Tagged: international criminal tribunal

UN Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals

As mentioned in our earlier posts the ad hoc international criminal tribunals have been preparing to transition their responsibilities to the Mechanism after completing their mandate and marking 20 years of existence in 2014. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) closed on Dec. 31, 2015 and the Mechanism assumed it work as part of its mission to preserve and promote the legacy of the tribunal.

The Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (the MICT) 

was established by the United Nations Security Council on 22 December 2010 (S/RES/1966 (2010)) [acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter] to carry out a number of essential functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), after the completion of their respective mandates.

The SC Res. 1966 in its Annex I includes the Statute of the Residual Mechanism articulating the Machanism’s competence, functions, structure, and organization, the election of judges, rules of procedure and evidence, the role of the Prosecutor and Registry, investigation, trial, right of the accused, protection of victims and witnesses, judgments and penalties, appellate procedures, enforcement of sentencing, pardons, and management of the archives. The Mechanism has two branches; one covering the remaining functions of the ICTR and the other of the ICTY. According to the Mechanism’s website, it is tasked with “continuing the jurisdiction, rights and obligations and essential functions of the ICTR” and “maintaining the legacy of both institutions.”

The President of the ICTY, Theodor Meron in its address to the UN Security Council on June 7, 2012 stated:

By establishing the Mechanism, the Council has helped to guarantee that the closure of the two pioneering ad hoc tribunals does not open the way for impunity to reign once more.

The Mechanism commenced action on July 1, 2013 temporarily overlapping with the ICTR and ICTY as both tribunals complete their outstanding mandates. The Security Council expects the Mechanism to function until it is decided otherwise with periodic reviews of its progress every 2 years. The first progress report (S/2015/883) was compiled and submitted in November 2015 for the Security Council review in 2016. In paragraphs 52-59 of the status report, President Meron describes the purpose and function of the Archives and Records stating that the Mechanism has the responsibility to manage, maintain, preserve and provide access to archives of the Mechanism and the two tribunals, as required under art. 27 of the Mechanism’s statute.

It is the Mechanism’s website ensuring access to information and documents related to the tribunals as well as the documents related to the Mechanism’s work, including basic documents (statute, rules of procedure and evidence, regulations and policies, reports and publication and budget), as well as links to the ICTR and ICTY archives (including basic documents, cases, news, reports, etc.), and links to review reports submitted to the Security Council on the progress of the Mechanism, news, and documents related to cases handled by the Mechanism.

July 17, The Day of International Criminal Justice, Commemorates the Adoption of the Rome Statute

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

July 17 is designated as the Day of International Criminal Justice because on July 17, 1998, the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome.

In a press release on July 10, 2014, the ICC stated that the State Parties to the Rome Statute “decided to commemorate [July 17 as a] unique date, recognising the efforts of the international community to strengthen the emerging system of international criminal justice and to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.”

The Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002, upon ratification of 60 countries. At this time, some 120 countries have become parties to the Statute. The Court currently has before it eight situations (all involving countries on the African continent), and the ICC Prosecutor has brought 21 cases relating to those situations. The Prosecutor is conducting preliminary investigations relating to matters in several other countries, including Ukraine.

The ICC Prosecutor has succeeded in convicting two defendants relating to the Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One of these convictions (against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo) is still on appeal. As noted in a previous post, the other conviction (against Germain Katanga) became final when appeals were terminated on June 25, 2014.

The ICC Prosecutor Responds to Demands for Higher Evidentiary Standards

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On June 25, 2014, the Office of the ICC Prosecutor formally established a Scientific Advisory Board to assist the Office in its investigatory and prosecutorial work. The Board will consist of sixteen forensic experts whose task will be to inform the Office of scientific and technological developments helpful to the Prosecutor’s capability to collect and analyze scientific evidence.

The establishment of the Board represents an effort by the Prosecutor’s Office to upgrade the quality of evidence it presents to ICC Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers. In recent years, scholarly commentators have criticized international courts and tribunals, including criminal courts and tribunals, for failing to require and utilize fact findings based on scientific examination.

In its October 11, 2013 Strategic Plan, the Prosecutor’s Office noted that ICC judges were requiring “higher evidentiary standards” and “more and different kinds of evidence” from the Office. In response to this demand, the Plan stated that the Office’s Investigative Division will, among other things,

enhan[ce] its capabilities to collect other forms of evidence … in particular scientific evidence [and will] validat[e] its investigative standards with a panel of international experts.

