This is really poor wording. @Moonki, what are they talking about here? Is or was this in anticipation of the fact that Kenya was being referred to the Assembly for non cooperation by the prosecution for refusing to produce the bank records among other things? Where are the tabled gross violations the star was talking about? What are the chances that Kenya or the principals misguided claims will be heard?
"Poor wording" is very mild! The whole note is hopeless. It deliberately misunderstands the role of the ASP; it ignores that as the entire ASP is about the court, the court itself provides the most important input to the ASP; and so on.
Er, it is GoK that is misguided; the ICC principals are quite correct. Anyway, the answer to
red, as far as I can see, is next to zero.
The first and biggest problem GoK faces---and something that will be a "turn-off" to many---is that the thing looks like it was written by some
manamba going by his impressions rather than the actual facts: every single paragraph contains a huge claim that is totally false. Bizarre claims that are driven largely by emotion can work in AU meetings, but I would not try to sell them to the ASP.
The second problem GoK faces is that many of the issues it raises are matters that should be raised by the defence, and the defence alone, during court proceedings and especially before the Appeals Chamber (if satisfaction has not been obtained at the lower level). The ASP simply will not get involved in those.
The only item that can stand---on the basis of the title alone and not the "content"---is "
B. Complementarity". But that will be raised because it is always an ongoing "item" and the ASP Bureau already released a document on what will be discussed:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP13/ICC-ASP-13-23-ENG.pdfBut such discussions can only be, and are always, general; they cannot deal with a specific country and especially one (Kenya) that is on the line for failing to cooperate. Yes, the whole thing seems to be an attempt to deal with the possible citation for non-cooperation; that seems to be point of the badly written paragraph you refer to.
Funnily enough, GoK did not think through some of its "actions". Take, for example, the false claim in one note that the court has conflated Uhuru and Ruto's official roles with the individual ones. The fact is that the court has always insisted on the separation and requires that in official documents and court sessions the two be referred to simply as "Mr."; it is GoK and the AU that have been insisting that the two cannot be separated and that such high-level people not be prosecuted while they are in office. "Unfortunately" Uhuru himself has recently shown the world that the court can deal with him as an individual; among other things, that has left the AU with plenty of egg on its face, and on that matter it will have to sing a modified tune at the ASP session.