

“Contrary to the contention of the legal representatives, applications for evidence to be given via a video link are not restricted to the two suggested limited situations, namely when the witness has either refused to attend court or is unable to do so,” the judges ruled.

Judges will make a final ruling on the defense request after hearing back from the VWU. So far, five defense witnesses have testified in the trial of Lubanga, whom the ICC alleges was the commander-in-chief of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), a militia group that used child soldiers in inter-ethnic fighting in DRC.

Lubaga’s defense team is currently in Congo conducting additional research for their case. The trial resumes on Wednesday March 3, 2010.

Before taking a two week break to allow the defense to conduct research in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the court heard a request by Lubanga’s lawyers to be permitted to exchange information with the defense team for German Katanga, another former Congolese leader on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

On Monday, when the first defence witnesses for the week was due to appear, the start of hearing was delayed by an hour and a half, due to what Judge Adrian Fulford said were “difficulties” which the defense team had experienced earlier in the day.

The judge referred to these difficulties when the hearing finally kicked off. “We fully understand the difficulties that you had earlier today. Thank you for promptly contacting the court, and congratulations notwithstanding the difficulties of enabling us to save at least something from the afternoon,” he said. He did not elaborate what the difficulties were.

After taking the oath in public session, this witness went on to give the rest of her evidence in closed session. The second witness also only gave the oath in public, then went on to give all his testimony in closed session.

This week’s witnesses brought the total of defense witnesses to have testified with protective measures such as voice and face distortion to three.

The very first witness, who claimed he was the father of a prosecution witness who he said lied to court about having been a child soldier, also testified with protective measures, although defense lawyers said he had earlier promised that he would testify without them.

The second and third defense witnesses testified in full public view and also gave their names. But most of their testimony was given in closed session.

Lubanga is accused of the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo during 2002 and 2003. His defense case opened on January 27, 2010. The prosecution started their case on January 26, 2009, and closed it on July 14 last year.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, the trial today an early adjournment after the defense noted that there were errors in the English transcript of the testimony of the fourth defense witness.

Catherine Mabille, the lead defense attorney, asked for the adjournment, and Judge Fulford granted it about two hours before the time court was scheduled to end the day’s proceedings.

Mabille pointed out that in the French transcript there were two names mentioned by the witness, whereas in the English transcript there was only one name. She said since she intended to question the witness again about that name in her redirect examination, the disconnect between the transcripts would present a problem.

On February 17, the Lubanga defense asked judges to grant them permission to exchange information with lawyers for Germain Katanga, another former Congolese leader on trial at the ICC.

Defense lawyer Jean-Marie Biju-Duval told judges that there were four witnesses common to the two trials and it is about these witnesses that the defense teams wanted to meet and to share information.

Prosecutor Nicole Samson said prosecutors in both the Katanga and the Lubanga case opposed the proposed meetings and sharing of information by the defense teams.

Katanga is jointly charged with Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, also a Congolese national, with three crimes against humanity and seven war crimes. The ICC alleges that the two men led militia groups which used child soldiers and committed atrocities against members of the Hema ethnic group in DRC.

The Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), which Lubanga is alleged to have led, was predominantly made up of Hema and fought against the groups which the ICC claims were led by Katanga and Ngudjolo.

“The defense has to share information about these witnesses… It is our right and we need to do so,” Biju-Duval said. “We think it is useful and necessary for the defense teams to the share results of their investigations. There’s nothing against that. This will only help in the establishment of the truth.”

Samson said prosecutors did not see how it could be possible to exchange information without violating the orders restricting who got access to information concerning the individual cases.

“The information is known to the defense teams and it is possible that in the course of their exchanges, the information that is otherwise protected in one case is revealed, not intentionally, is revealed in the other case,” she said.

Judge Fulford said barring defense teams from speaking to each other would be a denial of their rights to free speech and association, and would also represent an impediment to the preparation of their cases.

But Samson said that while each defense team was aware of the orders imposed on them by the courts regarding disclosure of information, there would be no means of monitoring the communication which would take place between the defense teams. She added that it was not the case that every item of evidence in a document compiled by OTP was of equal relevance across the two cases.

Judges said they would make a ruling after getting submissions on the specific restrictions which had been placed on the disclosure of information by the two trials.

Meanwhile, the trial on Thursday took a break to allow his attorneys to travel to DRC to conduct what Judge Fulford referred to as “critical research”. As a result, there will be no hearings until Wednesday March 3, 2010.

Judge Fulford directed the defense team and representatives of the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) to meet and resolve an outstanding issue which he said related to the research which the defense wished to carry out during their visit to the DRC next week.

As a result, there will be no hearings until Wednesday March 3, 2010, Judge Fulford announced today, just after the fifth witness called by the defense had completed giving evidence. This witness, and the one before him, testified in closed session hence it was not possible to know what their testimony was about. Both of them testified with extensive protective measures.

Today, Judge Fulford directed the defense team and representatives of the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) to meet and resolve an outstanding issue which he said related to research which the defense wished to carry out during their visit to the DRC next week.

Mr. Lubanga is being tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo during 2002 and 2003.

He has denied the charges, and his defense has said it will prove to court that prosecution witnesses were coached, and that those who testified as former child soldiers actually never were. The ICC alleges that Mr. Lubanga headed the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) and was commander-in-chief of UPC’s armed wing which used child soldiers.

Since the defense case started on January 27, 2010, five witnesses have been called. The first three witnesses testified that intermediaries of the Office of The Prosecutor (ICC) bribed and duped some boys and their parents or guardians into joining the alleged scheme to fabricate evidence.