Archive for February, 2012
February 29th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
The International Bar Association (IBA) is currently seeking high calibre legal interns to work on its International Criminal Court Programme in The Hague.
The internship provides a unique opportunity to gain experience in the evolving field of international criminal justice.
The deadline for applications is Thursday 15 March 2011
Full details and how to apply at: http://tinyurl.com/IBAICCProgramme-Internships
February 29th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
Date: 28 February 2012, 6:00PM – 8:00PM
Venue: Doughty Street Chambers
54 Doughty Street, London, WC1N 2LS
Chair: Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG, Associate Fellow, International Law Programme, Chatham House
Participants:
• Amal Alamuddin, Doughty Street Chambers
• Andrew Cayley, Chief International Co-Prosecutor of the ECCC, Doughty Street Chambers
• Fiona McKay, Chief of Victims’ Participation and Reparations Section, ICC
• Steven Powles, Doughty Street Chambers
Representative of the Victims’ Participation and Reparations Section of the Registry, ICC.
Further details are available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/view/181447
This event, part of a series co-hosted by Doughty Street Chambers and Chatham House, will focus on two issues that are key to trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) – complementarity and victims’ rights.
Notes and materials from this event will be posted soon.
February 28th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Professor David Scheffer
Date: 13 March 2012, 6:00PM – 7:00PM
Venue: The Royal Institute of International Affairs
Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square
London SW1Y 4LE
Chair: Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG, Associate Fellow, International Law, Chatham House
Sign up online at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/view/179305
Prof. Scheffer, America’s first Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, was a leading architect of the modern war crimes tribunals rendering justice for atrocity crimes in the Balkans, Rwanda, Cambodia, and across Africa. He witnessed the carnage and spearheaded the American and global counterattack to bring accountability for atrocities across the world, and will argue that the days of impunity for perpetrators of atrocity crimes are over, and that international trial or vengeful retribution are the only possible 21st century responses. He is Director, Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Index on Censorship
Date: 28 March 2012, from 6:30 PM onwards.
Venue: St Pancras Renaissance Hotel
Euston Road, London, N1 2AR
Tickets are available here.
The Index Awards celebrate people who champion free expression, often at great personal risk. The event highlights the individuals and organisations who made the greatest contribution to the fight against censorship through journalism, technology, advocacy, and the arts. Previous winners included Wikileaks, Anna Politkovskaya, and Daniel Barenboim.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Doug Saunders
The Globe and Mail columnist Doug Saunders on international justice and Moreno Ocampo.
Watch the full video here.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
By Tessa Barsac
The risk of conflicts arising from the inevitable and increasing complexity of interstate relations in Africa, and the acute awareness – driven by the lessons of history – of the need for adequate procedures to prevent and resolve such conflicts, gave rise to new forms of solidarity on the continent. This was translated in institutional terms by the replacement of the Organization of African Unity with the African Union in 2001.
One of the major innovations of the Constitutive Act of the AU was to impose the establishment of a principal judicial organ to ensure the effective and dynamic implementation of its new legal order. Accordingly, the Protocol of the Court of Justice of the AU was duly adopted in 2003. Its jurisdiction is articulated around ‘community law’ but also “any question of international law”. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, created in 1998 under the OAU and operational in 2006, remained separated as the organ of a treaty within the AU, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – and not as an organ of the AU itself. It is endowed with the responsibility to interpret and apply the Charter together with any other human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned.
Yet, the sudden enthusiasm for Pan-African institutions was quickly overtaken by material and financial realities. The need to rationalise and save resources dictated the merger of the two regional courts into one: the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR). Its founding instrument, adopted in 2008, is divided in two main parts: the Protocol, dealing mainly with transitional issues between the existing AfCHPR and the future ACJHR, and the annexed Statute, which details the substantial provisions for the establishment and functioning of the new Court. They combine, adapt and clarify the two previous Protocols. Nevertheless, the ACJHR still carries traces of the fusion of its predecessors as it is divided up into a General Affairs Section and a Human Rights Section, which might render the ventilation of cases between them somewhat of a challenge.
The Statute also gives special emphasis to classical features of international litigation, e.g. regarding the independence of the Court or the need for transparency and reasonable time of proceedings. For instance, the question of conflict of interests with the office of the judges is particularly sensitive as they perform their functions on a part-time basis; it does not only apply to their activities but also to their nationality with the result that the parties to a case cannot request the nomination of ad hoc judges – similarly to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights but contrary to the European Court. Probably taking into consideration the slowness of the ECtHR, the Statute also imposes a time-limit of 3 months for the ACJHR to render its judgment after having completed the oral proceedings – an obligation that only existed until now in the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization.
The new regime contains as well a number of unique features. What had been regionalised so far related mostly to particular and compartmentalised aspects of international law, i.e. the economy on the one hand – e.g., the European Union and the Andean Community – and human rights on the other hand – e.g., the ECtHR and the IACtHR. The merger of the two African courts gives birth to a hybrid, multifunctional, Court which can hear no fewer than eight categories of disputes and blends into a single forum different types of judicial models. Its general and generous subject-matter jurisdiction is tempered by its rather conservative personal jurisdiction. If the list of entities eligible to submit a case to the Court seems relatively long, it is actually very restrictive. It is divided into two articles which mark a loss of balance between the General Affairs Section and the Human Rights Section. In fact, only States Parties to the Protocol, some organs of the AU and staff members are entitled to seize both. Yet, there is already here an important limitation: a state can only be applicant or defendant if it has ratified the Protocol – and not simply because it is a member state of the AU; this hampers the role of the Court as the principal judicial organ of the organization and establishes a two-tier legal order. The “other entities” comprise the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, African Intergovernmental Organizations accredited to the Union or its organs, African National Human Rights Institutions, and individuals or relevant Non-Governmental Organizations under the condition that the state concerned made a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory for such individual applications.
The judicial system in Africa has not stopped generating un-expected turnarounds, from traditional reticence to acceptance, from construction to destruction and back. The recent tensions between the International Criminal Court and the AU have led the latter to consider empowering its judicial organ with the jurisdiction to try and prosecute international crimes. This would involve a deep revision of its structure – e.g. requiring the election of a Prosecutor and the establishment of an Appeals Chamber. But mostly this would create a direct competitor to the ICC on the African continent.
The real challenge today is to make the new Court work and stabilise the system rather than try to create or transform new institutions. The ACJHR will need to compromise in order to turn an essential page in the writing of International (African) Law and to further the process of integration initiated by the AU.
Tessa Barsac’s book « La Cour africaine de justice et des droits de l’homme » will be published by Pedone in March 2012.
To access the French version of this blog post, click here.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Michiel Pestman, Nuon Chea Defence (23 November 2011)
On 21 November 2011, the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) commenced their second and probably last trial of alleged leaders of the of the Khmer Rouge. As defence counsel for the first Accused, Nuon Chea, popularly known as Brother Number 2, I was entitled and expected to deliver an opening speech on behalf of my client. Unfortunately, this was not how things turned out. After requesting an adjournment, to allow consultation with Nuon Chea, in view of the Prosecutor’s extensive and detailed opening, I was deemed to have waived my right to deliver my opening speech. In ruling in this way, the Trial Chamber deprived the Defence of an opportunity to highlight, not only for the Court, but also for the public, the serious flaws in the process at the ECCC. The following is the speech that I would have delivered if I had not been deprived of this opportunity.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Michael Reed H., founding partner of Corporación Punto de Vista (Bogotá, Colombia) (www.cpvista.org)
ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has had Colombia under preliminary examination since 2006. He touts Colombia as a success story – his success. The activities of Moreno’s office in relation to Colombia are rather secret. The OTP continues to “analyze information” and publicly praise Colombian authorities. The preliminary examination goes on…
As a last-ditch effort for “transparency”, in December 2011 the OTP reported “on its activities” in the preliminary examination process to provide “reasoned responses for its decisions to either proceed or not proceed with investigations.” (See ICC-OTP, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, 13 December 2011.)
The analysis of the Colombian situation in this report is frankly to
o little too late. Moreno is leaving and claiming as a success a shameful situation where crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC remain in impunity. Compared to others (including the Inter-American human rights protection bodies), Moreno’s actions have been more than timid. Yet he reports on Colombia as if he were a sort of savior.
According to the report’s legal assessment, “there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity . . . were committed” and that “various groups may be responsible for committing war crimes” in Colombia. (Report, p. 15 and 16) No problem there: the crimes are evident and are ongoing!
The OTP analysis of Colombian criminal proceedings for these crimes is diffident and vague. In contrast to African cases, the Colombian justice system is available and sophisticated. The OTP conveniently ignores that Colombia’s problem is not one of capacity, but of will. The OTP analysis is mute on the extreme corruption in the military and the police, the penetration of the justice system by criminal apparatuses, and the constant attacks against investigators, prosecutors, judges and victim representatives that do the actual work of seeking accountability for those bearing the greatest responsibility (generally State agents).
For example, the Colombian justice system actively prosecutes and convicts members of the various guerrilla groups. The Colombian State has employed all its power and might against its natural enemy and the justice system becomes an extension of the war. These cases powerfully display the will and ability to adjudicate.
The treatment of paramilitary crimes is much different. The State relies on a confessional model that offers reduces sentences to confessed perpetrators that give their version (and often justification) of events. This “Justice and Peace” model is wrought with problems. The jurisdiction over persons and subject-matter was not defined so as to strategically promote accountability: the executive (in cahoots with the paramilitaries) defined who would be processed and the focus has been discreet “ordinary” crimes (including drug-related offenses). The process has established the subjective responsibility of some “monsters” but has not lead to an exposure of the policies or masterminds behind their commission. Colombia is missing the forest for the trees: diving into the mechanics of atrocity is obscuring the regime of atrocity. The OTP has been blinded by the Justice and Peace model. By praising this state of affairs, the OTP contributes to creating a shield for those bearing the greatest responsibility.
Finally, the OTP cursorily addresses criminal proceedings against public officials (including military, police, and elected officials). The report cites charges and convictions against congresspersons as success stories. However, except for one case, these charges are for conspiracy and electoral fraud and not for international crimes. The OTP report does not analyze the cases against police and military members resulting from over a thousand executions committed since Colombia ratified the Rome Statute. These cases are being handled nationally from a “bad apples” perspective; thus, shielding those with the greatest responsibility. But safeguarding his much-needed success story, Moreno is silent on this point.
The sugar-coated analysis of the Colombia situation needs to be corrected. The next Prosecutor must assume the immense challenge of understanding the complexity of the Colombia situation and using complementarity strategically—to further the interests of justice and not a self-serving agenda.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
On 9 February 2012, Judge Baltasar Garzón was convicted for authorizing unlawful wire-tapping lawyers and their clients.
Two other cases are awaiting him. One of those pertains to allegations that Judge Garzón sought to investigate atrocities committed during the Franco era in breach of an amnesty. In an op-ed published in the New York Times/International Herald Tribune, iLawyer Dr Mettraux suggested that the prosecution of the Spanish Judge might reflect some uncomfortable truths about the limitations and selectivity of international criminal justice.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
By Alexandre Prezanti
On 3 February 2012, the Supreme Court Chamber (“SCC”) at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (“ECCC”) issued its judgement on appeal in the case of Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch (“Duch Case”). This was the first Final Judgement issued by the hybrid court in Phnom Penh.
Much academic ink will undoubtedly be spilled on scrutinizing the legal reasoning and conclusions of the majority and dissenting opinions. Commentators have already expressed their concerns with the majority’s decision to deny Duch a reduction in sentence in compensation for the 8 years he spent in illegal provisional detention. Others have voiced their disappointment with the lack of meaningful reparations and rejected civil party applicants. Yet, one important question appears to have been largely overlooked thus far: what message did the SCC send out to Cambodia and the world at large in its dismissal of Duch’s mitigating circumstances?
Holding that “the effect that mitigating factors had on the Trial Chamber’s determination of the sentence constituted an error of law”, the SCC reversed the “lenient” 35 year sentence and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. The SCC held that “it is well-established in international jurisprudence that the primary factor in sentencing is the gravity of the convicted person’s crimes” and therefore that the “aggravating elements and exceptional gravity of crimes neutralise the limited impact of these mitigating factors”. Moments later however, the President of the SCC revealed the underlying reasons for the decision, stating that for retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment, the crimes committed by Duch “deserve the highest penalty available to provide a fair and adequate response to the outrage these crimes invoked in victims, their families and relatives, the Cambodian people, and all human beings.”
It is important to note at this juncture, that the Co-Prosecutors, who plead that the Trial Chamber had given undue weight to mitigating circumstances, had requested a 40-year sentence.
The SCC’s message to the world is clear: ‘there will be no leniency for zealous perpetrators of international crimes, regardless of what they plead in mitigation’. Yet, other, more worrying messages often dwell between the lines of such bright line declarations. To find them, we must consider the mitigating factors whose impact the SCC deemed to be “limited at most”.
