The International Criminal Court and the Peace Process in Côte d’Ivoire

Author(s):  
Linus Nnabuike Malu
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska

On 27 May 2015, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (icc) issued a judgment on the appeal of Côte d’Ivoire against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber i of 11 December 2014 entitled “Decision on Côte d’Ivoire’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Simone Gbagbo”. As a result of this decision, the path to prosecute Simone Gbagbo lies open. The Appeals Chamber confirmed the opinion expressed by the Pre-Trial Chamber that there were no obstacles in the form of national prosecutions which would exclude the icc’s jurisdiction pursuant to the principle of complementarity. This judgment is not only important from the point of view that the icc has found no basis to find the case inadmissible on the grounds of lack of complementarity, but even more so because of the procedural issues at stake. In this decision, solutions can be found that are crucial with regard to the scope and methods of appellate review before the icc.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-441

On January 15, 2019, the Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) acquitted Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé of all charges of crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the context of post-electoral violence in Côte d'Ivoire in 2010 and 2011. The two were accused of four charges of crimes against humanity: murder, rape, other inhumane acts, and persecution. The majority found that the Prosecutor had not proven several elements of the crimes charged, namely a “common plan” meant to keep Gbagbo in power, including crimes against civilians “pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organisational policy,” and patterns of violence that would have demonstrated a “policy to attack a civilian population.” The majority also found that the Prosecutor had not provided evidence proving that the defendants “knowingly or intentionally contributed to the commission of the alleged crimes or that their speeches constituted ordering, soliciting or inducing such crimes.” In dissent, Judge Herrera Carbuccia stated that she believed the majority used the wrong standard of review, that it should have been the beyond reasonable doubt standard, and “that there is evidence upon which a reasonable Trial Chamber could convict the accused.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-374
Author(s):  
A. Yao ◽  
A. Hué ◽  
J. Danho ◽  
P. Koffi-Dago ◽  
M. Sanogo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document