Part 7 Penalties: Les Peines, Art.77 Applicable penalties/Peines applicables

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Third Parties ◽

Life Imprisonment ◽

Rules Of Procedure ◽

Bona Fide ◽

The Individual

This chapter comments on Article 77 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 77 sets out the penalties the Court may impose on a person convicted of a crime. These include imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; a term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person; a fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; and a forfeiture of proceeds, property, and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.

Rome’s Legacy: Negotiating the Reparations Mandate of the International Criminal Court

International Criminal Law Review ◽

10.1163/15718123-01702002 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 17 (2) ◽

pp. 351-377 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Christoph Sperfeldt

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal Justice ◽

Fresh Perspective ◽

Rules Of Procedure ◽

Victim Reparations

This article examines the negotiations that led to the incorporation of reparations provisions into the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (icc). Building upon a review of the travaux préparatoires and interviews, it traces the actors and main debates during the lead-up to the Rome Conference and the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, explaining how and why reparations were included into the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article shows how the reparations mandate was produced at the intersection of a set of different agendas and actors. From this account, it identifies a number of key themes that were at the centre of the negotiations and often galvanised contestations among delegations or with ngos. The article concludes with a fresh perspective on the origin of victim reparations in the Rome Statute and its relevance for understanding many of today’s debates around reparations in international criminal justice.

Part 10 Enforcement: Exécution, Art.107 Transfer of the person upon completion of sentence/Transfèrement du condamné qui a accompli sa peine

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0112 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The State ◽

Person Following ◽

The Individual ◽

To Receive

This chapter comments on Article 107 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 107 governs the transfer of the person following completion of the sentence. When a released prisoner is not a national of the State of enforcement, and is not authorized to remain there, two possible scenarios arise: transfer to a State ‘which is obliged to receive him or her’ and transfer to a State ‘which agrees to receive him or her’. Transfer of a released person to a third State upon completion of sentence will invariably require agreement. Absent such agreement, the individual will remain in the State of enforcement. In deciding upon transfer, the wishes of the released prisoner are to be taken into account.

Part 10 Enforcement: Exécution, Art.103 Role of States in enforcement of sentences of imprisonment/Rôle des États dans l’exécution des peines d’emprisonnement

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0108 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The State ◽

This chapter comments on Article 103 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 103 deals with State enforcement of sentences. The enforcement regime of the International Criminal Court is premised on three broad principles: sentences are served in the prison facilities of States and are subject to their laws; enforcement of the sentence is subject to the supervision of the Court; and the sentence imposed by the Court is binding upon the State of enforcement. The provisions of the Statute governing enforcement are quite succinct, and much of the detail on the issue appears in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Part 9 International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance: Coopération Internationale Et Assistance Judiciaire, Art.101 Rule of speciality/Règle de la spécialité

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0106 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

The State ◽

Customary Law ◽

State Sovereignty ◽

Coopération Internationale ◽

The Individual ◽

Judicial Assistance

This chapter comments on Article of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 101 sets out the principle of speciality, which is part of the customary law governing extradition between States. The rationale for the principle of speciality ‘is to protect State sovereignty’. For this reason, the rule is limited to the scenarios in which the person is arrested and is surrendered as a result of a request submitted by the Court to the State. It is inapplicable if the suspect has appeared voluntarily. The State that surrenders the individual to the Court may be asked to waive the rule of speciality if the Court seeks to proceed with respect to crimes that were not part of the original request for surrender.

Part 4 Composition and Administration of the Court: Composition et Administration de la Cour, Art.41 Excusing and disqualification of judges/Décharge et récusation des juges

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0046 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Judicial Independence ◽

Criminal Court ◽

This chapter comments on Article 41 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 41 provides the mechanism to ensure the protection of judicial independence and impartiality that is affirmed in article 40. It distinguishes between ‘excusing’, which refers to a request by the judge to the Presidency, and ‘disqualification’, which describes an application by the Prosecutor or the accused person. The Presidency is without authority to raise issues of impartiality proprio motu, given that‘[n]either the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure and Evidence make provision for the pre-emptive control by the Presidency of the impartiality of the judges’.

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

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0080 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

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.70 Offences against the administration of justice/Atteintes à l’administration de la justice

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0074 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Administration Of Justice ◽

This chapter comments on Article 70 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 70 deals with acts punishable by the Court as offences against the administration of justice. These acts may be divided into three categories: those involving perjury or false testimony; obstruction of the activities of the Court; and solicitation of bribes. The principles and procedures governing the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over offences under this article shall be those provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The maximum penalty for article 70 offences is five years imprisonment; a fine is an alternative as well as the possibility of both being imposed. Fines may be set for each individual offence or count, but cannot exceed in total 50 per cent of the convicted person's assets, ‘after deduction of an appropriate amount that would satisfy the financial needs of the convicted person and his or her dependants’.

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

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0068 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Trial Chamber ◽

Criminal Court ◽

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’.

Pre-trial ‘Protective Measures for the Purpose of Forfeiture’ at the International Criminal Court: Safeguarding and balancing competing rights and interests

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156519000153 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 32 (3) ◽

pp. 585-602 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Daley J. Birkett

Keyword(s):

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Third Parties ◽

Protective Measures ◽

Bona Fide ◽

Rights And Interests ◽

Trial Phase

AbstractThe International Criminal Court is empowered by its constituent instrument to request its states parties to identify, trace, freeze, and seize assets ‘after a warrant of arrest or a summons has been issued … having due regard to the strength of the evidence and the rights of the parties concerned’. This article critically examines the approach adopted by the Court to requesting such protective measures at the pre-trial phase, reflecting on how the rights and interests of the primary stakeholders implicated by this process: (i) accused persons, (ii) the Prosecutor, (iii) victims, and (iv) bona fide third parties, are safeguarded and balanced.

Part 10 Enforcement: Exécution, Art.110 Review by the Court concerning reduction of sentence/Examen par la Cour de la question d’une réduction de peine

10.1093/law/9780198739777.003.0115 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Schabas William A

Keyword(s):

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Life Imprisonment ◽

National Legislation ◽

Early Release ◽

Special Provision

This chapter comments on Article of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 110 deals with the modification of a sentence. Although a custodial sentence is served in a prison of a State of enforcement, where the convicted prisoner is subject to the rules and regulations applicable in the domestic system, early release is governed by the Rome Statute, not national legislation. The decision to modify the sentence pursuant to article 110 of the Rome Statute is irreversible, and not conditional, as in most domestic parole schemes. A sentence pronounced by the Court may subsequently be reduced, but only after the offender has served two-thirds of the term, with special provision in the case of life imprisonment.