Analysing the first case of the International Criminal Court from a network-science perspective

The case against Jean-Pierre Bemba, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu, and Narcisse Arido is the first case before the International Criminal Court (ICC) dealing with offenses against administration of justice. The case is exceptional in terms of scope and size in comparison to other international prosecutions dealing with this kind of offense. The charges concern a systematic scheme aimed at producing false testimony of a large number of witnesses. Five people, including members of a defense team in another case before the ICC, carried out this operation over a period of many years. The case also involves several interesting evidentiary and procedural issues, including the overall regime for admission of evidence before the ICC.

Download Full-text

IMPORTANCE OF THE BEMBA CASE FOR THE INSTITUTE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMANDERS AND OTHER SUPERIORS FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THEIR SUBORDINATES

Constitutional State ◽

10.18524/2411-2054.2021.41.225616 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 109-114

Author(s):

B. I. Nedilko

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Rome Statute ◽

International Criminal ◽

Personal Responsibility ◽

Trial Chamber ◽

Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

First Case

This article is devoted to the analysis of the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case of the International Criminal Court. He was a Congolese politician, as well as the founder and the head of non-governmental armed group, named “Movement for the Liberation of Congo”, which members committed number of crimes during armed conflict in Central African Republic. The importance of this case lies in the fact, that it was the first case of the International Criminal Court, where the accused was charged with crimes, committed by his subordinates, and not by the accused himself. This article reveals the main contradictions between the judgments of the Trial Chamber, which found Bemba guilty, and the Appeals Chamber, which acquitted him. The legal basics of the institute of personal responsibility of commanders and other superiors in international criminal law, which were formed in the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Bemba case, are highlighted therein. The author addresses and analyzes the grounds for recognizing commanders and other superiors guilty for committing crimes by their subordinates. It was discovered, that Article 28 of the Rome Statute requires the commanders to take only necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by their subordinates, not all possible measures at the relevant time. The Trial Chamber should specify what exactly the accused had to do to prevent or punish the crimes, as well as inform the accused of it prior to the hearing. It is also necessary to take into account objective circumstances, that could prevent the commander from adequately responding to the commission of crimes by his subordinates, especially if they operated in the territory of another state. The commander's ability to take the necessary or reasonable measures to prevent or punish the crimes, committed by his subordinates, should be analyzed in relation to each individual crime he is charged with, and not in relation to all the actions of subordinates as a whole. At last, the Appeals Chamber provided an exhaustive list of criteria for determining whether the measures, taken by the commander, were sufficient.

Download Full-text

Investigative Delegations: Predictable Predicaments

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/aju.2019.44 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 113 ◽

pp. 267-272

Author(s):

Nancy Amoury Combs

Keyword(s):

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

Fair Trial ◽

Trial Chamber ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Trial Process ◽

First Case

When a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) dismissed the court's very first case before trial, it made headlines worldwide. The Trial Chamber dismissed the case because the prosecutor repeatedly failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. He did so because he had obtained the evidence from the UN and NGOs pursuant to confidentiality agreements that prevented disclosure without permission, which the UN and NGOs had not granted. The prosecutor, stuck between two competing obligations—the disclosure obligation that he owed the accused and the confidentiality obligation that he owed the UN—adhered to the latter, a decision that the Trial Chamber deemed to “rupture” the trial process to such a degree that a fair trial was impossible.

Download Full-text

Discussion Interrupted: The Destruction and Protection of Cultural Property under International Law and Islamic Law - the Case of Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi

International Criminal Law Review ◽

10.1163/15718123-01731383 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 486-516 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Mohamed Elewa Badar ◽

Noelle Higgins

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal Court ◽

International Criminal ◽

Islamic Law ◽

International Criminal Tribunal ◽

Legal Framework ◽

Criminal Court ◽

Case Note ◽

Cultural Property ◽

First Case

Al Mahdi was the first case before the International Criminal Court (icc), which focused on the destruction of cultural property, and indeed, the first case before an international criminal tribunal which had the destruction of cultural property as the sole charge against a jihadist. This case note first addresses the international legal framework on the protection of cultural property in Section 2. Section 3 then assesses the concept of hisbah and its operation, including the reasons why the Hisbah in Mali destroyed cultural property. The next section considers the facts of the Al Mahdi case. Section 5 highlights the shortfalls in the Trial Chamber’s consideration of the rationales for the protection and destruction of cultural property, before the note concludes in Section 6.

Download Full-text