ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Allows Victims to Participate in the Investigation Phase of Proceedings

The decision rendered by the International Criminal Court (ICC)Pre-Trial Chamber I on 17 January 2006 allows victims to beinvolved in ICC proceedings at an early stage of the investigation.The Prosecutor, who has filed an appeal against this decision,has consistently argued that the right of victims to participatein the proceedings does not cover the investigation phase. Itis argued that the impact of this decision goes far beyond theissue of victims’ participation in the investigations;it has general implications for the balance of power betweenthe judiciary and the prosecution in proceedings before theICC.     

The truth and the trial: victim participation,restorative justice,and the International Criminal Court

In the field of international criminal justice, the international criminal court (ICC) has been lauded for its integration of victim participants into its legal proceedings. In particular, the ICC’s framework of victim participation has been understood to figure as a balance between retributive and restorative justice as it enables the actual voices of the victims to be heard. However, there has been little research that considers how victim participation works in practice as a form of truth-telling. In order to begin to address this gap, the integration of the ‘voices of the victims’ into the proceedings and outcome of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is explored. The forms of harms and experiences that comprise the truth of the events under adjudication put forward by the victim participants are considered, and then how the truth-telling functions of the ICC represent these states of injury. While the ICC’s legal proceedings enable victims to speak of their harms and experiences, their ‘voices’ are largely absent from its judgment. To address this issue, the ICC needs to develop and maintain a level of ‘restorative justice coherence’ to manage victims’ expectations of its justice approaches.     

The Creation of Investigating Chambers at the International Criminal Court: An Option Worth Pursuing?

At a time when the position of investigating judge has beenabolished in a number of civil law countries, and is being questionedin those in which it remains, it might seem curious to callfor such a position to be created at the International CriminalCourt (ICC). However, experience at the ad hoc internationalcriminal tribunals (‘ad hoc tribunals’), and especiallyat the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslaviashows that the essentially adversarial procedure used in internationalcriminal proceedings is not wholly suitable for trying complexand highly political international cases. Having investigatingjudges participate in the investigations of such cases coulddecisively enhance the effectiveness, legitimacy and fairnessof international proceedings. This would be particularly appropriatein the ICC's complex legal system, which allows victims to participatein the proceedings and claim reparations. However, this newprocedure must clearly come with a number of safeguards in orderto avoid the failures attendant on the use of the investigatingjudge in domestic systems, which could be fatal to an embryonicand fragile international court.     

India and the ICC

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute)would have been more acceptable to India if it had containedan opt-in provision whereby a state could accept the jurisdictionof the ICC by declaration (possibly for a specified period),and this might be limited to particular conduct or to conductcommitted during a particular period of time. The lack of sucha provision, and the inherent jurisdiction which replaced it,are perceived as representing a violation of the consent ofstates, and thus a threat to sovereignty. India's resistanceto accepting the inherent jurisdiction of the ICC is explained,in part, by anxieties about how investigation, prosecution andcriminal proceedings in the Indian system may be judged by aninternational court. The inclusion of ‘armed conflictnot of an international character’ in defining ‘warcrimes’ in Article 8 ICCSt. constitutes another reasonfor India's concern (that the conflicts that persist in Kashmir,the North-East and as was experienced in Punjab, as well asthe violence of more recent vintage in Gujarat, could be referredto the ICC). Further elements giving rise to India's misgivingsare the fear that the Court might be used with political motives,the power conferred on the Prosecutor to initiate investigationsproprio motu and the role allotted to the Security Council.     

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh was re-established in 2010 in order to hold the perpetrators of the 1971 War accountable for international crimes; namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Trial has already begum to operate and has been dealing with various challenges. The basis of the trial proceedings is the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. The Parliament of Bangladesh enacted the Act in accordance with international law shortly after the War. This paper assesses the key legal issues that arise from the context of the 1973 Act, and will provide a reflection on trial proceedings in light of international law. It concludes that any initiatives to address the impunity of perpetrators and offer redress to the victims of gross human rights violations should be applauded, while any trial proceedings that do not follow appropriate standards for a fair trial and offer the right of due process should be deprecated.     

Saint Gobain patron of pharmaceutical patentees?

In recent years there has been much complaint from originatingpharmaceutical companies that the test of obviousness appliedin the UK, as evidenced by decisions of the Patent Court onpharmaceutical related patents, is set unfairly low. This isof particular impact where ‘formulation’ type patentsare concerned. That is, typically, those patents that claiman existing active ingredient mixed, formulated, or combinedwith other known components or in a different way. Pharmaceuticalcompanies complain that the vulnerability of such patents againstinvalidity proceedings in the UK fails to protect the considerableinvestment made in the development of these formulations againstgeneric competition. This article looks at whether the reasons for this concern canbe traced to particular sub-tests that have been used by thecourts to try to answer the statutory test for obviousness.In particular, the sub-tests of ‘lying in the road’and ‘obvious to try’ are examined and the questionof whether there has been an imbalance between these two sub-testsis explored. Further, it is argued that the decisions in therecent cases of Saint-Gobain and Angiotech suggest that therehas been a shift in how the Court of Appeal assesses obviousness.This is away from the ‘obvious to try with a reasonableexpectation of success’ standard to one of ‘obviousto try if success is self-evident’. If the Court of Appeal follows the line taken in these two casesthen pharmaceutical patents of the formulations kind shoulda face better prospect of surviving invalidity challenges basedon obviousness in future.     

The Nuremberg Trial and its Impact on Germany

The impact of the Nuremberg trial on Germany has changed overtime. It is not only a question of evolving legal debate, butalso a correlation of historical, political and moral developments.The author considers the reception of the International MilitaryTribunal (IMT) trial during the Cold War. West Germany rejectedNuremberg's historic precedent, principally on the grounds thatthe Allies had enforced victors’ justice, and that theTribunal had applied ex post facto law by violating the nullumcrimen principle. Meanwhile, East Germany seemingly took upthe cause of Nuremberg by prosecuting minor Nazi perpetrators.However, this affirmation was politically motivated, and itled to inhumane abuses of power, exemplified by the Waldheimtrials. The reunification of Germany marked the beginning ofa positive approach to the Nuremberg legacy: the new generationof judges, politicians and academics was increasingly sympatheticto international criminal justice, and adopted the Nurembergprecedent by dealing judicially with crimes committed in theEast during the Cold War. The study goes on to deal with therelevance of West German legal critique for modern internationalcriminal law. The author suggests that a distinction shouldbe made between true victims of international crimes and thosewho wish to revise history by portraying themselves as such,as many West Germans did after World War II. Moreover, the ‘victors’justice’ argument must not be used to conceal the factthat justice has indeed been administered. However, the criticismof the IMT's violation of the nullum crimen principle is firmlygrounded in the German, as opposed to Anglo-American, legaltradition.     

International Recognition of Victims' Rights

Since its inception, the United Nations has adopted two GeneralAssembly resolutions dealing with the rights of victims: the1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victimsof Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2006 Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law. The focus of theformer was on victims of domestic crimes, while that of thelatter is on victims of international crimes; more particularly,gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law. The 2006 Principlesare, for all practical purposes, an international bill of rightsof victims. Their adoption has been hard-fought, but their implementationboth at the national and international levels is sure to stillface many obstacles. Parallel to this historic development havebeen decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as provisionsin the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), givingstanding to victims in ICC proceedings, but also certain rightsof compensation. These parallel developments, as well as otherswithin domestic legal systems, evidence a wide movement towardsthe recognition of the rights of victims of crime, whether domesticor international, or gross violations of human rights. Thisarticle re-traces the historic origin of victims' rights indomestic and international legal systems, focusing particularlyon the adoption of the two international instruments mentionedabove, and more particularly on the negotiating history of the2006 Principles. A detailed commentary of these Principles constitutesthe centerpiece of this article.     

The informed user: a step up from the Clapham Omnibus

In proceedings for infringement of a registered Community design,Lewison J considered who is an ‘informed user’ andwhat is the ‘overall impression’ of a design.     

Turning the Witness Stand into a Speaker's Platform: Victim Participation in the Norwegian Legal System as Exemplified by the Trial Against Anders Behring Breivik

In this article, we investigate how victims pursue legal participation when they are confronted by legal barriers and dilemmas that arise from tensions between legal formality and lay expectations and contributions of legal proceedings. We use the trial against Anders Behring Breivik as a case. Breivik placed a bomb in Norway's Government District before he shot and killed 69 people on a small island. We analyze interviews with 31 victims who testified against Breivik in court. We argue that the circumstances of the trial against Breivik can be characterized as “ideal” in terms of victims’ rights. The exceptionality of this case facilitates a focus on unquestioned obstacles to victim participation concerning the professionalization of the legal system. We question the presumption prevalent among some theorists that the professionalization of the legal system excludes lay participation, by arguing that legal formality both alienate and empower lay participation.     

Psychological effects of criminal proceedings through contact with the judge: the moderating effect of legal system structure

Psychological effects of criminal proceedings on victims have often been the focus of victimological research. The criminal justice system is repeatedly acknowledged as a source of additional harm for victims. Such a generalization, however, cannot be made to all legal systems universally to the same degree. This article compares the adversarial and inquisitorial structures of criminal justice and examines how the latter may in fact be beneficial to victim's well-being. More specifically, contact with the judge and presence at trial may be one positive form of victim participation in its most informal sense. Hierarchical regression analysis is conducted using victims of serious crimes in the Netherlands and New South Wales (NSW), Australia, to test this hypothesis. The type of legal system (i.e., inquisitorial versus adversarial) is used as a moderating variable on the relationship between contact with the judge and psychological effects. The findings indicate that victims in the Netherlands report a significant relationship, where contact with the judge is predictive of a less negative impact on psychological effects, while a non-significant relationship is found for victims in NSW.     

Interactions between National and International Criminal Law in the Preliminary Phase of Trial at the ICC

The author discusses the interaction between international andnational law in determining whether a case is admissible fromthe viewpoint of complementarity (Article 17 of the Statuteof the International Criminal Court) and with regard to theconcept of ‘interests of justice’ (Article 53 ofthe same Statute). Complementarity does not separate nationalfrom international criminal jurisdiction; nor does it put themin conflict with each other — rather, it favours the aforementionedinteraction. In addition, the concepts of ‘ability’and ‘willingness’ tend to ensure an indirect harmonizationof national criminal systems around common international criteria.As for reliance on the notion of ‘interests of justice’when determining whether to initiate proceedings, accordingto the author, Article 53 envisages a compromise between prosecutorialdiscretion and strict legality, thereby enshrining a hybridizationbetween various national traditions. The author notes that thedecision to open investigations should be objective and foreseeable;to this end, she suggests some general criteria, which are intendedto serve as guidelines for establishing whether, in a specificcase, the interests of justice warrant the initiation of proceedings.     

The Representation of the Legal Interests of Children and Adolescents in Germany: A Study of the Children's Guardian from a Child's Perspective

In 1998, the children’s guardian was introduced into Germanlaw as a new legal institution to represent interests of childrenand young people in certain family and guardianship court proceedings.Until now, there has not been realized any comprehensive investigationabout the perception of children and young people themselvesabout the new figure. This study focuses on the understandingof 52 children and young people concerning the guardian’srole and their satisfaction with the representation. To a largeextent, most children formulated appropriate and differentiatedconceptions of the role and duty of the children’s guardianeven if there were a few uncertainties. Furthermore, most childrenreported on many positive and satisfying aspects, although individualaspects were designated as problematic.     

美国《犯罪被害人权利法》扩张适用及其启示

《犯罪被害人权利法》标志着美国犯罪被害人保护立法达到了顶峰,但是环境犯罪被害人的出现使该法的适用引起了争议。反对者的主要理由是基于审判程序的复杂性、被害人的难以确定性和媒体报道所导致的不公正性,然而,支持者认为适用该法不仅不会导致审判程序复杂化,而且能够合理地保护环境犯罪被害人的权利并保证审判的公正性。引起争论的深层原因在于环境犯罪被害人的特殊性。美国《犯罪被害人权利法》的扩张适用对我国环境犯罪被害人的保护具有启发意义。首先是扩展传统犯罪被害人的定义;其次是保障环境犯罪被害人的刑事诉权;最后是完善环境犯罪被害人的救济制度。     

The Use and Misuse of 'National Security' Rationale in Crafting U.S. Refugee and Immigration Policies

Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, U.S. immigrationand refugee policy has developed based on narrow and evolvingtheories of ‘national security’. Immigration reformlegislation, federal regulations, and administrative policychanges have been justified in terms of the nation's safety.On 1 March 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) was folded into the massive new U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS), formally making immigration a homeland defenseconcern. Counterterror and immigration experts increasingly agree onwhat constitute effective and appropriate immigration policyreforms in light of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, manyof the post-September 11 policy changes do little to advancepublic safety and violate the rights of refugees and asylumseekers. These include reductions in refugee admissions, thecriminal prosecution of asylum seekers, the blanket detentionof Haitians, and a safe third-country asylum agreement betweenthe United States and Canada. Other measures offend basic rightsand may undermine counterterror efforts. These include ‘preventive’arrests, closed deportation proceedings, and ‘call-in’registration programs. This article reviews post-September 11 U.S. policy developmentsbased on their impact on migrant rights and their efficacy ascounterterror measures. It argues for a more nuanced and rigoroussense of ‘national security’ in crafting refugeeand immigration policy.     

The War Against Terrorism and the Rule of Law

The War Against Terrorism has put into issue two tenets of theAmerican constitutional tradition. The first denies the governmentthe power to imprison anyone unless that person is charged witha crime and swiftly brought to trial. The other requires thegovernment to abide by the Constitution’s restrictionson its power no matter where or against whom it acts. This article,based on the 2005 H.L.A. Hart lecture, examines the SupremeCourt’s first encounter with the Administration’sconduct of the War Against Terrorism and explains how the SupremeCourt’s rulings badly compromised these foundational principles.     

Is Terrorism a Crime or an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing?

Common law systems, in criminal cases, distinguish between theguilt/innocence proceedings and the sentencing stage. This isnot the case in civil law systems where criminal trial consistsof a single phase, combining the inquiry into guilt with sentencing.Under common law practice many facts relevant for sentencingare considered irrelevant at the stage of finding guilt forthe commission of the crime. Aggravating elements, therefore,address a fundamental distinction of substantive criminal lawbetween guilt and dangerousness: guilt is a determination ofresponsibility for a prior wrongdoing; dangerousness is a speculativefuture determination. The intensification of terrorist activityin the past few years has made terrorism one of today's mostpressing problems. But is terrorism a crime or an aggravatingfactor in sentencing? In this article, the author challengesconventional wisdom regarding the meaning of ‘terroristcrimes’, by providing a conceptual understanding of ‘terrorism’,as well as articulating a theory of guilt. Terrorists seldomexpress ‘guilt’. The word ‘terrorism’describes, instead, an overriding motivation, a way of acting,rather than the objective circumstances of acting. Terrorismis nothing but common crimes although committed with an overridingmotivation of imposing extreme fear on the nation as such. Theauthor presents the conceptual grounds of the phenomenon ofterrorism as it has evolved through history, before enquiringinto the meaning of ‘terrorist crimes’: the overridingmotivation associated with the concept of terrorism constitutesthe degree of cognate dangerousness of terrorist crimes.     

Enforcement through eBay's VeRO scheme may be a groundless threat

On an interim injunction application to restrain an allegedthreat of infringement proceedings, the High Court held thatthe submission of an enforcement request through eBay's VerifiedRights Owner (VeRO) Program could constitute a groundless threatof infringement proceedings of a registered Community Design;the Court was concerned at the ability of a rights owner touse the VeRO program to ‘snuff out an avenue of the claimant'sbusiness’ where the proprietor of the designs in questionhad no intention of commencing proceedings in which the issuesof infringement and validity would be determined.