Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T20:50:58.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Criminal Court: Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (appeals chamber, decision on victim participation)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Djurdja Lazić
Djurdja Lazić*
Affiliation:
American Society of International Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Report
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 968 - 993
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the International Criminal Court website: (October 8,2008) < http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-01-04-01-06-1432-ENG.pdf >

page 970 note 1 Schabas, William A., An Introduction to the international criminal court 328 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (The author calls this development “[o]ne of the great innovation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence“).

page 970 note 2 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/ library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf thereinafter Rome Statute].

page 970 note 3 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence available at http:// www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rules_of_Proc_ and_Evid_070704-EN.pdf [hereinafter ICC Rules].

page 970 note 4 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeals of the Prosecutor and the Defence against Trial Chamber I's Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1432 (Appeals Chamber, July 11, 2008), at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-01-04-01-06-1432-ENG.pdf [hereinafter Lubanga, Victim Participation]

page 970 note 5 ICC Rules, supra note 3, rule 89(1).

page 970 note 6 Id. rule 89(1). See also, Victims Before the International Criminal Court A Guide for the Participation of Victims Before the International Criminal Court, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/victims/VPRS_Booklet_En.pdf (defining the term victim as ‘ ‘a person who has suffered harm as a result of the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court“).

page 970 note 7 See ICC Rules, supra note 3, rule 89(1) (specifying that depending on the stage of the proceedings, different judges will determine the admissibility of the application. For example, an application that reaches the Court during the pre-trial stagewill be analyzed and decided upon by the pre-trial judges. Similarly, if an application does not reach the Court until a later stage, i.e. commencement of the trial, it will be the Trial Chamber that will consider the application).

page 970 note 8 Id. rule 85(a).

page 970 note 9 Id. rule 85(b) (emphasis added).

page 970 note 10 Appropriateness of participation is determined by applying Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute, which states: “Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.“

page 970 note 11 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Participation of Victims on Appeal, Case No. ICC-01/01/01/-6-1453 (Appeals Chamber, Aug. 6, 2008).

page 970 note 12 Rome Statute, supra note 2, art. 25(3)(a).

page 970 note 13 Id. art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi) or art. 8(2)(e)(vii).

page 970 note 14 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on Victims’ Participation, Case No. ICC-01/01/01/-6-1119 (Trial Chamber 1, Jan. 18, 2008) [hereinafter Impugned Decision].

page 970 note 15 Id. ¶ 85.

page 970 note 16 Id. ¶ 54.

page 970 note 17 Lubanga, Victim Participation, supra note 4, ¶ 15. The Defense also argued against the inclusion of Principle 8 of the 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,” which led the lower court to the conclusion that “a victim may suffer, either individually or collectively, from harm in a variety of ways.'’ The Appeals Chamber rejected this argument and held that while the Trial Chamber was “guided” by the Principles, the lower Chamber's “decision was based on its analysis of rule 85(a) and rule 85(b) of the Rules.” Id. ¶ 33.

page 971 note 18 According to the Appeals Chamber, “the harm suffered by a natural person is harm to that person, i.e. personal harm. Material, physical, and psychological harm are all forms of harm that fall within the rule if they are suffered personally by the victim. Harm suffered by one victim as a result of the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court can give rise to harm suffered by other victims.” Id. ¶ 32.

page 971 note 19 The Appeals Chamber provides the example of a child soldier being recruited, where not only the individual child suffers harm but also the parents of recruited child. Id

page 971 note 20 Id. ¶ 35.

page 971 note 21 Id.

page 971 note 22 Id. ¶ 37.

page 971 note 23 Id. ¶ 39.

page 971 note 24 Impugned Decision, supra note 14, ¶ 41.

page 971 note 25 Lubanga, Victim Participation, supra note 4, 54. To supports its reasoning, the Appeals Chamber referred to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(1), which states that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.” Id.

page 971 note 26 Id. ¶ 57.

page 971 note 27 Id. ¶ 58.

page 971 note 28 Impugned Decision, supra note 14, 108. The Trial Chamber also held that’ ‘there is no provision within the Rome Statute framework which prohibits the Trial Chamber from ruling on the admissibility or relevance of evidence having taken into account the views and concerns of the victims, in accordance with Article 68(3) and 69(4) of the Statute. In appropriate circumstances this will be allowed following an application.” Id.

page 971 note 29 Lubanga, Victim Participation, supra note 4, 97. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber noted that by allowing evidence that did not pertain to the guilt or innocence of the accused, victims would only be able to bring forth ‘ ‘inadmissible and irrelevant” evidence.

page 971 note 30 Lubanga, Victim Participation, supra note 4, 99.

page 971 note 31 Id. ¶104.

page 988 note 1 ICC-01/01/01/06-1119.

page 988 note 2 ICC-01/04-01/06-1135.

