Victim-Oriented Measures at International Criminal Institutions: Participation and its Pitfalls

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne McGonigle Leyh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Human Rights Discourse

International criminal courts were created to address issues of impunity for the gravest of crimes, and undoubtedly victims are meant to be the direct beneficiaries of the justice process. Traditionally, however, victims have not always featured prominently in international criminal trials. In response to this perceived oversight, victims have been provided broad rights at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). After addressing the theoretical underpinnings of criminal justice and the development of the procedural role of the victim in domestic criminal jurisdictions and international human rights discourse, this article will examine the rights of victims at the ECCC and ICC and explore what challenges arise when victims are afforded a greater role in the international criminal process. To structure the analysis, the framework will focus on two central concepts, namely the unique characteristics of international criminal proceedings and human rights standards.

International legal immunities and privileges of the Рrosecutor amicus curiae

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
EKATERINA A. KOPYLOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Foreign Science

The article considers the international legal regime of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors of international criminal courts which are intended to ensure independent and unhindered performance of their functions in prosecuting crimes against the administration of justice. Due to the lack of doctrinal research in this field, whether in the domestic or foreign science of international law, the study is characterized by scientific novelty. Its empirical basis is constituted of the provisions of international treaties governing the immunities and privileges of staff of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. It is noted that today the state of international legal regulation of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors is not quite satisfactory as it contains significant gaps. Two possible approaches to determining the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors are identified: the first based on their status and the second – on the functions they perform. Their critical analysis leads to the conclusion that the functional approach is more in line with the principle of equality of arms in international criminal proceedings. As a result of its application, the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors coincides with the scope of the immunities and privileges granted to staff of the Offices of Prosecutors at the international criminal tribunals.

scholarly journals ‘Too High’, ‘Too Low’, or ‘Just Fair Enough’?

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-368
Author(s):  
Joanna Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Abstract That an accused receives a fair trial is essential to the legitimacy of international criminal courts and tribunals. However, how best to interpret the right to a fair trial in order to maximize the legitimacy of international criminal courts and tribunals’ decision-making? Some argue that international criminal courts and tribunals should aspire to the highest standards of fairness and should aim to set an example for domestic courts in this regard. Others argue that the unique context within which international criminal courts and tribunals operate allows them, at times, to interpret the right to a fair trial in a way which falls below minimum international human rights standards. This article examines both of these positions and finds both to be problematic. Rather, the article argues that international criminal courts and tribunals should aim for a middle path, the ‘fair enough’ standard, when interpreting the right to a fair trial. In situations where a different standard than that found within international human rights law is applied, international criminal courts and tribunals should expend greater effort in being open and clear as to why this is so, and should take care in communicating this to their audience, including victims and the accused. By doing so, the legitimacy of their decision-making will be enhanced.

Extent of Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Proceedings before the International Criminal Court: On Possible Reductive Factors

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Deprez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Today, it is not seriously challenged that human rights law applies to proceedings before the International Criminal Court. The exact boundaries of this statement, however, might be less clear. The present article argues that the extent of applicability of human rights law cannot be precisely described unless the specific nature of the Court and of international criminal justice in general is taken into consideration. More concretely, it will be demonstrated that the exact scope of applicability of human rights standards to the ICC setting can only be addressed by referring to inherent characteristics (both of the Court and of the international criminal system as a whole) that could possibly bear a reductive impact on that scope. It will be argued throughout the analysis that several of these specific features are indeed capable of reducing the level of protection, while on a closer look others do not display such influence.

International Criminal Courts and Tribunals: Bound by Human Rights Norms … or Tied Down?

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 847-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
LORENZO GRADONI
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Oxford University Press

S. Zappalà, Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0199258910, 308 pp., £67.50.

scholarly journals Pluralism in International Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 992-1017
Author(s):  
Jenia Iontcheva Turner
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Proper Weight

This chapter examines the pluralistic nature of international criminal procedure. International criminal procedure refers to the procedures used at the international criminal courts and tribunals that were established to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other serious offenses. The chapter begins with an overview of the evolution of modern international criminal procedure, first at the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and then at hybrid courts and the International Criminal Court. It then discusses the goals pursued by international criminal procedure, such as: providing a fair trial, establishing the truth, enforcing criminal laws effectively, respecting human rights, and promoting the rule of law. Different views about the proper weight to be placed on each of these goals leads to diverse procedures across and within international criminal courts. The chapter considers two examples of pluralism in international criminal procedure: judicial management of criminal proceedings and involvement of victims in the proceedings. Finally, the chapter offers a normative assessment of pluralism in international criminal procedure. While diversity of procedures can help international criminal courts arrive at solutions that address the unique political and practical challenges of international criminal justice, divergent procedures within the same court raise concerns about predictability and equal treatment.

