Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Control of an Accusation

  • Chapter
The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court

  • 644 Accesses

Abstract

The method and scope of the judicial control over the indictment has a significant impact on the model of accusation. The broad extent of judicial control over the Prosecutor’s actions has become a characteristic feature of the ICC proceedings. Not only the Pre-Trial Chamber has powers to approve the decision to initiate an investigation, but later it also authorises the charges filed by the Prosecutor, at a contradictory hearing. Moreover, the judicial review performed by the Pre-Trial Chamber covers the grounds for non-prosecution. Both the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Trial Chamber have the authority to modify the legal characterisation of facts presented in an indictment—which deprives the Prosecutor of control over the formulated charges. In this chapter, the “interplay” between the Prosecutor and the ICC Chambers will be shown and the ways in which the role of the judicial authority matches the role of the Prosecutor in bringing an indictment. Moreover, reflections on this aspect of the Prosecutor’s role should be related to a broader discussion of the objectives of international criminal law as analysis of the accusation model would not be complete without considering the political aspect of indictments presented by the ICC Prosecutor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The so-called filtering of cases or negative controlling function—see: Hauck (2008), pp. 54 and 48 respectively; Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 355.

  2. 2.

    E.g., “selective or vindictive” prosecutions—see: Stahn (2009), p. 247. See also the case law, e.g.: The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Confirmation of charges decision, 29 January 2007, § 37.

  3. 3.

    See: Cryer et al. (2010), p. 114; May and Wierda (2002), p. 40; Townsend (2012), p. 200.

  4. 4.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007, § 153.

  5. 5.

    See: Tochilovsky (2004), pp. 319–344; Keegan and Mundis (2001), pp. 124–125.

  6. 6.

    Prosecutor v. Brđanin, IT-99-36, Decision on Objections by Momir Talic to the Form of the amended Indictment, 20 February 2001, § 23.

  7. 7.

    As, e.g., Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7.1., of 1.12.2012, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5.1. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  8. 8.

    This concept was also interpreted in: Tochilovsky (2008), p. 2; Tochilovsky (2004), pp. 319–344; Tochilovsky (2009), pp. 829–832; Keegan and Mundis (2001), pp. 154–159.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 207.

  10. 10.

    Prosecutor v. Kvočka, IT-98-30/1, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 12 April 1999.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14, judgment of the Appeal Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 207–210; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 February 1999.

  12. 12.

    Prosecutor v. Brđanin, IT-99-36, Decision on Objections by Momir Talić to the Form of the Indictment, 20 February 2001, § 19–20.

  13. 13.

    Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 February 1999.

  14. 14.

    Prosecutor v. Todorović, IT-95-9/1, Decision on Todorović Defence Motion on the Form of the Joint Amended Indictment, 21 March 2006, § 17.

  15. 15.

    Cit. after: Knoops (2005), p. 156.

  16. 16.

    Regulations of the Court, ICC-BD/01-03-11, Adopted by the judges of the Court on 26 May 2004, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/50A6CD53-3E8A-4034-B5A9-8903CD9CDC79/0/RegulationsOfTheCourtEng.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2015.

  17. 17.

    Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 February 1999.

  18. 18.

    See: Keegan and Mundis (2001), pp. 134 and 127–129.

  19. 19.

    See: Locke (2012), p. 624.

  20. 20.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the confirmation decision, 29 January 2007, § 153. See in general also: Schabas (2010), p. 738.

  21. 21.

    Cit. after: Damaška (2008), p. 340.

  22. 22.

    In English criminal trial: Sprack (2012), pp. 244–248.

  23. 23.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 637–748.

  24. 24.

    See: Prosecutor v. Kunarac, IT-96-23, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, § 167–174; Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21, Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001, § 389–425, and the same case analysed in: Tochilovsky (2008), p. 33; Tochilovsky (2009), pp. 833–834; Eser (2008), p. 215; Locke (2012), pp. 635–638.

  25. 25.

    Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4, Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, § 469.

  26. 26.

    Ibidem, § 468.

  27. 27.

    Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24, Status conference, 18 February 2002.

  28. 28.

