Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Pohlod, Katarina (2017) United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals: necessary or avoidable? An analysis of the different options for the residual functions of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/22756/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. See also repository copyright: re-use policy: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/policies.html#copy United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals: Necessary or Avoidable? An Analysis of the Different Options for the Residual Functions of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals Katarina Pohlod M00376872 A thesis submitted to Middlesex University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD School of Law July 2017 United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals: Necessary or Avoidable? An Analysis of the Different Options for the Residual Functions of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals Katarina Pohlod Abstract When closing ad hoc Tribunals, the Security Council is faced with the problem of how to deal with the residual functions that need to be carried out after the Tribunals’ closure. In the cases of the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL, the Security Council established the UN Mechanism for International Tribunals and the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone to solve that issue. Tis thesis discusses the question of whether it was necessary to establish the UN Mechanism for International Tribunals or whether another solution might have been preferable. Obviously, this question was considered by scholars at the time when the Residual Mechanism was established. This thesis reconsiders the question in light of the case law and practice of the Residual Mechanism. The Residual Mechanism was established to operate for an initial period of four years. Unless the Security Council decides otherwise after reviewing the Residual Mechanism’s work, it continues to operate for subsequent periods of two years. This thesis constitutes the first research of the entire legal framework and the case law of the Residual Mechanism. It is a contribution to legal literature and history. It provides an examination of different options for dealing with the residual functions, because it would still be possible to transfer those. One option would be to transfer the functions back to the domestic authorities of the affected countries. But, although judicial capacities have improved, issues still exist. Transferring these functions to other states would be difficult, because states are not willing or able to take over the Tribunals’ functions. The option of an international body, such as the ICC taking over the functions would be impracticable because it would require amendments to the Rome Statute. Therefore, in order to demonstrate that the international legal system is working and to achieve a deterrent effect the Residual Mechanism is necessary. But this thesis also points out that it would have been a better option to create a joint mechanism including the ICTY, ICTR, and SCSL. Future ad hoc criminal tribunals requiring mechanisms with functions similar to those of the Residual Mechanism could be appended to it. Table of Contents Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. VI I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals ................................................................ 7 1. The Conflicts in Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone ......................................................... 7 2. Establishing the ICTY and the ICTR ........................................................................................................... 10 A. The Temporary Character as a Main Characteristic of the Tribunals ........................................ 12 B. Shutting Down the Tribunals: Completion Strategy ........................................................................ 12 3. Establishing the SCSL ...................................................................................................................................... 15 III. Establishing the Residual Mechanism ............................................................................ 19 1. Plans to Establish the Residual Mechanism .............................................................................................. 19 2. Nature of the Residual Mechanism .............................................................................................................. 21 3. The Residual Functions .................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Legality of the Residual Mechanism ........................................................................................................... 24 IV. Transferring the Residual Functions to the National Authorities of the Affected Countries ...................................................................................................................................... 25 1. Tracking and Prosecution of the Remaining Fugitives .......................................................................... 25 A. Review of the Transferred Cases of the Ad Hoc Tribunals ........................................................... 28 a. Transferred Cases of the ICTY ............................................................................................................................. 28 b. Transferred Cases of the ICTR ............................................................................................................................. 36 B. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................................... 40 2. Transferring other Judicial Residual Functions to National Jurisdictions ....................................... 43 3. Transferring Victim and Witnesses Protection and Assistance to National Jurisdictions ......... 47 4. Transferring Supervision of Enforcement of Sentences to National Authorities ......................... 49 V. The Different Options for the Residual Functions ........................................................ 51 1. Transferring all Residual Functions to External International Bodies ............................................. 51 2. Transferring all Residual Functions to One External National Body ............................................... 51 3. Transferring the Residual Functions to the ICC ...................................................................................... 52 A. The Legal Basis of the ICC ...................................................................................................................... 53 B. Principle of Complementarity with National Criminal Jurisdiction ........................................... 54 C. Amending the Rome Statute ..................................................................................................................... 55 D. Different Options for the ICC to Carry Out Residual Functions ................................................. 56 a. Transferring All Residual Functions to the ICC ............................................................................................. 57 b. Transferring Some of the Residual Functions to the ICC ............................................................................ 58 c. Outsourcing Residual Functions to the ICC ..................................................................................................... 59 d. ICC Staff Operating Double-Hatting .................................................................................................................. 60 III e. Using the Facilities of the ICC .............................................................................................................................