Preventing the Forcibly Displaced from Returning as Persecution and Inhumane Act under International Criminal Law and the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Elena Katselli Proukaki
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Jurisprudence ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Preventing the forcibly displaced from returning to the territory from which they were unlawfully expelled has not received adequate attention under international criminal law. This article addresses this gap by focusing on denial of return as a crime against humanity. It evaluates international criminal jurisprudence including the proceedings concerning the Rohingya and evolving human rights standards to show that prevention from returning is a serious and continuing denial of fundamental human rights which inflicts great suffering. As such, it may qualify as persecution and/or an inhumane act under the Rome Statute. The ramifications of this on the temporal and territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the principle of legality are important especially in situations of protracted displacement. The article demonstrates that although criminalisation of denial of return is not a panacea, it is instrumental in tackling forced displacement which affects millions across the world.

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Economy at the International Criminal Court

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-118
Author(s):  
Patricia Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Civil Unrest ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
Judicial Economy

Following the civil unrest in Kenya in 2008 and Kenya’s inability to prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes, the International Criminal Court (icc) prosecutor initiated proceedings proprio motu against Mr Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto. Despite the impending prosecutions, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto were elected as President and Deputy President of Kenya in 2013. Due to their prominent status, they both applied (separately) to be excused from continuous attendance at their trial proceedings. Mr Ruto’s argument was heard first, and Trial Chamber (A) granted the excusal request. In the course of Mr Kenyatta’s hearing by Trial Chamber (B), but before the Appeals Chamber reversed Mr Ruto’s Trial Chamber (A) decision, the issue of judicial economy was raised by the prosecution. Their contention was that Trial Chamber (B) should in fact wait for the Appeals Chamber’s final decision, but the Chamber dismissed the argument and proceeded with the decision at hand. This article contends that the Court missed a real opportunity to place judicial economy within the human rights discourse, particularly in the light of Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

(Women’s) human rights: paradoxes and possibilities

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
MOYA LLOYD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Global Networks ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse

Such is its pervasiveness that human rights discourse is used to legitimise humanitarian and military intervention in the affairs of other states, provide a rationale for ‘ethical’ foreign policy, justify the punishment of war crimes, and validate the formation of international coalitions mandated to eradicate terrorism wherever its is found. At grass-roots level, human rights talk is deployed to lobby governments and to press for socioeconomic and legal change, to combat the dehumanising treatment of specific populations, to ground educational initiatives and spawn local, national, international, and sometimes global networks oriented to its advancement, and to induce the patient and meticulous documentation of its violations. In terms of women, human rights activism has been instrumental in problematising violence against women, prompting the recognition by the UN Human Rights Commission in 1992 of rape during war as a form of torture, and as a war crime or crime against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which came into force in 2001). It also led to the appointment in 1994 by the UN Human Rights Commission of Radhika Coomaraswamy as the first Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and its Causes and Consequences. Activities centring on human rights produced the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1979 and became operational as an international treaty on 3 September 1981 when it was ratified by its twentieth signatory.

Pre-Conviction Detention before the International Criminal Court: Compliance or Fragmentation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Golubok
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article analyses nascent case law of the International Criminal Court on provisional detention at the investigation stage and in the course of trial (together referred to as “pre-conviction detention”) vis-à-vis the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, being a reflection of “internationally recognized human rights” to which the ICC, according to its Statute, must adhere. At least several instances of presumed inconsistencies are detected. It is argued that international criminal tribunals should above all comply with standards set by international human rights law for domestic criminal proceedings, in particular when the most fundamental and basic human right ‐ the right to personal liberty ‐ is affected. Failure to comply entails a serious risk of hazardous fragmentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document