A Fair Trial at the International Criminal Court? Human Rights Standards and Legitimacy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmar Widder
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Standards

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.

scholarly journals The ICTY and the Right to a Fair Trial: A Critique of the Critics

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Q. Swaak-Goldman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Death Knell

In recent publications a rising tide of criticism directed against the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is discernible, principally concerning whether or not the ICTY grants the accused a fair trial. The perceived lack of ability, or willingness, to satisfy the highest standards of human rights concerning the right of accused to a fair trial is regarded as a death-knell both for the broad acceptance of the ICTY's jurisprudence as well as the prospects for a permanent international criminal court. While most of the criticism centres around the interpretation and application of provisions of the ICTY's Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence addressing the right to a fair trial, some of it concerns the vigorousness with which ICTY officials insist upon the surrender of indicted persons. With all due respect these commentators, by applying norms that are not wholly applicable, misconceive the threat to the accused's fair trial rights.

ACCIDENT AND DESIGN: RECOGNISING VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-132
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Civil And Political Rights

AbstractInternational law has not traditionally recognised individuals as victims of the crime of aggression. Recent developments may precipitate a departure from this approach. The activation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression opens the way for the future application of the Court's regime of victim participation and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. The determination by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 that any deprivation of life resulting from an act of aggression violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights serves to recognise a previously overlooked class of victims. This article explores these recent developments, by discussing their background, meaning and implications for international law and the rights of victims.

scholarly journals The right to self-representation before International Criminal Tribunals, while not absolute, should only be denied in limited circumstances

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-247
Author(s):  
Paul Bassett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Right

One of the most controversial aspects of the International Criminal Tribunals (ICTs) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) concerns the right to self-representation. Many defendants have sought to use the trial as a stage on which to challenge the legitimacy of the court and to play to the crowd in their own home states. As a result, the various ICTs have sought to place limitations on the accused’s right to selfrepresentation. The recent amendment to the Statute of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) is an example of this. This evolution raises questions concerning the effect such limitations may have on the overall fair trial rights of the accused. This article argues that there is a need to establish a guaranteed right of self-representation, provided the accused adheres to an objective set of conditions placed on the right. Such conditions should be confined to those strictly necessary to ensure the integrity of the court. Such a move would allow the court to gain some much needed legitimacy while at the same time deny defendants the ability to turn the court into a political stage.

International Criminal Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
Charles B.A Ubah ◽  
Osy E. Nwebo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
National Governments

The principle of domestic jurisdiction in international law makes national governments responsible for protecting their citizens, investigating alleged abuses of human rights in their countries and bringing the perpetrators to justice. They governments may also extradite those accused of abuse of human rights to any other states prepared to give them a fair trial. Problem arises however, when governments are unable or unwilling to perform this duty or are themselves perpetrators of these crimes. Thus, millions of people have fallen victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian laws. But only very few of these perpetrators have been brought to justice in national courts as many governments claim sanctuary under the principle of domestic jurisdiction. The need therefore arises for the international community to act in order to protect helpless or defenseless citizens from being victims of crimes against humanity and human rights abuses, by bringing the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. The thrust of this article therefore, is that the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) fills this void by fulfilling a central and pivotal goal in international jurisprudence. This article, therefore, provides insights and lessons into the history and prospects of the International Criminal Court. These are insights and lessons that are too important and too costly to ignore in the 21st century understanding of international criminal justice system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document