In a June 27, 2014 press release, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that

[t]he work of the Board will be crucial to the Office’s efforts, as reflected in its new Strategic Plan, to strengthen its investigative capabilities and enhance the quality of its deliverables when it comes to scientific evidence collection and analysis.

In the effort to carry out its mandate under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor’s Office has to work with limited resources in very difficult environments. It is to be hoped that the establishment of the Scientific Advisory Board will assist the Office in the challenges it faces.

Related Readings:

Commentators criticizing fact applications by international courts, including criminal courts and tribunals:

After 20 Years of Existence, ICTY and ICTR Begin Preparations to Close

On June 5, 2014, Judge Theodor Meron, President of the ICTY, and Judge Vagn Joensen, President of the ICTR, addressed the 15 member Security Council on the work each tribunal has accomplished over the past twenty years of existence. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established after the 1994 genocide where 800,000 men, women, and children – “overwhelmingly Tutsi, moderate Hutu and Twa” – were systematically killed over the course of 100 days, and the tribunal marked 20 years of existence in April 2014. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established to deal with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990’s and will mark 20 years in existence on November 8, 2014.

Judge Theodor Meron, President of the ICTY, stated

Since its establishment by this council the ICTY has been the subject of diverse and ambitious expectations. For some observers the tribunals were the means by which victims and witnesses of horrific crimes have had and continue to have an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to obtain a sense of justice.

Judge Vagn Joensen, President of the ICTR, stated

Rwanda’s achievements over past 20 years are quite impressive, including the creation of stable and functioning government whose commitment to national reconciliation and strengthening of the rule of law can be seen through one example of its vigorous effort to rebuild its justice system. 8 November 2014 will mark 20 years since this esteem Council saw it fit at the initial request of Rwanda to create this international tribunal. We hope that the international community will use this occasion as an opportunity to mark Rwanda’s achievements, as well as to further study the lessons learned from what was only an experiment in the international justice in 1994.

The representatives of both tribunals further called on the need for Member States to cooperate to support the efforts accomplished so far and to complete what remains to be done, after the tribunals close, including apprehension of the remaining fugitives. Judge Meron further noted that international tribunals alone  cannot solve “long-running historical conflicts;” they must be part of a “panoply of transitional justice measures.”

Currently, the tribunals are working closely with the Mechanism to transition the remaining responsibilities, including services to vulnerable victims and witnesses, supervising the enforcement of sentences across two continents, and addressing requests for assistance from national jurisdictions. The Mechanism’s archives section works closely with ICTY and ICTR on the preparation and transfer of records to the custody of the Mechanism.

Related Readings:

Special Tribunal for Lebanon Confronts a Challenge to Its Legitimacy

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School

On Thursday, May 29, 2014, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) held a hearing on charges that it had issued on April 24, 2014, against two Lebanese journalists and two media organizations for contempt and obstruction of justice. The charges alleged that the journalists contravened the Tribunal’s order by publishing the names of witnesses who might appear for the Prosecution in the major criminal case before it. As reported earlier this year, the STL has indicted five members of Hezbollah for responsibility in connection with a February 14, 2005 bomb attack that killed Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and about twenty other victims.

According to the Daily Star of Lebanon, Ibrahim al-Amin, editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar, one of the journalists charged with contempt, appeared at the May 29 hearing via video-link from a remote room from which he walked out after vehemently denouncing the contempt proceeding as politically biased and illegitimate.

In his prepared statement to the Tribunal, Amin, referring to the fact that the STL was set up by the U.N. Security Council in cooperation with the Lebanese Government, said, “I do not accept the legitimacy of this court which was invented by the Security Council, which has never guaranteed global security.” He added that “[w]e all know that local, regional and international powers which stand behind the creation of the tribunal are the same that instigate enduring wars in my country, against my people, and against its heroic resistance that is standing up to American, European and Israeli terrorism.”

The contempt proceeding has added to the troubling factional political controversies confronted by the STL. The outcome will have significant implications for the effectiveness and credibility of an international criminal tribunal – especially one that seeks to pursue a mandate issued by the Security Council.