Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court pp 185–240Cite as

Obligations of the Prosecutor Related to the Accused’s Right to Information

  • Chapter

  • 641 Accesses

Abstract

The realisation of the suspect’s right to be informed imposes on the prosecutor an obligation to provide information in a manner and to the extent that guarantee observance of this right. Depending on the legal system, the prosecutor’s obligation to inform the defence is performed using one of the following two procedures. In continental systems, the prosecutor may, and sometimes must, provide access to the case file. In common law states, an obligation to provide information on the evidence to the suspect and the accused is performed as part of the “disclosure of evidence”. Before the ICC, the obligations of the Prosecutor to inform the accused about the evidence was solved utilising the model adopted in Anglo-Saxon states. The disclosure of evidence procedure was found to be strictly related to the assumption adopted by the ICC—that a trial was a dispute between two versions of a case prepared by the parties. In consequence, disclosure of evidence procedure constitutes a complicated procedure of gradual and multifaceted activities, including the application of the bilateral obligation to disclose and the specification of categories of evidence subject to disclosure, and complicated technical rules that are to be followed. However, is the disclosure of evidence procedure in the format existing in common law states compatible with the ICC’s needs?

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Natunen v. Finland, 31 March 2009, application No. 21022/04, § 39.

  2. 2.

    Prosecutor v. Kristić, IT-98-33, Appeals Chamber 19 April 2004, § 180.

  3. 3.

    Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 27 January 2004, SK 50/03.

  4. 4.

    See: Ponikowski (2012), p. 138; Skorupka (2007), p. 73.

  5. 5.

    Cit. after: Damaška (1986), p. 50.

  6. 6.

    Heinze (2014), p. 319.

  7. 7.

    See: Ambos (2003), p. 15; Orie (2002), p. 1484.

  8. 8.

    See: Skorupka (2007), p. 65; Szczotka (2009), pp. 12–25; Kardas (2013), pp. 39–45.

  9. 9.

    See: Skorupka (2007), p. 65; Wąsek-Wiaderek (2003a, b), pp. 65 and 247.

  10. 10.

    See: Skorupka (2007), p. 73; Wiliński (2006), p. 79.

  11. 11.

    Cit. after: Skorupka (2007), p. 73.

  12. 12.

    See: Wiliński (2006), p. 81; Steinborn (2010), p. 558; Hofmański et al. (2011), p. 859.

  13. 13.

    Dz. U. of 2013, pos. 1247.

  14. 14.

    Skorupka (2007), p. 67.

  15. 15.

    See: Safferling (2001), pp. 196–197; Beulke (2005), p. 75.

  16. 16.

    Cit. after: Ponikowski (2012), pp. 171–172.

  17. 17.

    As highlighted by the representatives of both legal systems: Beulke (2005), pp. 163–164; Hofmański et al. (2011), p. 732; Waltoś (1963), pp. 15 and 109–110.

  18. 18.

    In the words of: Damaška (1986), p. 50.

  19. 19.

    See: Heinze (2014), p. 319.

  20. 20.

    Cit. after: Worrall (2007), p. 295.

  21. 21.

    As it was observed by: Hannibal and Mountford (2002), p. 164.

  22. 22.

    This conclusion is unanimously repeated in the American doctrine: Worrall (2007), p. 295; LaFave et al. (2009), p. 957.

  23. 23.

    As highlighted in: The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Prosecution’s Final Observations on Disclosure, 2 May 2006, § 8.

  24. 24.

    In general see: Schuon (2010), p. 25; Orie (2002), p. 1450; Boas (2003), p. 22; Ambos (2007), pp. 472–473; Wiliński (2008), p. 640.

  25. 25.

    The citation and the theory can be found in: Wiliński (2006), p. 79.

  26. 26.

    A remark often made, e.g., by: Everett (1964), p. 477; Schuon (2010), p. 27.

  27. 27.

    Hannibal and Mountford (2002), p. 165; Tomaszewski (1996), p. 108.

  28. 28.

    See: Tochilovsky (2004a), pp. 319–344.

  29. 29.

    See: Schuon (2010), p. 27; Tochilovsky (2002), p. 272.

  30. 30.

    Such information presented by: May and Wierda (2002), pp. 70–72; Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), p. 924.

  31. 31.

    E.g., Ambos (2007), p. 472.

  32. 32.

    E.g., Schuon (2010), p. 275; Brady (2001), p. 407.

  33. 33.

    In the case: Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21, Decision on Motion by the accused Zejnil Delalić for the disclosure of evidence, 26 September 1996. The case and the reactions of the parties described in: Tochilovsky (2004a), pp. 319–344.

  34. 34.

    Magistrates’ Courts; Act 1980, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/contents. Accessed 12 Feb 2015.

  35. 35.

    Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 25: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/3. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  36. 36.

    Attorney-General’s Guidelines on disclosure, Pt 37(i-vi): http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  37. 37.

    In more detail described in: Hannibal and Mountford (2002), pp. 163–166; Ward and Wragg (2005), pp. 574–575; Ashworth and Redmayne (2005), pp. 93–99; Spencer (2004), p. 630.

  38. 38.

    The Criminal Procedure Rules 2013, Part 22, at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1554/part/22/made. Accessed 11 July 2013.

  39. 39.

    R v. Lattimore (1976) 62 Cr App R 53; [1976] Crim Lr 45: cited after: Hannibal and Mountford (2002), pp. 163–166. Similar observations in: Kuczyńska H (2009), p. 60.

  40. 40.

    LaFave et al. (2009), p. 746.

  41. 41.

    Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 16(a): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16. Accessed 7 Feb 2015.

  42. 42.

    These general guidelines of the federal law may be narrowed or broadened in state law, e.g., by adding a list of witnesses, including their addresses of residence, who may have information on the case and who, hypothetically, could testify in the trial. See: Worrall (2007), p. 295; LaFave et al. (2009), p. 985.

  43. 43.

    According to the followers of this solution, it is intended to prevent exercising any pressure on witnesses or the contents of their depositions, see: Schuon (2010), p. 20; Everett (1964), p. 481.

  44. 44.

    See: Heinze (2014), p. 319.

  45. 45.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojević, IT-02-60, Appeals Chamber, 8 April 2003, § 18.

  46. 46.

    Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14, Decision on the Defence Motion for Sanctions for the Prosecutor’s Failure to Comply with Rule (66)(A) of the Rules and the Decision of 27 January 1997 Compelling the Production of All Statements of the Accused, 15 June 1998. See also: Pruitt (2001), pp. 308–309.

  47. 47.

    See in general: Bitti (2008), p. 1210.

  48. 48.

    There is a general agreement as to that fact, e.g. see: consequently Tochilovsky (2009), p. 844; Tochilovsky (2002), pp. 100 and 115.

  49. 49.

    See in general: Shibahara and Schabas (2008), pp. 1176–1177; Schabas (2010), p. 739; Bitti (2008), p. 1208.

  50. 50.

    And not notes taken by certain journalists and non-governmental organisations during interviews. See: Tochilovsky (2008), p. 174.

  51. 51.

    See: Tochilovsky (2002), p. 173.

  52. 52.

    Provisions of the Code of Practice, sections 3.1–3.7, on the basis of Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 23(1): http://www.xact.org.uk/information/downloads/CPIA/Disclosure_code_of_practice.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2014.

  53. 53.

    As it was concluded in: Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), U.S. Supreme Court, 29 November 1988. See in general also: in the US: LaFave et al. (2009), p. 1154. In England and Wales: Hannibal and Mountford (2002), p. 168.

  54. 54.

    Heinze (2014), p. 338.

  55. 55.

    Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (section 25), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/3. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  56. 56.

    Attorney-General’s Guidelines on disclosure, Pt 37(i-vi), at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  57. 57.

    For more detailed analysis, see: Padfield (2008), p. 271; Ward and Wragg (2005), pp. 574–575; Ashworth and Redmayne (2005), pp. 93–99; Sprack (2012), pp. 143–146; Hannibal and Mountford (2002), pp. 182–183.

  58. 58.

    [2001] 2 Cr App R 427.

  59. 59.

    Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Supreme Court, 13 May 1963, § 87.

  60. 60.

    Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), Supreme Court, 19 April 1995.

  61. 61.

    United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), Supreme Court, 24 June 1976.

  62. 62.

    See: Worrall (2007), p. 302; LaFave et al. (2009), pp. 991–995; Heinze (2014), p. 327.

  63. 63.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojević, IT-02-60, Joint Decision on Motions Related to Production of Evidence, 12 December 2002, § 26.

  64. 64.

    Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21-T, Decision on Motion by the Accused Z. Delalić for the Disclosure of Evidence, 26 September 1996.

  65. 65.

    United States v. Jackson, 850 F. Supp. 1481, 1503 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. Kan. 1994); United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348, 351 (U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. 1993).

  66. 66.

    As in case R v. Keane, 99 CRuleApp. R.1. Discussed in more detail: Tochilovsky (2004b), p. 8; Tochilovsky (2002), pp. 130–131; Schuon (2010), pp. 112–113; Pruitt (2001), pp. 309–311; and Harmon and Karagiannakis (2000), pp. 318–319.

  67. 67.

    Prosecutor v. Kordić, IT-95-14/2, Decision on Motions to Extend Time for Filling Appellant’s Briefs, 11 May 2001, § 9; Prosecutor v. Kristić, IT-98-33, Appeals Chamber, 19 April 2004, § 178.

  68. 68.

    Prosecutor v. Halilović, IT-01-48, Decision on the Defence Motion for Identification of Suspects and other Categories Among the Proposed Witnesses, 14 November 2003, p. 3.

  69. 69.

    Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14-A, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 296; Prosecutor v. Blagojević, Joint Decision on Motions Related to Production of Evidence, 12 December 2002, § 26.

  70. 70.

    As in e.g.: Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21-T, TC II, Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalić for the Disclosure of Evidence, 26 September 1996, § 7 and 9.

  71. 71.

    Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 16(a), at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16. Accessed 7 Sept 2014.

  72. 72.

    See: Schuon (2010), pp. 112–113; May and Wierda (2002), pp. 74–75.

  73. 73.

    Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14-PT, Decision on the Production of Discovery Materials, 27 January 1997, § 47, 50.

  74. 74.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojević, IT-02-60-PT, Joint Decision on Motions Related to Production of Evidence, 12 December 2002, § 26.

  75. 75.

    Prosecutor v. Delalić, IT-96-21, Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalić for the Disclosure of Evidence, 26 September 1996, § 7, 9.

  76. 76.

    We have to remember that “information loses heuristic value as its collective size begins to outgrow the capacity of humans to evaluate it”; cit. after: Ohlin (2009), p. 91.

  77. 77.

    Prosecutor v. Mladić, IT-09-92, Decision on the defence motion for certification to appeal the decision on submissions relative to the proposed “EDS” method of disclosure, 13 August 2012.

  78. 78.

    Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, IT-00-39, 23 May 2001, § 21–22. These cases and the consequences of the Prosecutor’s actions analysed: Tochilovsky (2011), p. 605.

  79. 79.

    A very detailed analysis in: Tochilovsky (2004b), p. 9; Tochilovsky (2002), pp. 148–150.

  80. 80.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 77–84, where the jurisprudence of the ECtHR was invoked as in the case of Jaspers v. Belgium, application No. 8403/78, § 58, and Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, application No. 28901/95, § 60.

  81. 81.

    Which obligation is not limited to permitting the defence to inspect but extends also to providing the defence with an electronic copy of this material if requested. See: Ambos (2007), p. 471.

  82. 82.

    See: Schabas (2008), p. 1270.

  83. 83.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo against the oral decision of Trial Chamber I of 18 January 2008, Appeals Chamber, 11 July 2008, § 2.

  84. 84.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, Redacted Version of Decision on the “Defence Motion for Disclosure pursuant to Rule 77”, 29 July 2011, § 23. See also analysis in: Tochilovsky (2013), p. 1091; and Heinze (2014), pp. 356–357.

  85. 85.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision on the Evidence Disclosure System and Setting a Timetable for Disclosure between the Parties, 31 July 2008, § 68.

  86. 86.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-102, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, 15 May 2006, § 120.

  87. 87.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008.

  88. 88.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008, § 181.

  89. 89.

    The Prosecutor v. Abu Garda, Second Decision on issues relating to Disclosure, 15 July 2009, § 15.

  90. 90.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Prosecutor’s observations on disclosure, 6 April 2006, § 14.

  91. 91.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/-07, Decision on Article 54(3)(e) Documents Identified as Potentially Exculpatory or Otherwise Material to the Defence’s Preparation of the Confirmation Hearing, 20 June 2008, § 2.

  92. 92.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 87.

  93. 93.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on Disclosure Issues, Responsibilities for Protective Measures and other Procedural Matters, 24 April 2008, § 100.

  94. 94.

    Cit. after: Heinze (2014), p. 500.

  95. 95.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision on the Evidence Disclosure System and Setting a Timetable for Disclosure between the Parties, 31 July 2008, § 28.

  96. 96.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, Annex, 15 May 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06, § 41. This case discussed by: Heinze (2014), p. 36.

  97. 97.

    See: Heinze (2014), p. 39.

  98. 98.

    As observed by A. Heinze, the narrow scope of interpretation was introduced by Judge Sylvia Steiner, who is a Brazilian judge.

  99. 99.

    As the ICC highlighted in: The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Regarding the Disclosure of Materials Pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Rome Statute and Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 13 November 2008, § 14.

  100. 100.

    E.g. in: Ashworth and Redmayne (2005), p. 136; Hannibal and Mountford (2002), p. 168; Sprack (2012), p. 147.

  101. 101.

    See: Ward and Wragg (2005), pp. 574–575; Ashworth and Redmayne (2005), pp. 93–99.

  102. 102.

    Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), Supreme Court, 22 June 1970, § 86.

  103. 103.

    See: LaFave et al. (2009), p. 984.

  104. 104.

    See: Klamberg (2013), p. 1100.

  105. 105.

    See: Schuon (2010), p. 120.

  106. 106.

    See: Harmon and Karagiannakis (2000), pp. 326–327.

  107. 107.

    Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-94-1, Separate Opinion of Judge Stephen on prosecution motion for production of defence witness statement, 27 November 1996.

  108. 108.

    Prosecutor v. Delalić, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for an Order Requiring Advance Disclosure of Witnesses by the Defence, 4 February 1999, § 30–48.

  109. 109.

    Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1, Trial Chamber, 21 May 1999, § 233.

  110. 110.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, 15 May 2006.

  111. 111.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on Disclosure by the Defence, 20 March 2008, § 41.

  112. 112.

    As to that fact the majority of authors seem to agree, e.g.: Schuon (2010), p. 119; Ambos (2007), p. 466; Hannibal and Mountford (2002), p. 164; Guariglia (2002), p. 1132.

  113. 113.

    Cit. after: Heinze (2014), p. 317.

  114. 114.

    Cit. after: Damaška (1986), p. 104.

  115. 115.

    Cit. after: Klamberg (2013), p. 1105 and the case: Prosecutor v. Delalić, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for an Order Requiring Advance Disclosure of Witnesses by the Defence, 4 February 1999, § 30–48.

  116. 116.

    See: May and Wierda (2002), pp. 84–85.

  117. 117.

    “Ratko Mladic’s war crimes trial postponed over evidence”, BBC News, 17 May 2012.

  118. 118.

    Prosecutor v. Furundžija, IT-95-17/1, Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, § 22.

  119. 119.

    Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 303.

  120. 120.

    Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24, Appeals Chamber, 22 March 2006, § 192.

  121. 121.

    Gallmetzer (2009), p. 501.

  122. 122.

    Heinze (2014), p. 452.

  123. 123.

    As e.g. Brady (2001), pp. 403 and 412; Caianiello (2010), pp. 23 and 36; Heinze (2014), p. 425.

  124. 124.

    Heinze (2014), p. 452.

  125. 125.

    See the analysis of the relevant Rules: Brady (2001), p. 413.

  126. 126.

    Heinze (2014), p. 465; Mégret (2009), pp. 416 and 479.

  127. 127.

    Staff rules of the International Criminal Court, Annex to ICC/AI/2005/003, 25 August 2005, ICC-ASP/4/3.

  128. 128.

    Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor: Date of entry into force: 5 September 2013.

  129. 129.

    See: Brady (2001), p. 413.

  130. 130.

    The Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision on the Postponement of the Confirmation Hearing, 17 October 2008, § 23–25.

  131. 131.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision of the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19(2)(a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006, § 37.

  132. 132.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 93.

  133. 133.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 92.

  134. 134.

    The history of this “crisis” described in extenso i.a. in: Re (2012), pp. 878–880; Vasiliev (2012), pp. 713–714; Scheffer (2009), pp. 596–597; Schuon (2010), p. 277; Ambos (2010), pp. 982–983; Schabas (2010), p. 819; Bitti (2008), pp. 1208–1209.

  135. 135.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06 A 4 A 6, Judgment on the appeals of the Prosecutor and Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the “Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute”, 1 December 2014, § 109.

  136. 136.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, IT-95-16, 11 January 1999.

  137. 137.

    Citations found in: Brady (2001), pp. 422–423; Tochilovsky (2009), p. 845; Jackson (2009), p. 36.

  138. 138.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-102, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, 15 May 2006, § 124–133.

  139. 139.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-102, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, 15 May 2006, § 120–131.

  140. 140.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 6.

  141. 141.

    As observed by: Schuon (2010), p. 282; Ambos (2007), p. 472.

  142. 142.

    Heinze (2014), p. 36.

  143. 143.

    Prosecutor v. Blagojević, IT-02-60, Joint Decision on Motions Related to Production of Evidence, 12 December 2002, § 29.

  144. 144.

    However, there is no obligation if the evidence has already been disclosed at the trial stage—see: Harmon and Karagiannakis (2000), p. 328. See the case: Prosecutor v. Blaškić, IT-95-14, Appeals Chamber, 29 July 2004, § 267.

  145. 145.

    The ECtHR cases: Jasper v. United Kingdom, 16 February 2000, application No. 27052/95, and Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom, 16 February 2000, application No. 28901/95; Natunen v. Finland, 31 March 2009, application No. 21022/04; Jałowiecki v. Poland, 17 February 2009, application No. 34030/07.

  146. 146.

    Rule 70(A) RPE ICTY and Rule 81(1) RPE ICC.

  147. 147.

    See: Schuon (2010), p. 122.

  148. 148.

    E.g., Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-94-1-T, Separate Opinion of Judge Stephen on prosecution motion for production of defence witness statement, 27 November 1996.

  149. 149.

    Rule 70(B)–(G) RPE ICTY; Rule 68(iii) RPE ICTY; Rule 81(4) and Rule 82(1) RPE ICC in conj. With Article 56(3)(e) of the Rome Statute.

  150. 150.

    Rule 81(5) RPE ICC.

  151. 151.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision of the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19(2)(a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006, 14 December 2006, § 37.

  152. 152.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Version publique expurgée de la: “Decision relative à la protection des témoins à charge 267 et 353” du 20 mai 2009, 28 May 2009, § 31, and the ECHR judgment cited there: Dowsett v. United Kingdom, 24 June 2003, § 43.

  153. 153.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “First Decision on the Prosecution Request for Authorisation to Redact Witness Statements”, 13 May 2008, § 71.

  154. 154.

    See: The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, 13 June 2008, § 86—and the ECtHR judgment cited there: V. v. Finland, 24 July 2007, application No. 40412/98, § 78.

  155. 155.

    The Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “First Decision on the Prosecution Request for Authorisation to Redact Witness Statements”, 13 May 2008, § 71–73. In the same case: Version publique expurgée de la Decision relative à la protection des témoins à charge 267 et 353 du 20 mai 2009, 28 May 2009, § 52.

  156. 156.

    Rule 70(B) RPE ICTY; Rule 81(3) RPE ICC.

  157. 157.

    If a State learns that information or documents of the State are being, or are likely to be, disclosed at any stage of the proceedings, and it is of the opinion that disclosure would prejudice its national security interests, that State shall have the right to intervene in order to obtain resolution of the issue in accordance with this article (Article 72(4) of the Rome Statute).

  158. 158.

    See in general: Tochilovsky (2004a), p. 859.

  159. 159.

    See: Ambos (2007), pp. 472–473.

  160. 160.

    Płachta (2004), p. 714.

  161. 161.

    Heinsch (2009), p. 478; Tochilovsky (2004a), pp. 319–344.

  162. 162.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision Regarding the Timing and Manner of Disclosure and the Date of Trial, 9 November 2007, § 2.

  163. 163.

    The same conclusion in: Schuon (2010), pp. 284 and 134–135; Safferling (2001), p. 200; Schomburg (2009), p. 109; Bassiouni and Manikas (1996), p. 920.

  164. 164.

    Similarly: Kremens (2010), p. 78.

  165. 165.

    See: Tochilovsky (2004a), p. 844.

  166. 166.

    The so-called double dossier model proposed by Heinze (2014), p. 522, on the basis of the example of Italy.

References

  • Ambos K (2003) International criminal procedure: “adversarial”, “inquisitorial” or mixed? Int Crim Law Rev 3:1

    Article  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 (2010) The first confirmation decision of the International Criminal Court The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. In: Kotsalis L, Courakis N, Mylonopoulos C (eds) Essays in honour of Argyrios Karras. Ant. N. Sakkoulas, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A, Redmayne M (2005) The criminal process, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitti G (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 

  • Boas G (2003) A code of evidence and procedure for international criminal law? The rules of the ICTY. In: Boas G, Schabas W (eds) International criminal law developments in the case law of the ICTY. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady H (2001) Disclosure of evidence. In: Lee RP (ed) The International Criminal Court. Elements of crime ad rules of procedure and evidence. Transnational Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Caianiello M (2010) Disclosure before the ICC: the emergence of a new form of policies implementation system in international criminal justice? Int Crim Law Rev 10:23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett R (1964) Discovery in criminal cases – in search of a standard. Duke Law J 3:477

    Article  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 Publishers, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Guariglia F (2002) The rules of procedure and evidence for the International Criminal Court: a new development in international adjudication of individual criminal responsibility. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones WD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannibal M, Mountford L (2002) The law of criminal and civil evidence. Principles and Practice, Longman, Harlow/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon MB, Karagiannakis M (2000) The disclosure of exculpatory material by the prosecution to the defence under Rule 68 of the ICTY Rules. 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 

  • Heinsch R (2009) How to achieve fair and expeditious trial proceedings before the ICC: Is it time for a more judge-dominated approach? In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze A (2014) International criminal procedure and disclosure. An attempt to better understand and regulate disclosure and communication at the ICC on the basis of a comprehensive and comparative theory of criminal procedure. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J (2009) Finding the best epistemic fit for international criminal tribunals. Beyond the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy. J Int Crim Justice 7:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardas P (2013) Jawność wewnętrzna i zewnętrzna postępowania przygotowawczego. In: Jasiński W, Nowicki K (eds) Jawność jako wymóg rzetelnego procesu karnego. Zagadnienia prawa polskiego i obcego, 1st edn. C.H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamberg M (2013) Prosecution access to the defence material. In: Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Vasiliev S, Zappala S (eds) International criminal procedure. Principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremens K (2010) Dowody osobowe w międzynarodowym postępowaniu karnym. TNOiK, Toruń

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2009) Beyond “fairness”: understanding the determinants of international criminal procedure. UCLA J Int Law Foreign Aff 14:37

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin J (2009) A meta-theory of international criminal procedure: vindicating the rule of law. UCLA J Int Law Foreign Aff 14:77

    Google Scholar 

  • Orie A (2002) Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial approach in international criminal proceedings prior to the establishment of the ICC and in the proceedings before the ICC. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones WD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Płachta M (2004) Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny. Zakamycze, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponikowski R (2012) Granice jawności wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej przygotowawczego stadium postępowania karnego. In: Skorupka J (ed) Jawność procesu karnego. Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt R (2001) Discovery: mutual disclosure, unilateral disclosure and non-disclosure under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 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 

  • Re D (2012) Appeal. In: Reydams L, Wouters J, Ryngaert C (eds) 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). 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 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer D (2009) A review of the experiences of the Pre-Trial and Appeals Chambers of the ICC regarding the disclosure of evidence. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W (2009) Common Law versus Civil Law: die Ad-hoc-Strafgerichtshöfe für das ehemalige Jugoslawien und Ruanda: ihre immanenten Grenzen auf der Suche nach der Wahrheit. Betrifft Justiz 99:108

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Skorupka J (2007) Udostępnianie akt sprawy podejrzanemu. Prokuratura i Prawo 5:68

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JR (2004) Evidence. In: Delmas-Marty M, Spencer JR (eds) European criminal procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczotka A (2009) Dostęp do akt sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym. Prokuratura i Prawo 2:12

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2002) Proceedings in the International Criminal Court: some lessons to learn from ICTY experience. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 4:268

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2004(2)) Prosecution disclosure obligations in the ICTY and ICTR. Guest Lectures, 23 July, The Hague: http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/8243618E-59B1-4EFB-9A59-5DFB65F4F8C6/0/042307_Tochilovsky.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2012

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2009) Prosecution disclosure obligation in the ICC and relevant jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals. In: Daria J, Gasser H-P, Bassiouni MC (eds) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court. Essays in honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2011) Special commentary international criminal justice: some flaws and misperceptions. Crim Law Forum 22(4):593

    Google Scholar 

  • Tochilovsky V (2013) Defence access to the prosecution material. In: Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Vasiliev S, Zappala S (eds) International criminal procedure. Principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomaszewski T (1996) Proces amerykański: Problematyka śledcza, Wyd. Comer, Toruń

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltoś S (1963) Akt oskarżenia w polskim procesie karnym. Warszawa, WP

    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 (2003a) Zasada równości stron w polskim procesie karnym w perspektywie prawnoporównawczej. Zakamycze, Kraków

    Google Scholar 

  • Wąsek-Wiaderek M (2003b) Dostęp do akt sprawy oskarżonego tymczasowo aresztowanego i jego obrońcy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym. Palestra 5–6:65

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliński P (2006) Odmowa dostępu do akt sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym. Prokuratura i Prawo 11:79

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliński P (2008) Wpływ systemów common law i civil law na kształtowanie się międzynarodowego postępowania karnego. In: Jakubowska-Hara J, Skupiński J (eds) Reforma prawa karnego: propozycje i komentarze. Księga pamiątkowa Prof. Barbary Kunickiej-Michalskiej. Scholar, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

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

    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). Obligations of the Prosecutor Related to the Accused’s Right to Information. In: The Accusation Model Before the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17626-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation