Abstract
Abstract On 8 June 2018, more than 10 years after his arrest, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reversed Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo’s conviction by the Trial Chamber for crimes against humanity and war crimes, acquitting him of all charges. Soon after the start of his time in detention in The Hague, assets belonging to Bemba were frozen by states across a number of jurisdictions at the request of the ICC. Many of these assets remain frozen, more than 18 months after his acquittal. This article examines the consequences of prolonged asset freezes by the ICC through the lens of the Bemba case, demonstrating the existence of gaps in the legal framework applicable to the management of frozen assets under the ICC Statute system and suggesting possible responses thereto at the domestic and international levels.
Highlights
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is empowered by its constituent instrument to request its states parties to identify, trace, freeze and seize the property and assets of accused persons, ‘[w]here a warrant of arrest or a summons has been issued’.1 More precisely, Article 57(3)(e) ICC Statute authorizes pre-trialJournal of International Criminal Justice 18 (2020), 765–790 doi:10.1093/jicj/mqaa[024] ß The Author(s) (2020)
The assets frozen by states pursuant to requests issued by the ICC under Article 57(3)(e) ICC Statute can be put to a number of uses during the course of proceedings and in the event of a conviction
On 20 June 2019, Mr Bemba filed his reply to the responses submitted by the Prosecutor and the Registry to his claim for compensation,[100] in which he reiterates that his claim does satisfy Article 85(3) ICC Statute,[101] that he is entitled to a resolution of his private law claim[102] and that the Registry mischaracterizes, inter alia, the value of his frozen assets and his ability to manage them.[103]
Summary
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is empowered by its constituent instrument to request its states parties to identify, trace, freeze and seize the property and assets of accused persons, ‘[w]here a warrant of arrest or a summons has been issued’.1 More precisely, Article 57(3)(e) ICC Statute authorizes pre-trial. The assets frozen by states pursuant to requests issued by the ICC under Article 57(3)(e) ICC Statute can be put to a number of uses during the course of proceedings and in the event of a conviction. Frozen assets can lose value, thwarting the purposes behind the application of protective measures under Article 57(3)(e) ICC Statute This potential decrease in value is arguably a greater threat in the ICC Statute system than at the national level, where many state authorities possess similar powers to the ICC with respect to asset freezing.[13] This is because criminal proceedings on the international plane generally take. 15 ICC, ‘Financial Investigations and Recovery of Assets’, November 2017, available online at https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/other/Freezing_Assets_Eng_Web.pdf (visited 1 June 2020), at 13
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