page 988 note 3 ICC-01/04-01/06-1136.

page 988 note 4 ICC-01/04-01/06-1191.

page 988 note 5 Ibid, at paragraph 54.

page 988 note 6 ICC-01/04-01/06-1219OA9.

page 988 note 7 ICC-01/04-01/06-1220-tEng OA10.

page 988 note 8 ICC-01/04-0 1/06-1233 OA10. The Defence did not file a response to the Prosecutor's Document in Support of the Appeal.

page 988 note 9 ICC-01/04-01/06-1222-teng.

page 988 note 10 ICC-01/04-01/06-1228.

page 988 note 11 “Order of the Appeals Chamber on the date of filing of applications for participation by victims and on the time of the filing of the responses thereto by the Prosecutor and the Defence” ICC-01/04-01/06-1239OA9andOA10.

page 988 note 12 ICC-0 1/04-0 1/06-1 24 1-teng.

page 988 note 13 ICC-01/04-01/06-1266. A corrigendum to this response was filed on 8 April 2008 (ICC-01/04-01/06-1266-Corr and ICC- 01/04-01/06-1266-Corr-Anx).

page 988 note 14 ICC-01/04-01/06-1264-Ieng.

page 988 note 15 ICC-01/04-01/06-1335.

page 988 note 16 ICC-01/04-01/06-1345.

page 988 note 17 ICC-01/04-01/06-1347.

page 988 note 18 ICC-01/04-01/06-1361. The Defence did not file a response to the Victims’ Observations.

page 988 note 19 ICC-01/04-01 -06- 1220-teng, paragraph 15.

page 988 note 20 Ibid, at paragraph 25. “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 by the United Nations General Assembly, resolution 60/147, 16 December 2005.

page 988 note 20 Ibid.

page 988 note 21 Ibid. to Paragraph 27.

page 988 note 22 Ibid. to Paragraph 28.

page 988 note 23 Ibid. to Paragraph 30.

page 988 note 24 Ibid. to Paragraph 32.

page 988 note 25 Ibid. to Paragraph 27.

page 988 note 26 ICC-01/04-01 -06-1233 Paragraph 9.

page 988 note 27 Ibid.

page 989 note 28 Ibid at paragraph 10.

page 989 note 29 Ibid, at paragraph 11.

page 989 note 30 Ibid at paragraph 12.

page 989 note 31 ICC-01/04-01/06-1345-teng, paragraph 7.

page 989 note 32 Ibid, paragraph 8.

page 989 note 33 Ibid at paragraph 9.

page 989 note 34 Ibid, at paragraph 12.

page 989 note 35 Ibid, at paragraph 17.

page 989 note 36 Ibid.

page 989 note 37 Ibid, at paragraph 18.

page 989 note 38 ICC-01/04-01/06-1361, paragraph 14.

page 989 note 39 ICC-01/01/01 /06-1119, paragraph 91.

page 989 note 40 Ibid.

page 989 note 41 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2, 5th Edition 2002, at page 1199.

page 989 note 42 Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition 2004, at page 734.

page 989 note 43 ICC-01/04-01/06-1219, paragraph 15.

page 989 note 44 Ibid, at paragraph 18.

page 989 note 45 Ibid, at paragraph 21.

page 989 note 46 Ibid at paragraph 24 to 26.

page 989 note 47 ICC-01/04-01/06-1220-tENG, paragraph 34.

page 989 note 48 Ibid, at paragraphs 35 and 36.

page 989 note 49 Ibid at paragraphs 38 and 39.

page 989 note 50 ICC-01/04-01/06-1233, paragraph 14 and 15.

page 989 note 51 ICC-01/04-01/06-1345-OENG, paragraph 20.

page 989 note 52 Ibid.

page 989 note 53 Ibid, at paragraph 21.

page 989 note 54 ICC-01/04-01/06-1361, paragraph 15.

page 989 note 55 Ibid, at paragraph 19.

page 989 note 56 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 1980, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, 18232.

page 989 note 57 ICC-01/04-168.

page 989 note 58 Ibid, at paragraph 33.

page 989 note 59 ICC-01/04-01/06-1219, paragraph 15.

page 989 note 60 In addition to the procedure under rule 89 (1) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber notes the possibility of victim participation pursuant to rule 93, second sentence, of the Rules. This provision vests the Chamber with a discretion to call “other victims” which could potentially include victims who are not victims of the crimes for which the accused person has been charged.

page 989 note 61 ICC-01/04-01/06-1219, paragraph 27.

page 989 note 62 Ibid, at paragraph 30.

page 989 note 63 Ibid.

page 989 note 64 Ibid, at paragraph 33.

page 989 note 65 Ibid at paragraph 34.

page 989 note 66 Ibid.

page 989 note 67 Ibid at paragraph 36.

