The System of the International Criminal Court: Complementarity in International Criminal Justice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
School of International Studies, University of Trento PhD in International Studies – XXII Cycle The System of the International Criminal Court: Complementarity in International Criminal Justice Beatrice Pisani January 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION i CHAPTER I - A COMPLEMENTARY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 1 1. The roots that led to the establishment of the ICC 1 2. Models for the allocation of competences between the international and the national levels 5 3. A complementary international criminal court. The Drafting History 11 3.1 Early Drafts 1950-1954. The conferral of jurisdiction 12 3.2 From 1990 until the adoption of the Statute. Complementarity between jurisdiction and admissibility 15 3.3 1990 – 1994.The work of the International Law Commission 19 3.4 The 1995 Report of the ad-hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 26 3.5 The Preparatory Committee Sessions, 1996 - 1998 28 3.6 The 1998 United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 32 4. The rationale of Complementarity 34 5. The System of the International Criminal Court 39 CHAPTER II - COMPLEMENTARITY IN THE ROME STATUTE 43 1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility 43 2. Article 17 of the ICC Statute 45 3. The admissibility assessment vis-à-vis domestic proceedings 46 3.1 Unwillingness 49 3.2 Inability 54 4. The gravity threshold 62 5. The procedures of admissibility 74 6. The pre-investigative stage: the triggering of the Court 77 6.1 State Party referral and the practice of self-referrals 84 6.2 United Nations Security Council referral 88 6.3 Proprio motu initiation of investigation 89 7. Initiation of investigations 91 7.1 The criteria under article 53(1) of the Statute 92 7.2 Decisions under article 53(1) of the Statute 96 7.3 The Procedures under article 18: dialogue between the Court and States 101 8. Proceedings in relation to the admissibility of cases 103 8.1 The decision not to prosecute 104 8.2 The decision to prosecute 112 8.3 Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of a case 118 CHAPTER III - JUDICIAL ASSESSMENTS OF ADMISSIBILITY 125 1. Judicial assessments of admissibility 125 2. The notion of case and the concept of inaction in Lubanga 128 3. The Pre-Trial Chamber II's proprio motu assessment of admissibility of the case against Kony et. al. The principle of “la compétence de la compétence” 132 4. The Katanga's challenge to the admissibility of the case before the Court. The correct interpretation and application of article 17 of the ICC Statute 139 4.1 The Defence Challenge to the “same person-same conduct test” 140 4.2 The Prosecution's elaboration on the notion of case 143 4.3 Trial Chamber II Decision: a second form of unwillingness 147 4.4 The Appeals Chamber judgement and the interpretation of article 17(1)(a)to(c) 150 5. The Bemba challenge to the admissibility of the case before the Court: complementarity and self-referrals 158 5.1 The Defence challenge: alternative arguments for a finding of inadmissibility 159 5.2 The Prosecutor's Response: self-referrals and decisions not to prosecute 162 5.3 The Trial Chamber III Decision: admissibility between self-referrals and inaction 164 5.4 The Appeals Chamber judgement: States’ relinquishment of jurisdiction 166 6. The admissibility challenge presented by the Government of the Republic of Kenya. Finally, the “final” assessment of the “same conduct test” 167 6.1 The government of Kenya's submission: the “same conduct” but not the “same person” test 169 6.2 The Prosecutor's Observations and other filings of the participants: alternative readings of the admissibility test 170 6.3 Pre-Trial Chamber II's Decision: the notion of case and the different phases of admissibility determinations 172 6.4 The Appeals Chamber's Decision: the “same person” component of the test 174 7. Admissibility of Cases and the Inaction scenario 180 8. The Actors of Admissibility 184 CHAPTER IV - COMPLEMENTARITY BEYOND ADMISSIBILITY 191 1. The ICC Prosecutor and a complementary International Criminal Court 191 2. The ICC Prosecutor and the selection of situations and cases to be brought before the Court 194 3. The Prosecutor's approach to complementarity 199 4. The emergence and affirmation of positive complementarity 201 4.1 The Group of Experts' Paper on Complementarity in Practice: a positive approach to complementarity 202 4.2 From a “positive approach to complementarity” to “positive complementarity” 206 4.3 Legal and Theoretical foundations of positive complementarity 208 5. Positive Complementarity in practice 212 5.1 Policies implemented in light of a positive approach to complementarity 213 5.2 Concrete Measures to assist and strengthen domestic capacity 217 6. The 2010 Review Conference 219 6.1 The Report of the Bureau on Complementarity 220 6.2 The Review Conference 222 7. The institutionalisation of positive complementarity 225 8. A new understanding and conceptualisation of complementarity? 229 CONCLUDING REMARKS 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY 242 DOCUMENTS 257 TABLE OF CASES 266 INTRODUCTION Complementarity in the ICC system of justice The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established on 17 July 1998, with the adoption of the ICC Statute at the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, held in Rome between 15 June and 17 July 1998.1 The Preamble and article 1 of the Statute specify that the Court shall be complementary to national jurisdictions. A part from this reference, no definition of the term is contained in any other provision of the Statute. Complementarity is a new concept in the context of the allocation of concurrent jurisdiction between international and national courts and tribunals. Given the considerable implications of the establishment of an international criminal court in terms of state sovereignty, complementarity was strongly supported by States. According to this mechanism, States retain their right (and duty) to exercise their criminal prerogatives over persons responsible for the commission of international crimes. At the same time, the newly established international criminal court ensures that, in case of failure to investigate or prosecute at the domestic level, impunity is fought at the international level. The choice of complementarity responded also to the specific features of the ICC, a permanent international criminal court with extremely wide potential jurisdiction, but limited structural and financial resources. Complementarity was also seen as the best tool to foster states' adhesion to the ICC Statute – an international treaty – and to ensure their cooperation with the Court. The complementary relationship between the Court and States is regulated through the procedures for the admissibility of cases before the former. It is generally said that the Court 1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, A/CONF/183/9, hereinafter referred to as ICC Statute, Rome Statute or Statute. i shall intervene – as a doctor entrusted to combat the virus of impunity – when States fail to take action, or where their action is not deemed genuine. In case of disputes over which forum shall exercise jurisdiction, the international Judges are in charge of deciding, in accordance with the statutory provisions. By doing so, they are not only arbiters of the Court's jurisdiction; they are also in charge of the delicate task of evaluating the conformity of domestic proceedings with the Statutory provisions and criteria. Since its adoption, complementarity was subject to extensive doctrinal elaboration. Complementarity has been regarded to as both the mechanism that regulates the concurrent jurisdiction between the Court and national jurisdiction, and as an incentive for States to take action, in accordance with Statutory requirements. Much attention has been devoted to the interpretation of the statutory provisions regulating the Court's activation2 and the exercise of its complementary jurisdiction,3 to the analysis of the consequences of complementarity in terms 2 See, H. Olásolo, The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2005); H. Olásolo, 'The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court, Procedural Treatment of the Principle of Complementarity, and the Role of the Office of the Prosecutor' (2005) 5 ICLR, 121-146; C. Stahn, M. M. El Zeidy, H. Olásolo, 'The International Criminal Court's ad hoc jurisdiction revisited', (2005) 99 AJIL, 421; D. Robinson, 'The Controversy over Territorial State Referrals and Reflections on ICL Discourse',(2011) 9 JICL, 355-384; C. Kress, 'Self-Referrals and 'Waivers of Complementarity. Some considerations in Law and Policy', (2004) 2 JICJ, 944-948; G. P. Fletcher, J. D. Ohlin, 'The ICC – Two Courts in One?' (2006) 4 JICJ 428-433; A. Cassese, 'Is the ICC Still Having Teething Problems?' (2006) 4 JICJ, 434- 441; M. C.Bassiouni, 'The ICC – Quo Vadis?' (2006) 4 JICJ, 421 -427. 3 P. Benvenuti, 'Complementarity of the International Criminal Court to national jurisdictions', in F. Lattanzi, W. A. Schabas, (Eds.) Essays on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (Il Sirente, Ripa di Fagnano Alto 1999) Vol. I, 21-50; M. Benzing, 'The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: International Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity', (2003) 7 Max Planck UNYB, 591-632; M. Caianiello, 'L’esercizio dell’azione penale nella Corte penale internazionale', (2001) LVI Rivista di diritto processuale, 200-216; O. Solera, 'Complementary Jurisdiction and International Criminal Justice', (2002) 84 IRRC, 145-171; M. Bergsmo, 'The Jurisdictional Regime of the International Criminal Court', (1998) 4 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 345-363; G. Lattanzi, V. Monetti, La Corte penale internazionale. Organi – competenza – reati – processo, (Giuffrè, Milan 2006); E. Greppi, 'Inability to Investigate and Prosecute under Article 17', in M. Politi, F. Gioia, (Eds.) The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, (Ashgate, London 2008), 63-70; R.