The Right to a Fair Trial in Practice in International Criminal Trials

Author(s):  
Yvonne McDermott
Author(s):  
Bilsky Leora

This chapter asks whether victims have a ‘right’ to the truth, and if they do, whether international trials are the appropriate vehicle for vindicating that right. Many have argued for a limited role for international criminal trials, focused exclusively on the fate of individual defendants, while others seek to subordinate criminal trials to larger, historiographic goals of constructing a definitive record of atrocities and other violations. The chapter reframes these debates around the concept of ‘victim rights’, especially since the Rome Statute provides a privileged place for victims in the procedural mechanics of the International Criminal Court. The argument here is then developed through discussion of four areas of doctrine: the victims’ ‘personal interests’ in the determination of guilt, the recharacterization of charges against the defendant, the right of victims to introduce evidence, and victims’ obligation to disclose exonerating evidence. The chapter concludes that these developments, combined with the role of human rights law, has ushered in an ‘emerging truth regime’.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Balta ◽  
Manon Bax ◽  
Rianne Letschert

Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC or the Court) was established holding the aim of placing victims at the heart of international criminal justice proceedings and delivering justice to them through, among others, reparations. Article 75 of the Rome Statute lays out the reparations regime, and, in practice, court-ordered reparations are a means of delivering such justice. Focusing on Court decisions on reparations, our analysis takes stock of all developments before the ICC and attempts to highlight the mismatch between characteristics inherent to the objectives of international criminal trials such as providing accountability and punishment of the accused and delivering justice for victims of mass crimes—the so-called procedural challenges. We also submit that the Court is facing conceptual challenges, related to an apparent misunderstanding of the various concepts at stake: reparations as such and the various modalities and channels of enforcing them. We conclude that although the ICC’s reparation regime may not be the best reparative response to provide justice to victims in conflict situations affected by mass victimization, we suggest that improving the ICC’s approach includes, at a minimum, tackling these challenges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document