BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Kremens Karolina (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Tytuł
The Protection of the Accused in International Criminal Law According to the Human Rights Law Standard
Źródło
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics, 2011, vol. 1, nr 2, s. 26-48
Słowa kluczowe
Prawa człowieka, Prawo karne, Ochrona praw człowieka
Human rights, Criminal Law, Human rights protection
Uwagi
summ.
Abstrakt
The presented paper discusses the influence of international human rights law on international criminal law. It tries to give an answer to the question of whether rules protecting the accused in international criminal proceedings meet the human rights law standard provided by international declarations and covenants. Meaning, if the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) meet the standard provided by international human rights law, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The paper proves that international human rights law has affected international criminal law tremendously. Moreover, it is argued that the protection of the accused in the law of the international courts and tribunals with regard to his rights has improved when compared to the international human rights law standard. In particular the Rome Statute of the ICC provides the accused with the most comprehensive protection. This is especially visible in the case of such rights as the presumption of innocence, right to an interpreter and right to remain silent. Nevertheless, some shortcomings in the law of the ad hoc tribunals and ICC can be observed, in particular when it comes to identifying the commencement of protection of the accused. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Abraham S Goldstein, Reflections on Two Models: InquisitorialThemes in American Criminal Procedure (1974) 26 "Stanford Law Review" 1009.
  2. Alphons Orie, Accusatorial v Inquisitorial Approach in International Criminal Proceedings in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta andJohn RWD Jones (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, vol. II (OUP 2002) 1467.
  3. American Convention on Human Rights (adopted on 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978) (AmCHR).
  4. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (OUP 2003) 15.
  5. Article 14 (1) of the ICCPR.
  6. Article 6 of the ECHR.
  7. Article 8 of the AmCHR formodification of this right.
  8. Article 13 of the ICTY Statute.
  9. Article 12 of the ICTR Statute.
  10. Article 66 (2) of the Rome Statute.
  11. Article 67 (1) (i) of the Rome Statute.
  12. Article 21 (2) ICTY Statute.
  13. Article 20 (2) ICTR Statute.
  14. Article. 67 (1) Rome Statute.
  15. Article 16 (e) of the IMT Charter and Article 9 (d) of the IMTFE Charter.
  16. Article 20 (4) (d) of the ICTY Statute.
  17. Article 21 (4) (d) of the ICTR Statute repeat literallythe ICCPR provisions.
  18. Article 67 (1) (f) of the Rome Statute.
  19. Article 20 (4) (f) of the ICTR Statute and Article 21 (4) (f) of the ICTY Statute.
  20. Article 30 of the ICTY Statute and Article 29 of the ICTR Statute.
  21. Article 36 of the Rome Statute regarding qualifications, nomination and election of judges.
  22. Article 40 of the Rome Statute on independence of judges.
  23. Article 41 of the Rome Statutereferring to disqualification of judges broadened by Rule 34 of the ICC RPE.
  24. Article 175 § 1 k.p.k.
  25. Article 6 (III) (c) of the ECHR.
  26. Article 20 (1) ICTR Statute and Article 21 (1) ICTY Statute.
  27. Article 6 (II) of the ECHR, Article 8 (II) of the AmCHR.
  28. Article 16 (d) IMT Charter and Article 9 (c) IMTFE Charter.
  29. Christoph JM Safferling, Towards an International CriminalProcedure (OUP 2003) 24.
  30. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1249 UNTS13 (adopted on 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 19 ILM 33.
  31. Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (9 January 1996).
  32. Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, IT/73/REV.10, Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (28 July 1994).
  33. Denis Salas, The role of the judge in Mireille Delmas-Marty and J R Spencer (ed), European Criminal Procedure (Cambridge University Press 2002)488.
  34. Daryl A Mundis, From "Common Law" Towards "Civil Law" The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001) 14 Leiden J Intl L 368.
  35. Delalić (Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion for an Order Requiring Advance Disclosure of Witnesses by the Defence Witness Statements) IT-96-21-T (4 February 1998).
  36. ECHR contains similar provisions in Article (6) (1).
  37. Final Act of the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (17 July 1998) UNDoc A/CONF.183/10 (Rome Statute).
  38. Helen Brady, Protective and Special Measures for Victims and Witnesses in Roy S Lee (ed), The International Criminal Court.Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Transnational Publishers 2001).
  39. Henry J Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context. Law, Politics and Morals (2nd edn, OUP 2000) 137.
  40. Haji NA Noor Muhammad, Due Process of Law for Persons Accused of Crime in LouisHenkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(Columbia University Press 1981) 139.
  41. ICTR webpage:
  42. ICTY webpage:
  43. ICC webpage: http://www.icc-cpi.int
  44. ICTY Statute, Article 21.
  45. ICTR Statute, Article 68 Rome Statute.
  46. John RWD Jones, Protection of Victims and Witnesses in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John RWD Jones (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, vol. II (OUP 2002).
