Abstract
Suppose that procedural settings of national jurisdictions do not work for international criminal proceedings, that victims’ justice is delayed, and tribunals’ resources are drained on account of the burdensome defence. And suppose that accused may not need the same procedural rights and safeguards in international criminal proceedings as in national proceedings. Might it be time for a new and ‘better’ approach considering the unique demands of trying international crimes? From the defence perspective, these suppositions presume a preference for international criminal proceedings that yield quick, nimble, and cheap desired convictions – risking legitimacy essential to these judicial institutions. Might there be other institutional or systemic reasons – independent of whatever burdens caused by the defence – that warrant resolving? Might it be that the defence is sufficiently handicapped as is, militating against adopting procedural modalities that further erode a suspect’s or accused’s enjoyment of fair trial rights?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
