DOCSLIB.ORG

United Nations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Nations UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-99-36-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 1 September 2004 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER II Before: Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding Judge Ivana Janu Judge Chikako Taya Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 1 September 2004 PROSECUTOR v. RADOSLAV BR\ANIN JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Ms. Joanna Korner Ms. Anna Richterova Ms. Ann Sutherland Mr. Julian Nicholls Counsel for the Accused: Mr. John Ackerman Mr. David Cunningham Case No.: IT-99-36-T 1 September 2004 CONTENTS I. SUMMARY OF THE CHARGES............................................................................................ 1 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE... 8 III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEFENCE................................................... 16 A. UNINTENTIONAL BIAS AGAINST SERBS .................................................................................. 16 B. THE NEED TO VIEW EVENTS FROM A HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE........................ 18 C. CHALLENGE TO THE INDICTMENT........................................................................................... 19 IV. GENERAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 24 A. BACKGROUND TO THE ARMED CONFLICT IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA................................. 24 B. THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE BOSNIAN SERB LEADERSHIP .................................................. 28 C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE BOSNIAN KRAJINA ............................ 34 V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CRIMES ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT...................................................................................................................... 55 A. ARTICLE 2 OF THE STATUTE: GRAVE BREACHES OF THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS ........... 55 B. ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE: VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR ...................... 56 C. ARTICLE 5 OF THE STATUTE: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY .................................................... 57 D. FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 5 OF THE STATUTE ............................................................................................................................. 61 1. Findings in respect of the general requirements common to Articles 2, 3 and 5.................. 61 2. Findings in respect of the general requirements specific to Article 2.................................. 62 3. Findings in respect of the general requirements specific to Article 3 of the Statute ............ 67 4. Findings in respect of the general requirements specific to Article 5 of the Statute ............ 68 VI. THE REGIONAL LEVEL OF AUTHORITY .................................................................... 70 A. THE AUTONOMOUS REGION OF KRAJINA ............................................................................... 70 1. The establishment of the ARK........................................................................................... 70 2. The nature and the authority of the ARK ........................................................................... 73 3. The dispute between the ARK and the authorities of the SerBiH on the status of the ARK 77 4. The role of the ARK in general.......................................................................................... 79 B. THE CRISIS STAFF OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION OF KRAJINA ............................................... 82 C. AUTHORITY OF THE ARK CRISIS STAFF ................................................................................. 86 1. The authority of the ARK Crisis Staff with respect to municipal authorities ...................... 87 2. The authority of the ARK Crisis Staff with respect to the police........................................ 93 3. The authority of the ARK Crisis Staff with respect to the Army ........................................ 95 4. The authority of the ARK Crisis Staff with respect to Serbian paramilitary units............. 100 D. THE ROLE OF THE ARK CRISIS STAFF IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN ..... 101 1. ARK Decisions implementing the Strategic Plan............................................................. 101 (a) Dismissals of non-Serb professionals .................................................................................. 102 (b) Disarmament of paramilitary units and individuals who illegally possessed weapons, selectively enforced against non-Serbs............................................................................... 104 (i) 4 May 1992 decision......................................................................................................... 105 (ii) 9 May 1992 decision........................................................................................................ 106 (iii) 13/14 May 1992 decisions.............................................................................................. 106 (iv) 18 May 1992 decision..................................................................................................... 107 (c) Resettlement of the non-Serb population ............................................................................. 107 2. Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 110 i Case No.: IT-99-36-T 1 September 2004 VII. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................. 111 A. RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 7(1) OF THE STATUTE....................................................... 111 1. Joint Criminal Enterprise................................................................................................. 111 2. Other modes of liability under Article 7(1) of the Statute................................................. 114 (a) Planning................................................................................................................................ 115 (b) Instigating............................................................................................................................. 115 (c) Ordering ............................................................................................................................... 116 (d) Aiding and abetting.............................................................................................................. 116 B. SUPERIOR CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE STATUTE....................... 117 1. Responsibility pursuant to Article 7(3) in general ............................................................ 117 2. Responsibility of Civilian Superiors Pursuant to Article 7(3)........................................... 120 3. Relationship between Article 7(1) and Article 7(3).......................................................... 121 VIII. THE ACCUSED’S ROLE AND HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN GENERAL.................... 123 A. POSITIONS HELD BY THE ACCUSED....................................................................................... 123 B. DE JURE AND DE FACTO POWER OF THE ACCUSED.................................................................. 124 1. The power of the Accused before the creation of the ARK Crisis Staff............................ 125 2. The power of the Accused as President of the ARK Crisis Staff ...................................... 126 3. The power of the Accused after the abolishment of the ARK Crisis Staff ........................ 128 C. THE ACCUSED’S PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN ............. 129 1. The Accused’s espousal of the Strategic Plan .................................................................. 129 2. The Accused’s participation in the implementation of the Strategic Plan before the establishment of the ARK Crisis Staff........................................................................... 130 3. The Accused’s participation in the implementation of the Strategic Plan as President of the ARK Crisis Staff..................................................................................................... 133 4. The Accused’s participation in the implementation of the Strategic Plan after the abolishment of the ARK Crisis Staff ............................................................................. 135 5. The Accused’s propaganda campaign.............................................................................. 135 6. The Accused’s knowledge that crimes were being committed.......................................... 140 D. THE ACCUSED’S CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN GENERAL...................................................... 141 1. Joint Criminal Enterprise................................................................................................. 142 2. Planning.......................................................................................................................... 147 3. Instigating ....................................................................................................................... 147 4. Ordering.......................................................................................................................... 148 5. Aiding and abetting ......................................................................................................... 149 6. Superior Criminal Responsibility under Article 7(3) of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Her Honour Judge Joanna Korner, UK Candidate for the International
    Her Honour Judge Joanna Korner UK Candidate for the International Criminal Court Judicial Elections ` 2 Foreword by Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab I commend the candidature of with colleagues from both civil and common law jurisdictions, is highly relevant to the Judge Joanna Korner CMG QC work of the ICC. for election as a judge of the Judge Korner also has over 25 years of International Criminal Court (ICC). judicial experience. She routinely tries the most serious and complex criminal cases Judge Korner has been selected to be in domestic courts, including cases of fraud the United Kingdom candidate following a and murder. competitive, open and merit-based process and she seeks to fill the vacancy left open by Her prosecutorial and judicial experience the completion of the term of Judge Howard have made her a leader in international Morrison QC at the Court. criminal law. She was instructed by the Organization for Security and Co-Operation Judge Korner is exceptionally well qualified in Europe to conduct an assessment of to sit as a judge of the ICC, having extensive the processing of war crimes in Bosnia judicial experience and expertise in the field & Herzegovina. She assisted with the of international criminal justice. As a Senior establishment of the War Crimes section Prosecuting Trial Attorney at the International of the Prosecutor’s Office in Bosnia & Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Herzegovina. (ICTY) for eight years, Judge Korner acted as lead prosecutor in the trials of political and military leaders accused of the gravest international crimes, including in the trial of Mico Stanišic and Stojan Župljanin.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice and Forced Displacement in the Former Yugoslavia
    Case Studies on Transitional Justice and Displacement Criminal Justice and Forced Displacement in the Former Yugoslavia Joanna Korner July 2012 ICTJ/Brookings | Criminal Justice and Forced Displacement in the Former Yugoslavia Transitional Justice and Displacement Project From 2010-2012, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement collaborated on a research project to examine the relationship between transitional justice and displacement. The project examined the capacity of transitional justice measures to respond to the issue of displacement, to engage the justice claims of displaced persons, and to contribute to durable solutions. It also analyzed the links between transitional justice and other policy interventions, including those of humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors. Please see: www.ictj.org/our-work/research/transitional-justice-and-displacement and www.brookings.edu/idp. About the Author Joanna Korner is a practicing attorney with extensive experience in international criminal law. While serving in the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY from 1999–2004, she was the lead prosecutor in the cases of Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin & Momir Talic and Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic. Subsequently, she was instructed as Counsel in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia before the ICJ, and consulted on the establishment of the War Crimes Office as a Senior Legal Advisor to the Chief Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 2009, she has again been employed at the ICTY as a Senior Prosecuting Trial Attorney, engaged in the trial of Prosecutor v. Mico Stanisic & Stojan Zupljanin. An English Barrister, she was appointed Queens Counsel in 1993, and, in recognition of her services to international criminal law, a Companion of the Order of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights & Democracy: the 2019 Foreign & Commonwealth
    Human Rights & Democracy The 2019 Foreign & Commonwealth Cp 273 Office Report Human Rights & Democracy The 2019 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2020 Cp 273 Human Rights and Democracy: The 2019 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Communications Team, WH1.165, Multilateral Policy Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH ISBN 978-1-5286-2051-2 CCS0320406130 07/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Designed in-house by the FCO Communication Directorate Cover images: A photojournalist documenting war and conflict, and a male photojournalist in a war zone. (iStock) Human Rights and Democracy: The 2019 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report Contents Preface by the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab ........................................................................ iv Foreword by Minister of State for Human Rights, Lord (Tariq) Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict .............................. v CHAPTER 1: Human Rights and Democracy Priority Themes .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2007 2007 26 February General List No. 91 26 February 2007 CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO) JUDGMENT Present: President HIGGINS; Vice-President AL-KHASAWNEH; Judges RANJEVA, SHI, KOROMA, OWADA, SIMMA, TOMKA, ABRAHAM, KEITH, SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR, BENNOUNA, SKOTNIKOV; Judges ad hoc MAHIOU, KREĆA; Registrar COUVREUR. In the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, between Bosnia and Herzegovina, represented by Mr. Sakib Softić, as Agent; Mr. Phon van den Biesen, Attorney at Law, Amsterdam, as Deputy Agent; - 2 - Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, Member and former Chairman of the United Nations International Law Commission, Mr. Thomas M. Franck, Professor Emeritus of Law, New York University School of Law, Ms Brigitte Stern, Professor at the University of Paris I, Mr. Luigi Condorelli, Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Florence, Ms Magda Karagiannakis, B.Ec., LL.B., LL.M., Barrister at Law, Melbourne, Australia, Ms Joanna Korner Q.C., Barrister at Law, London, Ms Laura Dauban, LL.B. (Hons), Mr. Antoine Ollivier, Temporary Lecturer and Research Assistant, University of Paris X-Nanterre, as Counsel and Advocates; Mr. Morten Torkildsen, BSc., MSc., Torkildsen Granskin og Rådgivning, Norway, as Expert Counsel and Advocate; H.E. Mr. Fuad Šabeta, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mr. Wim Muller, LL.M., M.A., Mr. Mauro Barelli, LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Fairness in International Courts and Tribunals
    Procedural Fairness in International Courts and Tribunals 19-20 September 2014 University of Surrey Workshop Programme Contents Overview 3 Programme 4 Biographies 6 List of Participants 10 Organisers and Sponsors 11 2 Overview A topical and timely subject for study, the question of procedural fairness entails the identification of fundamental principles inherent to the judicial and arbitral processes. Whilst the manifestation of such core standards of fairness will necessarily diverge according to the particular forum, the workshop aims to identify their essence with reference to the procedural issues arising in practice. The aim of this workshop is to bring academics and practitioners together to initiate ground-breaking research into this novel topic. The workshop employs a comparative approach whereby participants will analyse the procedures and practices of various international courts and tribunals. It aims to identify patterns of commonality and divergence in the core standards of procedural fairness of international courts and to develop a holistic understanding of the nature of procedural fairness and the challenges to its realisation in the international judicial system. In addition to the aforementioned themes, specific aspects of international judicial procedure will be explored alongside contributions on the theoretical question of the implications that fairness in international procedural law may have for general international law, such as its systemic traits, the ‘humanisation’ of international procedure and the responsibility of international courts and tribunals for failure to meet standards of fairness. The workshop brings together a range of expertise on international courts and tribunals with the aim of sharing experiences, generating fresh ideas for improvements to international judicial procedure and querying established conventions on the procedural nature of arbitration and adjudication in international dispute settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Assembly of States Parties 9 December 2020 ENGLISH Original: English
    International Criminal Court ICC-ASP/19/2/Add.1/Rev.2 Distr.: General Assembly of States Parties 9 December 2020 ENGLISH Original: English Nineteenth session New York, 7-17 December 2020 Seventh election of judges of the International Criminal Court Addendum Annex I Alphabetical list of candidates (with statements of qualifications) Contents Name Nationality Page 1. ALEXIS-WINDSOR, Althea Violet.......... (Trinidad and Tobago) ...................... 3 2. BARRETO GONZÁLEZ, Andrés Bernardo (Colombia) ..................................... 8 3. BELLO, Ishaq Usman .............................. (Nigeria) ............................................ 13 4. BEN MAHFOUDH, Haykel ..................... (Tunisia) ............................................ 19 5. CHAGDAA, Khosbayar ........................... (Mongolia) ........................................ 27 6. ĆOSIĆ DEDOVIĆ, Jasmina ...................... (Bosnia and Herzegovina) ................. 33 7. FLORES LIERA, María del Socorro ......... (Mexico) ............................................ 41 8. KAM, Gberdao Gustave ........................... (Burkina Faso) ................................... 46 9. KORNER, Joanna ...................................... (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) ....................................... ……………………………………… 54 10. LORDKIPANIDZE, Gocha ...................... (Georgia) ............................................ 59 11. MASSART, Laurence .............................. (Belgium) ........................................... 71 12. MILANDOU,
    [Show full text]
  • IAP History September 2002 –March 2009 Annual Conference 2002
    IAP History September 2002 –March 2009 Annual Conference 2002 The IAP 7 th Annual Conference was held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London, England on 8-12 September 2002. It was the largest conference to date with total registrations of 570 from 75 countries. Sunday 8 September The opening of the conference took place in the Great Hall of Lincoln’s Inn, an impressive and historical venue. The President welcomed participants and invited the Right Honourable Harriett Harman, QC, MP, the U.K. Solicitor General, to open the conference. Our host, Sir David Calvert-Smith, QC was appointed conference President and also welcomed colleagues to London. Monday 9 September On Monday 9 September the working sessions of the conference began with the now customary presentation of the IAP Awards. The opening address of the conference was given by the Rt. Hon. The Lord Goldsmith, QC, the U.K. Attorney General, who told the conference of the importance of the conference’s theme, “The Threat of Global Crime: Trafficking in Humans, Drugs and Money” and of his hopes for positive outcomes from our discussions and deliberations. The President acknowledged the Conference Vice-Presidents – Daniel Bellemare, QC (Canada), Richard Buteera (Uganda), Carlos Donoso Castex (Argentina), Boowhan Han (Korea), Raija Toiviainen (Finland) and Laszlo Venczl (Hungary). Sir David Calvert-Smith, QC took the chair for the morning’s keynote speeches from Lee Myung Jae (Korea), Professor Jorg Albrecht (Director of the Max Planck Institute) and Dr Penuell Maduna (Minister of Justice of South Africa). The morning concluded with presentations on the theme of trafficking in humans from Sirisak Tiyapan (Thailand), Ingela Klinteberg (Sweden) and Thomas Burrows (U.S.A.) and the afternoon’s workshops were introduced by Anna Korvinus (The Netherlands) and Eunice Shang-Simpson (England and Wales).
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Fairness in International Courts and Tribunals Workshop Programme
    Procedural Fairness in International Courts and Tribunals Workshop Programme Day 1: 19 September 2014 09:00-09:30 Registration 09:30-09:40 Welcome 09:40-10:10 Opening Speech: Mr Awn al-Khasawneh, former Judge, International Court of Justice Title to be confirmed 10:10-11:10 Procedural Fairness and the International Court of Justice Chair: Ms Jill Barrett, Arthur Watts Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law Panellist 1: Mr James G. Devaney, Ph.D. Candidate, European University Institute Procedural Fairness and Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice: How to Restyle the Respected Old Lady Panellist 2: Professor Dai Tamada, Kobe University Centre for International Law, ‘Case-Law’ of the International Court of Justice: Procedural Fairness or Judicial Law-Making? 11:10-11:30 Coffee Break 11:30-12:45 Procedural Fairness in the WTO Chair: Dr Filippo Fontanelli, University of Surrey Panellist 1: Professor Andrew Mitchell, University of Melbourne Procedural Fairness in WTO Tribunals Panellist 2: Professor Chi Carmody, University of Western Ontario What is Fairness in WTO Law? Panellist 3: Ms Emily Sipiorski, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Procedural Fairness and Evidence: Applying the Principle in Good Faith 12:45-13:45 Procedural Fairness in Investment Arbitration Chair: Dr Ernesto Féliz Jésus, Baker Botts LLP Panellist 1: Mr N. Jansen Calamita, Senior Research Fellow in International Trade and Investment Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Concerns from a Formalist Perspective Panellist 2: Dr David A. Collins, City University (London) Improving the Legitimacy of ICSID Annulment Procedures 13:45-14:30 Lunch 14:30-15:45 Procedural Fairness and International Criminal Tribunals Chair: Her Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • CR 2006/22 International Court Cour Internationale of Justice De
    CR 2006/22 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2006 Public sitting held on Friday 17 March 2006, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding, in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) ________________ VERBATIM RECORD ________________ ANNÉE 2006 Audience publique tenue le vendredi 17 mars 2006, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de Mme Higgins, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro) ____________________ COMPTE RENDU ____________________ - 2 - Present: President Higgins Vice-President Al-Khasawneh Judges Ranjeva Shi Koroma Parra-Aranguren Owada Simma Tomka Abraham Keith Sepúlveda Bennouna Skotnikov Judges ad hoc Mahiou Kreća Registrar Couvreur ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 - Présents : Mme Higgins, président M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président MM. Ranjeva Shi Koroma Parra-Aranguren Owada Simma Tomka Abraham Keith Sepúlveda Bennouna Skotnikov, juges MM. Mahiou, Kreća, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 - The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is represented by: Mr. Sakib Softić, as Agent; Mr. Phon van den Biesen, Attorney at Law, Amsterdam, as Deputy Agent; Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, Member and former Chairman of the International Law Commission of the United Nations, Mr. Thomas M. Franck, Professor of Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law, Ms Brigitte Stern, Professor at the University of Paris I, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: a Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations
    American University International Law Review Volume 33 Issue 4 Article 5 2018 Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: A Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations Jennifer Trahan New York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Trahan, Jennifer (2018) "Views of the Future of the Field of International Justice: A Scenarios Project Based on Expert Consultations," American University International Law Review: Vol. 33 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol33/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIEWS OF THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE: A SCENARIOS PROJECT BASED ON EXPERT CONSULTATIONS JENNIFER TRAHAN* OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SCENARIOS OF THE FIELD IN TWENTY YEARS...............................................................843 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................845 I. SCENARIO #1: THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AS THE DOMINANT INSTITUTION OF THE FUTURE....................................................................................848
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Prosecution Watch, Vol. 15, Issue 16
    PILPG Logo Case School of Law Logo War Crimes Prosecution Watch Editor-in-Chief David Krawiec FREDERICK K. COX Volume 15 - Issue 16 INTERNATIONAL LAW CENTER September 26, 2020 Technical Editor-in-Chief Erica Hudson Founder/Advisor Michael P. Scharf Managing Editors Alexander Peters Faculty Advisor Matthew Casselberry Jim Johnson War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email [email protected] and type "subscribe" in the subject line. Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group. Contents AFRICA NORTH AFRICA Libya CENTRAL AFRICA Central African Republic Central African Republic: Ex-officer arrested for war crimes (BBC) Sudan & South Sudan Democratic Republic of the Congo Dozens killed in rebel attack in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (TRT World) Suspected Islamists kill at least 53 in eastern Congo (Reuters) More than 50 prisoners starve to death in East Congo prison (Reuters) Convoy ambush in eastern Congo kills one aid worker (Reuters) WEST AFRICA Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Lake Chad Region — Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon Boko Haram is Recruiting Young Children in New Drive (Persecution.org) Ten
    [Show full text]
  • The Judges of the Court
    The Judges of the Court The International Criminal Court (ICC) is one candidate for any given election but A judge may not participate in a case composed of 18 judges, who are elected the latter does not necessarily need to be a in which his or her impartiality might for terms of office of nine years by the national of that State Party. No two judges reasonably be called into question on any Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the may be nationals of the same State. ground. Rome Statute, the founding instrument Judges are elected by secret ballot at a The judges elect the President and the two of the Court. They are not eligible for re- meeting of the ASP convened for that Vice-Presidents of the Court from among election. purpose. The persons elected to the Court their ranks. Acting on behalf of the Court, The judges are chosen from among persons are the 18 candidates who obtain the the Presidency can propose that the number of high moral character, impartiality and highest number of votes and a two-thirds of judges be increased if this is considered integrity who possess the qualifications majority of the States Parties present and both necessary and appropriate. In such required in their respective States for voting. cases, the Registry circulates the proposal to appointment to the highest judicial offices. all States Parties for a final discussion by the The election of the judges takes account of They have either established competence Assembly of States Parties. the need to represent the world’s principal in criminal law and procedure, and the legal systems, a fair representation of men The Court organises itself into three necessary relevant experience, whether as and women, and equitable geographical divisions: Pre-Trial, Trial and Appeals a judge, prosecutor, advocate or in other distribution.
    [Show full text]