scholarly journals The Power of National Courts to Compel the Production of Evidence and its Limits. An Amicus Curiae Brief to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albin Eser ◽  
Kai Ambos
2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1344-1346

The accused has complained about publications in two newspapers. The first was published on the 7th of September, 2002 in the Haagsche Courant, a Dutch newspaper in The Hague, and the second on the 13th September, 2002 in the Kultura, a Bulgarian newspaper in Sofia, Bulgaria. Both publications resulted from interviews given by Mr. Michail Wladimiroff, one of the three amici curiae in this case.The publication in the Haagsche Courant was captioned: “Wladimiroff: Already Enough Evidence Against Milosevic.” Mr. Wladimiroff is reported as saying, “If this trial were only about Kosovo and one had to draw up the balance now, Milosevic would certainly be convicted. A link has been established between the army and the police, the warring parties in Kosovo and Milosevic himself.”Mr. Wladimiroff explained that he had been misquoted, and that what he had said was that “we have seen during the Prosecution case at least on the face of it, there is a link between the offences in Kosovo and the accused. That may not be for all events, but even if it were half of it, it is a relevant factor for the Trial Chamber when reaching a verdict.”


Author(s):  
Serge Brammertz

This chapter presents a prosecutorial perspective on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) legacies. It traces the evolution of the Office of the Prosecutor from a service that is grounded in primacy of jurisdiction into a more complementarity-oriented actor, in which interaction with domestic systems is an essential element to achieving justice for serious international crimes. The author argues that the support provided to national justice sectors in the countries of the former Yugoslavia is one of the most important legacies of the ICTY. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) started to engage with new techniques—including establishing the Transition Team—when the ICTY Completion Strategy was put into force. The OTP referred cases to national judiciaries, which improved in their capacities to process war crimes cases. The chapter concludes that the OTP’s cooperation with national courts establishes a new model of collaboration between international and domestic courts.


2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bohlander

In the wake of their so-called ‘completion strategies’,1 both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR), creations of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, have for some time grappled with the question of how to unclog their congested dockets and dispose of those accused which are generally viewed as ‘small fry’. The fact that many of the accused have had to spend very long, some say excessively long, times in the custody of the Tribunals prior to and during trials, led the Tribunals to devise a mechanism for the transfer of cases to national jurisdictions, preferably those of the national States of the defendants, which were mostly identical to the post-conflict countries. The mechanism was an amendment of Rule 11bis of their Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) which allowed the Tribunals to refer cases to the national courts under certain circumstances. It is helpful to trace the history of the Rule. For the sake of simplicity, only the ICTY2 will be looked at here, as there are no real differences in substance with regard to the ICTR as far as the latest version of the Rule3 is concerned.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document