  47. Karolina Kremens , Dowody osobowe w międzynarodowym postępowaniu karnym (TNOiK 2010) 179-207.
  48. Kanyabashi (Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction) IT-96-15-T (18 June 1997).
  49. Kostovski v The Netherlands (20 November 1989) Series A no 166 and Unterpertinger v Austria (24 November 1986) Series A no 110.
  50. Karin N Calvo-Goller, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court. ICTY and ICTR precedents (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 17.
  51. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (OUP 2001) 3.
  52. Louis Henkin, Introduction in Louis Henkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press 1981) 1.
  53. Mario Chiavario, Private parties: the rights of the defendant and the victim in Mireille Delmas-Marty and J R Spencer (ed), European Criminal Procedure (Cambridge University Press 2002) 571.
  54. Michał Królikowski, Paweł Wiliński, Jacek Izydorczyk, Podstawy prawa karnego międzynarodowego (Wolters Kluwer Polska 2008).
  55. Murray v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 29 para. 45 (ECtHR 1973).
  56. Peter Carmichael Keen,Tempered Adversariality: The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals (2004) 17 Leiden J Intl L 767.
  57. Prosecutor v Furundzija (Lasva Valley) [2000] IT-95-17/1-A.
  58. Prosecutor v Kunaracet al. (Foca) (Order on Defense Motion Pursuant to Rule 79) IT-96-23&23/1-T (22 March 2000).
  59. Prosecutor v Brdjanin (Krajina) (Judgment) IT-99-36-T (1 September 2004) 22.
  60. Prosecutor v Delalić et al. (Celebici) [1998] IT-96-21-T 1157.
  61. Prosecutor v Rajić (Stupni Do) (Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence) IT-95-12 (13 September 1996) 2-3 under B Preliminary Matters.
  62. Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edn, Routledge1997) 209.
  63. Paweł Wiliński, Hanna Kuczyńska, Rzetelny proces karnyw orzecznictwie Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego in Paweł Wiliński (ed) Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie sądów polskich i międzynarodowych (Wolters Kluwer Polska 2009) 181-231.
  64. Paweł Wiliński, Prawo do obrony w postępowaniu przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym(2005) 1 RPEiS 109.
  65. Prosecutor v Kupreskić et al. (Judgment) IT-95-16-T [2000] 339 (d).
  66. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), S/25704, 101.
  67. Rule 15 of the ICTY RPE and Rule 15 of the ICTR RPE.
  68. Rule 42 (A) (ii) of the ICTR RPE and Rule 42 (A) (ii) of the ICTY RPE.
  69. Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, IT/32/Rev.38 (adopted on 11 February 1994, last amended on 8 December 2010) (ICTY RPE).
  70. Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Addendum to the Report of the Preparatory Commission forthe International Criminal Court, PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.1 (adopted on 12 July 2000) (ICCRPE).
  71. Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda, ITR/3/Rev.15 (adopted on 5 July 1995, last amended on 1 October 2009) (ICTR RPE).
  72. Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Addendum to the Report of the Preparatory Commission forthe International Criminal Court, PCNICC/2000/INF/3/Add.1 (adopted on 12 July 2000) (ICCRPE).
  73. Richard May and Marieke Wierda, International Criminal Evidence (Transnational Publishers2002) 260.
  74. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UNSC Res 827(adopted on 25 May 1993, last amended on 7 July 2009) (ICTY Statute).
  75. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UNSC Res. 955 (adopted 8 November 1994, lastamended on 16 December 2009) (ICTR Statute).
  76. Steven Kay and Bert Swart, The Role of the Defence in in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John RWD Jones (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, vol. II (OUP 2002) 1430.
  77. Salvatore Zappala, Human Rights in International Criminal Proceedings (OUP 2003) 112.
  78. Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-T (10 August 1995) para.8.
  79. Tadić (Decision on Prosecution Motion for Production of Defence Witness Statements) IT-94-1-T (27 Novemeber 1996).
  80. The principle is recognized, among others, in Article 5 § 1 and Article 74 of the Kodeks Postępowania Karnego (Polish Code of Criminal Procedure), Dz. U. 1997 r. Nr 89, poz. 555 ze zm [k.p.k.].
  81. The analysis of the rights of the accused in the International Criminal Court Michał Płachta, Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny, vol. 1 (Zakamycze 2004).
  82. The provisions of Article 14 (3) (d) of the ICCPR.
  83. US Dep't of State Pub. No. 2675,TIAS No. 1589.
  84. William A Schabas, International Human Rights Law and the Canadian Charter (2nd edn, Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing1996) 56.
  85. Zappala, The Rights of Accused in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John RWD Jones (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, vol. II (OUP 2002).1340.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2084-1264
Język
eng
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu