Extraordinary Exceptions at the International Criminal Court: The (New) Rules and Jurisprudence on Presence at Trial

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

After their election as President and Vice-President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto asked to be excused from continuous presence during their trials at the icc. This request raised difficult questions for the Court’s Judges. First, can the accused be excused or is continuous presence a procedural requirement? Secondly, can an excusal be granted because the accused has to fulfil demanding functions as (Deputy-) Head of State or would this be a prohibited distinction on the basis of official capacity? Thirdly, under what circumstances would it be reasonable to excuse the accused? Do the daily tasks of a (Vice-) President justify an excusal? This article examines and criticizes how the Judges of the Trial Chamber(s) and subsequently of the Appeals Chamber have answered these questions. It concludes that the two Kenyan leaders have obtained extraordinary exceptions that cannot be reconciled with the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute.

Extraordinary Exceptions at the International Criminal Court: The (New) Rules and Jurisprudence on Presence at Trial

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Sections

References

27

Dissenting Opinion Carbucciasupra note 4 at para. 4; Partially Dissenting Opinion Ozaki supra note 5 at para. 10; Joint Separate Opinion Kourula and Usacka supra note 16 at para. 6.

28

Dissenting Opinion Carbucciasupra note 4 at para. 5; Partially Dissenting Opinion Ozaki supra note 5 at para. 10; Joint Separate Opinion Kourula and Usacka supra note 16 at para. 7.

30

Dissenting Opinion Carbucciasupra note 4 at para. 9; Partially Dissenting Opinion Ozaki supra note 5 at para. 9; Joint Separate Opinion Kourula and Usacka supra note 16 at para. 3. In this regard it may also be noted that the presence requirement of Article 63(1) does not speak of all “trial hearings” but refers in a holistic manner to “the trial”.

32

Partially Dissenting Opinion Ozakisupra note 5 at para. 17; Joint Separate Opinion Kourula and Usacka supra note 16 at para. 3.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 16 16 8
Full Text Views 77 77 61
PDF Downloads 7 7 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0