Usted buscó: understand (Español - Italiano)

understand
capicht

understand?
understand?

to understand
a capito

"do you understand?"
hai capito?

verb to understand
verbo capire

* don't you understand
traduzione:

-do you understand? -no.
parlano in inglese

lo siento, pero i don't understand.
lo siento, però non capisco.

i don't understand what's happening.
non capisco che cosa sta accadendo.

* 'cause we seem to understand the urgency *
# perche' sembra che entrambi avvertiamo # # la stessa pulsione irresistibile #

# and how l'll never knowjust why or understand
# and how l'll never knowjust why or understand

i don't speak very well but i understand quite well
non parlo molto bene ma capisco abbastanza bene

i haven't lost him yet i'm gonna make him understand
# non l'ho ancora perso, ma ho una soluzione #

si lo resolvemos de forma civilizada, nadie saldrá lastimado, ¿understand?
se risolviamo civilmente, nessuno si fara' male.

"what kind of plane is this?" the man said, "but you don't understand.
che razza di aereo e' questo?" "ma non capisce, signore..."

skins 5x02 rich * you don't seem to understand... * (parece que no lo entiendes)
# kyuss # # "thumb" # rich!

- ¿eh? "understand", paisa. "¿entennío?" - ¿cómo qué "entennío"?
"understand", paisa' ? capiscisti ? - come ?

the man said, "no, you don't understand, mr parkinson, it's free." "free?"
il ragazzo: "no, non capisce, signor parkinson, e' gratis."

icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 46/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 47/5 93 14 march 2012 83. the precise nature of the upc at that time and the identity of those responsible for the training in uganda are disputed issues in the case. these topics are analysed in greater detail below in the chapter dealing with the individual criminal responsibility of the accused.200 84. on 6 november 2000, ernest wamba dia wamba was overthrown by mr mbusa nyamwisi, who was supported by the hema leader jean tibasima and the hema militia. 201 in january 2001, the ugandan colonel edison muzoora of the updf seized control of the province of ituri.202 85. by january 2001, a number of smaller splinter militias had emerged, which had ties with the ugandan, rwandan or congolese forces and the rebel groups.203 as a result, by the end of 2001 there had been a sharp increase in ethnically-targeted attacks on villages and violence against civilians.204 86. in early 2002, thomas lubanga occupied the position of minister of defence in the rcd-ml (the group that controlled ituri at the time).205 87. during the sun city peace negotiations in south africa in april 2002, mr mbusa nyamwisi, as president of the rcd-ml, shifted his allegiance to the kinshasa government and he decided to create an 200 see section xi. 201 t-168-red-eng, page 34, line 2 to page 36, line 18 (p-0012); evd-otp-00403 at drc-otp- 0203-0100 to drc-otp-0203-0101. 202 evd-otp-00403 at drc-otp-0203-0101. 203 evd-otp-00623, paras 18 and 23. in addition, uganda created the front de libération du congo (“flc”) at this time in order to try to unite ugandan-supported rebel groups in one organisation under the leadership of jean-pierre bemba. evd-otp-0403 at drc-otp-0203-0101 to drc-otp-0203- 0102. 204 evd-otp-0403 at drc-otp-0203-0101 and evd-chm-00005, pages 16 and 20 – 21 (icc- 01/04-01/06-1655-anx-teng, pages 15 and 19). 205 evd-otp-00621 (curriculum vitae of thomas lubanga); t-124-red-eng, page 78, lines 2 – 14 (testimony of p-0041, stating that in april 2002, thomas lubanga was the minister of defence for the rcd-ml); t-168-red-eng, page 27, lines 6 – 24 (testimony of p-0012, stating that by february or march 2002, thomas lubanga had already been appointed the minister of defence); t-344-red-eng, page 8, lines 11 – 18 (d-0019). icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 47/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 48/5 93 14 march 2012 integrated hema-lendu army for the rcd-ml.206 88. thereafter, certain individuals (allegedly the accused was among them) decided to abandon the rcd-ml207 and a number of new militias were organised. as a consequence, the conflict in ituri was driven to “new extremes of ethnic fragmentation”.208 on 17 april 2002 a political declaration was issued calling for the departure of mr mbusa nyamwisi. 209 following this declaration, hema militia members including chief kahwa, 210 floribert kisembo, bosco ntaganda, commanders tchaligonza, kasangaki and bagonza and others, mutinied against the rcd-ml.211 the alleged participation of the accused in these events and his relationship with the aforesaid individuals is analysed in the chapter dealing with individual criminal responsibility.212 89. in june 2002,213 when the accused was in kampala in order to attend a meeting with a group that included john tinanzabo, richard lonema, jean-pascal ndukute, and nestor bamaraki,214 the ugandan authorities arrested thomas lubanga and nine of his companions, later transferring them to kinshasa where they were kept under house 206 t-179-red-eng, page 37, lines 14 – 25 (p-0014); evd-otp-0403 at drc-otp-0203-0102 to drc-otp-0203-0106. 207 t-340-eng, page 37, line 7 to page 41, line 4; t-343-eng, page 49, line 25 to page 52, line 6 and page 69, lines 12 – 15 (d-0019). 208 evd-otp-0403 at drc-otp-0203-0103 to drc-otp-0203-0106. see also t-179-red-eng, page 37, line 14 to page 39, line 23 (p-0014). this is, at least in part, a contentious issue in the case, namely whether thomas lubanga personally organized the overthrow of the rcd-ml. 209 evd-d01-00050; t-343-eng, page 62, line 13 to page 63, line 17 and page 66, line 21 to page 67, line 10 (d-0019). 210 t-340-eng, page 53, line 13 to page 54, line 22 (d-0019). 211 t-168-red-eng, page 29, lines 3 – 13 (p-0012); t-340-eng, page 55, line 15 to page 57, line 2 and t-343-eng, page 76, line 10 to page 77, line 9 (d-0019). 212 see section xi. 213 t-344-red-eng, page 17, lines 4 – 7 (d-0019); t-179-red2-eng, page 79, lines 12 – 16 (p-0014); t-125-red-eng, page 9, lines 6 – 9; t-126-red-eng, page 7, lines 21 – 24 (p-0041). 214 t-179-red2-eng, page 80, line 21 to page 81, line 9 (p-0014) and t-125-conf-eng, page 2, lines 16 – 24 and t-125-red2-eng, page 4, line 18 to page 5, line 12 (p-0041). icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 48/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 49/5 93 14 march 2012 arrest. 215 the conditions of detention of mr lubanga and the delegation of tasks to, and communication on his part with, his alleged co-perpetrators and other upc members are considered in detail in the chapter dealing with individual criminal responsibility.216 90. in early august 2002, rcd-ml dissidents (backed by uganda), attacked bunia and, after several days of fighting,217 took control of the town, ousting mr mbusa nyamwisi and the rcd-ml.218 the apc forces were driven out and governor lompondo fled the city on foot.219 it is, however, a matter of contention in this case whether the upc was responsible for forcing the rcd-ml out of bunia. this, as with other contested issues, is discussed below.220 91. within this context, the prosecution submits that the accused, jointly with his co-perpetrators, committed the crimes of conscription, enlistment and use of children under the age of 15, from 1 september 2002 to 13 august 2003. 215 t-125-red2-eng, page 8, line 11 to page 11, line 4 and t-126-red-eng, page 7, lines 21 to page 9, line 9 (p-0014); t-181-red2-eng, page 8, line 25 to page 9, line 14 (p-0014); t-168-red-eng, page 40, lines 4 – 5 and page 41, lines 21 –24 (p-0012); t-340-eng, page 45, lines 1 – 25 and t-344- red-eng, page 18, line 23 to page 19, line 12 (d-0019); t-174-red2-eng, page 30 line 18 to page 31, line 2 (p-0055). 