Self-Representation versus Assignment of Defence Counsel before International Criminal Tribunals

After examining the drafting history of Article 14 of the UNCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, which lays down a defendant'sright ‘to defend himself in person or through legal assistanceof his own choosing’ — the relevant national andinternational case law and scholarly commentary — theauthor argues that the underlying purpose of the right at issueis to ensure a fair trial. This objective can best be met incases of former leaders accused of international crimes by assigningthe defendant a highly qualified attorney who is vigilantlycommitted to representing his client's interests. In his view,there are two main reasons why a court in international crimestrial should be able to require the defendant to work throughcounsel: (1) the likelihood that a defendant will act in a disruptivemanner; and (2) the unique need in a complex international crimescase for an orderly trial.     

International Criminal Tribunals and the Media

The media are widely different in outlook and level of interestwhen the subject is international criminal justice. Newspapersand television stations have widely divergent needs. Similarly,there are marked discrepancies between media in countries directlyaffected by the atrocities that are probed during internationaltrials, and media elsewhere. In reporting war crimes trialsfor public opinion at large (in this case in the United Statesand in Europe), one must take into account the difficulty ofcapturing the interest of readers. The crimes in Bosnia or inRwanda were in the headlines more than a decade ago. Today attentionhas moved to other countries. Ideally, the trials should bepresented through captivating narratives, but the complexityand length of criminal proceedings often make this difficult.Although the arrests of senior officials get much attention,interest in the legal aspects of their case wanes quickly. Moreover,the impression that international criminal justice is selective,and seems to wield double standards as to which cases are prosecuted,and which are not, continues to produce scepticism.     

The State of the International Criminal Court,of Special Tribunals and of International Criminal Law: A Concise Review

International criminal law has changed rather dramatically in the last three decades. Whereas in the early 1990s the field was an almost exotic specialization of penal law, it has now developed into a thriving part of the law. Nowadays, most law schools have specialists in international criminal law which has usually developed into an important field of research. An important factor in this development has been the performance of three Special Criminal Tribunals established by the United Nations Security Council. In this article their institutional record as well as their importance for the development of international criminal law will be reviewed. In both senses, on the basis of a necessarily concise review, it is submitted that the performance of the tribunals must be considered a success. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already twenty years in existence. Its performance cannot be judged equally successfully, however. In particular as an institution it cannot point to records comparable to those of the Special Criminal Tribunals. Still, although it is undoubtedly fragile, the ICC has become a relevant feature of modern international law and in international relations (as a brief examination of its potential role regarding the Special Military Operation in Ukraine shows). Notwithstanding its institutional weaknesses, the importance of the ICC manifests itself in its Statute which can be seen as a codification of international criminal law. The strong increase in the domestic administration of international crimes as a consequence of the principle of the complementarity of the Statute is taken into consideration.

     

The Dissemination of Detainees Awaiting Trial Before International and Internationalized Criminal Tribunals

This paper will focus on the rights attributed to detainees who are facing charges before international and internationalized criminal courts. The question is whether their position merits a different approach compared to the position of detainees who are confronted with domestic criminal trials. In particular, this paper will address the question whether, and to what extent, international human rights have a direct effect on the position of the former detainees. Attention will focus on case law of the European Court of Human Rights vis-a-vis the rights of detainees and the impact thereof on the position of detainees who are held in custody on behalf of international and internationalized criminal courts. The author is Professor of International Criminal Law at Utrecht University (The Netherlands), defence counsel acting before the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL, and a partner of the law firm Knoops & Partners Advocaten in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.     

实现自由与秩序的良性平衡——对流浪乞讨问题的宪法学分析

收容遣送制度的废止和救助管理办法的建立并没有完全解决许多城市所面临的流浪乞讨问题,因而当今中国各大城市仍然需要在宪法和法律规定的范围内处理这一问题。本文从美国对相关问题的宪政经验出发,探讨地方立法所必须遵循的宪法学原则。和美国类似,中国宪法虽然没有提到乞讨或露宿的权利,但也规定了和这类问题相关的公民基本权利。结合中国和美国的相关宪政经验,本文认为政府并不是绝对不可对乞讨和露宿行为进行限制,而是必须保证这些限制符合宪法的基本要求。第一,它们所针对的是行为,而不是流浪者或乞丐身份。第二,政府只有在具备合法的公共利益的情况下才能限制这些行为。第三,有关规定不得为执法人员提供不受控制的自由裁量权。最后,要实现自由与秩序的平衡,必须建立独立的宪法解释机构,通过司法过程界定公民权利与地方权力的边界。     

比较法对国际刑事法庭工作的影响

本文标题多少有些令人惊异,因为它组织了一场似乎不可能的相遇--比较法和国际刑法,而且二者处于不相称的两种状态(比较法不过是一种方法,而国际刑法却是国际法中正在蓬勃发展的一个分支,且转致到一个实在法的整体),并且在语言、惯例、学理和研究群体上都明显表现出相互的漠视和隔阂.     

Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals

Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugeeprotection, international refugee law has failed to developa body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the uniquedimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This articleexamines recent developments in assessing oral testimony ininternational criminal law. International criminal law judges,like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic,linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriersin order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result,these new international courts have developed a body of principlesof international evidence law for assessing the testimony ofalleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Currentsocial science research on the asylum procedures in severaljurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often failto adapt the determination process to account for the realitiesof refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directingproceedings with a ‘presumptive skepticism’ of claims.It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessmentof the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnessesof human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effectiveinternational norms for the assessment of credibility in asylumproceedings.     

Finding the Best Epistemic Fit for International Criminal Tribunals: Beyond the Adversarial-Inquisitorial Dichotomy

This article considers how well evidentiary processes withinthe international criminal tribunals match up to the challengeto provide fair and reliable verdicts. Rather than using theadversarial–inquisitorial dichotomy as the basis for exploringthis question, the article takes as its reference point thewell recognized norms of equality of arms and the right to adversarialprocedure. It is argued that although the tribunals have metthe minimum standards of fairness required by these norms, thecombination of adversarial party presentation and free admissionof evidence, within an evidentiary context in which it is difficultfor the defence to make their own inquiries, has restricteddefence access to information and its ability to challenge evidence.The article goes on to argue that some of these shortcomingshave been addressed within the International Criminal Courtby the establishment of a Pre-Trial Chamber but that the Chamberneeds to be developed further to promote a truly participativeapproach to fact-finding between the parties.     

论刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正之关系

程序公正近年来在我国法学理论界引起很大争论与探讨,就刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正之关系,各种观点百家争鸣,而该问题不仅为诉讼理论问题,且关系到诉讼中人权保障、诉讼模式等一系列实质内容,但有些提法抛开法律文化背景与法制现状,一味强调程序优先或过分坚持实体优先,有失偏颇。     

The International Criminal Court at Ten

Criminal Law Forum -     

从我国刑事法庭设置看刑事审判构造的完善

刑事法庭的设置因其直观形象地反映了控、辩、审三方诉讼主体在审判中所处的法律地位和相互关系而成为刑事审判构造的重要表征。由于我国古代以“审讯”为核心的审判模式的影响、被告人沉默权的缺失以及刑事审判方式改革不够彻底等原因,导致我国现行刑事法庭设置呈现出“伞型”特征。重塑我国刑事审判构造,应当去除目前庭审方式的“审讯”色彩,加强庭审的“听证”性,建立审判中立、控辩平等、当事人主导的“正等腰三角形”的审判构造。     

‘You Will Receive a Fair Trial Elsewhere’ The Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals Acting as Human Rights Jurisdictions

Netherlands International Law Review -