Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Int'l Crim. Ct. App. Chamber)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Ryan Vogel
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Islamic Republic

On March 5, 2020, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its unanimous Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The decision came after an appeal of the Pre-Trial Chamber II's unanimous decision in April 2019 rejecting the Prosecutor's request to proceed with an investigation. The Appeals Chamber's decision allows the prosecutor to immediately begin an investigation “in relation to alleged crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan in the period since 1 May 2003, as well as other alleged crimes that have a nexus to the armed conflict in Afghanistan and are sufficiently linked to the situation and were committed on the territory of other States Parties in the period since 1 July 2002.”

scholarly journals IMPORTANCE OF THE BEMBA CASE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMANDERS AND OTHER SUPERIORS FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THEIR SUBORDINATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
B. I. Nedilko
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
First Case

This article is devoted to the analysis of the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case of the International Criminal Court. He was a Congolese politician, as well as the founder and the head of non-governmental armed group, named “Movement for the Liberation of Congo”, which members committed number of crimes during armed conflict in Central African Republic. The importance of this case lies in the fact, that it was the first case of the International Criminal Court, where the accused was charged with crimes, committed by his subordinates, and not by the accused himself. This article reveals the main contradictions between the judgments of the Trial Chamber, which found Bemba guilty, and the Appeals Chamber, which acquitted him. The legal basics of the institute of personal responsibility of commanders and other superiors in international criminal law, which were formed in the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba case, are highlighted therein. The author addresses and analyzes the grounds for recognizing commanders and other superiors guilty for committing crimes by their subordinates. It was discovered, that Article 28 of the Rome Statute requires the commanders to take only necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by their subordinates, not all possible measures at the relevant time. The Trial Chamber should specify what exactly the accused had to do to prevent or punish the crimes, as well as inform the accused of it prior to the hearing. It is also necessary to take into account objective circumstances, that could prevent the commander from adequately responding to the commission of crimes by his subordinates, especially if they operated in the territory of another state. The commander's ability to take the necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by his subordinates, should be analyzed in relation to each individual crime he is charged with, and not in relation to all the actions of subordinates as a whole. At last, the Appeals Chamber provided an exhaustive list of criteria for determining whether the measures, taken by the commander, were sufficient.

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-301
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Worboys
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Islamic Republic

On April 12, 2019, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the ICC (Rome Statute) refusing to authorize an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (the Decision).

The Denial of the Right of Return as a Rome Statute Crime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micheal G Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Final Section ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Right Of Return ◽  
The Right

Abstract In 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that conduct preventing the return of members of the Rohingya people to Myanmar could fall within Article 7(1)(k) of the Statute, on the grounds that denial of the right of return constitutes a crime against humanity. No international tribunal has prosecuted this conduct as a discrete violation, but given the significance of the right of return to Palestinians, it can be expected that such an offence would be of central importance should the ICC investigate the situation in Palestine. This comment will review the recognition of this crime against humanity during the process prompted by the Prosecutor’s 2018 Request for a ruling as to the Court’s jurisdiction over trans-boundary crimes in Bangladesh/Myanmar. It will consider the basis for the right of return in general international law, with a specific focus on the Palestinian right of return. The final section will review the elements of the denial of right of return as a crime against humanity, as proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor in its 2019 Request for Authorization of an investigation in Bangladesh/Myanmar.

Theory and practice of mixing procedural models in the Pre-trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court mechanism of functioning

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 100-111
Author(s):  
Denis Pechegin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Honorary Doctor

The increasing interpenetration of the main models of the process and the approval of international standards for the production of criminal cases raise the question of the development and improvement of the form of legal proceedings in the category of the most relevant in modern science. On the one hand, the attention of many scientists is focused on strengthening the competitive core of the process and ensuring, as far as possible, a balance of power between the parties. On the other hand, it is stated that legal proceedings that do not pursue the goal of achieving material truth, especially due to the absolute nature of the principle of competition, lead to excessive formalism that has nothing to do with fair trial. The solution to the problem of combining trial models (the balance of adversarial and investigative cores) is seen in the International Criminal Court. The procedure of criminal proceedings in the International Criminal Court is the result of special scientific modeling taking into account the indicated doctrinal trends, and the degree of generalization of approaches of leading legal families in the structure of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is so high that it allows us to speak about the universality of this procedural system. If the predecessors of the International Criminal Court preference were really given only one started (so, the ICTY was based on the example of the Anglo-Saxon adversarial procedure model with the “American accent”), the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reflected the trend to the initial formation of a balanced trial procedures designed to overcome the deviations in the balance of power by introducing an adversarial process with “inquisitorial” elements: for example, the Pre-trial Chamber, duties of the Prosecutor fully and objectively investigate the circumstances of the case, the duties of the court of first instance to establish the truth in the case. However, this does not mean any disregard for the adversarial core at the pre-trial stage. The article is devoted to theoretical and practical aspects of the combination of adversarial and investigative cores in the activities of the pre-trial Chamber of the International criminal court and reflects the results of a study led by professor Anita Ušacka, honorary doctor of law, in the preparation of a Commentary to the Rome Statute in Russian.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.76 Sentencing/Prononcé de la peine

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Individual Role

This chapter comments on Article 76 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 76 governs the imposition of sentence in the event of a conviction. If the accused is convicted, the Trial Chamber is required to establish the ‘appropriate sentence’. In so doing, the Statute instructs it to consider the evidence presented and submissions made during the trial that are relevant to the sentence. Mitigating and aggravating factors relating to the commission of the crime itself, such as the individual role of the offender and of the treatment of the victims, will form part of the evidence germane to guilt or innocence and thus appear as part of the record of the trial.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.69 Evidence/Preuve

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
The One ◽  
Assessment Of Evidence ◽  
General Provision

This chapter comments on Article 69 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 69 deals with specific evidentiary issues but lacks a general provision like the one in the Nuremberg Charter. This is addressed in article 64, stating that the Trial Chamber has the power to rule on the admissibility or reliability of evidence. According to a Trial Chamber, ‘the drafters of the Statute framework have clearly and deliberately avoided proscribing certain categories or types of evidence, a step which would have limited — at the outset — the ability of the Chamber to assess evidence “freely”’. Chambers enjoy ‘a significant degree of discretion in considering all types of evidence’. Another judge has said that article 69 provides for ‘the principle of free assessment of evidence. Hence, it is up to the competent Chamber to decide on the probative value of any piece of evidence introduced for the purpose of the confirmation hearing or the trial’.

Part 6 The Trial: Le Procès, Art.64 Functions and powers of the Trial Chamber/Fonctions et pouvoirs de la chambre de première instance

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

This chapter comments on Article 64 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 64 sets out the functions and powers of the Trial Chamber. It confirms that ‘[t]he functions and powers of the Trial Chamber set out in this article shall be exercised in accordance with this Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’. The general duties of the Trial Chamber include ensuring a ‘fair and expeditious’ trial, conducted with ‘full respect for the rights of the accused’ and ‘due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses’.

War Crimes in International Versus Non-International Armed Conflicts: "New Wine in Old Wineskins"?

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 319-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gauthier de Beco
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law

AbstractThis note discusses the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts in the prosecution of war crimes before the International Criminal Court. It analyses the international humanitarian law applicable to both kinds of conflict, and the way in which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia succeeded in prosecuting war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. It also studies the two war crimes regimes provided for in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The note then examines how Pre-Trial Chamber I dealt with this issue in its Decision on the confirmation of charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and the problems it faced in doing so. It concludes with a plea for the abolition of the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts with respect to war crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Defining “Crimes Against Humanity” at the Rome Conference

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Many

On July 17, 1998, the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome Conference) adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). One of the many significant provisions of the ICC statute is Article 7, which defines “crimes against humanity” for the purpose of the ICC. A significant difference between the definition in the ICC statute and the major precedents on crimes against humanity is that the former definition was not imposed by victors (as were those in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters) or by the Security Council (as were those in the Statutes of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals). In contrast, Article 7 was developed through multilateral negotiations involving 160 states. For this reason, one could reasonably expect Article 7 to be more detailed than previous definitions, given the interest of participating states in knowing the precise contours of the corresponding obligations they would be undertaking. For the same reason, one might expect the definition to be more restrictive than previous definitions. Fortunately, although the definition in the ICC statute is more detailed than previous definitions, it generally seems to reflect most of the positive developments identified in recent authorities. For example, the definition does not require any nexus to armed conflict, does not require proof of a discriminatory motive, and recognizes the crime of apartheid and enforced disappearance as inhumane acts.

Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-132
Author(s):  
Uzma S. Bishop-Burney
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
Cultural Objects ◽  
First Time

On September 27, 2016, the Trial Chamber (Chamber) of the International Criminal Court (ICC or tribunal) rendered its judgment in Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, wherein the defendant was convicted of the war crime of intentionally directing attacks on protected cultural objects. It is the ICC's first such conviction and the first time that an accused has entered a guilty plea at the tribunal pursuant to Article 65 of the Rome Statute (Statute). Al Mahdi pled guilty to co-perpetrating attacks on protected objects pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Statute for his role in the attack on, and destruction of, ten mosques and mausoleums in Timbuktu. The Trial Chamber sentenced him to nine years in prison.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document