The Sui Generis Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-354
Author(s):  
Colin McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The World

AbstractIt may be difficult to place trial proceedings of international criminal tribunals on the spectrum of classical trial paradigms even though common law and Romano-Germanic law differences are most obvious in that phase of a trial. It is important to understand the history, and compare the procedural underpinnings, of the different aspects of the International Criminal Court (ICC) trial proceedings. This article will highlight the sui generis nature of the ICC trial proceedings. In doing so, it will show how the two main legal systems of the world have been combined to create pertinent articles in the Rome Statute. This review makes clear that the drafters of the Rome Statute devised a procedure that will best assist the ICC in accomplishing its tasks as an international judicial body. The judges of the trial chamber, whether from a Romano-Germanic or common law background, will conduct proceedings and administer justice based on the combinations of the world's most influential legal systems.

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.

The Progress and Convergence of the icc and R2P Norms in a Rules-Based Global Order

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-375
Author(s):  
Fatou Bensouda
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
World Summit ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Multilateral Institutions ◽  
The World

Abstract In this contribution, the author reflects on the Forum topic ‘R2P 15 Years after the World Summit: Progress, Problems and Prospects’, and provides her perspective as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (icc) on the correlation between R2P and the principles and goals of the icc Rome Statute, against the backdrop of increasing pressures on multilateralism and multilateral institutions.

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.

scholarly journals Theorizing the International Criminal Court’s Model of Justice: The Victims’ Court?

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Isha Jain
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
The World ◽  
Theoretical Standpoint

Theoretical models of criminal justice are important tools for identifying the value systems that underpin the various criminal justice systems of the world. Hailed as the ‘victims’ court’ for conferring wide-ranging participatory rights to victims at all stages of the criminal process, the International Criminal Court and its constitutive treaty, the Rome Statute, offer an interesting subject matter of analysis from this theoretical standpoint. The focus of this article will be on studying the ICC’s practice and procedure in relation to victim participation, in order to identify the values of criminal justice that influence these processes.

A Review of the Experiences of the Pre-Trial and Appeals Chambers of the International Criminal Court Regarding the Disclosure of Evidence

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID SCHEFFER
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Statutory Power ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Minimal Evidence

AbstractNegotiators of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not intend the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) to act as a de facto investigating judge; rather, their intent was that the PTC ensure that the Prosecutor act responsibly and within well-defined limits. Several opportunities have arisen in the Lubanga case before the ICC's PTC and the Appeals Chamber to examine the Prosecutor's duty and performance in disclosing documentary evidence and the identities of witnesses at the pre-trial stage. International criminal tribunals necessarily must bridge the evidentiary magnitude of atrocity crimes with a pragmatic focus on one person's role. The PTC judge should aggressively narrow the charges and focus the Prosecutor on the requirement of minimal evidence to meet the sufficiency standard for the remaining charges, direct the Prosecutor to share existing and emerging evidence with the accused in a timely manner and not wait until 30 days prior to confirmation hearing, and use statutory power to ensure timely non-disclosure requests and determinations.

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’.

The Creation and Expansion of the International Criminal Court: A Legal Explanation

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Justyna Powell ◽  
Sara McLaughlin Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
State Level ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Creation

International courts have proliferated in the international system in the past century, with one hundred judicial or quasi-judicial bodies currently in existence. While the supply of international courts has increased substantially, state level support for international courts varies across states, across courts, and over time. This paper focuses on the cross-sectional and temporal variation in state level support for a particular court, the International Criminal Court (ICC). The authors argue that domestic legal systems create different predispositions with respect to states’ willingness to join adjudicatory bodies and the design of their commitments to international courts. Negotiators involved in the creation of the ICC pushed for rules and procedures that mimicked those of their domestic legal systems to help reduce uncertainty regarding the court’s future behavior and decision-making processes. This interesting process of legal bargaining led to the creation of a sui generis court, one which represents a mixture of common law and civil law systems. The hybrid nature of the court’s design enhanced the attractiveness of the court to civil and common law states, making them significantly more likely to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. Empirical models demonstrate that common and civil law states were fervent supporters of the ICC in preliminary negotiations and that they have shown higher levels of support for the Court since the ICC’s inception in comparison to Islamic law or mixed law states.

The Appeals Decision in the ICC's Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Case on the Trial Chamber's ‘Decision on the Admission into Evidence of Materials Contained in the Prosecution's List of Evidence’

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 511-520
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE SCHUON
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Common

AbstractWhen, on 3 May 2011, the Appeals Chamber reversed the decision of Trial Chamber III in the Bemba case that had admitted material on a list of the prosecution into evidence, it addressed various central issues related to the admission of evidence under the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (inter alia, the orality principle). The present article critically analyses both decisions. In particular, it views the Trial Chamber's approach that envisages a multi-tiered process of admitting evidence, in light of the approaches of civil law and common law, and expresses concerns about uncertainties and protraction that may result. As the Court's legal framework does not determine that the processing of evidence follow either the civil-law or the common-law model, this is left for the trial chambers to decide in each case. In determining the preferable approach for each respective case, consideration of the procedural context is key. The Appeals Chamber decision allows for the required leeway of the trial chambers in regulating the processing of evidence, to adopt a way that fits the particular circumstances best.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document