216 see section xi. 217 evd-otp-0403 at drc-otp-0203-0104 to drc-otp-0203-0105; t-344-red-eng, page 2, line 19 to page 3, line 7. the rebels call themselves the front pour la réconciliation et la paix (“frp”) in their declaration, evd-otp-00386/ evd-otp-00663. the extent to which the frp was the upc under another name is contested in this case. thomas lubanga’s role in the takeover of bunia is also contested. the prosecution alleges that he orchestrated and oversaw the attack whereas the defence alleges that he was not involved in the armed rebellion that overthrew mr mbusa nyamwisi (it is observed that mr lubanga was detained in kinshasa at the time) and instead it is suggested he merely took political advantage of a rebellion which he did not lead, in order to take power after its success. 218 t-156-eng, page 55, lines 15 – 19 (p-0360); evd-otp-00386/evd-otp-00663, t-125-red- eng, page 13, line 1 to page 15, line 2 (p-0041); t-179-red2-eng, page 76, lines 11 – 17 (p-0014); t-168-red-eng, page 42, line 18 to page 43, line 9 (p-0012); t-340-eng, page 59, line 24 to page 62, line 5 (d-0019); t-160-red2-eng, page 73, lines 2 – 5 and t-162-conf-eng, page 5, lines 5 – 10 (p-0002). 219 evd-otp-00403 at drc-otp-0203-0105 and t-168-eng, page 43, lines 5 – 7. 220 see section xi. icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 49/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 50/5 93 14 march 2012 v.the evaluation of evidence burden of proof 92. under article 66 of the statute, the accused is presumed to be innocent until the prosecutor has proved his guilt.221 for a conviction, each element of the particular offence charged must be established “beyond reasonable doubt”.222 evidence 93. evidence was introduced during the trial in oral, written and audiovisual form. this included the viva voce testimony of sixty-seven witnesses (including expert witnesses) who appeared before the chamber in person and via a video link. two witnesses gave their evidence by way of sworn depositions (article 69(2) of the statute and rule 68 of the rules). written statements were admitted pursuant to rule 68 of the rules. 223 documents and other material such as transcripts of interviews, videos, the records from a variety of organisations, letters, photographs and maps were either introduced during the oral evidence of witnesses or by counsel (in the latter case, following a written application). 94. this judgment is based on the entire proceedings and the chamber’s evaluation of the evidence under article 74(2) of the statute. the chamber has assessed the reliability of individual pieces 221 article 66(1) and (2) of the statute. 222 article 66(3) of the statute. 223 see, e.g., decision on the prosecution's application for the admission of the prior recorded statements of two witnesses, 15 january 2009, icc-01/04-01/06-1603. a french translation was filed on 27 january 2011: décision relative à la requête de l’accusation aux fins d’admission des déclarations préalablement enregistrées de deux témoins, 15 january 2009, icc-01/04-01/06-1603- tfra. icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 50/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 51/5 93 14 march 2012 of evidence and their probative value in the context of any other admissible and probative material. 95. the parties and participants were responsible for identifying the evidence that is relevant to the article 74 decision in their final submissions. during the course of giving directions as to the timetable for the closing stages of the case on 1 april 2011, the chamber stated: so far as the bar table documents are concerned, it is likely that we will only consider them to the extent that they are referred to in your written closing submissions. so if there are bar table documents which at the end of the case you consider to have relevance and importance, you must identify the part of the document that you rely on, and you must set out a short explanation of the point or points that you make in relation to that document and the section of it that you have identified. if you fail to refer to a bar table document or you fail to refer to parts of a bar table document, you should work on the basis that there is a very real risk that we will simply not take it into consideration. we do not intend to read each and every one of the documents that you have respectively submitted, guessing at what might be the unexplained relevance of the particular piece of paper. these proceedings should not be conducted on the basis of judicial guesswork. similarly, we have heard a great deal of oral evidence. some of it, on analysis, may well prove to have greater relevance than other parts of the evidence that we have heard, and there is a duty on you all to indicate the principal facts, the principal parts of the oral evidence that we have heard that you rely on, coupled with a sufficient explanation as to why you say the particular piece of evidence or section of evidence has relevance to your case, either in support of the case that you are making or by way of criticism of the case for the other side. now, it may be that the bench will consider some of the evidence that you have not identified. that, of course, is a matter entirely for us if we choose to do so. but for those parts that you consider to be relevant, you must flag it up, and i hope that’s clear.224 96. in the order on the timetable for closing submissions, dated 12 april 2011, the chamber set out as follows: 5. for the documents that have been admitted into evidence without having been introduced during the examination of a witness (viz. the bar table documents), as set out by the chamber during the hearing on 1 april 2011 in 224 t-342-eng, page 64, line 6 to page 65, line 7. icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 51/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 52/5 93 14 march 2012 their final submissions the parties and participants are to identify the documents, or parts thereof, that are relied on, and to provide a sufficient explanation of relevance. 6. similarly, the parts of the oral evidence relied on by the parties and participants and the documents relied on during the examination of witnesses must be clearly identified. there is a duty on the parties and participants to indicate the principal facts arising out of the oral evidence that are relied on, and to provide a sufficient explanation of relevance.225 97. these directions were not the subject of objection or suggested variation. the chamber has focussed particularly on the matters raised by the parties and participants in their closing submissions, and it reviewed other items of evidence as appropriate. 98. article 74(2) of the statute directs the chamber to “base its decision only on evidence submitted and discussed before it at the trial”. in the chamber’s view, the phrase “discussed before it at the trial” encompasses not only the oral testimony, together with any documents and other items, such as video recordings, that were “discussed” during the hearings, but also any items of evidence that were “discussed” in the written submissions of the parties and the participants at any stage during the trial (e.g. documents introduced by counsel pursuant to a written application). the key is that the evidence upon which the chamber bases its article 74 decision must have been introduced during the trial and have become part of the trial record, through the assignment of an evidence (evd) number. 99. article 74(2) of the statute must also be read in conjunction with article 69(4), which provides that: the court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, inter alia, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness, in accordance with the rules of 225 icc-01/04-01/06-2722. icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 52/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 53/5 93 14 march 2012 procedure and evidence. 100. the appeals chamber has held that article 69(4) of the statute is a mandatory provision that requires the trial chamber to rule on the admissibility of each item of submitted evidence “at some point in the proceedings”.226 the determination of admissibility is to be made in light of “the relevance, probative value and the potential prejudice of each item of evidence”.227 101. the combined effect of articles 69(4) and 74(2) of the statute is that the chamber’s article 74 decision is to be based only on evidence that (i) has been “submitted”; (ii) has been “discussed […] at trial”, in the sense that it is part of the trial record; and (iii) has been found to be admissible by the chamber.228 in reaching its verdict, the chamber has considered only the materials that satisfy these three criteria. oral evidence 102. when evaluating the oral testimony of a witness, the chamber has considered the entirety of the witness’s account; the manner in which he or she gave evidence; the plausibility of the testimony; and the extent to which it was consistent, including as regards other evidence in the case. the chamber has assessed whether the witness’s evidence conflicted with prior statements he or she had made, insofar as the relevant portion of the prior statement is in evidence. in each instance the chamber has evaluated the extent and seriousness of the inconsistency and its impact on the overall reliability of the witness. 226 the prosecutor v. bemba, judgment on the appeals of mr jean-pierre bemba gombo and the prosecutor against the decision of trial chamber iii entitled "decision on the admission into evidence of materials contained in the prosecution's list of evidence'', 3 may 2011, icc-01/05-01/08-1386, para. 37. 227 icc-01/05-01/08-1386, para. 37; see also article 69(4) of the statute. 228 rule 64(3) of the rules (“evidence ruled irrelevant or inadmissible shall not be considered by the chamber”). icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 53/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 54/5 93 14 march 2012 103. the chamber has made appropriate allowance for any instances of imprecision, implausibility or inconsistency, bearing in mind the overall context of the case and the circumstances of the individual witnesses. for example, the charges relate to events that occurred in 2002 and 2003. memories fade, and witnesses who were children at the time of the events, or who suffered trauma, may have had particular difficulty in providing a coherent, complete and logical account. there are other potential reasons why a witness’s evidence may have been flawed and the chamber, when assessing his or her testimony, has taken these considerations into account and they are reflected in its overall assessment of the account in question. 104. in certain instances, the chamber has not relied on part of a witness’s account whilst accepting other aspects of his or her evidence, thereby acknowledging that it is possible for a witness to be accurate on some issues and unreliable on others. nonetheless, when the chamber rejected part of a witness’s testimony, it has invariably considered the impact of that decision as regards the reliability of the remainder of the individual’s evidence. 105. the chamber called a psychologist who gave expert testimony on the psychological impact of a child having been a soldier and the effect of trauma on memory.229 this provided useful background evidence when the chamber assessed the accounts of the individuals in this category. 106. the chamber has considered the individual circumstances of each witness, including his or her relationship to the accused, age, vulnerability, any involvement in the events under consideration, the 229 see t-166-eng and evd-chm-00001 and evd-chm-00002. icc-01/04-01/06-2842 14-03-2012 54/624 sl t no. icc-01/04-01/06 55/5 93 14 march 2012 risk of self-incrimination, possible prejudice for or against the accused and motives for telling the truth or providing false testimony. evidence other than direct oral evidence 107. the rome statute framework provides the chamber with a considerable degree of flexibility as regards the evidence it receives, as analysed by the chamber in its decision on the admissibility of four documents:230 19. there are four key factors arising from the provisions contained within the statutory framework which provide the necessary starting-point for an investigation of the trial chamber's general approach to this issue (the admissibility of evidence other than direct oral evidence). 20. first, the chamber's statutory authority to request the submission of all evidence that it considers necessary in order to determine the truth: article 69(3). 21. second, the chamber's obligation to ensure that the trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused: article 64(2). 22. third, although the rome statute framework highlights the desirability of witnesses giving oral evidence - indeed, the first sentence of article 69(2) requires that "[t]he testimony of a witness at trial shall be given in person, except to the extent provided by the measures set forth in article 68 or the rules of procedure and evidence" - the second and third sentence of article 69(2) provide for a wide range of other evidential possibilities: "[t]he court may also 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, subject to this statute and in accordance with the rules of procedure and evidence. these measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused." therefore, notwithstanding the express reference to oral evidence from witnesses at trial, there is a cl
© ste un