An Overview of Fair Trial Standards and National Security from a Comparative Perspective

2013 ◽  
pp. 77-100
Author(s):  
Samantha Joy Cheesman
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Comparative Perspective

National Security Evidence: Enhancing Fairness in View of the Non-Disclosure Regime of the Rome Statute

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-359
Author(s):  
Ariel Zemach
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Selection Of

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court completely divests the Court of the power to compel a state to disclose evidence in its possession if the state opposes such disclosure on grounds of national security. If a state refuses to disclose information essential to the adjudication of a case on national security grounds, the ICC may settle fair trial concerns either by drawing factual inferences favourable to the defendant or by staying the proceedings. I argue, however, that in practice such judicial powers do not provide a sufficient guarantee of a fair trial. I propose to allay fair trial concerns arising from the refusal of states to allow the ICC access to evidence in their possession by introducing a reform in the exercise of the ICC's prosecutorial discretion. According to my proposal, the requirement of a fair trial, which entails the disclosure of material essential for the defence, would be incorporated into the criteria that guide the ICC Prosecutor in the selection of cases for prosecution. Although the present article focuses on the issue of national security evidence, the reach of the proposed reform extends to all cases of state refusal to allow the ICC access to evidence, regardless of the grounds for refusal.

Part 5 Cross-Cutting Issues, 5.2 Limitations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Freedom Of Association

This chapter discusses issues concerning the limitation of freedom of religion or belief, including related issues of interpretation. First, religious manifestation is different from holding, adopting, or changing religion or belief in that the latter is not subject to any limitation whatsoever. Second, national security is mentioned as a limitations ground in articles 12 (liberty of movement), 13 (expulsion), 14 (fair trial), 19 (freedom of expression), 21 (peaceful assembly), and 22 (freedom of association), but not in article 18 of the ICCPR. Third, traditions and limitations intersect in two ways; a single tradition cannot determine limitation on the grounds of morals, and limitations should not target a single tradition. Lastly, the exercise of assessing ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ should not sideline the importance of upholding the protection of the relevant human rights. International procedures should only limit freedom of religion or belief in accordance with a strict understanding of the rights and limitation regime concerned, and with detailed justification of the rationale for their decision making in the compromise that is proposed.

scholarly journals Gaps, conflicts and contradictions regarding measures to ensure the right to a fair trial of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganna Sobko ◽  
Galyna Muliar ◽  
Ivan Draliuk ◽  
Myroslav Hryhorchuk ◽  
Oleksandr Holovko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Circumstances

The first paragraph of Article 6 states that the right to a fair trial is when everyone has the right to a fair and impartial hearing in a court of law within a reasonable time, independently of the law governing the dispute over his rights and obligations. both civil and other (criminal, administrative) nature and the establishment of the accusation against her. The court decision must be made public, but the press and the public may not be allowed in the courtroom during the entire time the case is heard in court or only part of the hearing in the interests of a democratic society, namely morality, public order, national security, and this is required by the interests of the juvenile or the protection of the privacy of individuals, or, if the Court has found the measure necessary, when, in special circumstances, the publicity of the proceedings may be prejudicial to the interests of justice.

Reflections from Former Masters of the Rolls on Managing Civil Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Kate O’Regan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Justice System ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Post September 11 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Justice System

This edited conversation between Professor Kate O’Regan of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights and Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson reflects on their Lordships’ time as judges and Masters of the Rolls managing the civil justice system in England & Wales. Subjects include: the value of the overriding objective; whether procedural rules should be prescriptive or allow for judicial discretion; the costs and funding crisis facing the justice system, especially for those of limited means, including how legal disputes should be funded and who should be funding them; and how to balance the right to a fair trial with national security interests in a post-September 11 world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document