Verificarea soluției de clasare și a dispozițiilor complementare de către judecătorul de cameră preliminară

The Pre-Trial Chamber plays an important role during the investigation stage and its role appears in the stage of considering the challenge to jurisdiction or admissibility. In the same context, the Statute stipulates that the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber may be appealed and indicates that there are decisions issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber that require its permission to be appealed, and other decisions that do not need to be appealed. Her permission.The research problem is manifested through the presence of the control of the Public Prosecution; which previously enjoyed absolute powers during the investigation, but after the existence of the basic system, which approved the existence of the Judicial Oversight Authority represented by the Preliminary Chamber, the system granted it the authority to cancel any decision that appears to be contrary to the law, and this problem raises several questions, the most important of which is whether all the decisions of the Public Prosecutor are subject to cancellation, whether the Public Prosecutor is bound by the decisions of the Preliminary Chamber, and whether all the decisions of the Chamber are subject to appeal. This is what we are trying to answer in this research. In this study, we adopted the legal analytical approach by analyzing the legal texts related to appeal and shedding light on them. The research ended with results and recommendations.

The creation of the Pre-Trial Chamber by the Rome Statute has been hailed as an innovation in international criminal procedure. The Pre-Trial Chamber may also seek cooperation of States to take protective measures for the purpose of forfeiture at a later stage for the benefit of the victims and it may be asked to authorise the Prosecutor to take specific investigative steps directly within the territory of a State Party without having secured its cooperation. The procedural system as laid down by the Rome Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not align itself with any single existing domestic or international system of criminal procedure. The Appeals Chamber held that the Prosecutor has the right to continue investigating after the confirmation of charges, even with regard to the facts contained in the confirmed charges. Keywords: Appeals Chamber; International Criminal Court (ICC); Pre-Trial Chamber; Rome Statute; State Party

The length of proceedings before the ICC has been an issue of concern. ICC proceedings at pre-trial and trial have been slow and can be improved. Based on a study of existing cases (e.g. Lubanga, Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui), this chapter highlights some areas that deserve closer review, in particular, consistency and coordination between the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers, both of which are engaged in trial preparations. The chapter shows that the current combination of the two procedural stages is dysfunctional, and argues that the centre of gravity in criminal proceedings should be the first-instance trial, while the confirmation hearing should be seen as a supplementary process. The space of the Pre-Trial Chamber to prepare trial by resolving issues of disclosure, redactions, or admissibility of evidence is rather limited.

The right of appeal is now generally acknowledged as a fundamental human right in criminal proceedings, at least as far as the convicted persons appeal against the conviction or sentence is concerned. Moreover, a right of appeal that is afforded to both the accused and the prosecutor exists in many domestic systems as well as in the international criminal courts (ICC) and tribunals. By prohibiting interlocutory appeals one will avoid the delays normally caused by appeal proceedings. Indeed, some would argue that interlocutory appeals are generally disfavoured and that the scope should be restricted to an absolute minimum, perhaps only to challenges to the courts jurisdiction, construed in a narrow sense. The statutory regime means that the Pre-Trial Chamber, or Trial Chamber, is designated as the gatekeeper to the Appeals Chamber concerning all decisions with respect to which leave to appeal is required. Keywords: Appeals Chamber; interlocutory appeals; international criminal courts (ICC); Pre-Trial Chamber

The entrance into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code – namely of the Law No 135/2010 – on the 1st of February 2014, has brought in a series of modifications regarding the so-called “phases of the criminal trial”. This is why, explicitly for the Romanian procedural legislation, was inserted by the legislator, before the trial itself, a pre-trial phase – hearing in the pre-trial chamber. The details of this hearing shall be analyzed below.

The International Criminal Court (ICC)s pre-trial proceedings necessarily implicate the principles of fairness and expeditiousness. These principles are of particular relevance to the disclosure of evidence and the hearing on the confirmation of charges. The proceedings of the Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) are the forum in which the Prosecutor prepares his case for testing by the Pre-Trial Chamber. This stage never results in a decision of guilt or innocence. The individuals right to be present at the proceedings adjudicating his/her case is a fundamental principle of criminal justice and ought to inform criminal procedure. The right to be present is not, however, absolute. Where fair trial standards are employed by the defendant to disrupt proceedings, the trial in absentia is an acceptable alternative to the usual procedure. Keywords: confirmation charges; disclosure proceedings; expeditiousness; fairness; International Criminal Court (ICC); Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC); trial in absentia

Subject of study. The published article is determined for studying such a question as establishing criminal liability in Ukraine for criminal attacks on the health of judges and officials of the International Criminal Court in connection with their administration of justice. The issue of further implementation by Ukraine of part of its obligations regarding cooperation with the International Criminal Court is also studied. Methodology. In this study, the author used the logical method, the method of semantic analysis, as well as the comparative law method. The purpose. The purpose of this article is to assess the appropriateness of defining the infliction of beatings or bodily harm of all degrees of severity to judges and officials of the International Criminal Court in connection with their administration of justice as crimes, as provided for in parts 2, 3 of Article 377 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in order to determine whether such a definition will contribute to the fulfillment by Ukraine of its part of its obligations as a member state of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute. The author examines the current state of cooperation between Ukraine and the International Criminal Court, the history of cooperation between Ukraine and the International Criminal Court, and Ukraine's previous requests for an investigation to the International Criminal Court. The author examines the latest Ukrainian laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with the aim of implementing the provisions of the Rome Statute into national legislation. The author concluded that the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of Ukraine in Connection with the Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Amendments Thereto” dated 09.10.2024 No. 4012-IX specifies the procedure for fulfilling Ukraine's obligations in its cooperation with the ICC during the conduct of criminal proceedings by the ICC on the territory of Ukraine. The author established that this law pre-establishes criminal punishment for persons in Ukraine for criminal attacks on the health of judges and officials of the International Criminal Court in connection with their administration of justice. Since the International Criminal Court is an international judicial body, its general requirement for States Parties to the Rome Statute is the mandatory execution of the judgments of the International Criminal Court. The author has established that paragraph "g" of part six of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of Ukraine in Connection with the Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Amendments Thereto" dated 09.10.2024 No. 4012-IX establishes criminal liability under parts 2, 3 of Article 377 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for inflicting beatings or bodily injuries of all degrees of severity to judges and officials of the International Criminal Court in connection with their administration of justice. This study examined and analyzed judges and officials of all bodies of the International Criminal Court, including the Presidium, Pre-Trial Chambers, Trial Chambers, Appeals Chambers, the Prosecutor's Office and the Secretariat. The author considers the possibilities of administering justice by judges and officials of all bodies of the International Criminal Court during their stay in Ukraine. Сonclusion of the study. The author concluded that 1) the International Criminal Court may hold court sessions in Ukraine; 2) the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court may conduct his investigation directly in Ukraine; 3) the Registrar of the International Criminal Court may perform his official duties in Ukraine if the court session of the International Criminal Court is held in Ukraine; 4) From the above, it follows that the establishment of criminal-legal health protection for judges and officials of the International Criminal Court by parts 2 and 3 of Article 377 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contributes to the fulfillment by Ukraine of part of its obligations regarding cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Practical implications. This proposal can be used in cooperation between Ukrainian courts and law enforcement agencies with the International Criminal Court. Value / originality. This study is an original, first-in-history study of the criminal-legal protection by the Criminal Code of Ukraine of the procedure for the execution in Ukraine of court decisions of judges and officials of the International Criminal Court.

Preliminary examinations are an important part of the criminal procedure of the International Criminal Court, as they allow for the determination of the situations that will be investigated and prosecuted. They are conducted discreetly by the Office of the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor may initiate preliminary examinations on her own initiative or on the basis of a referral from a State party or the United Nations Security Council. Preliminary examinations deal with a situation and lead, after the test of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of Justice, on a decision of the Prosecutor on whether or not to open an investigation. Depending on the type of referral and the nature of its decision, the Prosecutor will be compelled or not to seek the pre-trial Chamber's authorization before proceeding with the investigation. The Pre-Trial Chamber exercises two types of control over the Prosecutor's decision: absolute control when the Prosecutor decides to proceed to the investigative stage on her own initiative or refuses to investigate because the interests of justice would not be served, and flexible control when the Prosecutor decides not to investigate after a referral. The Office of the Prosecutor is faced with difficult choices and criticism in the way it conducts preliminary examinations, particularly in relation to their duration, their publicization, their role, their control and their treatment.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the limits within which the judge of the pre-trial chamber may order the restitution of the case to the prosecutor, starting from a concrete deed that was the subject of case file no. 5609/245/2018 / a1 pending before the Iaşi District Court and the Iaşi County. In this case, the Pre-Trial Chamber judge considered that the suspect was not given the necessary time to prepare his defense as he was heard as defendant on the same day when he was also heard as a suspect, although when he was heard as a suspect he requested a break for the preparation of the defense, the report on the termination of the criminal prosecution was drawn up on the same day when he was heard, and his request for a forensic examination in question was rejected by the prosecutor, without the court waiting for the submission of the objectives of the expertise. For these reasons, the pre-trial chamber judge considered that it is necessary to find the nullity of all criminal proceedings subsequent to the date and time when the suspect was heard, as he was deprived of the possibility to enforce his defense during the criminal proceedings, a procedural stage that has been completed.

Subject of study. The published article is determined for studying such a question as establishing criminal liability in Ukraine for failure to comply with the decisions of the International Criminal Court, its judges and officials, as well as the further fulfillment by Ukraine of its part of its obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Methodology. In this study, the author used the logical method, the method of semantic analysis, as well as the comparative law method. The purpose. The purpose of this article is to assess the feasibility of defining non-compliance with an ICC decision in Ukraine as a crime, as provided for in Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in order to determine whether such a definition will contribute to Ukraine fulfilling its part of its obligations as a member state of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute. The author examines the current state of cooperation between Ukraine and the International Criminal Court, the history of cooperation between Ukraine and the International Criminal Court, and Ukraine's previous requests for an investigation to the International Criminal Court. The author examines the latest Ukrainian laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with the aim of implementing the provisions of the Rome Statute into national legislation. The author concluded that the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of Ukraine in Connection with the Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Amendments Thereto” dated 09.10.2024 No. 4012-IX specifies the procedure for fulfilling Ukraine's obligations in its cooperation with the ICC during the conduct of criminal proceedings by the ICC on the territory of Ukraine. The author found that this law pre-establishes criminal punishment for individuals in Ukraine for their failure to comply with the lawful requirements of the International Criminal Court. Since the International Criminal Court is an international judicial body, its general requirement for States Parties to the Rome Statute is the mandatory execution of the judgments of the International Criminal Court. The author established that paragraph "g" of Part 6 of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of Ukraine in Connection with the Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Amendments Thereto" dated 09.10.2024 No. 4012-IX establishes criminal liability under Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for failure to comply with court decisions of the International Criminal Court, its judges and officials. This study examined and analyzed the types of judicial decisions of judges and officials of all organs of the International Criminal Court, including the Presidency, Pre-Trial Chambers, Trial Chambers, Appeals Chambers, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Secretariat. The author considered the possibilities of executing certain types of court decisions of judges and officials of all bodies of the International Criminal Court in Ukraine. Сonclusion of the study. The author concluded that 1) decisions made by the President and/or the Secretary of the International Criminal Court are not subject to criminal law protection under Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 2) failure to execute in Ukraine the decision of the Presidium of the ICC on the designation of the State of execution of a sentence for a convicted person is qualified under Part 2 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; 3) failure to execute in Ukraine arrest warrants, summonses, and sentences for a convicted person is qualified under Part 2 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Practical implications. This proposal can be used in cooperation between Ukrainian courts and law enforcement agencies with the International Criminal Court. Value / originality. This study is an original, first-in-history study of the criminal-legal protection by the Criminal Code of Ukraine of the procedure for the execution in Ukraine of court decisions of judges and officials of the International Criminal Court.

This article examines the recent developments in the prosecution of international crimes committed in the Palestinian Territory, focusing mainly on the role of the International Criminal Court. The author analyses the Palestinian accession to the Rome Statute and the declarations issued pursuant to Art. 12(3) in order to verify whether it is possible to bring justice to Palestine through the prosecution of atrocities committed by both parties. The article pays great attention to the most recent events, such as the Prosecutor’s report on the Mavi Marmara incident and the subsequent decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber. Issues related to the Palestinian statehood are taken in account in relation to the interplay between international criminal justice and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Pre-trial Chamber was introduced in criminal proceedings as a new concept aimed at eliminating the excessive length of proceedings in the trial stage, and, at the same time, as a procedural remedy designed to meet the requirements of legality, celerity and fairness of criminal proceedings. The rules governing it have been repeatedly challenged by way of exceptions of unconstitutionality, some of the exceptions being allowed, with the consequent amendment of the legal reference texts. This study approaches the case-law of the Constitutional Court by which the constitutionalisation of this stage of the criminal proceedings was achieved, with the consequence of significant changes, inviting reflection on the new configuration of the Pre-trial Chamber, from the perspective of regulatory intent.

Bringing criminals to justice before any court requires a complex body of procedural law. In addition to the procedures needed for conducting the trial as such, the Rome Statute contains procedures for raising, considering and determining the admissibility of cases as well as procedures for their final selection. The complementarity principle can only function as envisaged with detailed procedures in place. Collisions with national jurisdictions will force the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor into disputes with states which will raise questions very different from those normally associated with criminal proceedings. Sophisticated forms of interaction between states and the Court, unprecedented in the field of international criminal justice, and possibly in any other field of international law, are required. The Rome Statute's procedural regime must address, inter alia , how the Prosecutor may detect national failure to proceed genuinely; how information may flow between the Prosecutor and states; at what stage, how and by whom the admissibility may be challenged; and how and by whom admissibility disputes are to be settled. The complementarity procedures represent a compromise between the need to ensure the ICC's effectiveness and the need to preserve state sovereignty. This dichotomy is even more apparent here than in the substantive provisions. Addressing two inherently conflicting concerns has resulted in a set of rules that is not always equally comprehensive. Introduction As noted by Pre-trial Chamber I, the Rome Statute's admissibility test covers two aspects: first, a case is inadmissible if it has been genuinely investigated or prosecuted by a state with jurisdiction over it. Second, the case must be of sufficient gravity. This chapter primarily treats the first aspect, but most of the same proceedings apply also with regard to the second aspect. The discussion is based on a reading of the relevant provisions in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), in light of the ICC's first years of practice and relevant literature.

It has been observed that the judges of the International Criminal Court, in application of the norms of the Treaty of Rome, perform an extensive interpretation of their jurisdiction. Among its resolutions, the Decision issued by Pre-Trial Chamber I of February 5 2021 is no exception to this tendency. In this Resolution, by which authorizes to the Prosecutor's Office to investigate those perpetrators for the commission of international crimes when occurred in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they base its decision on an autonomous interpretation of the norms established in the Statute of the Court and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, on the consideration of the fact that Palestine is a State Party for the purposes of the Treaty of Rome. Given the relevance of its grounds, this work analyzes the content of said Decision, as well as the legal positions maintained by the judges who were part of the Chamber, since the exercise of jurisdiction was an essential element of the established punitive system, and from a perspective regulations of international criminal jurisdiction, which can only be consistent with the general norms of international law.

The article deals with the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings as a separate element of the Belarusian criminal procedural law, is determined by its nature, legal nature, importance, goals, objectives. Consideration of this issue in the future, will determine the possible directions of development of the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in the context of the evolution of the Belarusian criminal procedural law. The refusal to initiate criminal proceedings has the goals, objectives, regulated remedial order. The refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is a "filter". He avoids conducting the investigation if it is not needed. This is due to the end of the application or report a crime and the termination of criminal procedure relations. Therefore, the purpose of the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is to stop the body's activities, carry out checks on materials, if there is reason to. For immediate tasks refusal to initiate criminal proceedings include: the prevention of illegal and groundless institution of criminal proceedings; preventing unjustified suspicions, accusations and criminal prosecution of innocent persons; identification of the causes and conditions of committing crimes; the impact on the person who committed the crime without criminal prosecution. These objectives are not exhaustive and are derived directly from the overall objectives of the criminal proceedings under Art. 7 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the article the discussion the question of finding the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in the legal system. The refusal to open a criminal case has the features of a legal institution: the union of the law, certain social relations. For this reason, the author of the article concludes that the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is subinstitution law. This allows us to offer the author's failure wording of the criminal case, which is an independent subinstitution criminal procedural law, which on the basis of set of rules laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act, regulates the activity of the body of inquiry, the head of the investigative division of the investigator and prosecutor for the imposition of the same name resolution , due to the presence of circumstances precluding criminal proceedings during the audit by the statements and reports of crimes. The author proposed to introduce in Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the hours 22 marked with one of the following terms: "the refusal to institute criminal proceedings - Procedural decision of the inquiry body, the head of the investigative unit of the investigator or the prosecutor, issued as a result of consideration of applications and reports of crimes in the absence of. grounds under Art. 167 of this Code". In order to address the identified inconsistencies standards Code of Criminal Procedure, the author proposes a new version of h. 1 tbsp. 178 Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus: "If there were no grounds for criminal prosecution body of inquiry, the head of the investigative unit, the investigator, prosecutor shall make a reasoned decision on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings." In conclusion, the author concludes that the refusal to open a criminal case should be seen as a means of implementing the rights and freedoms of citizens. This will determine the possible directions of development of the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings.