Certain Aspects of Arrest of Property in Light of the Case Law of the Appeal Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court

The article explores the problems of a temporary seizure and arrest of property in the course of pre-trial investigation in light of the case law of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the European Court of Human Rights. It is outlined that investigators face particular problems with differentiation of material objects that are subject to seizure upon the decision of an investigator or a prosecutor and may be used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings and those which fall into the category of temporarily seized property, and the legality of their seizure is subject to control by an investigating judge. Investigating judges face the same difficulties which result in decisions on arrest imposed on biological, biometric traces, cigarette butts and other material objects that are not subject to arrest for they do not belong to the category of property. The author analyses whether documents, personal notes, and other items of the kind may be regarded as property and the criteria to categorize them as such. It is concluded that if these items are used as evidence in the criminal proceedings but have no characteristics of property, are not objects of civil rights, have no historical, artistic, scientific, literary, economic, or any other significant value in general or for a certain individual, they are not subject to judicial control and arrest and should be attached to the criminal proceedings in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.The author pays particular attention to the unfortunate wording of Part 7 of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, which prescribes that seized objects and documents not included in the list of items to be found in the course of a search, contained in the decision of the investigating judge onpermission to conduct a search, are considered temporarily seized property. This legal norm makes the issue of whether certain items belong to the category of property dependent upon their inclusion in thelist or absence in the list, contained in the decision of the investigating judge. Such an approach contradicts the basic principles of the property law. Therefore, the norm should be excluded from Part 7 of Article 236 of the Code. The author also suggests to change the wording of Part 7 of Article 237 of the Code and to clearly outline that documents, as a general rule, are seized and items that fall into the category of property are temporarily seized.The suggested approach will lead to harmonization of the norms of criminal procedural law with those of civil law, setting clear and understandable criteria for defining the legal status of items seized or temporarily seized in the course of examination or search and fulfilling the tasks of effective and impartial pre-trial investigation.

Bemba and the Individualisation of War: Reconciling Command Responsibility under Article 28 Rome Statute with Individual Criminal Responsibility

Never has the doctrine of command responsibility been shaken as when the Appeal Chamber of the International Criminal Court issued the Bemba Appeal Judgment. The latter solely addresses whether the defendant – Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Commander-in-chief of the Mouvement de libération du Congo – took reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish his subordinates’ crimes perpetrated in the Central African Republic. Yet, the various dissenting, separate and concurring opinions advocate opposing positions on the scope, elements and nature of this notorious doctrine. This paper relocates the ‘sharp disagreements’ that surfaced during the Bemba Appeal Judgment within the broader phenomena of the individualisation of war. Through an in-depth examination of the interpretation offered by the appellate judges, it designs a model of command responsibility that properly individualises Article 28 Rome Statute, and, by the same token, respect the fundamental rights of military commanders.

Superior Responsibility in the Bemba Case – Analysis of the Court’s Findings on Necessary and Reasonable Measures

Summary This article critically analyses an interpretation and application of necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress crimes committed by the subordinates in the Bemba case. The aim of the Article is to analyse the Pre-Trial Chamber, Trial Chamber and Appeal Chamber findings on necessary and reasonable measures in connection to responsibility of person effectively acting as a military commander. In doing critically analyses of the interpretation and application, this article evaluates legal challenges faced by the ICC in using superior responsibility, with special focus on the relevance of motives behind the measures taken by a superior or commander and the issue of remote commander. This study provides first comprehensive analysis of necessary and reasonable measures requirement in the Bemba case and as such, offers the latest development on the superior responsibility doctrine applicable at the ICC.

The Roles of Victims in the ICC: Victims’ Protection or the Accused’s Fair Trial Right Violation?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has provided the right to present victims views in the ICC’s proceeding. The objectives of this article are to identify to which extent the roles of victims in the ICC and to analyze whether victims’ participation would be a violation to the rights of a fair trial of the accused in the ICC or not. This is pure legal research meaning that the materials required in this article are available in libraries, archives and other databases. The article concludes that the victims, in the ICC, are allowed to participate and to seek reparation in accordance with Article 68 (3) of the Rome Statute. In addition, the participation would violate the due process rights of the defendants despite the fact at a particular case; the Appeal Chamber of the ICC decided that there is no such violation as aiming at ending individual impunity.

Bid rigging in public procurement market according to the decisions of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

Aim: In the practice of awarding public contracts, sometimes the behavior of market actors, instead of competing with other entities, are aimed at illegal cooperation, including bid rigging. The above shows that healthy competition is not possible without efficient market control. In public procurement market this control is, primarily, carried out by public procurement entities: the President of the Public Procurement Office (Prezes UZP) and the National Appeal Chamber (KIO), and furthermore by President od the Office of Competition (Prezes UOKiK) and Consumer Protection and the Court od Competition and Consumer Protection. and Consumer Protection (SOKiK). The interesting issue is how the activities of the President of Office of Competition and Consumer Protection targeted to contend with bid rigging affects on the activities of President of the Public Procurement Office (Prezes UZP) or the National Appeal Chamber (KIO). Design / Research methods: analysis and comparison decisions/ judgment issued by the President of the Public Procurement Office, National Appeal Chamber, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. Conclusions: The analysis has shown that the existence of specificities in the activities of the decision-making bodies and the judgments examined. However, in keeping with the specificity of the forms and objectives of control, these entities should cooperate, to a greater extent than before. Expanding the scope of cooperation would make it possible to better contend with bid rigging without changing the competition protection model. The introduction of institutionalized instruments for cooperation between the authorities seems to be valuable in terms of system solutions. Value of the article: The main value of the article is the comparison of selectively selected decisions and judgments representative of the problem under consideration and their comparative analysis in order to achieve the research objectives. The article deals with issues relevant to both public procurement practitioners and the state bodies dealing with procurement matters.

Joint Criminal Enterprise: Cambodia's Reply to Tadić

The doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), which imposes individual criminal responsibility on an accused for their participation in a group's common criminal plan, rose to prominence in the ICTY Appeal Chamber decision, Prosecutor v. Tadić. Since Tadić, there has been a general reluctance by international ad hoc tribunals to review the legal foundation of JCE. However, on 20 May 2010, the ECCC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) considered the applicability of JCE to the atrocities which occurred in Cambodia during 1975-1979 - the period within the tribunal's temporal jurisdiction. The PTC has, unlike any other ad hoc tribunal to date, subjected the reasoning in Tadić to close scrutiny. This article will analyse the PTC's decision. In squarely contradicting Tadić on the expanded form of JCE, its findings are to be welcomed. The PTC's decision should be upheld on appeal in order to uphold the principle of legality; to safeguard the continued respect, credibility and future legacy of the ECCC trial process.

International Humanitarian Law, War Criminality and Child Recruitment: The Special Court for Sierra Leone's Decision in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman

The recent decision of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Prosecutor v. Samuel Hinga Norman not only addresses the status of child recruitment as a war crime, but also provides an insight into how international criminal tribunals determine what conduct is criminal in international law. However, the authority of the decision is weakened by the unconvincing evidence relied upon by the Appeal Chamber in coming to its conclusions and by a strong dissent from Justice Robertson. The decision's faults, however, merely reflect problems in the process whereby violations of international humanitarian law are criminalized.