Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:48:28.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - The admissibility procedures

from PART IV - Interpretation and application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Carsten Stahn
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Mohamed M. El Zeidy
Affiliation:
International Criminal Court
Get access

Summary

Bringing criminals to justice before any court requires a complex body of procedural law. In addition to the procedures needed for conducting the trial as such, the Rome Statute contains procedures for raising, considering and determining the admissibility of cases as well as procedures for their final selection. The complementarity principle can only function as envisaged with detailed procedures in place. Collisions with national jurisdictions will force the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor into disputes with states which will raise questions very different from those normally associated with criminal proceedings. Sophisticated forms of interaction between states and the Court, unprecedented in the field of international criminal justice, and possibly in any other field of international law, are required. The Rome Statute's procedural regime must address, inter alia, how the Prosecutor may detect national failure to proceed genuinely; how information may flow between the Prosecutor and states; at what stage, how and by whom the admissibility may be challenged; and how and by whom admissibility disputes are to be settled. The complementarity procedures represent a compromise between the need to ensure the ICC's effectiveness and the need to preserve state sovereignty. This dichotomy is even more apparent here than in the substantive provisions. Addressing two inherently conflicting concerns has resulted in a set of rules that is not always equally comprehensive.

Introduction

As noted by Pre-trial Chamber I, the Rome Statute's admissibility test covers two aspects: first, a case is inadmissible if it has been genuinely investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction over it. Second, the case must be of sufficient gravity. This chapter primarily treats the first aspect, but most of the same proceedings apply also with regard to the second aspect. The discussion is based on a reading of the relevant provisions in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), in light of the ICC's first years of practice and relevant literature.

Type
Chapter
Information
The International Criminal Court and Complementarity
From Theory to Practice
, pp. 503 - 557
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

El Zeidy, M., ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest Warrant Proceedings before the International Criminal Court’ (2006) 19 LJIL741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke-White, W. and Kaplan, S., ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice: The International Criminal Court and an Admissibility Challenge in the Uganda Situation’ (2009) 7(2) JICJ 257, 260Google Scholar
‘Referrals and Communications’, Annex to ICC OTP, Paper on Some Policy Issues Before the Office of the Prosecutor (September 2003), para. I.C
ICC OTP, Informal Expert Paper on the Principle of Complementarity in Practice ICC-01/04–01/07–1008-AnxA (2003), is, para. 14
Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity: A Tale of Two Notions’ (2008) 19 Crim. LF 87, 103Google Scholar
Kress, C., ‘“Self Referrals” and “waivers of complementarity”: Some Considerations in Law and Policy’ (2004) 2 JICJ 944, 948Google Scholar
Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008) 581, 587, para. 13
Seventh Report of the ICC Prosecutor to the Security Council pursuant to SC Res. 1593 (2005), 15 June 2008, para. 21; Situation in Darfur, the Sudan, Prosecutor's Application under Article 58(7), ICC-02/05, 27 February 2007, para. 254 et seq
Newton, M. A., ‘Comparative Complementarity: Domestic Jurisdiction Consistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 167 Mil. L. Rev. 20, 55Google Scholar
Stigen, J., The Relationship Between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions: the Principle of Complementarity (2008) 78–9
Benzing, M., ‘The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice Between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity’ (2003) 7 Max Planck YB UN L 591, 625Google Scholar
Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J. R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002) vol. I, 667, 683
Lee, R. S. and Friman, H. (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001) 333, 339
Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008) 627, 630, para. 9
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988) Ser. C No. 4, para. 180
Jose Ruben Rivera v. El Salvador, (2005) Case 880/01, Report No. 53/05, para. 33
Statement of the US delegation, Article 11bis, Preliminary Rulings regarding Admissibility, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/WG.3/DP.2 (1998)
Ibid., referring to Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann (1962) Judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel, reprinted in (1968) 36 International Law Reports 277, 304
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 582 (6th Cir. 1985)
Lee, Roy S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999) 70
Cassese, A., ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’ (1999) 10 EJIL 144, 159Google Scholar
A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) [2004] UKHL 56, the House of Lords starts by noting that ‘[t]he nine appellants before the House challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal …’
United States v. Noriega, 746 F.Supp. 1506, 1533 (S.D. Fla. 1990)
Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008) 637, 648, para. 11
Bassiouni, M. C. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: Observations and Issues before the 1997–98 Preparatory Committee; and Administrative and Financial Implications (1997) 231, 234, referring to Comments to the Ad Hoc Committee, A/AC.244/1/Add.2, 19, paras. 54–6
Young, N. M., ‘Surrendering the Accused to the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 71 British Yearbook of International Law 37, 334 and 338Google Scholar
Farlie, M. A., ‘Establishing Admissibility at the International Criminal Court: Does Buck Stop with the Prosecutor, Full Stop?’ (2005) 39 Int'l Law 817, 838Google Scholar
Pichon, J., ‘The Principle of Complementarity in the Cases of the Sudanese Nationals Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb before the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 8 Int'l CLR 185, 201Google Scholar
Ibid., referring to Principle A6(b) of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985) providing that ‘the views and concerns of victims’ should ‘be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system’
Fernández de Gurmendi, S. and Friman, H., ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court’ (2000) 3 YIHL 289, 328Google Scholar
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/CONF.183/2/Add.1 (1998), vol. II, 44, n. 54
Rule 108bis(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTY allows states ‘directly affected’ to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Tribunal. In Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Decision of the Appeals Chamber, 29 July 1997, the Appeals Chamber explained that the Rule was adopted (on 24 July 1997) ‘to fill a perceived lacuna in the Statute and Rules, namely that a State whose interests were intimately affected by a decision of the Trial Chamber could not request the decision be submitted to appellate review’, see para. 8
Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J. R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002) vol. I, 1843
Some states have expressed concerns regarding the fact that the ICC finally determines whether a case is admissible, see Bleich, supra note 140, noting that China has argued that the decision should be left with domestic courts or possibly with the Security Council, at 234 n. 5, referring to statement of C. Shiqiu (China) to United Nations General Assembly, Sixth Committee, UN GAOR, 50th sess., UN Doc. A/C.6/50/SR (1995)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×