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.

scholarly journals Managing Frozen Assets at the International Criminal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 765-790
Author(s):  
Daley J Birkett
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Hague

Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.

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.

Collisions of Common and Civil Law Approaches within the ICC’s Unique Procedural Framework – A Permanent Challenge Exposed by Recent Developments

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-599
Author(s):  
Laura Katharina Sophia Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Practical Guidelines

Due to the different legal backgrounds of its judges, the International Criminal Court (icc) constantly faces the challenge of reconciling common and civil law approaches in its daily proceedings. At the same time, it must accommodate the special needs of international criminal justice and of the concrete trial in question. After elucidating the underlying problem of legal pluralism in international criminal procedure, the divergences of common and civil law procedural concepts and their interplay at the icc, the article faces this challenge by analysing two disputes that recently culminated in icc trials, concerning rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the admissibility of leading questions respectively. Based on these case studies, it develops practical guidelines on how civil and common law approaches could possibly be balanced within the icc’s unique procedural framework in the light of its own special needs.

The Concept of Trials in Absentia in International Criminal Law and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon: An Overview

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26
Author(s):  
Shouvik Kumar Guha
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law

Trials in absentia have always been quite a contentious source of controversies in international criminal law, especially given the nature of crimes that result into these trials and given the question regarding what can be an acceptable standard of legal due process that ought to be adhered to in course of such trials. Throughout this paper, the author has sought to present an overview of the concept as it is prevalent in the current domestic and international legal scenarios. An effort has also been made to portray the range and acceptability of the arguments that are advanced by the proponents and detractors of the notion of accepting this category of trials as a matter of course to combat international and domestic crimes. The varying approaches of common law and civil law jurisdictions vis-à-vis this subject-matter has also been examined, together with the practices prevalent in renowned international tribunals such as International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [hereinafter referred to as “ICTY”], the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [hereinafter referred to as “ICTR”] and the International Criminal Court [hereinafter referred to as “ICC”]. Finally, the author has looked into the manner in which the question of the validity of such trials has once again come to the forefront owing to its acceptance by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Part 5 Investigation and Prosecution: Enquête Et Poursuites, Art.54 Duties and powers of the Prosecutor with respect to investigations/Devoirs et pouvoirs du procureur en matière d’enquêtes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Court

This chapter comments on Article 54 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 54 sets out the powers and duties of the Prosecutor with respect to investigations. Article 54 is an effort to strike the balance, to ‘build a bridge between the adversarial common law approach to the role of the Prosecutor and the role of the investigating judge in certain civil law systems’. Paragraph 1 sets out the ‘duties’ of the Prosecutor, whereas paragraphs 2 and 3 discuss the ‘powers’. Although the ‘powers’ refer specifically to the investigative phase, the nature of the duties suggests that they apply to the work of the Prosecutor overall, whatever the stage of proceedings.

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.

MENTAL ELEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Finnin
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Perspective Drawing ◽  
General Provision

AbstractThe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the first international instrument that includes a general provision on the mental element required before criminal responsibility for an international crime attaches (Article 30). This article analyses that provision from a comparative perspective, drawing on common law and civil law understandings of intent. It analyses the jurisprudence and commentary concerning Article 30 in detail, and attempts to draw some conclusions as to what aspects of the common law and civil law concepts of intent are covered by it.

State of Exception

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Occupied Palestinian Territory ◽  
Palestinian Territory

Abstract In December 2019, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concluded her preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine, determining there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation into the situation. Instead of doing so, she first decided to seek a ruling from the Pre-Trial Chamber on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction, specifically aimed at confirming her view that the ‘territory’ over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). This article focuses on the amici curiae observations and other communications made by eight states parties in the proceedings — Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Uganda. A critical examination of these observations and communications reveals that they did not answer the question posed by the OTP, but rather advanced a number of strained arguments aimed, inter alia, at impugning the very notion that the Court has any jurisdiction at all on the basis that Palestine is not a state. When juxtaposed against the ostensible commitment of these states parties to the object and purpose of the Statute, their observations and other communications reveal a conspicuous hypocrisy. If accepted by the Court, these observations and communications would operate to not only affirm the continued contingency of the state of Palestine on the international plane, but, even worse, to shield persons known to have committed or be committing crimes of the gravest concern to the international community with impunity.

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.

scholarly journals The International Criminal Court and Sexual Violence: Between Aspirations and Reality

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 878-893
Author(s):  
Tanja Altunjan
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Sexual Crimes ◽  
Track Record

AbstractThe adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was widely lauded as a success with regard to the recognition and potential prosecution of conflict-related sexual violence. More than twenty years later, however, many observers are disillusioned with the ICC’s dire track record concerning the implementation of its progressive legal framework. In many cases, the Court and particularly its Prosecutor have been criticized for failing to adequately address and prioritize sexual violence, culminating in only a single final conviction since 2002. Nevertheless, the ICC’s emerging practice shows progress with regard to the conceptual understanding of conflict-related sexual violence and the realization of the Statute’s full potential in ensuring accountability for sexual crimes. Taking into account the evolving jurisprudence, the Article explores the persisting challenges and the perceived gap between aspirations and reality regarding the prosecution of sexual violence at the ICC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document