Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions

Robert Cryer; Hakan Friman; Darryl Robinson; Elizabeth Wilmshurst

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511760808.018

17 - Procedures of International Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions

from PART E - PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Darryl Robinson and

Robert Cryer: Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Hakan Friman: Affiliation:
University College London
Darryl Robinson: Affiliation:
Queen's University, Ontario
Elizabeth Wilmshurst: Affiliation:
University College London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

International criminal procedures

Introduction

From the Nuremberg trials and onwards, the need to develop a new procedural system for any new international criminal tribunal has been acknowledged. Such a procedural system would be sui generis in the sense that it would depart from any one domestic system or legal tradition. But, inevitably, it would have elements from the major domestic legal systems of the world, also enhancing the perceived legitimacy of the tribunal and its proceedings. In this chapter we will focus on the procedures that have developed for the ICTY, ICTR and ICC and consider how they blend elements from different legal traditions.

Different legal traditions

There is a significant distinction between the criminal procedures of two major domestic legal traditions: the common law tradition (or Anglo-American tradition) and the civil law tradition (or Continental or Romano-Germanic tradition). While these traditions go beyond the system of criminal procedures, the common law model is said to be ‘adversarial’ or ‘accusatorial’ and the civil law model ‘inquisitorial’. No domestic system represents a pure model, however, and there are considerable differences between systems belonging to the same tradition. Moreover, some systems, e.g. in Scandinavia, do not really belong to either of the two traditions. In spite of shortcomings, we will here use the terms ‘adversarial’ and ‘inquisitorial’ to describe in a general sense differences attributed to the two traditions, but also, on occasion, resort to the common law and civil law labels.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure , pp. 425 - 477

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760808.018 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boas, Gideon, The Miloševi Trial (Cambridge, 2007).Google Scholar

Bohlander, Michael, Boed, Roman and Wilson, Richard (eds.), Defence in International Criminal Proceedings (New York, 2005).

Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paolo and Jones, John R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford, 2002) chs. 28–38.

Dixon, Rodney and Kahn, Karim (eds.), Archbold International Criminal Courts – Practice, Procedure and Evidence, 2nd edn (London, 2005).

Gurmendi, Silvia Fernándes and Friman, Hakan, ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Regulations of the Court’ in Doria, Legal Regime, 797–824.

Fischer, Horst, Kreß, Claus and Lüder, Sascha Rolf (eds.), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law (Berlin, 2001).

Jones, John R. W. D. and Powles, Steven, International Criminal Practice, 3rd edn (New York, 2003).Google Scholar

Lee, Roy et al. (eds.), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (New York, 2001).

May, Richard et al. (eds.), Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence (The Hague, 2001).

Safferling, Christoph, Towards an International Criminal Procedure (Oxford, 2001).Google Scholar

Schabas, William A., The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone (Cambridge, 2006) chs. 10–13.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sluiter, Göran and Vasiliev, Sergey (eds.), International Criminal Procedure: Towards a Coherent Body of Law (London, 2009).

Stahn, Carsten and Sluiter, Göran (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Leiden, 2009).

Zappala, Salvatore, Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings (Oxford, 2003).CrossRef Google Scholar

Delmas-Marty, Mireille and Spencer, John R. (eds.), European Criminal Procedure (Cambridge, 2002).

Kai, Ambos, ‘International Criminal Procedure: “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or Mixed?’ (2003) 3 International Criminal Law Review1Google Scholar

Manfred, Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR Commentary, 2nd edn (Kehl/Strasbourg/Arlington, 2005) 305Google Scholar

Andreas, O'Shea, ‘Changing the Rules of the Game in the Middle of Play: The Dilemma of Procedural Development in the Rwanda Tribunal’ (2001) 14 South African Journal of Criminal Justice233Google Scholar

Daryl, Mundis, ‘From “Common Law” Towards “Civil Law”: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law367.Google Scholar

Louise, Symons, ‘The Inherent Powers of the ICTY and ICTR’ (2003) 3 International Criminal Law Review369Google Scholar

Silvia Fernàndez, Gurmendi and Håkan, Friman, ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court’ (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law289.Google Scholar

Claus, Kreß, ‘The Procedural Texts of the International Criminal Court’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice537 at 538Google Scholar

David, Hunt, ‘The International Criminal Court: High Hopes, “Creative Ambiguity” and an Unfortunate Mistrust in International Judges’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice56.Google Scholar

Mark, Findlay, ‘Synthesis in Trial Proceedings? The Experience of International Criminal Tribunals’ (2001) 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly26.Google Scholar

Patrick, Robinson, ‘Ensuring Fair and Expeditious Trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law569 at 574Google Scholar

Gabrielle, Kirk McDonald, ‘Trial Procedures and Practice’ in Kirk McDonald, Gabrielle and Goldman, Olivia Swaak (eds.), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and National Courts (Kluwer, 2000) 556.Google Scholar

Maxime, Langer, ‘The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law’ (2005) American Journal of Comparative Law835Google Scholar

Vladimir, Tochilovsky, ‘International Criminal Justice: Strangers in the Foreign System’ (2004) 15 Criminal Law Forum319Google Scholar

Kai, Ambos and Dennis, Miller, ‘Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective’ (2007) 7 International Criminal Law Review335, 337–40.Google Scholar

Göran, Sluiter, ‘The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes Trials’ (2006) 6 International Criminal Law Review605Google Scholar

Antonio, Cassese, ‘Opinion: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Human Rights’ (1997) 4 European Human Rights Law Review329 at 332.Google Scholar

Antonio, Cassese, ‘The Influence of the European Court of Human Rights on International Criminal Tribunals: Some Methodological Remarks’ in Bergsmo, Morten (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Leiden, 2003) 19–52.Google Scholar

Gabrielle, McIntyre, ‘Defining Human Rights in the Arena of International Humanitarian Law: Human Rights in the Jurisprudence of the ICTY’ in Boas, Gideon and Schabas, William (eds.), International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY (Dordrecht, 2003) 193–238.Google Scholar

José, Alvarez, ‘Nuremberg Revisited: The Tadić Case’ (1996) 7 European Journal of International Law245 at 253–4.Google Scholar

Stefania, Negri, ‘The Principle of “Equality of Arms” and the Evolving Law of International Criminal Procedure’ (2005) 5 International Criminal Law Review513.Google Scholar

Ian, Bryan and Peter, Rowe, ‘The Role of Evidence in War Crimes Trials: The Common Law and the Yugoslav Tribunal’ (1999) 2 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law307.Google Scholar

Stéphane, Bourgon, ‘Procedural Problems Hindering Expeditious and Fair Justice’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice526.Google Scholar

Christopher, Keith Hall, ‘The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity’ (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law121.Google Scholar

David, Crane, ‘Dancing with the Devil: Prosecuting West Africa's Warlords: Building Initial Prosecutorial Strategy for an International Tribunal After Third World Armed Conflicts’ (2005) 37 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law1, 8Google Scholar

Mirjan, Damaška, ‘Assignment of Counsel and Perceptions of Fairness’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice3.Google Scholar

Göran, Sluiter, ‘Compromising the Authority of International Criminal Justice: How Šešelj Runs His Trial’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice529Google Scholar

Emily, Ann Herman, ‘In Pursuit of Accountability: The Red Cross, War Correspondents, and Evidentiary Privileges in International Criminal Tribunals’ (2005) 80 New York University Law Review241Google Scholar

Richard, Carden, ‘The New International Criminal Court: an Uneasy Revolution’ (2000) 88 Georgetown Law Journal381 at 417Google Scholar

Simon, Young, ‘Surrendering the Accused to the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 71 British Yearbook of International Law317, 334Google Scholar

Markus, Benzing, ‘The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight Against Impunity’ (2003) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law591Google Scholar

Megan, Fairlie, ‘Establishing Admissibility in the International Criminal Court: Does the Buck Stop with the Prosecutor, Full Stop?’ (2005) 39 International Lawyer817Google Scholar

Antonio, Cassese, ‘The ICTY: A Living and Vital Reality’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice585 at 586–8.Google Scholar

Rod, Rastan, ‘What is a “Case” for the Purpose of the Rome Statute?’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum435.Google Scholar

Rosa, A.-M., ‘A Tremendous Challenge for the International Criminal Tribunals: Reconciling the Requirements of International Humanitarian Law with those of Fair Trial’ (1997) 321 International Review of the Red Cross635CrossRef Google Scholar

Stuart, Beresford, ‘Redressing the Wrongs of the International Justice System: Compensation for Persons Erroneously Detained, Prosecuted, or Convicted by the Ad Hoc Tribunals’ (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law628.Google Scholar

Colin, Warbrick, ‘Judicial Jurisdiction and Abuse of Process’ (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly489Google Scholar

Michael, Scharf, ‘The Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanović: Irregular Rendition and the ICTY’ (1998) 11 Leiden Journal of International Law369Google Scholar

Daryl, Mundis, ‘The Judicial Effects of the “Completion Strategies” on the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law142.Google Scholar

Robert, Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes (Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar

Allison Marston, Danner, ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of the Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law510Google Scholar

Luc, Côte, ‘Reflections on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion in International Criminal Law’ (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice162Google Scholar

Alexander, Greenawalt, ‘Justice Without Politics? Prosecutorial Discretion and the International Criminal Court’ (2007) 39 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics583Google Scholar

Carsten, Stahn, ‘Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System: A Portrayal of Regulation 55’ (2005) 16 Criminal Law Forum1Google Scholar

Michaela, Miraglia, ‘Admissibility of Evidence, Standard of Proof, and Nature of the Decision in the ICC Confirmation of Charges in Lubanga’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice489, 501–3Google Scholar

Mark, Tieroff and Edward, Amley, ‘Proceeding Justice and Accountability in the Balkans: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rule 61’ (1998) 23 Yale Journal of International Law231Google Scholar

Shuichi, Furuya, ‘Rule 61 Procedure in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Lesson for the ICC’ (1999) 12 Leiden Journal of International Law635.Google Scholar

Christopher, Greenwood, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law97 at 113Google Scholar

Sergey, Vasiliev, ‘Proofing the Ban on “Witness Proofing”: Did the ICC Get it Right?’ (2009) 20 Criminal Law Forum193Google Scholar

Sabine, Swoboda, ‘The ICC Disclosure Regime – A Defence Perspective’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum449.Google Scholar

Mirjan, Damaška, ‘Free Proof and Its Detractors’ (1995) 43 American Journal of Comparative Law343Google Scholar

Patricia, Wald, ‘To Establish Incredible Events by Credible Evidence: The Use of Affidavit Testimony in Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Proceedings’ (2001) 42 Harvard International Law Review535.Google Scholar

Steven, Kay, ‘The Move from Oral Evidence to Written Evidence’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice495Google Scholar

Nancy Amoury, Combs, ‘Copping a Plea to Genocide: The Plea Bargaining of International Crimes’ (2002) 151 University of Pennsylvania Law Review1Google Scholar

Henri, Bosly, ‘Admission of Guilt before the ICC and in Continental Systems’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice1040Google Scholar

Julian, Cook, ‘Plea Bargaining at the Hague’ (2005) 30 Yale Journal of International Law473Google Scholar

Mark, Harmon, ‘Plea Bargaining: The Uninvited Guest at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ in Doria, Legal Regime, 163–82.

Mirjan, Damaška, ‘Negotiated Justice in International Criminal Courts’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice1018.Google Scholar

Wigmore, John H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence at Trials in Common Law, 3rd edn (Boston, 1940) 29, § 1367Google Scholar

Jean, Galbraith, ‘New Facts in ICTY and ICTR Review Proceedings’ (2008) 21 Leiden Journal of International Law131Google Scholar

William, Schabas and Carsten, Stahn, ‘(Symposium) Introductory Note: Legal Aspects of the Lubanga Case’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum431, 432.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.