    Prosecutor v. Brđanin, IT-99-36, Decision on Form of Third Amended Indictment, 21 September 2001, § 22.

  29. 29.

    See: Prosecutor v. Naletilić, IT-98-34, Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, § 103; Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21, Appeals Chamber, 20 February 2001, § 400.

  30. 30.

    See: Prosecutor v. Naletilić, IT-98-34, Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, § 103.

  31. 31.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 727.

  32. 32.

    On many occasions, these two separate systems of evaluation of charges are considered to be identical, as, e.g., in Friman et al. (2013), p. 389.

  33. 33.

    See: Prosecutor v. Naletilić, IT-98-34, Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, § 103.

  34. 34.

    See: Cryer et al. (2010), p. 459.

  35. 35.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(9a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against J-P Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, § 199.

  36. 36.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision of 15 June 2009, § 202.

  37. 37.

    Ibidem, § 312.

  38. 38.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision of 15 June 2009, § 403.

  39. 39.

    The Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 14 March 2009, § 95–96.

  40. 40.

    The Prosecutor v. Ruto, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, 23 January 2012, § 279–281.

  41. 41.

    Friman et al. (2013), p. 393.

  42. 42.

    Cit. after: Locke (2012), p. 637.

  43. 43.

    Although there are many opposite opinions, as, e.g., in Friman et al. (2013), p. 488.

  44. 44.

    See: Wiliński and Kuczyńska (2009), p. 196.

  45. 45.

    In American federal law: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7.1., version of 1 December 2012, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  46. 46.

    As in the English system—see: Ward and Wragg (2005), p. 586; Sprack (2012), pp. 253–254, an approach expressed also in: R v. Shields [2011] EWCA Crim 2343, the Appeal Court of 25 October 2011.

  47. 47.

    As of the 1 July 2015 Article 339(4)(3) CCP is annulled (Dz.U. of 2013, pos. 1247).

  48. 48.

    As of the 1 July 2015 Article 397 CCP is annulled (Dz.U. of 2013, pos. 1247).

  49. 49.

    See: Razowski (2005), pp. 190–192; Olszewski (2004), p. 75; Stefański (1998), p. 28; Szyprowski (1999), p. 86.

  50. 50.

    Act of 27 September 2013 amending the Act—Code of Criminal Proceedings, Dz.U. of 2013, pos. 1282.

  51. 51.

    See: Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, judgment of the Trial Chamber of 14 January 2000, § 823.

  52. 52.

    See: Tochilovsky (2008), pp. 85–87, and the jurisprudence cited there and Locke (2012), p. 645.

  53. 53.

    Prosecutor v. Naletilić, IT-98-34, Trial Chamber, 31 March 2003, § 27.

  54. 54.

    Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25, Appeals Chamber, 17 September 2003, § 141–142.

  55. 55.

    Prosecutor v. Muvunyi, ICTR-2000-55A, Trial Chamber, 29 August 2008, § 160–166. In general see: Cryer et al. (2010), p. 457; and Locke (2012), p. 645.

  56. 56.

    See: Ambos (2000), p. 98.

  57. 57.

    After: Razowski (2005), p. 29.

  58. 58.

    However, in 90 % of cases the control is realised ex officio. See: Stefański (1998), p. 28.

  59. 59.

    See: Paprzycki (2010), pp. 1074–1081; Hofmański et al. (2011), pp. 352–354.

  60. 60.

    Article 345 CCP is annulled as of 1 July 2015, Dz. U. of 2013, pos. 1247.

  61. 61.

    See: Grzegorczyk (2008), p. 699; Razowski (2005), p. 181.

  62. 62.

    See: Grzegorczyk (2008), p. 735.

  63. 63.

    Act of 27 September 2013 amending the Act—Code of Criminal Proceedings, Dz.U. of 2013, pos. 1282.

  64. 64.

    Wąsek-Wiaderek (2003), p. 315.

  65. 65.

    See: Syta (1999), p. 30; Razowski (2005), p. 185; Kardas (2012), p. 37.

  66. 66.

    See in general: Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 355.

  67. 67.

    Cit. after: Hauck (2008), p. 48.

  68. 68.

    For more information, see: Hauck (2008), pp. 47–49; Hunt (2001), p. 139; Beulke (2005), pp. 205–209; Volk (2006), pp. 151–157. Although, as the last author concludes, only in 1 % of cases the proceedings is discontinued at this stage because of manifest absence of any factual basis for charge.

  69. 69.

    Kaftal (1974), p. 17. Similarily: Stachowiak S (1975) p. 109, Waltoś (1968) p. 23.

  70. 70.

    As “chasing after the criminal would undermine the authority of the court”—Mogilnicki (1929) Motywy ustawodawcze do Kodeksu postępowania karnego z 1928 r. cit. after: Kulesza (1988), p. 94.

  71. 71.

    As Glaser (1929) Zarys polskiego procesu karnego, Warszawa 1929, pp. 70–71, cit. after: Daszkiewicz (1960), p. 11.

  72. 72.

    As Kulesza (1988), pp. 93–104.

  73. 73.

    Hauck (2008), p. 50.

  74. 74.

    For more, see: Stahn (2009), p. 253; Hunt (2001), p. 139.

  75. 75.

    Thies v. State (178 Wis. 98 [1922]), Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

  76. 76.

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 5.1, version of 1 December 2012, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5.1. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  77. 77.

    As decided in: Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.P. 1 (1970), Supreme Court, 22 June 1970.

  78. 78.

    See in general: Worrall (2007), p. 293; LaFave et al. (2009), pp. 744–746.

  79. 79.

    However, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that there is no constitutional right to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing. The courts have discretion over the extent of cross-examination. See: Worrall (2007), p. 293; LaFave et al. (2009), pp. 761–766.

  80. 80.

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  81. 81.

    Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  82. 82.

    Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 349.

  83. 83.

    Ibidem.

  84. 84.

    See in general: Sprack (2012), pp. 258–266 and 175–176.

  85. 85.

    Cit. after: Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 335.

  86. 86.

    See in general: Ambos (2007), p. 455; Schabas (2008), p. 732; Izydorczyk and Wiliński (2005), p. 70; Schabas (2010), p. 734; Hauck (2008), pp. 55–56.

  87. 87.

    See: deGuzman and Schabas (2013), p. 134.

  88. 88.

    Cit after: Boister and Cryer (2000), p. 72.

  89. 89.

    In general see: Hunt (2001), pp. 137 et seq.; Tochilovsky (2008), p. 51; Vasiliev (2012), pp. 740–742; Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), p. 900; Safferling (2001), p. 183.

  90. 90.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Decision on Review of the Indictment, 10 November 1995, § 14.

  91. 91.

    The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, ICC-01/09-01/11, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, 23 January 2012, § 14.

  92. 92.

    The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, ICC-01/09-01/11-1, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Hevol.y Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, 8 March 2011, § 10–11.

  93. 93.

    Such a conclusion presented in: Calvo-Goller (2006), p. 171.

  94. 94.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Adjourning the Hearing pursuant to Article 61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, 3 March 2009, § 25.

  95. 95.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007, § 200–237.

  96. 96.

    In a manner typical for the continental model of prosecution—as it is claimed by: Hauck (2008), pp. 55–56.

  97. 97.

    Cit. after: Jackson (2009), p. 35.

  98. 98.

    See: Hauck (2008), pp. 56–57.

  99. 99.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, § 29.

  100. 100.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, 29 January 2007, § 63.

  101. 101.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Public Document Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, § 28.

  102. 102.

    The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, ICC-01/09-01/11, Confirmation of Charges, 23 January 2012, § 40; The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-749, Prosecution’s Document Addressing Matters that were Discussed at the Confirmation Hearing, document of 4 December 2006, § 9–14.

  103. 103.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the confirmation of the charges, 30 September 2008, § 63; The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 8 February 2010, § 39.

  104. 104.

    E.g., Calvo-Goller (2006), p. 171.

  105. 105.

    Such possibility is noticed by: Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 348.

  106. 106.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the confirmation decision, 29 January 2007, § 37.

  107. 107.

    Cit. after: Waltoś (1968), p. 263.

  108. 108.

    What is often highlighted: Shibahara and Schabas (2008), p. 1173; Wei (2007), p. 142.

  109. 109.

    See: De Hert (2003), p. 98; Ambos (2007), p. 444.

  110. 110.

    Cit. after: Izydorczyk and Wiliński (2004), pp. 85–86.

  111. 111.

    See: Schabas (2010), pp. 734–735.

  112. 112.

    The idea of an “investigative chamber” appears quite often in the literature, e.g.: de Hemptinne (2007), p. 402; Harmon (2007), p. 377.

  113. 113.

    As unanimously concluded by: Bergsmo and Pejić (2008), p. 601; also Stegmiller (2011), p. 157.

  114. 114.

    Oosthuizen (1999), p. 334.

  115. 115.

    See: Bergsmo and Pejić (2008), p. 602; Yañez-Barnuevo and Escobar Hernández (2003), p. 53; Milik (2012), pp. 132–133; Stegmiller (2011), p. 157.

  116. 116.

    Schabas (2009), p. 325; Yañez-Barnuevo and Escobar Hernández (2003), p. 51; Płachta (2007), pp. 480–481; Krzan (2009), pp. 172–173; Stegmiller (2011), p. 154.

  117. 117.

    Against such danger warn: Arbour et al. (2000), p. 136; Bergsmo and Pejić (2008), p. 601; Safferling (2001), p. 83; Stegmiller (2011), pp. 153 and 167–168.

  118. 118.

    Cit. after: Oosthuizen (1999), p. 334.

  119. 119.

    See: Bergsmo and Pejić (2008), p. 602. Similarly: Stegmiller (2011), p. 159.

  120. 120.

    See: Yañez-Barnuevo and Escobar Hernández (2003), p. 54; La Haye (1999), p. 13; Cryer (2005), pp. 226–227 Coté (2012), p. 407; Wouters et al. (2008), p. 282; Krzan (2009), p. 163; Ohlin (2009), p. 193.

  121. 121.

    As observed by Wouters et al. (2008), p. 282.

  122. 122.

    Safferling (2001), p. 83. However, B. Krzan indicates how a proceedings started by the ICC might negatively influence, or even endanger, international peace, which may lead to a conflict between the Security Council and the Court—Krzan (2009), p. 171.

  123. 123.

    Cit. after: Stegmiller (2011), p. 163.

  124. 124.

    Probably as it was assumed that this provision had little chance of practical application—Stegmiller (2011), p. 152.

  125. 125.

    Resolution UN Doc. S/RES/1422 of 2002: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/477/61/PDF/N0247761.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.

  126. 126.

    Schabas (2010), p. 332.

  127. 127.

    See: Stegmiller (2011), p. 173.

  128. 128.

    Resolution UN Doc. S/RES/1497 of 2003.

  129. 129.

    In general see: Schabas (2010), p. 331.

  130. 130.

    See: Krzan (2009), p. 192.

  131. 131.

    The terminology adopted, e.g., in: Langbein (1973–1974), p. 463, also Herrmannt (1973–1974), p. 476.

  132. 132.

    As mentioned by: Turone (2002), p. 1165.

  133. 133.

    See these notions explained in: Langbein (1973–1974), p. 464.

  134. 134.

    Both citations after: Herrmannt (1973–1974), p. 477.

  135. 135.

    In the 1980s, the judicial control referred only to 2 % of cases where an indictment was filed. Kulesza (1987), p. 87.

  136. 136.

    R v. Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary, ex parte L, R v DPP, ex parte B, [1993] 1 All ER 756, Watkins LJ. In: Padfield (2008), p. 181.

  137. 137.

    Padfield (2008), p. 164.

  138. 138.

    R (F) v. CPS [2003] EWHC 3266 (2004), 165 JP 93. In: Padfield (2008), p. 164.

  139. 139.

    As in Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977).

  140. 140.

    Wayte v. United States, 470 U.P. 598 [1985], Supreme Court, 19 March 1985.

  141. 141.

    LaFave et al. (2009), p. 717; Worrall (2007), p. 313.

  142. 142.

    Cit. after: Langbein (1973–1974), p. 440.

  143. 143.

    Which was also noticed by: Reydams et al. (2012), p. 935.

  144. 144.

    See: Wei (2007), p. 82; Friman (2001), p. 497.

  145. 145.

    Situation in the Central African Republic, ICC-01/05, Prosecution’s Report Pursuant to Pre-Trial Chamber III’s 30, November 2006 Decision Requesting Information on the Status of the Preliminary Examination of the Situation in the Central African Republic, 15 December 2006, § 10.

  146. 146.

    See: Schabas (2010), p. 670; Bergsmo and Kruger (2008), p. 1075; and Turone (2002), p. 1165.

  147. 147.

    But differently: Wouters et al. (2008), p. 302, who claim that a new review under the same conditions may follow.

  148. 148.

    Turone et al. p. 1165.

  149. 149.

    As in: Wouters et al. (2008), p. 302.

  150. 150.

    By: Turone (2002), p. 1146.

  151. 151.

    See: Schabas (2010), p. 669.

  152. 152.

    Polish Supreme Court decision, 25 June 2008, IV KK 39/08, Biul.PK 2008, vol. 10, p. 17; Polish Supreme Court decision, 19 October 2010., III KK 97/10, OSNKW 2011, vol. 6, p. 50.

  153. 153.

    See: Schuon (2010), pp. 70–71; Beulke (2005), p. 163.

  154. 154.

    Both citations after: Sprack (2012), pp. 357–363.

  155. 155.

    In general see: Stahn (2005), pp. 4–5; Ambos and Miller (2007), pp. 357–358; Safferling (2001), p. 341.

  156. 156.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 723–748.

  157. 157.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 748–748.

  158. 158.

    This requirement is mentioned by: Stahn (2005), p. 16; Keegan and Mundis (2001), pp. 132–133.

  159. 159.

    Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-95-16, Appeals Chamber Decision on Jurisdiction, decision of 2 October 1995, § 87; Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, 14 January 2000, § 653.

  160. 160.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, 14 January 2000, § 747.

  161. 161.

    Ibidem, § 743–748.

  162. 162.

    See: Stahn (2005), p. 23.

  163. 163.

    Cit. after: Stahn (2005), p. 17.

  164. 164.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings and the manner in which the evidence shall be submitted, 13 December 2007, § 42–48. A commentary to this decision by: Gallmetzer (2009), p. 518.

  165. 165.

    The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, ICC-01/09-01/11, Confirmation of Charges, 23 January 2012, § 45, and later The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, 21 November 2012, § 10.

  166. 166.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, 21 November 2012, § 15–20.

  167. 167.

    See: Stahn (2005), p. 2.

  168. 168.

    Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 360.

  169. 169.

    Stahn (2005), p. 29.

  170. 170.

    Cit. after: Stahn (2005), p. 29.

  171. 171.

    Friman et al. (2013), p. 487 add “so long as an accused is protected against ‘surprise’ judicial re-characterisations and is not unduly burdened against any new legal re-characterisation”.

  172. 172.

    Cit. after: Stahn (2005), p. 29.

  173. 173.

    As in the case: Prosecutor v. Kupreśkić, IT-95-16, Trial Chamber, 14 January 2000, § 728.

  174. 174.

    Regulations of the Court ICC-BD/01-01-04, version of 29 June 2012.

  175. 175.

    See: Ambos (2007), p. 464.

  176. 176.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Application for Leave to Appeal Pre-Trial Chamber “Decision sur la confirmation des charges”, 7 February 2007.

  177. 177.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Prosecution and Defence applications for leave to appeal the Decision on the confirmation of charges, 24 May 2007, § 19–27.

  178. 178.

    See: Eckelmans (2009), pp. 539–541.

  179. 179.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings, and the manner in which the evidence shall be submitted, 13 December 2007, § 39.

  180. 180.

    See: Ambos and Miller (2007), p. 349.

  181. 181.

    Cit. after: Wouters et al. (2008), p. 314.

  182. 182.

    See: Schabas (2010), p. 743; Shibahara and Schabas (2008), p. 1180; Schabas (2008), pp. 754–755; Cryer et al. (2010), p. 458.

  183. 183.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 Entitled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterization of facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, 8 December 2009; and similarly in decisions: The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, ICC-01/09-01/11, Confirmation of Charges, 23 January 2012, § 45; The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, 21 November 2012, § 10. In general see: Boas et al. (2011), p. 43.

  184. 184.

    Cit. after: Wouters et al. (2008), p. 280.

  185. 185.

    Cit. after: Kress (2003) p. 607.

  186. 186.

    Cit. after: Wouters et al. (2008), p. 282.

  187. 187.

    This notion in: Ohlin (2009), pp. 192 and 200. Similar conclusions: Goldstone and Fritz (2000), p. 13.

  188. 188.

    Greenawalt (2007), pp. 619 and 658.

  189. 189.

    See numerous authors on this topic, e.g.: Coté (2005), pp. 177 and seq.; Geis and Mundt (2009), pp. 7–8; Hall (2009), p. 227.

  190. 190.

    Damaška (2008), p. 332.

  191. 191.

    Schabas (2009), p. 238.

  192. 192.

    See: Geis and Mundt (2009), p. 15; Fish (2010), pp. 119 and 1703; Schabas (2010), pp. 664–665.

  193. 193.

    Unfortunately it is not possible to discuss this topic in more detail. Very detailed information can be found in: Hiéramente (2013), p. 28 et seq.

References

  • Ambos K (2000) Status, role, accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: a comparative overview on the basis of 33 national reports. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 8:98

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2007) The structure of international procedure: “adversarial”, “inquisitorial” or mixed. In: Bohlander M (ed) International criminal justice: a critical analysis of institutions and procedures. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Miller D (2007) Structure and function of the confirmation procedure before the ICC from a comparative perspective. Int Crim Law Rev 7:355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbour L, Eser A, Ambos K, Sanders A (eds) (2000) The Prosecutor of a permanent International Criminal Court. International workshop in co-operation with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals (ICTY and ICTR). Edition Iuscrim, Freiburg im Breisgau

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC, Manikas P (1996) The law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsmo M, Kruger P (2008) In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. Hart/Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft/C.H. Beck, München/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsmo M, Pejić J (2008) In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. Hart/Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft/C.H. Beck, München/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beulke W (2005) Strafprozessrecht, 12th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas G, Bischoff J, Reid N, Taylor BD III (2011) International criminal procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Boister N, Cryer R (2000) The Tokyo Military Tribunal: a reappraisal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo-Goller K (2006) The trial proceedings of the International Criminal Court: ICTY and ICTR precedents. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coté L (2005) Reflections on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in international criminal law. J Int Crim Justice 3:162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coté L (2012) Independence and impartiality. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R (2005) Prosecuting international crimes: selectivity and the international criminal law regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (2008) What is the point of international criminal justice? Chic Kent Law Rev 83:329

    Google Scholar 

  • Daszkiewicz W (1960) Oskarżyciel w polskim procesie karnym. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hemptinne J (2007) The creation of investigating chambers at the International Criminal Court. An option worth pursuing? J Int Crim Justice 5:402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Hert P (2003) Legal procedures at the International Criminal Court. A comparative law analysis of procedural basic rights. In: Haveman R, Kavran O, Nicholls J (eds) Supranational criminal law: a system sui generis. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • deGuzman MM, Schabas W (2013) Initiation of investigation and selection of cases. In: Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Vasiliev S, Zappala S (eds) International criminal procedure. Principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckelmans F (2009) The first jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber of the ICC. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2008) The “adversarial” procedure: a model superior to other trial systems in international criminal justice? In: Kruessmann T (ed) ICTY: towards a fair trial? Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish E (2010) Peace through complementarity: solving the ex post problem in International Criminal Court prosecutions. Yale Law J 119:1703