For one, there was Duch’s voluntary and extensive cooperation with the ECCC, both in his case and in the larger and more important case against the remaining leadership of Democratic Kampuchea (“Case 002”). Is the fact that Duch’s testimony is referenced over 1000 times in the Case 002 Indictment insignificant? The message here must be that future key participants in atrocities have no incentive to reveal the hidden truths that often only they are privy to. The ICTY Trial Chamber in the case of Obrenovic would undoubtedly disagree.
And what of Duch’s acceptance of responsibility and countless expressions of remorse? Granted, the concept of the guilty plea may not exist in civil law systems, but the significance of the fact that Duch is the only surviving Khmer Rouge cadre who openly acknowledges his wrongdoing should not be understated. In an ironic twist, the SCC ordered the compilation and publication of a 19-page list of Duch’s requests for forgiveness as part of its limited order on reparations to the victims. This document is currently being disseminated throughout the country in a collaborative effort by the ECCC and Cambodian media. Is this not evidence of an apparent contradiction in judicial thinking, or does the SCC hope that it might simultaneously appeal to the future perpetrator’s sense of altruism?
Just as in the Sierra Leonean case of Sesay, where a military commander who disarmed his militia received no leniency from the court, these hidden messages in the Duch Appeal Judgement may have a greater impact on the minds of future perpetrators than the deterrent effect of the maximum sentence. Whatever logic brought the SCC judges to their conclusion on mitigation; it brought the international courtroom a step further away from the ideal of cooperative and remorseful perpetrators.
February 27th, 2012 by Anna Bonini
A discussion of atrocity crimes litigation of 2011 with leading practitioners and experts.
Date: 14 March 2012, 10:00 AM – 4:30 PM
Venue: Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Dokter van der Stamstraat 1, 2265 BC, Leidschendam
(The Netherlands)
Please click here to RSVP by 5 March 2012.
Moderator: David Scheffer (Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law)
Panelists:
• Diane Amann (Emily and Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law, University of Georgia School of Law)
• Caroline Buisman (Defence Counsel, International Criminal Court)
• Andrew Cayley (International Co-Prosecutor, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia)
• Sara Criscitelli (Prosecution Coordinator, International Criminal Court)
• Mark Harmon (Senior Trial Prosecutor (recently retired), International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia)
• Brenda Hollis (Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone)
• Hassan Jallow (Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda)
• Daryl Mundis (Chief of Prosecutions, Special Tribunal for Lebanon)
February 27th, 2012 by Dina Mahmoud
by Professor Dan Joyner
Chair: Dr Antonios Tzanakopoulos
Date: 29 February 2012
Registration at 5:30 PM, Seminar to start at 6:00 PM followed by light refreshments
Venue: Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
Dashwood, 69 Old Broad Street, London EC2M 1QS
RSVP at: jday@edwardswildman.com
This is a seminar organised by the ILA British Branch in conjunction with Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP. The discussion will focus on international law and institutions related to civilian nuclear energy.
Dan Joyner is Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. Previously he was on the faculty of the University of Warwick School of Law. His research has focused on international law related to nuclear weapons proliferation, and civilian nuclear energy trade and investment. He is the author of International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (OUP, 2009) and Interpreting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (OUP, 2011).
February 27th, 2012 by Dina Mahmoud
| by British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Date: Tuesday 28 February 2012, 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Venue: British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5JP
Chair: The Hon Mr Justice Singh, High Court of England & Wales
Speakers:
- Professor Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge
- Mark Henderson, Doughty Street Chambers
- Professor Steven Peers, University of Essex
Sign up online at: http://www.biicl.org/events/view/-/id/675/
This evening event is aimed at exploring the EU’s commitment to fundamental rights in its post-Lisbon decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in decisions such as Cases C-236/09 Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats et al v Council, C-297/10, C-298/10 Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt, Land Berlin v Mai, C-411/10 NS v SSHD and MSS v Belgium and Greece at the European Court of Human Rights. While examining the scope and content of the EU Charter, the event will also consider whether the Charter has increased fundamental rights protection at the EU level, or whether the Court will be restrained in its approach to fundamental rights issues. |
February 27th, 2012 by Dina Mahmoud
| by British Institute of International and Comparative LawDate: Wednesday 29 February 2012, 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM
Venue: British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London, WC1B 5JP
Chair: Jill Barrett, British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Speakers:
- Alistair McGlone, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
- Stephen Hockman QC, 6 Pump Court Chambers
- Roy Watkinson, Roy Watkinson Environmental Consulting Limited
Sign up online at: http://www.biicl.org/events/view/-/id/682/
A concern to live in a healthy environment is becoming one of the most important aspects of our daily life. At the international level different legal regimes have emerged with an aim to provide standards and procedures for the protection of environment. One of the key questions is how to secure compliance of States with these provisions. The event will start with an overview of compliance mechanisms; what they are, a brief history of their development, and consideration of key issues that emerge after the compliance mechanisms are established and put into operation (Alistair McGlone). The discussion will continue with the examination of provisions of the Aarhus Convention; the way in which the Compliance Committee seeks to enforce them, and the implications of the process for national governments, including the UK (Stephen Hockman). Another important international mechanism for the protection of environment is the Committee on Implementation and Compliance under the Basel Convention. In this context, the event will consider practical experience accrued from the Committee’s work as well as future challenges that lay ahead of the Basel Convention compliance mechanism (Roy Watkinson). |
February 21st, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Dominic Kennedy, Head of Office for the ADC-ICTY.
The Association of Defence Counsel practising before the ICTY (ADC-ICTY) (http://adc-icty.org/) in cooperation with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Institute (UNICRI) (http://www.unicri.it) has recently published ‘The Manual on International Criminal Defence, ADC-ICTY Developed Practices’.
The Manual on International Criminal Defence is a major achievement, not only for the defence in war crimes trials but also in the contribution that it makes to the field of international criminal law. It is a ground-breaking publication which is the first of its kind. It has been drafted by lawyers who practice or practised before the ICTY. The Manual provides a practical perspective by those who have had first hand experience of representing defendants in major war crimes cases. The Manual crystallises the knowledge gained by those practitioners at the ICTY and should hopefully assist lawyers in future war crimes cases wherever they might be practicing.
The Manual provides a comprehensive account of defence practice at the ICTY, covering all stages of its proceedings. It includes chapters on developing a case theory and defence strategy, defence investigations, affirmative defences in international criminal trials, examination of witnesses, plea agreements and appeals. Each chapter is accompanied with examples of motions and practical illustrations specifically relevant to the peculiarities arising in these sort of cases.
The Manual also includes a DVD which contains all documents referred to in each chapter as well as other examples of written submissions. There is also a complete list of expert witnesses who have testified before the ICTY along with their expert reports.
The Manual forms part of the War Crimes Justice Project, funded by the European Union, which aims at preserving the legacy of the ICTY, in particular in the region of the Former Yugoslavia. The Manual has also been published in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Albanian and it is hoped it will be published in French in the near future. An electronic version of the English Manual is available at:
http://wcjp.unicri.it/deliverables/manual.php.
February 21st, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Prof. David Scheffer
Date: 12 March 2012
Time: 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Venue: Russell Square: College Buildings
Room: Khalili Lecture Theatre (KLT)
Type of Event: Talk
David Scheffer, Mayer Brown / Robert A. Helman Professor of Law and director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law. Professor Scheffer served as the first U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues (1997-2001) and led American initiatives on war crimes tribunals during the 1990s. He has published widely on international law and politics. He is the author of ALL THE MISSING SOULS: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals
Contact email: lv@soas.ac.uk
Contact Tel: 0207 898 4758
http://www.soas.ac.uk/ccrj/news/
February 21st, 2012 by Anna Bonini
by Judge Linos-Alexander Sicilianos (European Court of Human Rights)
International Law Association (British Branch) Lecture
Chaired by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Laws
Date: Friday 9 March 2012, from 6-7.30pm
Venue: UCL Law Faculty –
Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens
– London WC1H 0EG
Sign up online at: http://ila-sicilianos.eventbrite.com/
This lecture will explore:
• Introduction: the current situation. Some good news from Strasbourg.
• Is there a need to reform? Evaluation of the contribution of the 14th Protocol to the ECHR. Amelioration of working methods. Filtering. The notion of ‘well-established case-law’. Perspectives under the current system.
• What kind of reform? Proposals of the British authorities. Other proposals. Advisory opinions or ‘preliminary rulings’? Individual or ‘constitutional’ justice?
• The subsidiarity principle. States have the primary responsibility for the application of the ECHR. The role of the Court as the guarantor of the Convention system. The notion of ‘shared responsibilities’. The ECHR as a living instrument.
• Some tentative conclusions.
