Victim Participation In Proceedings Research Articles

Building Victim-Led Coalitions to Press for Justice Following Mass Atrocity

Assurances of victim participation in proceedings before the International Criminal Court and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia have been seen as a welcome corrective to the flawed model of earlier tribunals. The first such tribunal created since the postwar period, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), was established by the UN Security Council in May 1993 without even consulting those who survived the atrocities that gave rise to its creation, the majority of which took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Nor were victims formally incorporated into the ICTY's work except for those who provided testimony and other evidence. (The same holds true for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established by the UN Security Council in 1994; in the interests of brevity, my remarks will focus on the ICTY.)

Legal Representation of Victims before the icc: Developments, Challenges, and Perspectives

Different models of participation and legal representation of victims have been explored to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the participation of victims in proceedings before the International Criminal Court (icc). This contribution shows that when deciding on a model of legal representation of victims to be put in place, the major issue should be not about who should be appointed the legal representative of victims – counsel with the Office of Public Counsel for Victims or external counsel – but first and foremost about the rights, interests and needs of the victims.

Victims' right to a fair trial at the International Criminal Court: reflections on Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute

Before the existence of the International Criminal Court, other international criminal tribunals did not provide victims with significant rights of participation and were mainly concerned with bringing criminals to justice. The main provision on victim participation at the International Criminal Court is Article 68(3) of Rome Statute with the Regulations of the Court and Rules of Evidence and Procedure put in place to bring it into life. The adoption of provisions recognising participatory rights has caused much dissension amongst jurists. The arguments regarding to victims participation in proceedings are numerous. Many argue that the recognition of participatory rights represents a great victory in international criminal justice. Others fear that victim participation in proceedings may conflict with the accused's right to a fair trial. This paper seeks to dissect the right of victims' participation at the ICC as weighed against the rights of the accused and the concept of fair trial.

Victims' right to a fair trial at the International Criminal Court: reflections on Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute

Before the existence of the International Criminal Court, other international criminal tribunals did not provide victims with significant rights of participation and were mainly concerned with bringing criminals to justice. The main provision on victim participation at the International Criminal Court is Article 68(3) of Rome Statute with the Regulations of the Court and Rules of Evidence and Procedure put in place to bring it into life. The adoption of provisions recognising participatory rights has caused much dissension amongst jurists. The arguments regarding to victims participation in proceedings are numerous. Many argue that the recognition of participatory rights represents a great victory in international criminal justice. Others fear that victim participation in proceedings may conflict with the accused's right to a fair trial. This paper seeks to dissect the right of victims' participation at the ICC as weighed against the rights of the accused and the concept of fair trial.

Participation of Crime Victims in Proceedings of the Court

Participation of Crime Victims in Proceedings of the Court

Some Innovations in the Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

The Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon contains several remarkable innovations. One major novelty is its mandate. While its subject matter jurisdiction includes terrorism, this is defined solely on the basis of Lebanese law. It does not cover any international crime, but exclusively offences defined under the Lebanese Penal Code. Unusually for a court of international character, its activities could be limited to a single case: the attack of 14 February 2005 which killed Rafiq Hariri and 22 others; the Special Tribunal will try other cases only if they are found to be connected to this attack. As its jurisdiction mirrors the mandate of the UN International Independent Investigation Commission, the Statute of the Special Tribunal contains original provisions regulating its relationship with this body, as well as with the Lebanese judicial authorities, which enjoy concurrent competence. Other important innovations concern the applicable procedural law, which includes provisions concerning a pre-trial judge, the role of the judges in conducting the hearings, the participation of victims in proceedings, and the possibility of holding trials in absentia. These latter aspects are all characteristic of Romano Germanic criminal systems, and reflect the intention of the drafters to draw up a more efficient international criminal procedure.

Victim Participation in Proceedings and Sentencing in Europe

The article reviews the different ways in which victims can influence the course and outcome of criminal proceedings in different European criminal justice systems. The range is from some jurisdictions (such as Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal) where the victim can appear only in the capacity as witness, to others (such as Finland) where there is a general right to prosecute. Even in the systems providing victims with the greatest opportunity for participation, the victim in practice generally leaves prosecution to the public prosecutor. The article concludes by arguing that no one system is ideal from the point of view of the victim.

Victim participation in proceedings and satisfaction with justice in the continental systems: The case of Poland

Victims in the European criminal justice systems have rights of input into and participation in proceedings. Some scholars have recommended that adversary legal systems, such as the U.S. legal system, learn from the Europeans how to listen to victims. This study examined the forms and extent of victim participation in proceedings (as private prosecutors, subsidiary prosecutors, or civil plaintiffs), and it assessed the effect of participation on victim satisfaction with justice in one European system (Poland). Based on a national sample of Polish victims, the study identified the correlates of victim participation and suggested that victim participation in proceedings is associated with victim satisfaction with the sentence and with the criminal justice system in general. The implications of the findings for adversary legal systems are discussed.