| Abstract: | Although the prosecution of large-scale crimes at the internationallevel shares some similarities to the prosecution of organizedcrime at the national level, there are a number of importantdifferences that make the two areas hardly comparable. Two distinctivetraits of international criminal proceedings stand out in thisregard: (i) the lack of any enforcement agency that would allowprosecuting authorities to carry out investigations on the territoryof an interested state without its assistance and the absenceof a general power to carry out such arrests, which render statecooperation of prime importance and (ii) the fact that the proceduralmodel of international criminal tribunals is mixed containingelements of accusatorial (common law) as well as inquisitorial(civil law) systems. As far as prosecutions are concerned, usefulconcepts and procedures adopted from both legal traditions canbe found in the Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidenceas well as in the approach of prosecutors, defence counsel andjudges to the introduction of evidence and, more generally,to the manner in which proceedings are conducted. One of themain examples of this is the acceptance of proof of facts bymeans other than oral evidence as a result of the influenceof the civil law tradition, which has progressively made itsway in the procedural system of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Yet, on the other hand, somemethods normally resorted to in national criminal prosecutionmay turn out to be useful at the international level, such asresorting to insider witnesses. Although known to domestic systems,such practice may have a particular significance in the contextof the prosecution of international crimes. So have additionalforms of criminal participation (such as the notion of jointcriminal enterprise). Only a mixing of traditional and innovativeinvestigative tools and the proper balance of the differentlegal cultures can ensure effective prosecution of internationalcrimes. |
