An analysis of recent development in international criminal law shows the emergence of two countervailing trends: on the one hand a broadening trend, in that the various prosecutorial meansused to hold individuals accountable for violations of certain international crimes has expanded; and on the other hand a narrowing trend, in that the protection from prosecution afforded by international law to certain individuals, that once seemed to falter, has been reinstated.

The International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

For the International Criminal Court (ICC) 2003 was a crucial year — its first as a functioning institution. With the coming into force of its Statute in July 2002, 2003 was spent establishing the infrastructure and procedures according to which the ICC will function. The ICC also made progress in establishing its four organs: the Chambers, the Presidency, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.

Prosecutor v. Delalic. No. IT-96-21-T.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Nov. 16, 1998.

On November 16,1998, a trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued its judgment in the Čelebići case against four defendants. The chamber found the de facto commander of the Čelebići prison camp liable under the principle of command responsibility for various acts of torture and illtreatment at the camp. It also found two other accused guilty of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws or customs of war for their actions at the camp. A fourth accused, indicted only under the principle of command responsibility, was found not guilty on all counts owing to the lack of a superior-subordinate relationship. Those accused convicted of multiple offenses were ordered to serve their sentences concurrently.

The conclusion of the ICTY's first trial offered the Trial Chamber an opportunity to expound upon the elements of the crime of persecution which, until this point, had been left undefined.

In recent publications a rising tide of criticism directed against the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is discernible, principally concerning whether or not the ICTY grants the accused a fair trial. The perceived lack of ability, or willingness, to satisfy the highest standards of human rights concerning the right of accused to a fair trial is regarded as a death-knell both for the broad acceptance of the ICTY's jurisprudence as well as the prospects for a permanent international criminal court. While most of the criticism centres around the interpretation and application of provisions of the ICTY's Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence addressing the right to a fair trial, some of it concerns the vigorousness with which ICTY officials insist upon the surrender of indicted persons. With all due respect these commentators, by applying norms that are not wholly applicable, misconceive the threat to the accused's fair trial rights.

The European Community (EC) has recently announced its decision to begin dispute-resolution procedures in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the United States (US) because of the latter's passage of the so-called ‘Helms-Burton’ law, which tightens the sanctions against Cuba by means of extraterritorial application. This will, in all probability, offer the WTO an ideal opportunity to define the limits of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade's (GATT) security exception. The security exception, contained in GATT Article XXI, is also included in other agreements annexed to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement), such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). It provides an exception from all GATT (as well as GATS and TRIPs) obligations, including the all-important ‘most-favoured-nation’ non-discrimination rule. The security interests at issue must be those of a political, rather than an economic, nature. It should be noted that because there is no human rights and democracy exception to the GATT or other agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement, trade restrictions that are based either in whole or in part on these concerns, such as the measures against Cuba, are usually justified on the basis of the security exception.