Dissenting Opinion of Judge Luz Del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ICC-02/11-01/15-1400-Anx4-Red 01-04-2021 1/192 SL A Received 31 March 2021 and notified 1 April 2021 Annex 4: Dissenting Opinion of Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza to the Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the oral verdict of Trial Chamber 1 of 15 January 2019 with written reasons issued on 16 July 2019 ICC-02/11-01/15-1400-Anx4-Red 01-04-2021 2/192 SL A Received 31 March 2021 and notified 1 April 2021 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza to the Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the oral verdict of Trial Chamber 1 of 15 January 2019 with written reasons issued on 16 July 2019 Prolegomena ............................................................................................................................................ 4 I. Key Findings .................................................................................................................................. 7 II. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8 III. Relevant background ............................................................................................................. 16 A. Impugned decisions .................................................................................................................. 16 1. Oral verdict of the acquittals ............................................................................................... 16 2. Separate written opinions .................................................................................................... 19 (a) Written Reasons, 16 July 2019 .................................................................................. 19 (b) Judge Henderson’s Opinion ....................................................................................... 20 (c) Judge Tarfusser’s Opinion ......................................................................................... 22 (d) Judge Herrera Carbuccia’s Dissenting Opinion ......................................................... 23 B. The Prosecutor’s appeal ........................................................................................................... 24 IV. Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 25 V. Preliminary and crucial issue: the impracticalities of the no case to answer procedure at the ICC ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 A. Findings of the Judgment of the Appeals Chamber’s Majority with which I disagree ............ 26 B. Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 30 1. The no case to answer procedure is incompatible with the Statute and the principles of legality and pacta sunt servanda .................................................................................................... 30 (a) Principle of legality .................................................................................................... 30 (b) Pacta sunt servanda .................................................................................................... 36 2. The drafting history of the Rules shows that the no case to answer motion was considered but not incorporated ....................................................................................................................... 38 3. Article 64(6)(f) gives no discretion to introduce the no case to answer procedure ............. 40 4. The no case to answer procedure is not a viable procedure and it cannot be derived from subsidiary sources of law ............................................................................................................... 46 (a) Under international law, no treaty, principle or rule provides for mandatory application of the no case to answer procedure ........................................................................ 48 (b) The impossibility of deriving one single principle endorsing the no case to answer procedure from Côte d’Ivoire, other Romano-Germanic or civil law jurisdictions and even common law jurisdictions. ....................................................................................................... 49 (i) There is no provision for the no case to answer motion in Côte d’Ivoire .................. 50 1 ICC-02/11-01/15-1400-Anx4-Red 01-04-2021 3/192 SL A Received 31 March 2021 and notified 1 April 2021 (ii) There are inconsistencies among the common law jurisdictions providing for the no case to answer procedure ..................................................................................................... 52 (iii) The no case to answer procedure is inconsistent with the Statute and its application at the ICC would violate internationally recognised norms and standards, particularly the rights and interests of the victims ............................................................... 54 C. Conclusions on the impossibilities and impracticalities of the no case to answer procedure at the ICC ............................................................................................................................................... 61 VI. First ground of appeal ........................................................................................................... 63 A. Findings of the Appeals Chamber’s Majority with which I disagree ....................................... 63 B. Arguments of the parties and participants ................................................................................ 67 C. Issues under the first ground of appeal ..................................................................................... 69 D. Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 69 1. Whether article 74 of the Statute is mandatorily applicable ................................................ 69 (a) Article 74 as a safeguard of fairness and due process of law ..................................... 70 (b) Interpretation of article 74 in accordance with the VCLT ......................................... 76 (i) Ordinary meaning of the terms of article 74(2) and (5) ............................................. 76 (ii) Contextual interpretation ......................................................................................... 80 (iii) Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 81 2. Whether the Trial Chamber complied with the legal requirements and guarantees of article 74 of the Statute ............................................................................................................................. 81 (a) The acquittal does not meet the legal requirements and guarantees of article 74(5) of the Statute ................................................................................................................................. 82 (i) In relation to the reasons of the Appeals Chamber’s Majority that the human right to liberty justified entering acquittals without reasons ............................................................ 85 (ii) The Trial Chamber did not issue a summary of its statement on the findings and conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 88 (iii) The Trial Chamber did not issue its decision in writing ...................................... 89 (iv) The Trial Chamber did not issue its decision in time ............................................... 92 (v) The Trial Chamber did not reach ‘one decision’...................................................... 97 (1) No agreement on the legal basis for the no case to answer at the ICC ................ 98 (2) No agreement on the applicability of article 74 ................................................... 99 (3) No agreement on the applicable standard of proof ............................................ 100 (4) No agreement as to the system of admissibility of the evidence ....................... 101 (5) Conclusion on the lack of agreements ............................................................... 102 (vi) The verdict was not fully informed ........................................................................ 102 (vii) Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 105 (b) The Trial Chamber additionally failed to comply with the legal requirements and guarantees of article 74(2) of the Statute ................................................................................ 106 (c) The acquittals were entered prematurely before the end of the entire proceedings . 106 (d) Absence of an assessment of all the evidence and the entire proceedings ............... 110 3. Whether the acquittals were materially affected by lack of compliance with the legal requirements and guarantees of article 74 of the Statute ............................................................. 114 (a) Arguments of the parties and participants ................................................................ 115 (b) Applicable law regarding materiality of an error ..................................................... 116 (c) Analysis ..................................................................................................................