The Right to Truth, Appropriate Forum and the International Criminal Court

Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Transitional Justice book series (SSTJ, volume 4)

Abstract

The right to truth stems from the need of victims and relatives of the missing to know the fate of their loved ones, and has since been developed to apply to the perpetration of gross human rights violations more generally. Transitional justice mechanisms are seen as a key tool in realising this right. This chapter examines the origins and current scope of the right to truth before going on to explore the State obligations which arise pursuant to the right. It includes a consideration of the various domestic and international judicial mechanisms through which the right to truth might be implemented, examining the strengths and weaknesses of each forum. The chapter goes on to explore the extent to which the International Criminal Court, with its innovative, restorative and victim-oriented features, comprises a suitable forum for future realisation of the right to truth. The chapter concludes that the flexibility inherent in the Court’s Statute indicates that there is, albeit limited, scope to work towards the right’s implementation.

Keywords

Right to truth International Criminal Court Rome Statute International human rights law International criminal justice Victims’ rights 

Bibliography

International and Regional Legal Materials

  1. American Convention on Human Rights (adopted 22 November 1969) OAS No. 36.Google Scholar
  2. Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5.Google Scholar
  3. Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (adopted 12 August 1949) 75 UNTS 31.Google Scholar
  4. Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (adopted 12 August 1949) 75 UNTS 85.Google Scholar
  5. Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949) 75 UNTS 135.Google Scholar
  6. Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949) 75 UNTS 288.Google Scholar
  7. Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Banjul Charter”), 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58.Google Scholar
  8. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977) 1125 UNTS 17512.Google Scholar
  9. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, as amended 16 January 2002) UN Doc A/CONF.183/9.Google Scholar
  10. UNGA Res 61/177 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (20 December 2006) UN Doc A/RES/61/177.Google Scholar
  11. UNGA, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171.Google Scholar
  12. UNGA, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195.Google Scholar
  13. UNGA, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.Google Scholar
  14. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UDHR).Google Scholar

UN Documents

  1. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1.Google Scholar
  2. International Law Commission, Preliminary report on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (‘aut dedere aut judicare’), report of the Special Rapporteur Zdzislaw Galicki, A/CN.4/571, June 2006.Google Scholar
  3. UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989.Google Scholar
  4. UNCHR, ‘Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Study on the Right to Truth’ (8 February 2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91.Google Scholar
  5. UNCHR, Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity, Res. 2005/81.Google Scholar
  6. UN Committee Against Torture, Concluding Observations on Turkey (CAT/C/CR/30/5) 2003, on Peru (CAT/C/PER/CO/4(2006)), and on Georgia (CAT/C/GEO/CO/3 (2006)).Google Scholar
  7. UNGA, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, (adopted 21 March 2006), A/RES/60/147.Google Scholar
  8. UNGA, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, (adopted 29 November 1985), A/RES/40/34.Google Scholar
  9. UNHRC First Report of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1435.Google Scholar
  10. UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Comments on Guatemala, CCPR/C/79/add.63, 3 April 1996.Google Scholar
  11. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, Article 7 (Forty-fourth session, 1992), UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 30 (1994).Google Scholar
  12. UNCHR, Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance., 28 February 1992, E/CN.4/RES/1992/29.Google Scholar

European Court of Human Rights

  1. Aksoy v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment, Application No. 21987/93, 18 December 1996.Google Scholar
  2. Association 21 December 1989 v. Romania, ECtHR, Application No. 33810/07, Judgment, 24 May 2011.Google Scholar
  3. El-Masri v The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECtHR, Application no. 39630/09, Judgment, 12 December 2012.Google Scholar
  4. El-Masri v The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECtHR, Application no. 39630/09, 12 December 2012, Joint concurring opinion.Google Scholar
  5. Janowiec v. Russia, ECtHR, Application Nos. 55508/07, 29520/09, Judgment, 16 April 2012,Google Scholar
  6. Kudla v. Poland, App. No. 30210/96; (2000) ECHR 510.Google Scholar
  7. Varnava and others v Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment, 18 September 2009Google Scholar
  8. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 1056 (5 May 1987).Google Scholar
  9. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1414 (23 November 2004).Google Scholar
  10. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1463 (3 October 2005).Google Scholar

Inter-American Court and Commission of Human Rights

  1. Barrios Altos v Peru, IACtHR, Judgment, 14 March 2001, Series C, No.75.Google Scholar
  2. Blake v. Guatemala, IACtHR, Judgment, 24 January 1998, Series C, No. 36.Google Scholar
  3. Claude Reyes v. Chile. IACtHR, Judgment, 19 September 2006, Series C, No.151.Google Scholar
  4. Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers v. Peru, IACtHR, Judgment, 8 July 2004, Series C, No. 110.Google Scholar
  5. Gomes Lund (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, IACtHR, Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 24 November 2010, Series C, No. 219.Google Scholar
  6. Hugo Rodriguez v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 322/1988, 19 July 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988.Google Scholar
  7. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, 19 October 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, 2010, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, March 2011, Chapter 3, para. 1.Google Scholar
  9. Ignacio Ellacuría et al v. El Salvador, IACHR, Report No. 136/99, 12 December 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Las Dos Erres Massacre v Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, IACtHR, No 211, 12 November 2009.Google Scholar
  11. Lucio Parada Cea et al. v. El Salvador. IACHR, Report No. 1/99, Case 10.480. 27 January 1999.Google Scholar
  12. Moiwana v. Suriname, IACtHR, Judgment, 15 June 2005, Series C, No. 124.Google Scholar
  13. Quinteros v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 107/1981, 21 July 1983, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2.Google Scholar
  14. Tibi v. Ecuador, IACtHR, Judgment, 7 September 2004, Series C, No. 114.Google Scholar
  15. Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, IACtHR, Judgment on the Merits, 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4.Google Scholar

International Criminal Tribunals

  1. International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1.Google Scholar
  2. International Criminal Court, The Court’s Revised strategy in relation to victims, ICC-ASP/11/38, 5 November 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo, Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victims at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case, ICC-01/04-01/07-474, 13 May 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Prosecutor v Karadžić and Mladić, IT-95-5-R6, IT-95-18-R61 Review of the Indictments pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 11 July 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al. IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgment, 23 October 2001.Google Scholar
  6. Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on victims’ participation ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, 18 January 2008.Google Scholar
  7. Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, 7 August, 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Prosecutor v Milutinović et al. IT-05-87-T, Judgment, 26 February 2009, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  9. Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda, UN Doc. ITR/3/REV.1 (1995), adopted 29 June 1995Google Scholar
  10. Rules of Procedure and Evidence for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc IT/32/Rev.40, adopted 11 February 1994.Google Scholar

International Court of Justice/Permanent Court of Justice

  1. Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) (Merits), (1928) PCIJ, Series A., No. 17.Google Scholar

Books

  1. Alison Bisset, Truth Commissions and Criminal Courts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
  2. Nancy Armour Combs, Fact-finding Without Facts. The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
  3. Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The aftermath of violence – from domestic abuse to political terror (New York: Basic Books, 1997).Google Scholar
  4. Martti Koskenniemi, “Between Impunity and Show Trials” in: Jochen Frowein and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002).Google Scholar
  5. Dinah Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  6. Eric Stover, The Witnesses: War Crimes and the Promise of Justice in The Hague (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Journal Articles

  1. Raquel Aldana-Pindell, “In Vindication of Justiciable Victims’ Rights to Truth and Justice for State-Sponsored Crimes” Vanderbilt Journal of Transitional Law 35(5) (2002): 1399-1501.Google Scholar
  2. Kirsten Anderson, “How effective is the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance likely to be in holding individuals criminally responsible for acts of enforced disappearance?” Melbourne Journal of International Law 7 (2006): 245-277.Google Scholar
  3. Cherif Bassiouni, “International Recognition of Victims’ Rights,” Human Rights Law Review 6(2) (2006): 203-279.Google Scholar
  4. Nils Christie, “Conflicts as Property”, British Journal of Criminology 17(1) (1977): 1-15.Google Scholar
  5. Margaret De Guzman, “Choosing to Prosecute: Expressive Selection at the International criminal Court,” Michigan Journal of International Law (2012): 265-320.Google Scholar
  6. Stephen Ellis, “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volumes 1-5. Pretoria: Government Printer, October 1998, Review Essay,” Transformation 42 (2000): 57-72.Google Scholar
  7. Sam Garkawe, “Victims and the International Criminal Court: Three major issues,” International Criminal Law Review 3 (2003): 345-367.Google Scholar
  8. Dermot Groome, “The Right to Truth in the Fight Against Impunity,” Berkeley Journal of International Law 29(1) (2011): 175-199.Google Scholar
  9. Susanne Karstedt, “From Absence to Presence, From Silence to Voice: Victims in International and Transitional Justice Since the Nuremberg Trials,” International Review of Victimology 17 (2010): 9-30.Google Scholar
  10. Conor McCarthy, “Reparations under the Rome Statute of the ICC and Reparative Justice Theory,” The International Journal of Transitional Justice, 3 (2009): 250–271.Google Scholar
  11. Yasmin Naqvi, “The Right to Truth in International Law: Fact or Fiction”, International Review of the Red Cross, 88(862) (2006): 245-273.Google Scholar
  12. Ellie Smith, “Investigating Rape at the International Criminal Court: the Impact of Trauma,” Issues in International Criminal Justice, (2012): 99-112.Google Scholar

Other Materials

  1. Howard Davis and Melanie Klinkner, ‘A victim’s right to truth and the International Criminal Court’ (Project Report) (January 2014), available at http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21025/
  2. International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘The Missing and their Families. Summary of the Conclusions arising from Events held prior to the International Conference of Governmental and Non-Governmental Experts’ (Report) (ICRC, Geneva 2003).Google Scholar
  3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Final Report (Volume 1)’ (TRC, 29 October 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bournemouth UniversityPooleUK
  2. 2.Bournemouth University, Executive Business CentreBournemouthUK

Personalised recommendations