International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID):Azurix Corporation V. the Argentine Republic

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-285
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Concentration Camp ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Common Purpose

On 25 June 2001, Milorad Kmojelac, a Bosnian Serb, was indicted by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on twelve counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war. He had served as the commander of the Foca Kazneno-Popravni Dom (“KP Dom”) concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina from April 1992 to August 1993. The charges against Kmojelac were based upon his acting in “common purpose” (as defined by Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the ICTY Statute) with the KP Dom guards in persecuting Muslim and other non-Serb civilian detainees through torture, beatings, and murder. The Trial Chamber convicted Kmojelac of several of the charged offenses and sentenced him to a total of 7 Vi years imprisonment. He was acquitted of counts of torture, murder, imprisonment, and other inhumane acts. Both the defense and the prosecution appealed on various grounds. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all defense appeals and found for the prosecution on several grounds, increasing Krnolejac's sentence to 15 years.

Better Late than Never: Reparations for Sexual Violence in the Ntaganda case before the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-47
Author(s):  
Sunneva Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Child Soldiers ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Medical Background ◽  
Modest Contribution ◽  
First Time

The Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda case at the International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the long awaited first reparation order for sexual violence at the court. This will hopefully see the implementation of reparations for the war crimes and crimes against humanity of rape and sexual slavery among civilians and former child soldiers, after previous cases such as against Jean-Pierre Bembe and Laurent Gbagbo were acquitted of rape. This article drawing from the author's role as a reparation expert in the case, is a reflection on the challenges of designing and providing reparations at the ICC against convicted individuals, as well as amidst insecurity and the COVID-19 infectious disease pandemic. It begins by discussing how the Ntaganda reparation order expanded reparation principles for the first time since the Lubanga case, in particular for crimes of a sexual nature. This is followed by an outline of some of the harms as a result of sexual violence from the perspective of an expert with a medical background. The analysis then turns to the appropriate reparations in this case and the details contained within the chamber's reparation order. Final conclusions consider how the procedural and substantive elements of reparations in this case will be instructive to future cases that address sexual violence. Ultimately, key insights are offered on the modest contribution an appointed reparation expert can do in assisting a trial chamber in the reparation process.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

The International Criminal Court and the Warrant of Arrest for Sudan's President Al-Bashir: A Crucial Step Towards Challenging Impunity or a Political Decision?

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 397-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court

AbstractOn 4 March 2009 the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held that it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the president of Sudan, is criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute as an indirect (co)perpetrator for war crimes and crimes against humanity (but not for genocide). The Chamber issued a warrant for the arrest of Al Bashir making him the third sitting head of state to be charged by an international court following Liberia's Charles Taylor and Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milošević. Since then the ICC has been accused of making a "political decision" and that it is "part of a new mechanism of neo-colonialism". This article examines the ICC's decision against the background of the situation in Darfur. The article concludes that although the ICC decision and warrant cannot be considered political and neo-colonial in nature, the decision and warrant can be criticised as selective. It calls on the ICC to broaden its scope of investigations and for the international community to affirm its support for the ICC and insist that Sudan and other states cooperate fully as required by the United Nations Security Council.

scholarly journals PROSECUTING PRESIDENT AL BASHIR, AND THE SHORT ARM OF JUSTICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-209
Author(s):  
Suzanne Bullock
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Heads Of State

Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al BashirIn this decision the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) condemned Malawi, as a member state of the ICC, for the failure to comply with the request to arrest and surrender the President of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir. Significantly, the Chamber determined that the traditionally sacrosanct concept of immunity of Heads of State no longer applied before an international court or tribunal. Whilst the intention to create universal jurisdiction over perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity is extremely laudable, the legal reasoning by the Chamber is regrettably unsound. If the decision remains unchallenged, the implication is that no Head of State, whether or not they are a signatory to the ICC, is immune from prosecution on the mere basis of the ICC’s status as an international court.

Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana: Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 Entitled “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges” (Int'l Crim. Ct.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Frolich
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

On May 30, 2012, the Appeals Chamber (Chamber) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) voted unanimously to dismiss the appeal of the Prosecution against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber not to confirm the charges against the alleged Congolese warlord Callixte Mbarushimana. The Prosecution had alleged Mbarushimana was criminally responsible under Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute (Statute) for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by members of the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) in the Kivu provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Prosecution had appealed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on three separate issues, all of which were rejected.

The International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber: Prosecutor V. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Government ◽  
Election Violence

On August 30, 2011, a majority of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (‘‘ICC’’) rejected the appeal of the Government of Kenya to the earlier admissibility decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II in the case of Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, one of two cases arising from the ICC’s investigations into crimes against humanity committed during the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya.

The International Criminal Court and the Lord's Resistance Army Leaders: Prosecution or Amnesty?

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 361-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Senior Leaders ◽  
Lord's Resistance Army ◽  
Lord’S Resistance Army ◽  
Ugandan Government

AbstractOn 13 October 2005, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber II unsealed the warrants of arrest for five senior leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army/Movement (LRA/M) for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Uganda since July 2002. While these warrants were yet to be executed, the Ugandan government entered negotiations with the LRA/M rebels. As a result Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, disregarding the ICC arrest warrants, announced a 'total amnesty' for the LRA combatants in July 2006 on the condition that the rebels renounced terrorism and accepted peace. Following the amnesty offer, an agreement on cessation of hostilities between the Ugandan government and the LRA/M was concluded with effect from 29 August 2006. This article considers the question whether a 'total amnesty' to individuals indicted by the ICC may be binding upon the ICC.

Operationalizing the Complementarity Principle

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benson Chinedu Olugbuo
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Political ◽  
Complementarity Principle ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Judicial Systems

The chapter discusses the political and legal developments in Kenya, where President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Deputy President William Samoei Ruto were until recently facing ICC indictments for their alleged involvement with orchestrating crimes against humanity. It evaluates whether the decisions of Pre-Trial Chamber II and the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court authorizing the opening of an investigation and dismissing the admissibility challenge by Kenya are a turning point for the ICC in its relationship with national judicial systems in the wider fight against impunity. The chapter seeks to establish whether the decisions of the ICC Chambers limit Kenya’s primary responsibility to hold its citizens accountable. The chapter discusses the prosecutorial policy of ‘inaction’ adopted by the ICC judges and the effect of Pre-Trial Chamber II’s decision to authorize investigation in the Kenya situation based on a liberal interpretation of article 7(2)(a) of the Statute.

Prosecutor v. Ruto.

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 610-616
Author(s):  
Charles Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Election Violence

On October 9, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) unanimously held that, under the ICC Statute, a trial chamber has the power to order witnesses to appear before it to give testimony in pending proceedings, which imposes legal obligations on the individuals concerned to comply. In so ruling, the appellate chamber upheld a controversial trial chamber decision granting the ICC prosecutor’s request to summon eight witnesses to testify in the joint trial of Kenya’s vice president, William Samoei Ruto, and former journalist Joshua arap Sang, both of whom faced charges of crimes against humanity for their alleged role in “post-election violence” that led to the deaths of over twelve hundred people (para. 9).

Briefly Noted

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-441
Keyword(s):  
Cote D'ivoire ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Côte D’Ivoire ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
Electoral Violence

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.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document