page 989 note 68 Ibid at paragraph 37.

page 989 note 69 Ibid, at paragraphs 38 and 39

page 989 note 70 Ibid, at paragraph 41.

page 989 note 71 Ibid, at paragraph 42.

page 989 note 72 Ibid, at paragraph 44.

page 989 note 73 Ibid at paragraph 45.

page 989 note 74 Ibid.

page 989 note 75 Ibid, at paragraph 47.

page 989 note 76 Ibid, at paragraph 49.

page 989 note 77 Ibid.

page 989 note 78 ICC-01/04-01706-1220-teng, paragraph 46.

page 989 note 79 Ibid, at paragraph 48.

page 989 note 80 Ibid, at paragraph 50.

page 989 note 81 ICC-01/04-01/06-1345-teng, paragraph 25.

page 989 note 82 Ibid.

page 989 note 83 Ibid, at paragraph 27.

page 989 note 84 Ibid, at paragraph 28.

page 989 note 85 Ibid, at paragraph 29.

page 989 note 86 ICC-01/04-01/06-1361, at paragraph 22.

page 989 note 87 Ibid.

page 989 note 88 Ibid, at paragraph 23.

page 989 note 89 Ibid at paragraph 25.

page 989 note 90 Ibid, at paragraph 26.

page 989 note 91 Ibid, at paragraph 28.

page 989 note 92 Ibid, at paragraph 30.

page 992 note 1 Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo “Decision on the Defence and Prosecution Requests for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008” 26 February 2008(ICC-01/04-01/06-1101), para. 54.

page 992 note 2 Majority Judgment, para. 64.

page 992 note 3 Hereinafter “the Rules”.

page 992 note 4 Ibid., para. 31

page 992 note 5 Ibid, page 3.

page 992 note 6 See article 15 (3) of the Statute.

page 992 note 7 See, inter alia, article 53 of the Statute.

page 992 note 8 See article 58 of the Statute.

page 992 note 9 See article 54 (1) (a) of the Statute.

page 992 note 10 See article 61 (3) of the Statute.

page 992 note 11 See 77 of the Rules.

page 992 note 12 See article 61(5) of the Statute.

page 993 note 13 See article 61 (6) of the Statute.

page 993 note 14 See articles 67 and 55 of the Statute and rule 121 (1) of the Rules.

page 993 note 15 See rule 130 of the Rules.

page 993 note 16 See article 64 (2) of the Statute.

page 993 note 17 Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo “Decision on the Prosecutor's “Application for Leave to Reply to ‘Conclusions de la défense en réponse au mémoire d'appel du Procureur'“” 12 September 2006 (ICC- 01/04-01/06-424), para. 3; Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo “Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19 (2) (a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006” 14 December 2006 (ICC-01/04-01/06-772), para. 37.

page 993 note 18 Summers, S. J., “The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human Rights”, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2007, pages 6-7.Google Scholar It is noted that the term “adversarial” is occasionally used interchangeably with the term “accusatorial.“

page 993 note 19 European Court of Human Rights, Brandstetter v. Austria, Judgment of 28 August 1991, Application no. 11170/84; 12876/87; 13468/87, para 66; See also European Court of Human Rights, Borgers v Belgium, Judgment of 30 October 1991, Application no. 12005/86, para. 24.

page 993 note 20 European Court of Human Rights, Brandstetter v Austria, Judgment of 28 August 1991, Application no. 11170/84, 12876/87; 13468/87, para. 66.

page 993 note 21 European Court of Human Rights, Niderost-Huber v Switzerland, Judgment of 27 January 1997, Application No. 104/ 1995/610/698, para. 30; European Court of Human Rights, Acquaviva v France, Judgment of 21 November 1995,Application No. 45/1994/492/574, para. 66.

page 993 note 22 European Court of Human Rights, Dombo Beheer BVv. Netherlands, Judgment of 27 October 1993, Application no. 14448/ 88, para. 32.

page 993 note 23 Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo, “Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Joint Application of Victimsa/0001/06 to a/0003/ 06 and a/0105/06 concerning the ‘Directions and Decision of the Appeals Chamber’ of 2 February 2007” 13 June 2007 (ICC-01/04-01/06-925), Separate Opinion of Judge Georghios M. Pikis.

page 993 note 24 Ibid., para. 15.

page 993 note 25 Ibid., para. 16.

page 993 note 26 Ibid, para. 16.

page 993 note 27 Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo, “Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Joint Application of Victims a/0001/06 to a/0003/06 and a/0105/06 concerning the ‘Directions and Decision of the Appeals Chamber’ of 2 February 2007” 13 June 2007 (ICC-01/04-01/06-925), Separate Opinion of Judge Georghios M. Pikis, para 18.

page 993 note 28 See article 91 (3) (b) of the Statute.