The general rule is that if a crime is committed, it is the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against a suspect. Jurisprudence emanating from the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights and from the Court of Justice of the European Union shows that private prosecutions
This book provides a comprehensive guide to the jurisprudence of the criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on procedural and evidential matters.
The book contains a digest of relevant decisions, orders and judgments (which are collectively referred to as “decisions”) of the ICTY, ICTR, the Special Court (hereinafter “
ad hoc Tribunals”), the ICC, and the ECHR. The CD-ROM which accompanies this book includes the decisions themselves, which are organised topically on it. Most of the decisions on the CD-ROM are in electronically searchable format. The book also includes relevant provisions from the Statutes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC, as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
The book, together with the collections of decisions, will assist practitioners and researchers in studying the jurisprudence of the Tribunals. This jurisprudence reflects the current state of international criminal law. It will inevitably influence approaches of international courts, including the ICC and "hybrid" tribunals, as well as national courts.
between Ireland and the United Kingdom in particular and other countries in general. In order to put the discussion in context, the author first deals with the jurisprudence of the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights on the transfer of offenders.
2 Jurisprudence Emanating from the EuropeanCourtofHuman
only accepted the right to apply individually to the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights (ECtHR) (Article 25) in 1987, and only recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the ECtHR under Article 46 in 1990. The issue of the Armenian Genocide was not the only one at stake in ensuring that the ECtHR could not
the search of truth, or if it is the expression of a more horizontal model of justice. I will focus on what I consider is the crucial element for the legitimacy of plea agreements, namely the voluntariness.
The present study stems partly from the reading of the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights’ (ECtHR
In April 2015, the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights (hereinafter ‘ECtHR’) has been called to decide the Cestaro v. Italy case in relation to the incidents which took place in the Diaz-Pertini school during the Genoa G8 Summit of 2001. In deciding the case, the Strasburg
(2008) 65–153, at 87; F. Pınar Ölçer, ‘The EuropeanCourtofHumanRights The Fair Trial Analysis Under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights’ in S.C. Thaman (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013) p. 373.
97 Gäfgen v Germany App no 22978/05 ( echr
, many scholars would argue that these remedies are more extensive than what has been the historical willingness of the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights to apply a similar model of reparations in this region. And yet, there is no impediment to the European Court’s application of Article 41’s “just
The recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights ( echr ) in Hutchinson v United Kingdom (2017) is notable in two regards. Firstly, it is significant for the 65 whole life sentenced prisoners currently incarcerated in high security prisons and psychiatric hospitals
180 B. Swart 1 The Case-Law of the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights in 1993 1. THE WORK OF THE COURT The number of criminal cases decided by the EuropeanCourtofHumanRights in 1993 amounts to twenty-six, two less than in 1992.2 In half of them it held that one or more viol- ations of the