    Google Scholar 

  • Friman H (2001) Investigation and prosecution. In: Lee RP (ed) The International Criminal Court. Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friman H, Brady H, Costi M, Guariglia F, Stuckenberg C-F (2013) Charges. In: Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Vasiliev S, Zappala S (eds) International criminal procedure. Principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallmetzer R (2009) The Trial-Chamber’s discretionary power and its exercise in the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis J, Mundt A (2009) When to indict? The impact of timing of international criminal indictments on peace processes and humanitarian action. The Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/4/peace%20and%20justice%20geis/04_peace_and_justice_geis.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2015

  • Glaser P (1929) Zarys polskiego procesu karnego. Księgarnia Powszechna, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone R, Fritz N (2000) In the interest of justice and the independent referral: The ICC Prosecutor unprecedented power. Leiden J Int Law 13:655

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenawalt A (2007) Justice without politics? Prosecutorial discretion and the International Criminal Court. NYU J Int Law Polit 39:583

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzegorczyk T (2008) Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz Ustawa o świadku koronnym. Komentarz, 5th edn. Wolter Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall CK (2009) Developing and implementing an effective positive complementarity prosecution strategy. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon M (2007) The pre-trial process at the ICTY as a means of ensuring expeditious trial. A potential unrealized. J Int Crim Justice 5:377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauck P (2008) Judicial decisions in the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings in France, Germany, and England. A comparative analysis responding to the law of the International Criminal Court. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmannt J (1973–1974) The rule of compulsory prosecution and the scope of prosecutorial discretion in Germany. Univ Chic Law Rev 41:468

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiéramente M (2013) Internationale Haftbefehle in noch andauernden Konflikten. Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen bei strafrechtlicher Intervention externer Akteure. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmański P, Sadzik E, Zgryzek K (2011) Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz. t. I, 4th edn. C.H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt D (2001) The meaning of a “prima facie case” for the purpose of confirmation. In: May R, Tolbert D, Hocking J, Roberts K, Jia BB, Mundis D, Oosthuizen G (eds) Essays on ICTY procedure and evidence. In honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald. Brill Academic Publishers, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Izydorczyk J, Wiliński P (2004) Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny. Zakamycze, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Izydorczyk J, Wiliński P (2005) Postępowanie przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym. Państwo i Prawo 6:70

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J (2009) Finding the best epistemic fit for international criminal tribunals. Beyond the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy. J Int Crim Justice 7:35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaftal A (1974) Kontrola sądowa postępowania przygotowawczego. Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardas P (2012) Rola i miejsce prokuratury – w systemie organów demokratycznego państwa prawnego. Prokuratura i Prawo 9:37

    Google Scholar 

  • Keegan MJ, Mundis DA (2001) Legal requirements for indictment. In: May R, Tolbert D, Hocking J, Roberts K, Jia BB, Mundis D, Oosthuizen G (eds) Essays on ICTY procedure and evidence. In honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald. Brill Academic Publishers, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoops G-J (2005) Theory and practice of international and internationalized criminal proceedings. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2003) The procedural law of the International Criminal Court in outline: anatomy of a unique compromise. J Int Crim Justice 1(3):603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzan B (2009) Kompetencje Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ w międzynarodowym sądownictwie karnym. TNOiK, Toruń

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza C (1987) Rola sądu w postępowaniu przygotowawczym w systemach prawnych niektórych państw zachodnich. Państwo i Prawo 4:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza C (1988) Sędzia śledczy w polskim modelu postępowania przygotowawczego (Uwagi de lege ferenda). Państwo i Prawo 12:94

    Google Scholar 

  • La Haye E (1999) The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: controversies over the preconditions for exercising its jurisdiction. Netherlands Int Law Rev 46:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFave W, Israel J, King N, Kerr O (2009) Criminal procedure, 5th edn. West Academic Publishing, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (1973–1974) Controlling prosecutorial discretion in Germany. Univ Chic Law Rev 41:439

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke J (2012) Indictments. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • May R, Wierda M (2002) International criminal evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Milik P (2012) Komplementarność jurysdykcji Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego i trybunałów hybrydowych. Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogilnicki A, Rappaport ES (1929) Kodeks postępowania karnego. Motywy ustawodawcze. Cz. II, F. Hoesick, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin JD (2009) Peace, security, and prosecutorial discretion. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Olszewski R (2004) Usuwanie istotnych braków postępowania przygotowawczego w świetle znowelizowanego Article 397 kodeksu postępowania karnego. Prokuratura i Prawo 5:75

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosthuizen G (1999) Some preliminary remarks on the relationship between the envisaged International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council. Netherlands International Law Review 46:313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padfield N (2008) Text and materials on the criminal justice process, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Paprzycki LK (2010) In: Grajewski J, Paprzycki LK, Steinborn S (eds) Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, vol I. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Płachta M (2007) Prokurator Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego: między legalizmem a oportunizmem ścigania. In: Menkes J (ed) Prawo międzynarodowego. Księga pamiątkowa Profesor Renaty Szafarz. WSHiP, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Razowski T (2005) Formalna i merytoryczna kontrola oskarżenia w polskim procesie karnym. Zakamycze, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) (2012) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C (2001) Towards an international criminal procedure, Oxford monographs in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2008) Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court. J Int Crim Justice 6:731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2009) Prosecutorial discretion and gravity. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court. A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schuon C (2010) International criminal procedure. A clash of legal cultures. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shibahara K, Schabas W (2008) In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. Hart/Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft/C.H. Beck, München/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprack J (2012) A practical approach to criminal procedure, 14th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowiak S (1975) Funkcje skargowości w polskim procesie karnym. Zakład Graficzny UAM, Poznań

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahn C (2005) Modification of the legal characterization of facts in the ICC system. Crim Law Forum 16:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahn C (2009) Judicial review of prosecutorial discretion: five years on. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefański R (1998) Formalna kontrola aktu oskarżenia w nowym kodeksie postępowania karnego. Prokuratura i Prawo 9:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmiller I (2011) The pre-investigation stage of the ICC. Criteria for situation selection. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Syta M (1999) Udział prokuratora w posiedzeniach sądowych w świetle kodeksu postępowania karnego. Prokuratura i Prawo 10:30

    Google Scholar 

  • Szyprowski B (1999) Kontrola warunków formalnych aktu oskarżenia w kodeksie postępowania karnego. Państwo i Prawo 12:86

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2004) International criminal justice: “Strangers in the Foreign System”. Crim Law Forum 15:319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2008) Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2009) Charging in the ICC and the relevant jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals. In: May R, Tolbert D, Hocking J, Roberts K, Jia BB, Mundis D, Oosthuizen G (eds) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court: essays in honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend G (2012) Structure and management. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Turone G (2002) Powers and duties of the Prosecutor. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones WD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasiliev P (2012) Trial. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) International prosecutors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Volk K (2006) Grundkurs. StPO, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltoś P (1963) Akt oskarżenia w polskim procesie karnym. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltoś S (1968) Model postępowania przygotowawczego na tle porównawczym. PWN, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward R, Wragg A (2005) Walker and Walker’s English legal system, 9th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wąsek-Wiaderek M (2003) Zasada równości stron w polskim procesie karnym w perspektywie prawnoporównawczej. Zakamycze, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei W (2007) Die Rolle des Anklägers eines Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliński P, Kuczyńska H (2009) Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych. In: Wiliński P (ed) Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie sądów polskich i międzynarodowych. Wolter Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall J (2007) Criminal procedure: from first contact to appeal, 2nd edn. Pearson Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J, Verhoeven S, Demeyere B (2008) The International Criminal Court's Office of the Prosecutor: navigating between independence and accountability? Int Crim Law Rev 8:273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yañez-Barnuevo JA, Escobar Hernández C (2003) The ICC and the UN – a complex and vital relationship. In: Lattanzi F, Schabas W (eds) Essays on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, vol 2. Il Sirente, Ripa di Fagnano Alto

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

    Hanna Kuczyńska

Authors
  1. Hanna Kuczyńska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kuczyńska, H. (2015). Judicial Control of an Accusation. In: The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17626-0_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation