Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Procedure Before International Criminal Tribunals

  • Chapter
The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court

  • 671 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter shows an outline of the process in which the accusation model before the ICC was created as the result of a discussion between representatives of the continental and the common law systems. This discussion was aimed at finding how to build a criminal procedure model that would meet the major objectives set by the ICC, taking advantage of the experiences of various legal systems in order to prevent the impunity of perpetrators of the most severe crimes of international significance, simultaneously ensuring compensation for victims of crimes and a fair trial for the accused. This discussion started with the creation of the first international criminal tribunals and the adoption of the first set of procedural rules for the operation of international criminal (military) tribunals: in Nuremberg and Tokyo, and continued during the operation of the ad hoc tribunals. The finally adopted accusation model before the ICC is presented by using a set of basic components that were selected on the basis of the fact that they cover the framework of the entire course of proceedings before the ICC, and they are regulated in both the common law and the continental law systems in a manner that is both distinct and different. They were also selected in a way that demonstrates to the fullest extent why certain solutions are consistent with the common law approach while others are based on the continental tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See: Mégret (2009), p. 41.

  2. 2.

    Which would explain the differentiation applied herein—Ambos (2009), p. 605. This dichotomy presented also by many more authors, e.g., Ambos (2007) p 429; Bohlander (2011) p 393; Knoops (2005) p 6-7; Kuczyńska (2014) p 3; Ohlin (2009) p 81; Orie (2002) p 1450; Safferling (2001) p 55; Schuon (2010) p 25; Tochilovsky (2001) p 627; Wiliński (2008) p 640; Wilhelmi (2004) p 7.

  3. 3.

    Elewa Badar (2011), pp. 411–433.

  4. 4.

    Van Sliedregt (2011).

  5. 5.

    That may be exemplified by the Democratic Republic of China as in: Ambos (2000), p. 89; Damaška (1986), p. 3.

  6. 6.

    Bassiouni (1993), p. 248.

  7. 7.

    So-called logical legalism—Damaška (1986), p. 23.

  8. 8.

    This approach was also adopted by A. Heinze. Using these two models of justice systems, this author analysed procedural solutions used before the ICC on the example of disclosure of evidence. Heinze (2014), p. 145.

  9. 9.

    Damaška (1972–1973), p. 552.

  10. 10.

    Damaška (1986), p. 4.

  11. 11.

    Ibidem.

  12. 12.

    Ibidem, p. 3.

  13. 13.

    Ibidem, p. 3.

  14. 14.

    As analysed by Damaška (1986), pp. 5 et seq.

  15. 15.

    See: Damaška (1986), p. 23; Damaška (1974–1975), p. 481.

  16. 16.

    Langbein and Wienreb (1978), p. 1551.

  17. 17.

    Hauck (2008).

  18. 18.

    Van Sliedregt (2011), p. 390; Heinze (2014), p. 105.

  19. 19.

    As in: Bohlander (2014), p. 493; Campbell (2013), p. 156.

  20. 20.

    Cit. after: Merryman and Pérez-Perdomo (2007), p. 2.

  21. 21.

    As defined by Waltoś (1968), p. 9.

  22. 22.

    Cit. after: Heinze (2014), p. 114.

  23. 23.

    This notion is used quite commonly, e.g.: Cryer et al. (2010), p. 427; Van Sliedregt (2011), p. 389; Boas et al. (2011), pp. 15–16.

  24. 24.

    International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter (IMTFE Charter) of 19 January 1946: http://web.archive.org/web/19990222030537/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfech.htm. Accessed 8 Jan 2015.

  25. 25.

    Adopted on 29 October 1945, at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtrules.asp. Accessed 9 Sept 2014.

  26. 26.

    But Cassese (2008), p. 384; Fairlie (2004), p. 245 otherwise.

  27. 27.

    See: Ginsburg and Kudriavtsev (1990), pp. 67–31; Cyprian and Sawicki (1948), pp. 5–38; Gardocki (1985), pp. 22–33.

  28. 28.

    Kremens (2010), p. 34.

  29. 29.

    As observes: Cassese (2008), pp. 377–378. It was also due to the United States’ involvement, which became the “driving force” behind the Nuremberg trials—not least in economic terms—as in: Ambos and Beck (2012), p. 491.

  30. 30.

    The opening speech by Justice Robert H. Jackson as reported in: Roche (2011), p. 139.

  31. 31.

    Cit. after: May and Wierda (2002), p. 20.

  32. 32.

    It also seems that the underlying criticism towards strictly adversarial solutions used on an international forum continues to be valid in relation to today’s development of the procedure before international criminal tribunals.

  33. 33.

    UN Doc. SC Rep. 808, of 22.2.1993.

  34. 34.

    UN Doc. SC Rep. 955, of 8.11.1994.

  35. 35.

    As it reads in Article 39: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security”.

  36. 36.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence ICTY, version of 22.05.2013; Rules of Procedure and Evidence ICTR, version of 9.02.2010.

  37. 37.

    In general, see: May and Wierda (2002), pp. 22–23; Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), pp. 199–225, 819–820.

  38. 38.

    Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-94-1, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, 10 August 1995, § 20–23.

  39. 39.

    Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21, Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused, Esad Landzo, 1 May 1997, § 15.

  40. 40.

    In similar words: Morris and Scharf (1995), p. 177. Also in: Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), p. 863; Schuon (2010), p. 196; Jackson and M’Boge (2013), p. 949.

  41. 41.

    Cit. after: Langer (2005), p. 859.

  42. 42.

    The majority of authors agree on that: Ambos (2003), p. 18; Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), p. 863; May and Wierda (2002), pp. 328–329; Mégret (2009), p. 43.

  43. 43.

    Cit. after: Langer (2005), p. 848.

  44. 44.

    Inter alia: Roberts (2001), p. 561; Kirsch (2005), p. 293.

  45. 45.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York 2000, U.N. Doc PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1.

  46. 46.

    Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-03-11, Adopted by the judges of the Court on 26 May 2004, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/50A6CD53-3E8A-4034-B5A9-8903CD9CDC79/0/RegulationsOfTheCourtEng.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2015. Altogether almost 700 provisions: Lee (2001), p. 548; Fernandez de Gurmendi and Friman (2009), pp. 797–824.

  47. 47.

    Successfully, so far.

  48. 48.

    The Regulations have been amended three times, so far: on 14 June, on 14 November 2007 and on 2 November 2011.

  49. 49.

    See: Guariglia (2002), p. 1119; Roberts (2001), p. 572; Swart and Sluiter (1999), p. 127.

  50. 50.

    See: Sluiter et al. (2013), p. 50.

  51. 51.

    See: De Hert (2003), p. 79.

  52. 52.

    Or quasi-international tribunals, mixed or hybrid tribunals, as, inter alia, defined by: Bassiouni (2003), Cryer et al. (2010), and Ambos and Bock (2012).

  53. 53.

    Law of 10.8.2001, http://www.eccc.gov.kh. Accessed 3 Nov 2014.

  54. 54.

    On the basis of S/RES/1272 (1999) 25 October 1999.

  55. 55.

    S/RES/1315 (2000) 14 August 2000. Althought the Special Court for Sierra Leone is often considered to constitute an ad hoc tribunal, just as the two above described ad hoc tribunals. E.g., Ambos and Bock (2012) p 488; Knoops (2005) p 119; Sluiter et al. (2013) p 15.

  56. 56.

    S/RES/1757 (2007) 30 May 2007, Annex and Statute of the Tribunal included.

  57. 57.

    Official Gazette of the Republic of Iraq, 18.10.2005.

  58. 58.

    More information in: Romano et al. (2004) p 3 et seq. and: Tochilovsky (2004), pp. 319–344.

  59. 59.

    The use of comparative law to describe the issues of international criminal law is a common tool of legal analysis, as M. Delmas-Marty states: “by postulating a relationship between comparative law and international criminal law, as an extension of the interaction between international and national legal systems, it suggests a pluralist conception of international criminal law”: Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 13.

  60. 60.

    As in Heinze (2014), p. 187.

  61. 61.

    Trying to avoid errors committed in analysis of the international criminal procedure topics as mentioned by Mégret (2009), p. 41.

  62. 62.

    In the words of Langer (2004), p. 33.

References

  • Ambos K (2000) Status, role, accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: a comparative overview on the basis of 33 national reports. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 8:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2003) International criminal procedure: “adversarial”, “inquisitorial” or mixed? Int Crim Law Rev 3:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2007) The structure of international procedure: “adversarial”, “inquisitorial” or mixed. In: Bohlander M (ed) International criminal justice: a critical analysis of institutions and procedures. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2009) ‘Witness Proofing’ before the ICC: neither legally admissible nor necessary. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Bock S (2012) Procedural regimes. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1993) Human rights in the context of criminal justice: identifying international procedural protections and equivalent protections in national constitutions. Duke J Comp Int Law 3:235

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (2003) Introduction to international criminal law. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC, Manikas P (1996) The law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas G, Bischoff J, Reid N, Taylor BD (2011) International criminal procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander M (2011) Radbruch Redux: the need for revisiting the conversation between common and civil law at root level at the example of international criminal justice. Leiden J Int Law 2:393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlander M (2014) Language, culture, legal traditions, and international criminal justice. J Int Crim Justice 12:491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K (2013) The making of global legal culture and international criminal law. Leiden J Int Law 26:155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2008) International criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cyprian T, Sawicki J (1948) Prawo Norymberskie. Bilans i perspektywy. Eugeniusz Kuthan, Warszawa-Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (1972–1973) Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: a comparative study. Univ Pa Law Rev 121:508

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (1974–1975) Structures of authority and comparative criminal procedure. Yale Law J 84:481

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven/London

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert P (2003) Legal procedures at the International Criminal Court. A comparative law analysis of procedural basic rights. In: Haveman R, Kavran O, Nicholls J (eds) Supranational criminal law: a system sui generis. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M (2003) Comparative law to a pluralist conception of international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 1:13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elewa Badar M (2011) Islamic law (Sharii’a) and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Leiden J Int Law 24:411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie M (2004) The marriage of common and continental law at the ICTY and its progeny, due process deficit. Int Crim Law Rev 4:243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez de Gurmendi P, Friman H (2009) The Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Regulations of the Court. In: Daria J, Gasser H-P, Bassiouni MC (eds) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court. Essays in honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardocki L (1985) Zarys prawa karnego międzynarodowego. PWN, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg G, Kudriavtsev VN (eds) (1990) The Nuremberg trial and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Guariglia F (2002) The Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Court: a new development in international adjudication of individual criminal responsibility. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones WD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauck P (2008) Judicial decisions in the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings in France, Germany, and England: a comparative analysis responding to the law of the International Criminal Court. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze A (2014) International criminal procedure and disclosure. An attempt to better understand and regulate disclosure and communication at the ICC on the basis of a comprehensive and comparative theory of criminal procedure. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J, M’Boge Y (2013) The effect of legal culture on the development of international evidentiary practice: from the ‘Robing Room’ to the ‘Melting Pot’. Leiden J Int Law 26:947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch P (2005) The International Criminal Court: a new and necessary institution meriting continued international support. Fordham Int Law Rev 28:292

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoops G-J (2005) Theory and practice of international and internationalized criminal proceedings. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremens K (2010) Dowody osobowe w międzynarodowym postępowaniu karnym. TNOiK, Toruń

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuczyńska H (2014) Model oskarżenia przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym. C.H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH, Wienreb LL (1978) Continental criminal procedure: myth and reality. Yale Law J 87:1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer M (2004) From legal transplants to legal translations: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harv Int Law J 45:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer M (2005) The rise of managerial judging in international criminal law. Am J Comp Law 53:835

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee RP (ed) (2001) The International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • May R, Wierda M (2002) International criminal evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2009) Beyond “Fairness”: understanding the determinants of international criminal procedure. UCLA J Int Law Foreign Aff 14:37

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH, Pérez-Perdomo R (2007) The civil law tradition, an introduction to the legal systems in Europe and Latin America, 3rd edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris V, Scharf M (1995) An insider’s guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: a documentary history and analysis. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin J (2009) A meta-theory of international criminal procedure: vindicating the rule of law. UCLA J Int Law Foreign Aff 14:81

    Google Scholar 

  • Orie A (2002) Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial approach in international criminal proceedings prior to the establishment of the ICC and in the proceedings before the ICC. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones WD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts K (2001) Aspects of the ICTY contribution to the criminal procedure of the ICC. In: May R, Tolbert D, Hocking J (eds) Essays on ICTY procedure and evidence in honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche A (2011) Does international criminal justice work? In: Meron T (ed) The making of international criminal justice. A view from the Bench. Selected speeches. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano C, Nollkaemper A, Kleffner J (2004) Internationalized criminal courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C (2001) Towards an international criminal procedure, Oxford monographs in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuon C (2010) International criminal procedure. A clash of legal cultures. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Vasiliev S, Zappala S (2013) International criminal procedure. Principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart B, Sluiter G (1999) The International Criminal Court and International Criminal Cooperation. In: von Hebel H, Bos A, Lammers JG, Schukking J (eds) Reflections on the International Criminal Court, essays in honour of Adriaan Bos. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2001) Legal systems and cultures in the International Criminal Court: the experience from the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In: Fischer H, Kreß C, Lüder P (eds) International and national prosecution of crimes under international law. Current developments. Arno Spitz, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2004) International criminal justice: “Strangers In The Foreign System”. Crim Law Forum 15:319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sliedregt E (2011) Introduction: common civility – international criminal law as cultural hybrid. Leiden J Int Law 24:389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltoś S (1968) Model postępowania przygotowawczego na tle prawnoporównawczym. PWN, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmi T (2004) Die Verfahrensordnung des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs – Modell eines universalen Strafverfahrensrecht? Rechtspolitisches Forum. Legal Policy Forum 24:7

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliński P (2008) Wpływ systemów common law i civil law na kształtowanie się międzynarodowego postępowania karnego. In: Jakubowska-Hara J, Skupiński J (eds), Reforma prawa karnego: propozycje i komentarze. Księga pamiątkowa Prof. Barbary Kunickiej-Michalskiej, Scholar, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

    Hanna Kuczyńska

Authors
  1. Hanna Kuczyńska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuczyńska, H. (2015). The Procedure Before International Criminal Tribunals. In: The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17626-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation