Compensation to the Acquitted Person in International Criminal Law

This chapter considers the accuracy of interpretations and, to some extent, translations in international and hybrid criminal courts settings and looks at the effects of both linguistic and paralinguistic (nonverbal) misinterpretations on the effectiveness of the international criminal process and, in particular, the effects these can have on the quality of trials, procedural fairness, and ultimately defense rights. Specifically, the rights to seek and expect from international criminal courts and tribunals competent and effective language services, as well as the corresponding right to review translated transcripts and relevant documents, are considered here. As this chapter tries to demonstrate, the protection and further development of these specific rights are essential to the requirements of procedural fairness alongside the rights to equality before the law, equality of arms, and the right to a fair trial. Although statutes and rules of international courts and tribunals assert that equal treatment before the law, as recognized in international human rights law, requires that there be no significant disparity in trial and punishment regimes in individual cases, there remain considerable outcome problems in these complex multilingual and multicultural settings. Right to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial are examined here with a particular reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1996 (ICCPR) Article 14. Case law reveals in fact that equal and equitable protection of fundamental procedural pretrial and trial rights remains inconsistent and that the determination of the nature of ICCPR provisions is contradictory. Given the complexity of most international criminal trials, some practical interpretation and translations problems may be readily recognized and anticipated. Nevertheless, the responsibility to fully explore reasons and conditions that lead to potentially procedurally and ethically unjust trial outcomes rests on the judiciary. The responsibility to provide effective remedies in individual cases rests on them too. Importantly, these courts and tribunals are based and legitimized on the basis of their legal foundations and principles deriving from the rule of law, such as independence, transparency, and accountability. In turn, the rule of law increasingly requires that international justice is administered by applying norms that promote and protect elevated, and not just minimum, human rights standards and fundamental values of equality, fairness, and justice. By analyzing statutes and rules of procedure and evidence of international courts and their proceedings as well as studying court transcripts and simultaneous translations in different international criminal law jurisdictions (mainly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court), the chapter examines whether the review of court transcripts in the second (translated) language could amount to a procedural right in international criminal law.

INTRODUCTION. The article discusses the theoretical and practical problems of conducting trials in the absence of the accused (in absentia) in international criminal courts and tribunals.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on international human rights treaties that regulate the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings, the statutory and procedural documents of these courts, and the practice of interpreting and applying the right of the accused to be present at the trial.RESEARCH RESULTS. International human rights treaties establish the minimum rights of the accused in criminal proceedings. Among these rights is the right of the accused to be present at the trial. However, the practice of interpreting this right by the relevant conventional international bodies and international criminal courts and tribunals imposes significant limitations. A number of such restrictions appear to be both reasonable and justified. However, in many cases the restrictions are arbitrary and their justification is legally flawed.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Universal and a number of regional international human rights treaties, in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 contain norms that are binding not only for states in their application of national law, but also establish general human rights standards in international law. Due to this circumstance, the provisions of such treaties bind any institutions operating directly in the system of international law, in particular, international criminal courts and tribunals. Thus, international criminal courts and tribunals are bound by the provisions of these treaties, not only in terms of their implementation, but also in terms of their interpretation. The practice of these courts demonstrates a very inconsistent application and not always convincing interpretation of the rights of the accused in general and the right to be tried in his presence. Currently, this practice is trying to change the previously formed trend towards increasingly severe restrictions on exceptions to the right of the accused to be tried in his presence.

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

I want to make three points in connection with David's lecture, looking at his subject from my own perspective, i.e., that of a judge in an international criminal tribunal. First, I want to consider the specific function of international criminal courts and tribunals as finders. Secondly, I will examine how international criminal courts fit into David's theoretical picture of top-down versus bottom-up judicial bodies. Thirdly, I wish to convey some of my concerns arising from the multiplication of proceedings (criminal and civil) arising from the same facts before different international courts and tribunals. International Criminal Courts as Truth Finders A new feature of the international legal order in the past few decades has undoubtedly been the reemergence of international criminal courts, with the ad hoc criminal tribunals of the United Nations (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)), the regional mixed international tribunals (Sierra Leone, Cambodia, East Timor), and the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The driving impulses behind the creation of these institutions may, as David mentioned in his lecture, differ from those behind the classical international courts and tribunals. One of the functions of international criminal law courts is that of providing a historical account and achieving reconciliation of post-conflict societies that have gone through a painful episode of mass atrocities. This is something which they share with another newcomer in the international legal order, and reconciliation commissions (TRCs), which in part originate from the same generating impulses. The latter may even be complementary to international criminal adjudication, as Tom suggested in his Holocaust memorial lecture, wondering whether the post-World War II criminal proceedings in Nuremberg should not have been complemented by a commission that could have examined the greater patterns of the historical behind the holocaust. (1) According to some, international criminal courts have, as far as finding process is concerned, little to add to the truth as it is revealed by journalists or historians, who base themselves on largely the same sources. I beg to disagree with that view. The finding process before criminal courts is of a different qualitative nature, because it is obtained through the specific rules of evidence that apply in criminal proceedings, above all the presumption of innocence and the prosecutorial burden of proof. What has been established by a criminal court following a correct procedure can therefore be said to be more credible in terms of its truthfulness than the produced by journalism or history writing. For example, for those who would wish to deny the Srebrenica massacre, it may have been easier to do so when only journalistic and historical accounts of the 1995 event were available than it is today after the judgments of the ICTY in which two panels of judges (first the Trial Chamber and thereafter the Appeals Chamber) found the facts to be established. This function of finding, and the contribution to history writing that results from this, may be one of the core missions for international criminal courts. In post conflict societies, different versions of the traumatic events often compete with each other. (2) It is extremely difficult for national courts in a post conflict society to make an unbiased assessment of these different versions, especially shortly after the events. This assessment is, however, a crucial factor in the process of transition. Without it, post conflict societies will have little more than annals of these traumatic events, produced by journalists and historians. (3) Through the process of judicial fact finding, international criminal courts help to sort out competing accounts of traumatic events in a conflict situation and to determine the account that will count as the official history that society. …

The integrity of international human rights treaties has, regrettably, been compromised and severely undermined by certain rogue governments worldwide through various methods and divergent interpretations. Although these governments are not parties to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, they selectively apply its principles when it serves their interests. This conduct encourages other states to adopt similar practices, frequently disregarding numerous international treaties and human rights obligations for economic, political, and geopolitical advantages. Such behaviour constitutes selective exploitation, enforcement, and intimidation that weakness the major integrity of the corpus of international human rights treaties. This body encompasses international law, international criminal law, international criminal justice, international humanitarian law related to armed conflicts, and international human rights law - all essential components of its framework, which is inherently interconnected with the corpus of such treaties. Nevertheless, many states violently control these treaty provisions to evade legal or criminal accountability before international criminal courts. The selective application of these values is so detrimental that successive administrations exploit the tenets of criminal justice and human rights indiscriminately. Ultimately, these movements result in threats of force, military intervention, or hostile conduct directed towards the targeted governments. The situation suggests that the impact of international human rights treaties has been diminished to mere rhetoric, concealed within the display of hasbara justice. This is also confirmed in the reports of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry.

This study analyses US state court behaviours in citing international human rights treaties to advance human social rights. Employing case analysis and logistic regression, we find that US state court citation practices to human rights treaties provide support for human social rights depending upon the type of human rights treaty cited; whether the case opinion is a published decision; and, whether the judicial opinion is a criminal or civil case. These judicial citation practices provide US state judges with the institutional capacity to advance universal human social rights. Theoretical and empirical implications are presented in the concluding section.

This collection of essays by sixteen outstanding authorities in the relevant fields assesses The International Criminal Court from the perspective of the year 1998 when it was first established by the Rome Statute. The book's detailed analysis of the potential uses (and misuses) of the Statute—its lacunae and shortcomings as well as its signal advances in jurisdiction and accountability—make International Crimes, Peace and Human Rights a significant reference and guide, not only to the Rome Statute, but also to the Court's jurisprudence as it develops in the coming years and decades. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

The presented paper discusses the influence of international human rights law on international criminal law. It tries to give an answer to the question of whether rules protecting the accused in international criminal proceedings meet the human rights law standard provided by international declarations and covenants. Meaning, if the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) meet the standard provided by international human rights law, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The paper proves that international human rights law has affected international criminal law tremendously. Moreover, it is argued that the protection of the accused in the law of the international courts and tribunals with regard to his rights has improved when compared to the international human rights law standard. In particular the Rome Statute of the ICC provides the accused with the most comprehensive protection. This is especially visible in the case of such rights as the presumption of innocence, right to an interpreter and right to remain silent. Nevertheless, some shortcomings in the law of the ad hoc tribunals and ICC can be observed, in particular when it comes to identifying the commencement of protection of the accused.

The Nigerian legal system is diverse in that it recognizes several established legal systems that regulate how Nigerians conduct themselves. These legal frameworks include the civil law that was passed down from the British during and after colonization, pre-colonial customary laws and cultural practices, and religious laws (Christian and Islamic laws). Different kinds of norms and laws have subjected Nigerian women to violations of their rights depending on the woman’s cultural or religious affiliation. Such cultural and/or religious practices are usually in opposition to civil law and the Nigerian constitution, which is a custodian of these rights. Moreover, despite the supremacy of the constitution and expected compliance with international human rights treaties that Nigeria has ratified, the fact is that today there are impediments to the effective protection of women’s rights in Nigeria. For instance, although the Nigerian constitution outlaw’s discrimination on the grounds of gender, customary and religious laws continue to restrict the effective implementation of women’s rights, making it extremely difficult to harmonize domestic legislation with international human rights conventions, and also remove discriminatory measures. This article, thus, examines the issues of gender inequality as the basis for agitation for women’s empowerment and women’s rights while also proposing a re-alignment of domestic legislation in compliance with international human rights conventions and treaties, in order to combat cultural and religious norms that flout human rights considerations for Nigerian women. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to highlight the challenges that may arise when these legal systems clash, and how that affects the protection of women’s rights, particularly in view of international human rights treaties which Nigeria has signed and ratified. The article will therefore propose that women’s rights should be protected by seeking to eradicate cultural and religious practices that are discriminatory. This can be achieved by adopting laws which can be interpreted by domestic courts in line with constitutional requirements protecting the rights of women. It is noteworthy that the Nigerian judiciary has declared certain customs and traditions contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience. Some of the case laws and judicial pronouncements will also be examined in this paper to enable implementation for the protection of women’s rights. The methodology adopted is desk-top legal research where judgments of courts and legislative enactments will form the basis of the findings of this paper.

The author traces the evolution of the concept of guilty pleas in international criminal law as developed by the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. These international tribunals, alongside their sister hybrid criminal courts, not only irreversibly changed the landscape of international law but played a pioneering role in establishing a credible international criminal justice system, by producing the main body of jurisprudence on guilty pleas in the context of wide-spread international crimes. As a foundation member of the Office of The Prosecutor, in one of two ad hoc international criminal tribunals established since the end of the Second World War, the author was not only privy to many of the challenges encountered by international prosecutors but was also uniquely placed to discuss the plea-bargaining processes adopted by these international criminal courts. Having led the negotiations in three of nine guilty pleas obtained by prosecutors at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the author examines the development and practice of guilty plea negotiations in the context of large-scale international crimes. Well apart from the cost, duration, scale and complexity of prosecuting international crimes, the author concludes that the divergence in legal cultures of various actors in the transitional justice system contributed to the complexity of negotiating guilty pleas before international criminal courts. Nevertheless, the surrounding political circumstances made it imperative for various stakeholders operating therein to embrace the concept of guilty plea negotiations to avoid lengthy and expensive international trials.

INTRODUCTION. The year of 2018 marks with a global celebration of 70th anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the landmark international document which represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings which is solemnly proclaimed by the UN member states. The most debatable and ambiguous issue is the determination of the legal status of this essential document. Given the fact that the Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in a form of the resolution, it has a recommendatory character. However, the Declaration which adopted as “standard to which all nations and states should strive to achieve” has undergone a certain legal transformation related to the constant development and refinement in the process of concluding a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties that affected both domestic and international law. In this regard, the statements on the necessity of recognition of the certain provisions of the Declaration as norms of the international customary law are timely and fully justified. The article analyzes national judicial practice of sovereign states and the International Court of Justice in order to identify the possibility of such recognition. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on a considerable amount of materials, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, working materials of the UN Commission on Human Rights, statements made during General Assembly meeting (documented as verbatim records) on adoption of the Declaration, decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, as well as the doctrinal positions of different authors. The methodological basis of the research comprises the general scientific methods (the dialectical, historical, statistical methods, methods of generalization and system analysis) and special methods of cognition (comparative legal and formal legal methods, methods of interpretation of legal norms). RESEARCH RESULTS. In the basis of the study of the international legal acts and international judicial practice, national legislation and judicial practice of concrete states, as well as doctrinal positions of scientists, the author makes conclusions on the legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the article the author gives a historical reference on the diplomatic contestation in the period of the adoption of the Declaration which subsequently affected the final text of the document. Taking into account the moral significance, as well as weighty contribution of the Declaration to the adoption of international and regional human rights treaties, national legislation and judicial practice, the author comes to the conclusion that the certain provisions of the Declaration should be recognized as norms of the international customary law. The author also concludes that in modern conditions, when a number of states are still not a party to the main international human rights treaties, the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should act for them as binding norms of international customary law that are formed as a result of international practice of states and are gradually recognized by them as a legal norm. This conclusion is also formed on the basis of the practice of the International Court of Justice, the decisions and advisory opinions of which are analyzed by the author in this article.

In a federal state structure, internal competence over some issues –regulated by international human rights treaties– is shared between ‘central’ and subnational governments. However, the federation (as a nation state) enjoys international legal personality, and it enters into international human rights treaties as a party to those treaties. Engaging subnational governments in the process of treaty making and its implementation is often considered as one of the mechanisms towards addressing gaps in implementation. This article examines the extent to which the engagement of regional states (in the making and implementation of international human rights) is regulated in the Ethiopian federal system. It relies on the relevant laws, literature, insights from other federal countries and some interviews. Even though the FDRE Constitution did not leave a space for regional states to engage in international human rights treaties, recent laws (on treaty making, intergovernmental relation and investment) embody legal and institutional frameworks which can enhance the implementation of international human rights treaties. However, some of the laws have gaps in implementation, while others are yet to be implemented. Moreover, the laws limit the scope of engagement only to ratified international human rights treaties. Extending the scope of engagement to domains such as soft human rights instruments adopted by Ethiopia and the Universal Periodic Review reports can make it more holistic. This requires a broader scope of engagement with due regard to the principles of intergovernmental relations and federalism.

Extracurricular International Criminal Law

The chapter argues that international human rights treaties contain obligations with implications for the practice of recognition/non-recognition by states of other states and governments. It begins by explaining how international human rights treaty obligations relate to extraterritorial situations and how this might apply to the practice of recognition/non-recognition. It then explains how recognition/non-recognition practice is understood in international law. Following this, the chapter addresses what human rights treaty standards would require of recognition/non-recognition. Finally, consideration is given to the potential divergence in the human rights obligations of the recognizing/non-recognizing state, and the obligations of the object of that recognition/non-recognition.

International criminal tribunals and courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), are commonly understood within the legal transitional justice scholarship as the primary response to mass human rights violations. Tribunals and courts are expected to address the issue of impunity, but also uncover the truth of what happened and why. The legal scholarship often understands the ICTR as able to produce a collective legal memory of the atrocities through the memories of witnesses. Using the ICTR as a case study, the aim of this conceptually led article is to respond to these discussions by exploring the potential role ICTR archival material can have in extending our understanding of the construction of memory at international criminal courts and tribunals. The article uses insights from discourse studies, specifically based on the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault. It applies these insights to an exploratory analysis of legal documents relating to the selection of witnesses from the ICTR archive and interview transcripts with ICTR personnel from the archive of the University of Washington (UoW). This exploration suggests that the pre-trial stage shape, edit and restrict in significant ways, determining which individuals can be witnesses and what these witnesses can remember.