International Criminal Procedure

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Carter ◽  
Fausto Pocar
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure

The Law of International Criminal Procedure and Domestic War Crimes Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Göran Sluiter
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis article deals with the question of possible effect of the law of international criminal procedure for domestic war crimes trials. With the increasing number of national prosecutions for war crimes this question will gain in relevance.The article starts with an exploration of the origin and development of the law of international criminal procedure, to reach the conclusion that because of the lack of a strong foundation it is difficult to discern firmly established rules in this field. Next, two areas are examined where the law of international criminal procedure is capable of producing effect for national trials: human rights and rules that have developed in the specific context of war crimes prosecutions.Whether rules of international criminal procedure are formally effective in the domestic legal order remains to be seen. There is no clear obligation under international law to do so. Furthermore, the law of international criminal procedure may be difficult to harmonise with domestic inquisitorial systems.In spite of these difficulties, the article concludes that national courts will increasingly face similar procedural problems in complex war crimes trials as international criminal tribunals and will be happy to learn from their experiences.

scholarly journals NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND COURTS’ JURISPRUDENCE

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
International Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.

Perspectives on Adversarial and Inquisitorial Criminal Procedure

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-53
Author(s):  
Jacqueline S. Hodgson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
Procedural Values ◽  
Organizing Principles ◽  
Core Features ◽  
The Eu

Analyzing the evolving nature of core features of adversarial and inquisitorial processes in an applied and dynamic way, this chapter examines the two traditions through a variety of lenses and contexts. Beginning with the organizing principles of both traditions, it examines how jurisdictions have adapted their procedures with the common ambition of avoiding a contested trial. Adopting an external standpoint, it then analyzes the adversarial tradition’s association with individual rights, fairness, and transparency, and its resulting appeal to systems seeking to move away from a more state-dominated process. It then examines the ways that different procedural values play out within the context of international criminal justice, concluding with an analysis of contemporary pan-European influences on criminal procedure and the challenges in developing common criminal justice values and standards of fair trial through the ECtHR and the EU that often run counter to domestic trends.

Tempered Adversariality: The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER CARMICHAEL KEEN
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Judicial Role

International criminal procedure (ICP) has fluctuated uncertainly between common- and civil-law procedural principles. Consensus on the principles underlying ICP is needed to ensure consistent standards of justice. The article begins by comparing criminal procedure in common- and civil-law systems, and describes the theories underlying the trial and judicial role in these systems. It then compares ICP to civil- and common-law criminal procedure. This comparison establishes the scope of judicial powers that can be exercised by international criminal judges. These powers differ from those exercised by both common- and civil-law judges. The article concludes by arguing that ICP is based on a new theory of the trial: the theory of ‘tempered adversariality’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document