Take you advice and go back and read more about Ramush. Okay let me try a moron version for your type.
Jan 2005: Ramush party win election and Ramush elected PM.
March 2005; 100 days later Ramush is indicted (warrant of arrest issued).
April 2005: Ramush resign and goes to Hague.
April 2005-2006; Ramush is detained and held in prison in Hague.
2007; Ramush contest detention and it goes to appeal chamber. ICTY appeal chamber release Ramush and allows him to engage in activities including politics as long as UN Mission didn't have a problem.
2007; Ramush goes back to Kosovo and contest election while going to trial at ICTY. He comes 3rd.
2008/09: Ramush is found innocent.
2010: Prosecutor re-open Ramush case afresh after allegation comes out that Ramush intimidated witness. The RE TRIAL is on as we speak.
2010: Ramush stand again for election; he comes 3rd.
As of now Ramush is going to trial and still play his role in politics; If election are held today; Ramush would stand.
Now Ruto and Uhuru case is easy; They are on free bond with two conditions.Ramush has proven you can lead normal life as you face ICC crimes. The sudan rebels are still heading their rebel movement whilst attending trial. They jet into Chad..go to Holland..sit thro' the proceedings whenever they are on..fly back to their base..hivyo hivyoThe game changer for any suspect is whether they are detained or NOT. If you're free on free bond; you continue with your life as any other person as long as you attend trial.
Uhuru and Ruto were not detained..and therefore they will continue as free folks until they are jailed or released..a free folk is free to do all that you and i can do...including contesting for PORK..get that JOB..and leading normal life.
Next..before i go to Nairobi...tired of Mavoko already.
Kichwa Mbaya wrote:Pundit, if you want to go intellectual, at least try to be honest in your comparison and differentiation: This kind of sloppiness and half-baked comparisons is what makes people like Ruto and Uhuru not well served by their advisors and supporters who want to tell them more of what they want to hear than the reality. Tell me how you campare the two cases and find them similar? Meanwhile here are some stack differences from the source you provided:
"Haradinaj served only 100 days as Prime Minister before being indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), at The Hague. The indictment alleges that Haradinaj, as a commander within the KLA, committed crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war between March and September 1998, the alleged purpose of which was to exert control over territory, targeting both Serb, Albanian and Romani civilians. He was acquitted on 3 April 2008, because of lack of convincing evidence."
"When the ICTY indictment was issued in March 2005, Haradinaj chose to step down immediately from his position as Prime Minister. The following day he travelled voluntarily to The Hague where he remained for two months until he was granted provisional release pending trial. Haradinaj received much praise for his actions and words at that time, which were perceived by many, including the International Crisis Group (ICG), US Senator Joe Biden  and the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook  as having prevented violence and civil unrest."
Uhuru and Ruto are already indicted and their trial dates have been set unlike this guy who was indicted after he became prime minister. So why should Uhuru and Ruto ran for president just to stept down if they win to go to Hague and face trial. Chapter six is not even needed to stop these yahoos from running, the court can just use the fact that they will be unavailable to serve. Uhururuto need to follow this guys example and voluntarily spare the people of Kenya the drama of taking this matter to court by stopping their charade statehouse race.