Developments at the International Criminal Court

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This column covers the activity of the International Criminal Court during the second third of 2010. The Court has continued investigating situations in five countries (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Sudan, the Central African Republic and Kenya) and has started one new case. The judicial activity of the Court has remained stable, with three accused persons undergoing trial and one more waiting for his trial to start. Several Chambers have continued to develop the rules applicable to pre-trial and trial proceedings, confirming their previous decisions, including on the issue of victim participation during the trial. Moreover, the Court has adopted its first decision charging a suspect with allegations of genocide and has ruled on the admissibility of the third of its cases to proceed to trial. All in all, during the period of time covered in this column, the Court has continued the conduct of its investigations and trials.

Developments at the International Criminal Court

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Sections

References

39)

On 15 July 2010the Trial Chamber granted the Prosecution’s application for leave to appeal the decision to stay the proceedings. ICC-01/04-01/06-T-314-ENG p. 15 line 20 and p. 16 lines 16–25. As of 31 August 2010 the Appeals Chamber’s decision on this appeal was pending.

41)

ICC-01/04-01/06-T-314-ENG p. 20 lines 22–25.

153)

In a decision from December 2009the Chamber had rejected the Prosecution’s reliance on Article 54(3)(e) as the basis for the redactions despite the fact that they had been requested by the United Nations which was the employer of the witness in question. Although the United Nations had only agreed to permit the witness’ interview to occur “on condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence” the Chamber found that the Prosecution had wrongly relied on Article 54(3)(e) because as was evident from the fact that the interview had occurred close to the start of the trial the purpose of the interview was not “solely” to obtain leads from the witness; there was also a real possibility that as it happened the statement would be the basis for the Prosecution’s decision to call the witness to appear at trial presumably to give essentially the same evidence contained in the statement itself. See Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui Trial Chamber II Decision on the redactions contained in the statement of P-317 16 December 2009 ICC-01/04-01/07-1721 paras. 11–15. Instead of authorising the redactions pursuant to Article 54(3)(e) in its 16 December 2009 decision the Chamber had provisionally authorised them pursuant to Rule 81(4) which the Prosecution had relied on in the alternative. It was now for the Chamber to determine whether the Prosecution had provided sufficient reasons for the redactions to remain pursuant to Rule 81(4). ICC-01/04-01/07-2055-Red para. 3.

182)

ICC-01/04-01/07-2124 p. 3.

235)

ICC-02/05-01/09-94 p. 28.

264)

ICC press release 17 June 2010ICC-CPI-20100617-PR549.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 11 11 4
Full Text Views 28 28 21
PDF Downloads 6 6 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0