Models of Judicial Cooperation with Ad Hoc Tribunals and with the Permanent International Criminal Court in Europe

  • Michele Caianiello


This contribution deals with the legal problems (and dilemmas) arising in the field of judicial cooperation between States and international criminal justice systems (especially the ad hoc Tribunals and the International Criminal Court). Fundamental rights are easily in danger when judicial cooperation in criminal matters is involved, regardless of the model of cooperation adopted.

The problem of fundamental rights violation is especially evident at international level. It can be summarized as follows. On the one side, any international justice system needs the active help from States and international organizations in order to effectively enforce its own criminal system. On the other side, States and international institutions, whose cooperation is crucial, are out of control of the issuing jurisdiction. In short, the nub of the problem is to decide what value must prevail, in case of conflict between the need of cooperation and the need to grant a fair trial. Accepting the “fruit of the poisonous tree” could put the international institutions at the risk of being perceived as co-responsible of grave violations. However, excluding the product of cooperation on the basis of fundamental rights’ violation might lead to an ineffective international criminal system.

The practice shows how often judges are reluctant to relinquish their main objective—that is, bringing the persons responsible of grave international crimes to justice—solely because some breaches of relevant procedural safeguards have occurred during the cooperation phase. In any criminal justice system, as was once asserted, respecting the rules governing hunting is more important than the actual capture of the prey itself. However, when the pray is on the verge to escape, a faithful observance of such an approach often turns out to be impossible.


International Institution Security Council Mutual Recognition Rome Statute Trial Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union


Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant


Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant


International Criminal Court


International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda


International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia


Treaty on the European Union


United States Supreme Court


  1. Burke-White WW (2008) Implementing a policy of positive complementarity in the Rome system of justice. Crim Law Forum 19:59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caianiello M (2008) Ammissione della prova e contraddittorio nelle giurisdizioni penali internazionali. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  3. Caianiello M (2010) Disclosure before the ICC: the emergence of a new form of policies implementation system in International Criminal Justice? Int Crim Law Rev 10:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caianiello M (2011) First decisions on the admission of evidence at ICC trials. A blending of accusatorial and inquisitorial models? J Int Crim Justice 9:385–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caianiello M, Illuminati G (2001) From the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the International Criminal Court. N C J Int Law Commer Regul 26:407–455Google Scholar
  6. Cassese A (1998) On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of International Humanitarian Law. Eur J Int Law 9(1):2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordero F (1966) Ideologie del processo penale. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  8. Cryer R (2009) Means of gathering evidence and arresting suspects in situations of states’ failure to cooperate. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 201–205Google Scholar
  9. Currie RJ (2007) Abducted fugitives before the International Criminal Court: problems and prospects. Crim Law Forum 18:349–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demirdjian A (2010) Armless Giants: Cooperation, state responsibility and suggestions for the ICC review conference. Int Crim Law Rev 10:181–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fletcher G (2007) The grammar of criminal law, American, comparative, and international, vol I. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Klip A (2012) European criminal law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-PortlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Linton S (2001) Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone: experiments in International Justice. Crim Law Forum 12:185–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miraglia M (2008) Admissibility of evidence, standard of proof, and nature of the decision in the ICC confirmation of charges in Lubanga. J Int Crim Justice 6:489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paulussen C (2010) Male Captus, Bene Detentus? Surrendering suspects to the International Criminal Court. Intersentia, Antwerp-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Schabas WA (2000) International decisions: Barayagwiza v. Prosecutor. Am J Int Law 94:563–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schabas WA (2008) Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court. J Int Crim Justice 6:731–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sluiter G (2009) Cooperation of states with international criminal tribunals. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 187–200Google Scholar
  19. Wise EM, Podgor ES, Clark RS (2009) International criminal law: cases and materials, 3rd edn. LexisNexis, NewarkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Legal Sciences “A. Cicu”University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations