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.     

Participation of Victims in Pre-Trial Proceedings of the ICC

Victims’ participation is usually celebrated as one ofthe major innovations of the International Criminal Court (ICC)system. It has been regulated in great detail by the draftersof the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidenceof the ICC in relation to trial proceedings. However, few thoughtshave been devoted to the question of how victims’ issuesare dealt with before the commencement of the trial. This contributionseeks to close this gap. It argues that victims have a roleto play in the ICC process from the very beginning of proceedings.Moreover, it seeks to clarify how some of the participatoryrights of victims may be addressed in practice.     

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 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.     

国际刑事法院检察官的地位与功能研究

被赋予国际刑事案件调查、起诉权的检察官 ,在国际刑事法院运作程序中是最活跃最积极的因素 ,对于国际刑事犯罪的惩治起着关键性作用。其组织和功能上的特点是 :审检合署的机构设置 ;“检警一体”的功能结构 ;在检察事务和内部管理上实行“检察长负责制” ;受刑事预审法庭的司法审查等。但在检察官行使职权时 ,存在与相关国家主权协调 ,克服直接调查取证可能遇到的障碍 ,以及合理对待国际政治因素对刑事检控的影响等问题     

Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition,Change and the Need for Effective Defence

This article examines the responses of national courts to the ECtHR's decision in Salduz v Turkey that suspects be provided with access to a lawyer before they are first interrogated by the police. It argues that harmonious application of human rights standards in criminal proceedings should build upon common values underpinning the procedural traditions of member states. ECtHR success in gaining acceptance for the principle of access to a lawyer during police interrogation, anchoring it in the privilege against incrimination, is contrasted with resistance towards giving the defence any active role during criminal investigations. It is argued that this resistance can be overcome by an appeal to safeguards that have long dominated the trial process. As the investigation phase increasingly determines the outcome of criminal proceedings, standards of fairness traditionally reserved for the trial process should be applied also to this phase in order to provide suspects with an effective defence.     

Well-informed? Well Represented? Well Nigh Powerless? Victims and Prosecutorial Decision-making

This article provides a brief overview of the ways in which prosecutors must engage with victims in the course of their work in criminal proceedings and what formal roles victims can assume in criminal proceedings. Besides exploring what rights victims have per se in criminal proceedings, analysis is provided as to what it means to be an additional prosecutor or a private prosecutor in several European criminal justice systems. A brief analysis of the effects these rights and the use of prosecutorial discretion has on victims is provided.     

The dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the Tarasoff duty and the Jaffee footnote

With the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, all U.S. jurisdictions have now adopted some form of evidentiary privilege for confidential statements by patients to psychotherapists for the purpose of seeking treatment. The majority of states, following the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, have also adopted some form of duty by psychotherapists to breach confidentiality and warn potential victims against foreseeable violence by their patients. Largely unresolved is whether there should be a dangerous patient exception to the evidentiary privilege parallel to the Tarasoff exception to confidentiality. This Article argues that exception to the evidentiary privilege should be evaluated separately from the exception to confidentiality. Whether or not a Tarasoff duty to warn existed at an earlier time, exception to the evidentiary privilege should be made only where psychotherapists' testimony is necessary to prevent future harm to patients or identified potential victims. Applying this standard, the dangerous patient exception generally would not apply in criminal actions against patients, but would apply only in proceedings for the purpose of protecting patients or third parties, such as restraining order hearings or proceedings to hospitalize patients.     

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.     

Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings

It is conceivable that criminal proceedings cause psychological harm to the crime victims involved, that is, cause secondary victimization. To investigate this hypothesis, negative and positive effects of criminal proceedings were investigated, as perceived by 137 victims of violent crimes who were involved in trials several years previously. Trial outcome and procedure variables were measured as potential causes of secondary victimization. Results show a high proportion of victims reporting overall negative effects. Powerful predictors were outcome satisfaction and procedural justice, but not subjective punishment severity, interactional justice, and psychological stress by criminal proceedings. The practical implications of the results pertain to whether victims should be advised to report the crime to the police or not, and to appropriate prevention and intervention measures of secondary victimization by criminal proceedings.     

National Implementation of ICC Crimes: Impact on National Jurisdictions and the ICC

The national implementation of the International Criminal Court(ICC) Statute has proven to be more difficult than initiallyanticipated. Most States Parties have either not incorporatedthe ICC crimes into their domestic laws, or they have done sousing different forms of wording. This article examines theimplementing legislation of several states to demonstrate howinadequate implementation of the ICC crimes might prevent statesfrom exercising their primary jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.In turn, this might affect the admissibility of a case beforethe ICC. To this end, this article also explores whether flawedimplementation of the ICC crimes amounts to unwillingness orinability of the state to genuinely prosecute. This articleargues that implementation of the Statute is of paramount importanceto the future of the ICC.     

A New Chapter in the Normalisation of Closed Material Procedures

This note provides an analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Haralambous, which authorised the use of closed material procedures (CMPs) in proceedings surrounding search and seizure warrants issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). After presenting the facts of the case and the reasoning of the Court, the note examines the decision as an instance of CMP normalisation consistent with the model of normalisation argued for by Eva Nanopoulos in a previous MLR article. The notes goes on to make the case that Haralambous may be distinguished from previous instances of CMP normalisation on account of the Supreme Court's more open acceptance of CMPs in the decision, which signals a new chapter in CMP normalisation in the UK.     

Recharacterizing the Lubanga Case: Regulation 55 and the Consequences for Gender Justice at the ICC

The omission of charges related to sexual violence in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was controversial and disappointing from a gender perspective, given the prevalence of sexual violence in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the expectations on the ICC as a gender progressive institution. In 2009, in an attempt to remedy this omission, victim advocates successfully argued that the Trial Chamber should utilize the process under Regulation 55 of the Court to consider legally recharacterizing the charges against Lubanga to include charges of sexual slavery and cruel and inhuman treatment. The decision was later reversed on appeal and the possibility of legal recharacterization dismissed. This article analyzes the Court’s decisions in relation to recharacterization in the Lubanga case, and the negative implications of the approach adopted for gender justice at the ICC. The article advances an alternative, gender-sensitive approach to recharacterization under Regulation 55 of the Court that would have supported the possibility of legal recharacterization to the crime of sexual slavery in Lubanga and which would facilitate the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence in future cases before the ICC.     

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。     

论被害人诉讼地位的理论基础

立法虽然确立了被害人的当事人地位,但由于其理论基础没有得到全面的揭示,致使刑事诉讼理论、立法和实践中的被害人问题仍然没有得到解决。文章从尊严价值理论、报应观念和救济原理三方面揭示了被害人当事人地位的理论基础。认为被害人所持的报应观念是被害人参与刑事诉讼的工具性理论基础;而尊严价值理论为被害人享有作为一个人所享有的权利提供了根据,它从终极人文关怀的角度解释了被害人参与诉讼的理论基础;救济原理则揭示了被害人参与诉讼的特殊性,是被害人参与诉讼的独特根据。     

国际刑事法院管辖权探究——以利比亚情势为视角

在利比亚战争期间,国际刑事法院对卡扎菲等人发出逮捕令,对卡扎菲政权的灭亡以及被追捕的有关人的生命、自由产生巨大影响。利比亚战争虽然已经结束,但国际刑事法院的各项诉讼活动仍在进行。通过利比亚战争期间国际刑事法院的一系列活动,可以看出国际刑事法院的管辖权依据、行使的方式和结构,同时也证明了国际刑事法院在处理重大国际事件,特别是国际罪行中的重要性、权威性、公正性和独立性。     

The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations

Digital evidence and digital forensics have a significant impact on criminal investigation. This requires an examination if the fair trial principle remains sound in the new domain.In this paper the right to a fair trial in Art. 6 ECHR and its interpretation in case law is analysed in order to clarify its connection to evidence law and its specific application to the investigation stage of criminal proceedings. It is argued that the principle implicitly enshrines a framework for the development of universal evidence rules . Derived are two-groups of evidence rules: equality of arms based and presumption of innocence based. For each group specific challenges in the digital investigation are outlined and discussed in the context of a new governance model for digital evidence.     

Criminal Mediation in Mainland China: A Leap from Judicial Endeavor to Legal Norm

The use of mediation in the public prosecution of criminal matters has had a nation-wide impact since being introduced by China’s Judiciary. After almost 10 years, mediation in criminal prosecution cases has, in 2012, now been adopted by the newly revised Criminal Procedure Law 2012 (NPC 2012). This paper examines the characteristics of Chinese criminal mediation, and its introduction and development, by analyzing the empirical data collected from the practice. The ineffectiveness of collateral civil proceedings to criminal procedure to compensate victims, the resulting complaints and petitions argued by them, and the need to resolve the disputes in a way that promotes social harmony, were seen as important reasons to bring criminal mediation practices to China. Varying from ‘western’ restorative justice practices, China’s criminal mediation is closely associated with China’s powerful state criminal justice apparatus, which itself is restricted by the rigidity of the law.     

合并与分离:刑事附带民事诉讼制度的反思与重构

刑事附带民事诉讼制度的立法目的在于减轻诉累 ,提高诉讼效率 ,保证正确处理刑事案件 ,维护司法判决的统一性和严肃性 ,维护国家、集体财产利益以及被害人的合法权益。但随着法制建设的不断进步 ,民事实体和程序法律的不断完善 ,刑事附带民事诉讼制度的实践价值受到质疑。同时由于我国在立法规范和制度设计上的缺陷 ,导致附带民事诉讼缺乏独立性、救济范围过于狭窄 ,从而造成了对被害人的利益保护不足。因此 ,总结我国的立法和司法实践 ,借鉴各国立法经验 ,强化刑事案件民事赔偿救济程序的独立性 ,逐步实现刑事诉讼与民事诉讼的分立 ,将成为重构我国刑事附带民事诉讼的立法趋势     

Two Meanings of ‘Reasonableness’: Dispelling the ‘Floating’ Reasonable Doubt

The ‘reasonable doubt standard’ is the controlling standard of proof for criminal fact finding in several jurisdictions. Drawing on decision theory, some scholars have argued that the stringency of this standard varies according to the circumstances of the case. This article contends that the standard does not lend itself to the ‘sliding‐scale’ approach mandated by decision theory. This is supported through investigation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’. While this concept has mostly been studied as it operates with reference to practical reasoning, scant attention has been given to the meaning that it acquires when referred to theoretical reasoning. Unlike in the former case, reasonableness does not in the latter depend on the reasoner's attitudes in favour of the outcomes of a decisional process. Therefore, since criminal fact finding is an instance of theoretical reasoning, the question whether in this enterprise a doubt is reasonable is not susceptible to a decision‐theoretic approach.