Making and Handling Complaints

Abels, Denis

doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-888-0_5

Denis Abels²

760 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the avenues available to persons detained at the tribunals’ detention facilities to complain about the conditions of their detention. Detainees may file a complaint with the Commanding Officer, Chief of Detention or chief custody Officer, who is the person in charge of the day-to-day management of the remand facility. If a detainee is not satisfied with the decision made on his complaint, he may address the Registrar, who functions as Chief Custodian. At most of the tribunals, a detainee may appeal the Registrar’s decision to the President (at the ICC this is the Presidency) who, in this context, must be viewed as the tribunal’s highest administrative official. Detainees may also complain to the inspectorate during visits by its representatives to the remand facility. Moreover, accused persons in detention may, pending their trial, address the Trial or Appeals Chamber seised of their case on issues relating to their treatment in detention. Chambers only accept competence if the detained person has exhausted the available formal complaints procedure and if the complaint concerns an aspect of detention that may have a negative impact on the fairness of the accused’s trial. It is argued, inter alia, that, due to the particularities of the international context, the limited competence of Chambers and the ineffectiveness of making complaints to the inspectorate’s representatives, the tribunals’ formal complaints procedures fail to provide adequate legal protection to detained persons. The possible solution suggested in this study is the establishment of an external adjudicator’s office.

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)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See, e.g., Bevers et al. 2003, pp. 152–153 and the case law cited there. See, also, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 30 March 2010, LJN: BL8979, Case Number 200.022.151/01. The ECtHR has held, however, that the immunity of international organisations is not absolute. In Beer and Ragan v. Germany, the Court held in relation to the immunity of an international organisation that ‘the right of access to the courts secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention’s requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved’; ECtHR, Beer and Ragan v. Germany, judgment of 18 February 1999, Application No. 28934/95, para 49. The Court of Appeal of The Hague was of the opinion that Article 103 of the U.N. Charter did not conflict with such an interpretation. However, it argued that the special status of the U.N. in the international legal order demanded a ‘particularly strong immunity’, which should leave ‘as little room for discussion as possible’. See para 5.7 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. See, however, Articles 30 and 33 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations, which recognise international organisations’ responsibility for international wrongful acts and which oblige organisations to make full reparation for the injury caused by such acts. According to Draft Article 4, ‘[t]here is an internationally wrongful act of an international organization when conduct consisting of an action or omission: a. Is attributable to the international organization under international law; and b. Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that international organization’.
2.
Kelk 1978, p. 52.
3.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 1; Brakel 1982, p. 118; Penal Reform International 2001, p. 33.; Brakel 1983, p. 395; Reynolds 2004, p. 777; Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1359; Bergesen 1972, p. 33.
4.
Alarcón 2007, p. 594.
5.
Bleichrodt 2005, p. 392; Brakel 1983, p. 395.
6.
Brakel 1983, p. 395; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 132. The Manual states that complaints must be welcomed as ‘positive contributions to the discharge of responsibility by the prison authorities’. See, also, Brakel 1982, p. 118; Bleichrodt 2005, p. 392.
7.
Kelk 2008, p. 111.
8.
Livingstone et al. 2008, p. 41.
9.
Ploeg and Nijboer 1983, p. 26.
10.
For further reading see, e.g., Turner 1971, pp. 473–518; Note and Comment 1963, p. 506–557.
11.
Keating et al. 1975, pp. 3, 4; Wesley-Smith 1998, p. 322; Nathan 2004, pp. 419–426; Van Swearingen 2008, pp. 1355–1356.
12.
Turner 1971, p. 473.
13.
See Note and Comment 1963, p. 507 and the case law cited there.
14.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 4.
15.
Id., p. 3; Bergesen 1972, p. 9.
16.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 4.
17.
Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1359. See, also, Brakel 1982, pp. 118, 1983, p. 395; Alarcón 2007, p. 594.
18.
See, in a similar vein, Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1354.
19.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 1.
20.
Brakel 1982, pp. 118, 131, 1983, p. 421.
21.
Dünkel and Van Zyl Smit 2001, p. 827; Nathan 2004, p. 425.
22.
Note and Comment 1963, p. 524.
23.
Id., p. 525.
24.
Livingstone et al. 2008, p. 41; Serrarens 2001, p. 210.
25.
Brakel 1983, p. 395; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 131; Brakel 1982, p. 118; Bleichrodt 2005, p. 391.
26.
Rawls 1971, p. 3. The reference is borrowed from Keating et al. 1975, pp. 4, 5.
27.
See, in more detail, Prison Reform Trust 1991. The foreword provides that ‘[t]he riot at Strangeways Prison in April 1990 and the protests and disturbances which followed at many more gaols during the same month, were the most serious in British penal history. On 6 April 1990, the then Home Secretary, David Waddingtom, appointed Lord Justice Woolf to head an Inquiry into the disturbances and to consider the wider implications for the prison system’.
28.
Van Zyl Smit 2007, pp. 579–580.
29.
Liebling 2004, p. 263. See, in more detail, Chap. 4.
30.
Serrarens 2001, p. 210. See, also, Serrarens 2007, p. 209.
31.
J. Serrarens 2001, p. 211.
32.
In respect of the Netherlands, see J. Serrarens 2007, p. 227; Bleichrodt 2005, p. 392.
33.
Wesley-Smith 1998, p. 323.
34.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with the UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008; ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Registry, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008; Note and Comment 1963, p. 509.
35.
Wesley-Smith 1998, p. 315.
36.
Note and Comment 1963, p. 523.
37.
See id., p. 516 and the case law cited there.
38.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 131.
39.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 31.
40.
This was held by Judge Donald P. Lay, a former member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; cited in id., p. 4.
41.
Id., p. 14.
42.
Serrarens 2001, p. 212.
43.
Keating et al. 1975, pp. 20, 21, 33.
44.
Article 66 of the Dutch Penitentiary Principles Act (Penitentiaire Beginselenwet).
45.
Id., Article 70.
46.
See, e.g., RSJ, 02/1182/SGA, 20 June 2002; RSJ, 02/1344/SGA, 10 July 2002; RSJ, 02/1025/SGA, 28 May 2002.
47.
Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1354. Emphasis added.
48.
Id., p. 1365.
49.
See, e.g., Bergesen 1972, pp. 13, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29.
50.
Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1372. See, also, supra, Chap. 4, footnote 17, where reference is made to the argument by Peters and Allan that adversarial proceedings can fulfil an important function in clarifying and interpreting the content of principles and thus their ‘vindication’ in accordance with their essentially protective function.
51.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 33.
52.
Id., pp. 22, 27, 33; Penal Reform International 2001, para 16, p. 33; Alarcón 2007, p. 594; Van Swearingen 2008, pp. 1372, 1381.
53.
Van Swearingen 2008, p. 1354.
54.
Cited in Livingstone et al. 2008, p. 50.
55.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 133.
56.
Keating et al. 1975, p. 14.
57.
Id., p. 28.
58.
Id., pp. 27, 33.
59.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 132.
60.
Principle 33(3) of the U.N. Body of Principles.
61.
Rule 70(1) of the EPR.
62.
See, e.g., STL, Order on Conditions of Detention, Case No. CH/PRES/2009/01/rev., President, 21 April 2009, para 10 and the case law cited there.
63.
Van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 1006. See, also, ECtHR, Benediktov v. Russia, judgment of 10 May 2007, Application No. 106/02, para 29.
64.
ECtHR, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, judgment of 30 November 2004, Application No. 48939/99, para 147.
65.
ECtHR, Rodic and three others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, judgment of 27 May 2008, Application No. 22893/05, para 57.
66.
Id., paras 58–59.
67.
ECtHR, Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Application Nos. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, para 115.
68.
Id., para 113; ECtHR, Onoufriou v. Cyprus, judgment of 7 January 2010, Application No. 24407/04, para 121.
69.
ECtHR, Silver and others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Application Nos. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75, para 116.
70.
ECtHR, Labita v. Italy, judgment of 6 April 2000, Application No. 26772/95, para 131.
71.
Penal Reform International 2001, p. 53, para 88.
72.
ECtHR, Enea v. Italy, judgment of 17 September 2009, Application No. 74912/01.
73.
Id., para 98.
74.
Id., para 99.
75.
Id., para 101.
76.
Id., para 102.
77.
Id., para 103.
78.
See, also, De Lange and Mevis 2009, pp. 347–357.
79.
ECtHR, Lormines v. France, judgment of 9 November 2006, Application No. 65411/01, para 59.
80.
Id., para 60.
81.
Id., para 73.
82.
ECtHR, Ky v. Finland, judgment of 22 June 2004, Application No. 47221/99.
83.
Id., para 34.
84.
See, also, ECtHR, Kleyn and others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 6 May 2003, Application Nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99.
85.
ECtHR, Procola v. Luxembourg, judgment of 28 September 1995, Application No. 14570/89, para 45.
86.
ECtHR, McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 2000, Application No. 28488/95, para 55.
87.
See, e.g., CPT, Report to the Government of the United Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 4 to 16 February 2001, CPT/Inf (2002) 6, published on 18 April 2002, para 79.
88.
See, also, ICTY, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for the Production of Notes Exchanged Between Zejnil Delalić and Zdravko Mucić, Prosecutor v. Delalić, Delić and Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21, T. Ch., 31 October 1996, para 1.
89.
The term ‘formal complaint’ appears to be reserved for complaints made to the Registrar in accordance with the Regulations.
90.
ICTY, interview conducted by the author with David Kennedy, Commanding Officer of the UNDU, The Hague—Netherlands, 17 June 2011.
91.
Rule 3 of the ICTR Rules of Detention provides that ‘[s]ubject to the overriding jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Commanding Officer shall have sole responsibility for all aspects of the daily management of the Detention Unit, including security and order, and may make all decisions relating thereto, except where otherwise provided in these Rules’. See, further, ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005, para 2; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to set Aside President Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate his Marriage, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request to Grant him Leave to Bring his Complaints to the Appeals Chamber, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 12 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request for a Status Conference, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 13 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Ndayambaje’s Extremely Urgent Motion Regarding Permission for each of Ndayambaje’s Counsel to Bring a Laptop into the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ndayambaje, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, T. Ch. II, 23 November 2007, para 20; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 15 April 2008 and 2 May 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 15 May 2008, p. 3.
92.
Complaints Procedure for Detainees, formulated pursuant to Rule 56 of the Provisional Rules covering the detention of persons awaiting trial or appeal before the Tribunal or otherwise detained on the authority of the Tribunal (on file with the author).
93.
Provisional Rules Covering the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal before the Tribunal or otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal, approved by the Tribunal on 9 January 1996, ICTR/2/L.3). Rule 56 of the Provisional Rules of Detention’s content is similar to that of Rule 56 of the Rules of Detention.
94.
Paragraph 2 of the Complaints Procedure for Detainees stipulates that ‘[i]t shall be possible to make requests or complaints only at the times stipulated by the Commanding Officer. (0930–1630 h Monday to Friday)’.
95.
Rule 31 of the ICTR Rules of Detention.
96.
ICTR, The President’s Decision on Ferdinand Nahimana’s Appeal Against the Disciplinary Measures Imposed on him by the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Case No. ICTR-96-11-T, President, 10 February 2003, para 1.
97.
Ibid.
98.
See, in more detail, Chap. 6.
99.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with persons detained at the UNDF, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008; ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with Defence Counsel working before the ICTR, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
100.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with persons detained at the UNDF, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
101.
Ibid.
102.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008; SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
103.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
104.
ICTY, interview conducted by the author with David Kennedy, Commanding Officer of the ICTY UNDU, The Hague–Netherlands, 17 June 2011.
105.
ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 25 February 2008 and 6 and 19 March 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 11 April 2008, p. 3. Counsel may be assigned to a prisoner for the purpose of assisting him in review proceedings. For this purpose, he may also receive assistance from pro bono counsel. See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 15 April 2008 and 2 May 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 15 May 2008, p. 3; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 21 May 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 16 June 2008, p. 3; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 17 June 2008 and 10 July 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, 23 July 2008, p. 4.
106.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with persons detained at the UNDF, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
107.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with senior staff members of the ICTR Registry, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 25 February 2008 and 6 and 19 March 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 11 April 2008, p. 3.
108.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with Defence Counsel working before the ICTR, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
109.
See Rules 82 and 83 of the ICTR Rules of Detention.
110.
It is not indicated precisely what kind of information the log must contain.
111.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 25 May 2005, Status Conference, at p. 3, lines 15–23. See, also, SCSL, Decision on Joint Defence Motion for General Orders pursuant to Rule 54, Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, T. Ch. II, 28 July 2005, para 31; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 44, lines 4–8.
112.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the SCSL Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009; SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
113.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
114.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown–Sierra Leone, October 2009.
115.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
116.
Rule 83 of the STL Rules of Detention.
117.
Rule 83(D) of the STL Rules of Detention.
118.
It was argued earlier that the notion of human dignity has, for the prison context, been elaborated upon, inter alia, in the SMR and EPR, both of which provide for a right to make complaints.
119.
Regulation 217(5) of the ICC RoR.
120.
Regulation 218(1) of the ICC RoR.
121.
Regulation 219(5) of the ICC RoR. See, also, ICC, Decision on the Application of Mr Germain Katanga in respect of the new policy in the detention centre on the registration of telephone contacts, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR221-02/09, Presidency, 17 September 2009, para 8.
122.
Tolbert 2004, p. 480. See, also, De Sampayo Garrido 2004, p. 478.
123.
Emphasis added.
124.
Regulation 4 of the ICTY Regulations for the Establishment of a Complaints Procedure for Detainees; Van der Spoel 2007, p. 252.
125.
Regulation 4 of the ICTY Regulations for the Establishment of a Complaints Procedure for Detainees (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the ‘Regulations’).
126.
Ibid.
127.
ICTY, Decision on Šešelj’s Request that the ICTY President Order that Honourable Serbs in Detention and those who have arranged a Plea Bargain with the Prosecution and Agreed to Give False Testimony be Segregated in the Detention Unit and Prevented from Being Able to Contact Each Other, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 15 June 2006, para 6.
128.
Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
129.
Ibid; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention. See, also, ICTY, Decision on Appeal against Decision Denying Permission for Legal Representatives to Visit the Detainee, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 25 May 2006, para 2.
130.
Regulation 7 of the Regulations; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention.
131.
Regulation 10 of the Regulations; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention.
132.
Regulation 9 of the Regulations; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention.
133.
ICTY, Decision on Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist: Profil Magazine, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, President, 11 October 2010, para 20.
134.
Regulation 10 of the Regulations; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention.
135.
Regulation 11 of the Regulations; Rule 84 of the ICTY Rules of Detention.
136.
Regulation 12 of the Regulations.
137.
ICTY, Decision on Šešelj’s Request that the ICTY President Order that Honourable Serbs in Detention and those who have arranged a Plea Bargain with the Prosecution and Agreed to Give False Testimony be Segregated in the Detention Unit and Prevented from Being Able to Contact Each Other, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 15 June 2006, para 5.
138.
ICTY, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, A. Ch., 7 February 2003, para 13.
139.
See, in more detail, Chap. 4.
140.
ICTY, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, A. Ch., 7 February 2003, para 13.
141.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Milan Lukić’s Appeal against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Lukić & Lukić, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Vice-President, 28 November 2008, paras 8, 9; ICTY, Decision on the Defence’s Motion for Review of the Deputy Registrar’s Decision of 30 July 2004, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, T. Ch. I, 1 September 2004; ICTY, Decision Affirming the Registrar’s Denial of Assigned Counsel’s Application to Withdraw, Prosecutor v. Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-T, President, 7 February 2005, para 4; ICTY, Decision on Defence Request for Review of the Registrar’s Decision on the Level of the Case, Prosecutor v. Mrkšić et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-PT, T. Ch. II, 3 March 2005; ICTY, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Denial of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, Vice-President, 12 February 2009, para 17; ICTY, Decision on Accused’s Application for Certification to Appeal Decision on Adequate Facilities, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, T. Ch., 13 February 2009, para 1; ICTY, Registry Submission Regarding the Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, President, 3 April 2009, para 13; ICTY, Decision on Accused Request for Judicial Review of the Registry Decision on the Assignment of Mr. Marko Sladojevic as Legal Associate, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, T. Ch., 20 April 2009, paras 9–10; ICTY, Decision on Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, President, 21 April 2009, para 19; ICTY, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Adequate Facilities, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR73.2, A. Ch., 7 May 2009; ICTY, Registry Submission Re Media Contact, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, President, 9 October 2009, para 8; ICTY, Decision on Vojislav Šešelj’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decision of 10 September 2009, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, Acting President, 21 October 2009, para 19; ICTY, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist: Le Monde, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Acting President, 28 October 2009, para 14; ICTY, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist: Russia Today, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Acting President, 6 November 2009, para 22; ICTY, Registrar’s Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) of the Rules Regarding Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of limitations of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, President, 25 August 2010, paras 5, 22; ICTY, Decision on Request for Reversal of Limitations of Contact with Journalist: Profil Magazine, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, President, 11 October 2010, para 16; ICTY, Registrar’s Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Regarding Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Decision to Monitor Telephone Calls, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, President, 17 February 2011, para 6; ICTY, Decision on Request for Reversal of Decision to Monitor Telephone Calls, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, President, 21 April 2011, para 17.
142.
ICTY, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, A. Ch., 7 February 2003, para 39.
143.
Ibid.
144.
Ibid.
145.
Id., para 40.
146.
ICTY, Decision on Milan Lukić’s Appeal against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Lukić & Lukić, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Vice-President, 28 November 2008, para 10.
147.
ICTY, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Denial of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, Vice-President, 12 February 2009, para 18.
148.
See, e.g., id., para 22. The Vice-President noted that the ‘Registrar ha[d] not cited any behaviour on the part of the Applicant which indicates that he intends to undermine the Tribunal’s mandate’ and had neither made an ‘excessive or unreasonable number of requests of this nature’.
149.
ICTY, Decision on Milan Lukić’s Appeal against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Lukić & Lukić, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Vice-President, 28 November 2008, para 8; ICTY, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Request for Reversal of Denial of Contact with Journalist, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-PT, Vice-President, 12 February 2009, para 19.
150.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 132.
151.
ICTY, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, A. Ch., 7 February 2003, para 50.
152.
See, also, ICTR, Decision on Ndayambaje’s Extremely Urgent Motion Regarding Permission for each of Ndayambaje’s Counsel to Bring a Laptop into the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ndayambaje, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, T. Ch. II, 23 November 2007, para 42.
153.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with the UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
154.
Ibid.
155.
See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Application for Review of the Registrar’s Decision of 12 January 2005, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, President, 14 September 2005. The President was seized of ‘Appellant Ngeze’s Application for Review of the Registrar’s Decision of 12.01.05 Denying Permission to Get Married at the ICTR Premises Pending the Determination of his Appeal’, which had been filed on 28 January 2005. It took 7 months after the filing of the complaint for the President to render a decision.
156.
ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with UNDF detainees, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
157.
This was also alleged by Ngeze in ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 8 and 26 August 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 28 October 2008, p. 326/H.
158.
ICTR, Decision on Ndayambaje’s Extremely Urgent Motion Regarding Permission for each of Ndayambaje’s Counsel to Bring a Laptop into the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ndayambaje, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, T. Ch. II, 23 November 2007, paras 3–7, 47.
159.
ICTR, The Appellant Hassan Ngeze Makes an Extremely Urgent Personal Motion to the Honorable President for Reversal of the Endless Prosecution Requests of Restrictive Measures pursuant to Rule 64 of the Rules of Detention, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, President, 13 January 2006.
160.
ICTR, Decision on Ndayambaje’s Extremely Urgent Motion Regarding Permission for each of Ndayambaje’s Counsel to Bring a Laptop into the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ndayambaje, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, T. Ch. II, 23 November 2007, para 48.
161.
ICTR, Decision on Ntabakuze’s Motion Regarding Access to the United Nations Detention Facility, Prosecutor v. Bagosora, Kabiligi, Ntabakuze and Nsengiyumva, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, T. Ch. III, 10 June 2002, para 2.
162.
Id., para 4.
163.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
164.
Regulation 12 of the ICTR Regulations governing Disciplinary Measures at the UNDF.
165.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
166.
Ibid.
167.
Ibid.
168.
The only exception appears to be ICTR, Registrar’s Decision Pursuant to Article 8(3)(C) on the Request for Marriage and Other Reliefs, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Registrar, 12 January 2005.
169.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.; ICTR, interviews conducted by the author with various defence counsel working before the ICTR, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
170.
The detainees have organised themselves and have chosen representatives amongst themselves to communicate to the authorities.
171.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
172.
Ibid.
173.
Ibid.
174.
ICTR, Order Issued by the President Regarding Special Measures for Detention on remand, Following a request Filed by the Prosecutor, Prosecutor v. Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-DP, President, 25 November 1997. Emphasis added. It was noted, however, that ‘Mr. Kambanda shall not be considered as an “accused” of the ICTY. Therefore, the ICTY RPE would not apply to him or his detention as provided therein.’ The ICTR President stressed ‘the exclusive competence of the ICTR in relation to matters regarding substantive aspects of the judicial proceedings against Kambanda, pursuant to the rules of the ICTR’.
175.
See, e.g., ICTR, Prosecution’s Letter of 16 June 2000 to the Registrar of ICTY entitled “Jean Kambanda v. The Prosecutor, Case No: ICTR-97-23-A”, 23 June 2000, and the response of the ICTY Registrar in ‘Internal Memorandum from the Registrar of ICTY to Solomon Loh of 19 June 2000 entitled “Jean Kambanda v. The Prosecutor (Case No: ICTR-97-23-A)’ of 23 June 2000 (Memorandum dated 19 June 2000). Such forms of co-operation between international criminal tribunals are not based on bi- or multilateral agreements, as is the case with inter-State co-operation in criminal matters. In Kambanda, the President of the ICTY, in response to the ICTR´s request to detain Kambanda at the UNDU, stated, inter alia, that ‘the Security Council, in operative paragraph 4 of resolution 955 (1994) by which it established the ICTR, urged States and intergovernmental organisations, inter alia, to contribute services to the ICTR; that the Security Council moreover requested the Secretary-General in paragraph 5 of that same resolution to “make practical arrangements for the effective functioning of the international Tribunal”; considering therefore that, as a United Nations body, the ICTY can be requested to provide such assistance that may be required for the effective functioning of the ICTR’. Furthermore, the President pointed to the duty of States to co-operate with and provide judicial assistance to both the ICTY and the ICTR pursuant to Articles 29 and 28 of their respective Statutes. It was argued that by analogy ‘judicial assistance, if practically and legally feasible, should not be refused by either international tribunal if requested by the other pursuant to a judicial decision’. The ICTY President emphasised that the ICTY was also willing to provide assistance, since both the ICTY and ICTR have been established as ad hoc tribunals, i.e. subsidiary organs of the U.N. Security Council, and stressed that ‘the potential grave danger to Mr. Kambanda underscores the need to assist in providing high security protection [where] such protection can no longer be offered by the ICTR’ (emphasis in the original). See ICTY, Order of the President Concerning the Request for Assistance by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Regarding the Implementation of Special Measures for Detention on Remand, Case No. ITR-98-1-D, President, 28 April 1998 and ICTR, Corrigendum to Order of the President Concerning the Request for Assistance by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Regarding the Implementation of Special Measures for Detention on Remand, Case No. ITR-98-1-D, President, 5 May 1998.
176.
Since they can only be detained in UNDU on the authority of the ICTY, the ICTY Rules of Detention are applicable to their detention. See, e.g., ICTY, Order of the President Concerning the Request for Assistance by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Regarding the Implementation of Special Measures for Detention on Remand, Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Case No. ITR-98-1-D, President, 28 April 1998.
177.
ICTR, Order Issued by the President Regarding Special Measures for Detention on remand, Following a request Filed by the Prosecutor, Prosecutor v. Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-DP, President, 25 November 1997.
178.
Rule 3 of the SCSL Rules of Detention.
179.
SCSL, Decision on Defence Oral Application for Orders Pertaining to the Transfer of the Accused to The Hague, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-PT, T. Ch. II, 23 June 2006; SCSL, Decision of the President on Public Defence Motion Requesting Review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the International Criminal Court and the Special Court of Sierra Leone Dated 13 April 2006 & Modification of Mr. Charles Taylor’s Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 19 March 2007. Article 6.4 of the Memory of Understanding concluded between the ICC and the Special Court states that ‘[t]he Special Court shall retain full legal control and authority over the Detainee and shall assume full legal responsibility for the custody of the Detainee. In particular, the Special Court shall remain fully responsible for all aspects arising out of the provision of the day to day detention services and facilities under this Article including the well-being of the Detainee’.
180.
SCSL, Decision of the President on Public Defence Motion Requesting Review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the International Criminal Court and the Special Court of Sierra Leone Dated 13 April 2006 & Modification of Mr. Charles Taylor’s Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 19 March 2007.
181.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 7 April 2003. Norman’s counsel would have told the press about the detention conditions at Bonthe island that his client was being held in ‘mosquito infested caves which formerly held West African slaves’. See SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 27 May 2003.
182.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 7 April 2003; SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
183.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the SCSL Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
184.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
185.
SCSL, Decision on the Urgent Defence Application for release from Provisional detention, Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana, Case No. SCSL-2003-11-PD, T. Ch., 21 November 2003, para 22; ICTR, Decision on Bizimungu’s Motion for Provisional Release Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules, Prosecutor v. Bizimungu, Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, 4 November 2002, para 23.
186.
SCSL, Decision on the Urgent Defence Application for release from Provisional detention, Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana, Case No. SCSL-2003-11-PD, T. Ch., 21 November 2003, para 22.
187.
SCSL, Decision on the Defence Motion for the Temporary Provisional Release to Allow the Accused Santigie Borbor Kanu to Visit his Mother’s Grave, Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, T. Ch. II, 18 October 2005, para 1.
188.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
189.
Ibid.
190.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
191.
Ibid.
192.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the SCSL Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
193.
Ibid.
194.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
195.
Ibid.
196.
Ibid.
197.
Ibid.
198.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 180, under 17.
199.
See, in more detail, Chap. 4.
200.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
201.
Ibid.
202.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the SCSL Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
203.
Ibid.
204.
Ibid.
205.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
206.
Rule 83(E) of the STL Rules of Detention.
207.
ICC, Public Redacted Version of ICC-01/05-01/08-231-Conf “Decision of the Registrar on the monitoring of the non-privileged communications and visits of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Prosecutor v. Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, P.-T. Ch. III, 10 November 2008, p. 4; ICC, Decision on the Application of Mr Germain Katanga in respect of the new policy in the detention centre on the registration of telephone contacts, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR221-02/09, Presidency, 17 September 2009, para 46.
208.
ICC, Press Release of 13 April 2010, ICC Registrar to discuss shared challenges with registrars of final/appellate, regional and international Courts, ICC-CPI-20100413-PR513.
209.
Regulation 220(1) of the ICC RoR.
210.
Regulation 219 of the ICC RoR.
211.
Regulation 220(2) of the ICC RoR.
212.
Regulation 218(1) of the ICC RoR.
213.
Regulation 219(1) of the ICC RoR.
214.
Regulation 219(3) of the ICC RoR.
215.
Regulation 219(5) of the ICC RoR.
216.
It is noted that in domestic complaints procedures for inmates adjudicators are also bound to such procedural rules. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Supervisory Committees’ [Commissies van Toezicht] Complaints Committees [Beklagcommissies], that decide in first instance on complaints of inmates against decisions of the prison governor, must deliver their judgments ‘as soon as possible’, which has been interpreted as ‘within four weeks after receipt of the complaint’. This term can be extended with another four weeks in exceptional circumstances. See Article 67(1) of the Penitentiary Principles Act [Penitentiaire beginselenwet]. Further, the Appeals Commission [Beroepscommissie] of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles [Raad voor de Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming] must deliver its judgment ‘as soon as possible’. See Article 71(1) of the Penitentiary Principles Act.
217.
See, also, ICTY, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for the Production of Notes Exchanged Between Zejnil Delalić and Zdravko Mucić, Prosecutor v. Delalić, Delić and Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21, T. Ch., 31 October 1996, para 29.
218.
ICTY, Decision on Appeal against Decision Denying Permission for Legal Representatives to Visit the Detainee, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 25 May 2006, para 2.
219.
ICTY, interviews conducted by the author with ICTY detainees, The Hague–Netherlands, 22 February 2011.
220.
Regulation 11 of the ICTY Regulations for the Establishment of a Complaints Procedure for Detainees (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the ‘Regulations’).
221.
Regulation 12 of the Regulations.
222.
Regulation 10 of the Regulations.
223.
Regulation 9 of the Regulations.
224.
Banning and De Koning 2005, p. 117.
225.
Id., p. 118.
226.
Rule 83 provides, as far as relevant, that the Registrar shall forward the complaint to the President.
227.
ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Application for Review of the Registrar’s Decision of 12 January 2005, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, President, 14 September 2005, para 4.
228.
Ibid.
229.
Id., para 5.
230.
Id., para 5.
231.
Id., para 19.
232.
See, also, id., para 13.
233.
See, also, id., para 17.
234.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
235.
ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-17-0175, President, 18 June 2003.
236.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
237.
ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-03-0850, President, 18 June 2003.
238.
Ibid. See, also, ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Laurent Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-0788, President, 18 June 2003.
239.
In the case mentioned, two other detainees had submitted similar complaints, which probably made the President pay some extra attention to the matter; see ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Laurent Semanza, President, Case No. ICTR-97-20-0788, President, 18 June 2003; and ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-17-0175, President, 18 June 2003.
240.
ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. ICTR-96-17-0175, President, 18 June 2003.
241.
A situation where this was of direct relevance was the appointment of a former ICTR Deputy Registrar as a consultant or legal officer working for Chambers. The former Deputy Registrar had allegedly made certain controversial statements about the UNDF detainees at a symposium. According to several accused persons, ‘these statements exhibited bias against the Accused as former members of the Rwandan government’ and displayed a personal view held by the former Deputy Registrar on a legal matter relevant to the proceedings. See, ICTR, Decision on Mugiraneza’s Request for Certification to Appeal and Mugenzi’s and Bizimungu’s Requests for Reconsideration of the Decision on the Objections of Mugiraneza and Bicamumpaka to the Engagement of Mr. Everard O’Donnell as a Chambers Consultant Dated 28 August 2009, Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, T. Ch. II, 23 September 2009, paras 1–7.
242.
ICTY, interviews conducted by the author with ICTY detainees, The Hague–Netherlands, 22 February 2011.
243.
Serrarens 2007, p. 211; Kelk 1978, p. 57; Ploeg and Nijboer 1983, p. 20.
244.
Serrarens 2001, p. 218, 2007, p. 216.
245.
See, e.g., ICTY, Letter by Dr. Radovan Karadžić to the Vice President Judge O-Gon Kwon, 3 February 2009.
246.
ICTY, interviews conducted by the author with ICTY detainees, The Hague–Netherlands, 22 February 2011.
247.
Vincent 2007, p. 73.
248.
See, e.g., SCSL, Decision of the president on Urgent and Public Defence Motion Requesting Cessation of Video Surveillance of Legal Consultations, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 21 February 2007.
249.
SCSL, Decision on Motion for Modification of the Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Norman, Case No. SCSL-2003-08-PT, President, 26 November 2003, para 5.
250.
Rule 19(A) of the SCSL RPE.
251.
SCSL, Decision on Defence Oral Application for Orders Pertaining to the Transfer of the Accused to The Hague, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-PT, T. Ch. II, 23 June 2006; SCSL, Decision of the president on Urgent and Public Defence Motion Requesting Cessation of Video Surveillance of Legal Consultations, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 21 February 2007, para 27.
252.
SCSL, Decision on Motion for Modification of the Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Norman, Case No. SCSL-2003-08-PT, President, 26 November 2003, para 5. See, also, SCSL, Decision of the president on Urgent and Public Defence Motion Requesting Cessation of Video Surveillance of Legal Consultations, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 21 February 2007.
253.
SCSL, Decision of the President on Public Defence Motion Requesting Review of the Memorandum of Understanding between the International Criminal Court and the Special Court of Sierra Leone Dated 13 April 2006 & Modification of Mr. Charles Taylor’s Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-PT, President, 19 March 2007.
254.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the SCSL Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
255.
Ibid.
256.
Ibid.
257.
Article 34 of the ICC Statute. It consists of the President and the First and Second Vice-Presidents, who are elected by the other Judges by majority vote.
258.
Article 38 ICC Statute.
259.
ICC, Report of the Bureau on family visits for detainees, ICC-ASP/8/42, 29 October 2009, para 13.
260.
ICC, Decision on “Mr Mathieu Ngudjolo’s Complaint Under Regulation 221(1) of the Regulations of the Registry Against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008”, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR-217-02/08, Presidency, 10 March 2009, para 53.
261.
ICC, Decision on the Application of Mr Germain Katanga in respect of the new policy in the detention centre on the registration of telephone contacts, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR221-02/09, Presidency, 17 September 2009, para 11.
262.
ICC, Reasons for the decision on the Applications for judicial review of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of 10 and 11 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Presidency, 5 December 2008, para 12. See, also, ICC, Decision on “Mr Mathieu Ngudjolo’s Complaint Under Regulation 221(1) of the Regulations of the Registry Against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008”, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR-217-02/08, Presidency, 10 March 2009, para 24; ICC, Decision on the Application of Mr Germain Katanga in respect of the new policy in the detention centre on the registration of telephone contacts, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR221-02/09, Presidency, 17 September 2009, para 42.
263.
ICC, Decision on the Application of Mr Germain Katanga in respect of the new policy in the detention centre on the registration of telephone contacts, Prosecutor v. Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-RoR221-02/09, Presidency, 17 September 2009, para 8.
264.
Id., paras 9–10.
265.
Id., para 12.
266.
Id., paras 15–16.
267.
Id., para 14.
268.
Id., para 16.
269.
Id., para 14.
270.
See, also, ICC, Resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.4, Family visits for indigent detainees, adopted at the 8th plenary meeting, 26 November 2009, by consensus.
271.
Article 112(1) of the ICC Statute.
272.
See, in more detail, Chap. 8.
273.
Ploeg and Nijboer 1983, p. 189; Bleichrodt 2005, p. 392.
274.
Serrarens 2001, p. 216; Serrarens 2007, pp. 215–216; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 132; Ploeg and Nijboer 1983, p. 192.
275.
Birkinshaw 1985, p. 3.
276.
Emphasis added. See, also, Bishop 2006, pp. 230–235.
277.
Penal Reform International 2001, p. 33.
278.
Bishop 2006, p. 232.
279.
See, with respect to the Dutch situation, De Jonge 2002, p. 148. See, in respect of the Swedish situation, Bishop 2006, pp. 232, 233.
280.
Van Zyl Smit 2005, p. 368–369.
281.
Id., p. 369. Emphasis added.
282.
Jaffe 1958, p. 401. Emphasis added.
283.
Livingstone et al. 2008, p. 11; Serrarens 2001, p. 218.
284.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 180, under 17.
285.
See, infra, p. 354–372.
286.
See Van Swearingen’s ‘power solidifying argument’, supra, p. 275.
287.
ICC, Report of the Bureau on family visits for detainees, ICC-ASP/8/42, 29 October 2009, para 25–26. See, in more detail, infra, Chap. 8.
288.
ICTR, Registrar’s Decision Pursuant to Article 8(3)(C) on the Request for Marriage and Other Reliefs, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Registrar, 12 January 2005, para 4.
289.
Ibid.
290.
ICTY, Order Lifting the Confidential Status of the “Decision on Milan Lukić’s Appeal against the Registrar’s Decision of 18 November 2008”, Filed on 28 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Lukić & Lukić, Case Jo. IT-98-32/1-T, Vice-President, 11 December 2008.
291.
See Article 85 of the ICC Statute.
292.
Beresford 2002, p. 641. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No, ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, para 18.
293.
Møse 2003, p. 203; Beresford 2002, p. 629; ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No, ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, para 10.
294.
ICTR, Decision on the Defence Motion Concerning the Illegal Arrest and Illegal Detention of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C, T. Ch. II, 12 December 2000. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No, ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, para 16.
295.
ICTR, Decision on the Defence Motion Concerning the Illegal Arrest and Illegal Detention of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C, T. Ch. II, 12 December 2000. See, further, ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No, ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, para 16.
296.
The Appeals Chamber cited: ICTR, Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., paras 74–75 and referred to the case law cited there.
297.
The Appeals Chamber cited, inter alia, ICTR, Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., paras 74–75.
298.
The Appeals Chamber cited, inter alia, ICTR, Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., para 75.
299.
ICTR, Decision on the Defence Motion Concerning the Illegal Arrest and Illegal Detention of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C, T. Ch. II, 12 December 2000.
300.
Ibid.
301.
See ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, citing ICTR, Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-T, T. Ch., 31 January 2007.
302.
The Trial Chamber noted that the legal framework of the Special panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor provide for the right to compensation for unjust convictions and for unlawful arrests and detention; ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch., 13 September 2007, para 9.
303.
See ICTR, Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Prosecutor v. Rwamakuba, Case No. ICTR-98-44C-T, T. Ch., 31 January 2007, paras 21–25.
304.
See ICTR, Decision on Appeal against Decision on Appropriate Remedy, Rwamakuba v. the Prosecutor, Case No, ICTR-98-44C-A, A. Ch. 13 September 2007, para 10.
305.
See id., para 27 and the case law cited in footnote 102.
306.
Ibid.
307.
Beresford 2002, p. 633.
308.
Nollkaemper, The Internationalized Rule of Law, 2009, p. 76.
309.
Admittedly, immunity may be lifted in certain circumstances. See Sections 20 and 21 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946; Article 4 of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Kingdom of the Netherlands Concerning the Headquarters of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991, 27 May 1994; Article 4 of the Agreement between the United Nations and the United Republic of Tanzania concerning the headquarters of the International Tribunal for Rwanda; Article 3 of the Headquarters Agreement between the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Special Court for Sierra Leone; Articles 8, 9, 12 and 13 of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone; Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the Assembly of States Parties New York, 3–10 September 2002, ICC-ASP/1/3; Headquarters Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the Host State, date of entry into force: 1 March 2008, ICC—BD/04-01-08.
310.
ECtHR, Lorsé and others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 4 February 2003, Application No. 52750/99, para 96.
311.
ECtHR, Enea v. Italy, judgment of 17 September 2009, Application No. 74912/01, para 106.
312.
ECtHR, Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 September 2006, Application No. 12350/04, para 55.
313.
ICTY, Press Release, “Report of Judge Almiro Rodrigues of 27 August 1998”, CC/PIU/343-E, The Hague, 7 September 1998.
314.
Id., para 19. See, also, the Swedish investigators’ report on UNDU, where it was outlined that ‘[a] doctor and two nurses are attached to the Detention Unit. The two nurses work full time there. The doctor works two days a week and states that otherwise he is available round the clock. The medical work is supported by the host prison’s hospital. There is also close cooperation with the Dutch health service through which access is obtained to any specialists that may be needed’; ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.9.
315.
See ICTY, Report to the President—Death of Milan Babić, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006; and ICTY, Report to the President—Death of Slobodan Milošević, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, May 2006. See, further, ICTY, Press Release, CC/PIU/327-E, The Hague, 29 June 1998; ICTY, Findings of the Inquiry, The Hague, 21 July 1998, Judge Almiro Rodrigues; ICTY, Press Release, CC/PIU/334-E, The Hague, 23 July 1998; ICTY, Press Release, “Report of Judge Almiro Rodrigues of 27 August 1998”, CC/PIU/343-E, The Hague, 7 September 1998; ICTY, Press Release, AM/MOW/1046e, The Hague, 6 March 2006; ICTY, Order Assigning a Judge to Conduct an Inquiry, Prosecutor v. Babić, Case No. IT-03-72, President, 6 March 2006; ICTY, Order Assigning a Judge to Conduct an Inquiry, Prosecutor v. Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-T, President, 11 March 2006; ICTY, Press Release “Update from the President on the Death of Slobodan Milošević”, FP/MOW/1056, The Hague, 17 March 2006; ICTY, Statement by Tribunal President Judge Fausto Pocar to the Security Council 7 June 2006, The Hague, 7 June 2006.
316.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision, Prosecutor v. Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Registrar, 28 May 1997. See, also, ICTY, Weekly Press Briefing, 31 October 2001, 11:30 a.m.; ICTY, Weekly Press Briefing, 8 January 2002, 11:30 a.m.; ICTY, report to the President Death of Milan Babić Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006.
317.
ICTY, Press Release, CC/PIU/339-E, The Hague, 12 August 1998.
318.
ICTY, Order Regarding the Disclosure of Information on the Health of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-T, T. Ch. II, 29 October 2010.
319.
ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Delalić, Delić and Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 17 January 1997, p. 7, line 15–p. 8, line 5.
320.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Drljaca and Kovačević, Case No. IT-97-24, T. Ch., 20 January 1998; ICTY, Decision on the Motion for provisional Release of the Accused Momir Talić, Prosecutor v. Brđanin and Talić, Case No. IT-99-36-T, T. Ch. II, 20 September 2002.
321.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Appeal against Refusal to Grant Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Mrkšić, Case No. IT-95-12/I-AR65, A. Ch., 8 October 2002; ICTY, Decision on Provisional Release of Haradin Bala, Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-PT, T. Ch., 16 September 2003; ICTY, Preliminary Order on Sreten Lukić’s Emergency Motion Seeking Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-PT, T. Ch., 19 July 2005; ICTY, Decision on “Defence Motion: Request for Providing Medical Aid in the Republic of Montenegro in Detention Conditions”, Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-A, A. Ch., 8 December 2005.
322.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Drljaca and Kovačević, Case No. IT-97-24, T. Ch., 20 January 1998; ICTY, Preliminary Order on Sreten Lukić’s Emergency Motion Seeking Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-PT, T. Ch., 19 July 2005; ICTY, Decision on “Defence Motion: Request for Providing Medical Aid in the Republic of Montenegro in Detention Conditions”, Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-A, A. Ch., 8 December 2005; ICTY, Report to the President Death of Slobodan Milošević, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 30 May 2006, paras 65–66; .
323.
ICTY, Decision on the Motion for Provisional Release of the Accused Momir Talić, Prosecutor v. Brđanin and Talić, Case No. IT-99-36-T, T. Ch. II, 20 September 2002.
324.
Ibid.
325.
Ibid.
326.
ICTY, Decision on “Defence Motion: Defence Request for Provisional Release for Providing Medical Aid in the Republic of Montenegro”, Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-A, A. Ch., 16 December 2005.
327.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release, Prosecutor v. Drljaca and Kovačević, Case No. IT-97-24, T. Ch., 20 January 1998, paras 12–14; ICTY, Weekly medical report on the diagnosed health problems of Mr. Jovica Stanišić, from Dr. Eekhof, to the Registrar, of 17 June 2009.
328.
See, e.g., ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, T. Ch., 28 July 2000, Status Conference, page 8, lines 4–25; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 27 November 2006, Pre-Trial Conference, p. 839, lines 2–24.
329.
See, also, e.g., ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A, 14 November 2000, Status Conference, p. 26, lines 4–9; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, T. Ch., 8 April 2004, Status Conference, p. 2, lines 16–18; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, A. Ch., 31 March 2005, Status Conference, p. 24, lines 1–15.
330.
See, e.g., ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, T. Ch., 28 July 2000, Status Conference, p. 8, lines 18–25; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, T. Ch., 8 April 2004, Status Conference, p. 4, lines 20–24; ICTY, Order to Registry and Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 11 July 2005; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 27 November 2006, Pre-Trial Conference, p. 843, lines 17–19.
331.
See ICTY, Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. Doc. A/59/215-S/2004/627, 16 August 2004, para 365, where it is held that ‘[t]he Detention Unit serves the judicial process in ensuring the physical and mental well-being of the accused in order that they may answer the counts against them in the court of law’; ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.7.2. The ICTY Manual on Developed Practices states that ‘[t]he health of detainees is a crucial consideration for any international court or tribunal, and an important factor for efficient trial proceedings’; ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 179, sub 8.
332.
ICTY, Order to Registry and Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 11 July 2005. See, further, ICTY, Decision on Registry First and Second Requests for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 26 August 2005.
333.
The accused had raised the matter verbally with the Commanding Officer, which was sufficient according to the Trial Chamber.
334.
ICTY, Order to Registry and Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 11 July 2005.
335.
Ibid; ICTY, Decision on Registry First and Second Requests for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 26 August 2005.
336.
ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.4.
337.
Ibid.
338.
Ibid.
339.
ICTY, Report to the President Death of Slobodan Milošević, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 30 May 2006, para 70; see also paras 112, 115, 116, 117, 122, and the ‘Findings and Recommendations’ section, under 11. See, further, ICTY, Statement by Tribunal President Judge Fausto Pocar to the Security Council 7 June 2006, The Hague, 7 June 2006.
340.
ICTY, Report to the President Death of Slobodan Milošević, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 30 May 2006, para 112.
341.
Id., para 114.
342.
Id., paras 72–75.
343.
Id., para 105. See, further, the paras 106, 108 and 111.
344.
Id., para 130 and the ‘Findings and Recommendations’ section, under 12.
345.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 180, para 17.
346.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 181, para 19.
347.
ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Delalić, Delić and Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 17 January 1997, page 20, line 20—page 21, line 5.
348.
ICTY, Report to the President, Death of Milan Babić, Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006.
349.
Ibid.
350.
ICTY, Findings of the Inquiry, The Hague, 21 July 1998, Judge Almiro Rodrigues; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, T. Ch., 8 April 2004, Status Conference, p. 3, line 17–p. 4, line 6; ICTY, Decision on Defence’s Rule 74BIS Motion; Amended Trial Schedule, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, T. Ch. I, 27 February 2006; ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.7.2.
351.
ICTY, Press Release, “Report of Judge Almiro Rodrigues of 27 August 1998”, CC/PIU/343-E, The Hague, 7 September 1998.
352.
Ibid.
353.
ICTY, Report to the President Death of Milan Babić Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006.
354.
See ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 179, under 9.
355.
ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 27 November 2006, Pre-Trial Conference, pp. 839–843; ICTY, Order to the Registrar, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 29 November 2006; ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1132e, The Hague, 30 November 2006.
356.
ICTY, Report to the President Death of Milan Babić Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006.
357.
ICTY, Order of the President on the Application for the Early Release of Milan Simić, Prosecutor v. Simić, Case No. IT-95-9/2, President, 27 October 2003.
358.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 181, under 18.
359.
CPT, Report to the Albanian Government on the visit to Albania carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 23 May to 3 June 2005, CPT/Inf(2006)24, para 128.
360.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 181, under 18.
361.
ICTY, Decision on Defence’s Rule 74BIS Motion; Amended Trial Schedule, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, T. Ch. I, 27 February 2006, para 5.
362.
ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.8.1. The audit report states that ‘[a] transition to allowing the detainees to prepare their own food using produce paid for by the Detention Unit and purchased after consultation with the detainees could solve the problem, while offering a very desirable opportunity for occupation’.
363.
Id., para 2.9. The report further states that ‘[a]s regards this type of treatment in particular it is of great importance that it can be carried out without an interpreter. Consideration should be given to making the same service available to other ethnic groups’.
364.
ICTY, Report to the President Death of Milan Babić Judge Kevin Parker Vice-President, 8 June 2006.
365.
ICTY, internal memorandum from Judge Liu Daqun to the Deputy Registrar, 19 January 2010.
366.
ICTY, Order Regarding the Nightly Monitoring of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-T, T. Ch. II, 25 August 2010, para 8; ICTY, statement by Tolimir in accordance with the Trial Chamber Decision of 25 August 2010, IT-05-88/2-T, D9124-D9123, 1 September 2010.
367.
ICTY, interviews conducted by the author with ICTY detainees, The Hague–Netherlands, 22 February 2011.
368.
Ibid.
369.
ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.3.
370.
Id., para 2.7.2.
371.
ICTY, ICTY Manual on Developed Practices, UNICRI, Turin 2009, p. 178.
372.
See, id., p. 179, sub 8.
373.
See, also, ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 2.9; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 27 November 2006, Pre-Trial Conference, p. 839, lines 2–24.
374.
ICTY, Order to the Registrar, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 29 November 2006. Šešelj had requested permission to receive unmonitored visits by his wife, requested additional facilities for the preparation of his defence and the recognition of his legal associates. He had further demanded that the Tribunal would approach an unspecified State and request it to unfreeze assets he held in overseas bank accounts. See ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1132e, The Hague, 30 November 2006; ICTY, Statement by Judge Fausto Pocar, President, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 15 December 2006, MO/1136e annex, The Hague, 15 December 2006. See, in more detail, Sluiter 2007, pp. 58–60.
375.
ICTY, Order to the Registrar, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, President, 29 November 2006.
376.
Ibid.
377.
ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1132e, The Hague, 30 November 2006.
378.
ICTY, Statement by Judge Fausto Pocar, President, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 15 December 2006, MO/1136e annex, The Hague, 15 December 2006.
379.
Ibid.
380.
ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1132e, The Hague, 30 November 2006.
381.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
382.
Ibid.
383.
ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for a Psychological Examination, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005. This was confirmed during interviews the author conducted with staff members of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
384.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
385.
Ibid.
386.
Ibid. Arguably, the Medical Officer’s consent should not carry too much weight. A patient’s right to a second opinion is too important; requests thereto should not easily be denied, except perhaps if it is evident that a detainee will not benefit in any way from the requested second opinion.
387.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008. See, also, Rule 28 of the ICTR Rules of Detention, which provides that ‘[d]etainees may be visited by and consult with a doctor or dentist of their choice at their own expense’.
388.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
389.
This applies both to Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber when seized of a medical complaint or request. See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Motion for Partial Enforcement of Sentence, Prosecutor v. Serugendo, Case No. ICTR-2005-84-I, T. Ch. I, 22 June 2006; and ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for a Psychological Examination, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005.
390.
ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for a Psychological Examination, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005.
391.
Ibid.
392.
Ibid. The Appeals Chamber cited such earlier decisions as ICTY, Decision on defense Motion to Obtain the Assignment of Experts for the Accused Miroslav Kvočka, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, T. Ch., 12 May 2000, pp. 2–3; ICTY, Decision on defense Request for Assignment of Experts for the Accused Dragoljub Prcać, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, T. Ch., 18 May 2000, p. 2; ICTY, Decision on defense Request for Assignment of Medical and Psychiatric Experts for the Accused Zoran Žigić, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, T. Ch., 21 June 2000, p. 2; ICTY, Decision on Defense Additional Motion for Psychological Evaluation of the Accused Dragoljub Prcać, Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, T. Ch., 14 December 2000, p. 2.
393.
Ibid.
394.
Ibid.
395.
ICTR, Judgement and Sentence, Prosecutor v. Serugendo, Case No. ICTR-2005-84-I, T. Ch., 12 June 2006, paras 70–74 and 94.
396.
See http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2003/db012403.doc.htm (last visited by the author on 13 July 2011). Serugendo died while awaiting transfer to a designated State for the enforcement of his sentence; see http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/newsletter/aug06/aug06.pdf (last visited by the author on 13 July 2011).
397.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
398.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 30 July 2003; SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 23 February 2007; SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 16 July 2007.
399.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 23 February 2007; SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 16 July 2007.
400.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
401.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 30 July 2003.
402.
See for Taylor’s concerns in this respect: SCSL, Document ‘The Transfer and initial Appearance of Charles Taylor’, produced by the Office of Press and Public Affairs in consultation with the Outreach Section, and SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-PT, T. Ch. II, 3 April 2006, Initial Appearance, 3:00 p.m., at p. 18, line 6–p. 20, line 2.
403.
SCSL, Press Release– Press and Public Affairs Office, 27 May 2003.
404.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-T, T. Ch., 10 January 2004, 10:10 A.M., Status Conference, page 4, line 1—page 5, line 13; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-T, T. Ch. I, 20 June 2007, 9:52 A.M., at p. 11, lines 24–29.
405.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
406.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities and with detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
407.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, p. 43.
408.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 27 May 2003.
409.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
410.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 21 March 2003; SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
411.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
412.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 11 June 2003.
413.
Ibid. Sankoh’s wife reportedly ‘called on the international community to practice what it preaches’ and said that ‘“[m]y husband is accused of committing crimes against humanity but now to allow him to just wither away and die, where is the humanity in that?”’.
414.
It also prevented the Court from examining Sankoh in order to determine whether he was fit to stand trial. See SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 22 July 2003.
415.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 11 June 2003; SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 22 July 2003.
416.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 11 June 2003.
417.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 30 July 2003.
418.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
419.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 23 February 2007; SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Releas, 16 July 2007.
420.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 16 July 2007.
421.
See, e.g., SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-T, T. Ch., 10 January 2004, 10:10 A.M., Status Conference; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 26 February 2008, 9:30 A.M., at p. 4781, lines 12–24.
422.
See, also, SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-T, T. Ch., 10 January 2004, 10:10 A.M., Status Conference, p. 2, line 12–p. 3, line 3.
423.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-PT, T. Ch. II, 3 April 2006, Initial Appearance, 3:00 p.m., at page 19; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, page 44.
424.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, p. 44, lines 1–12.
425.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
426.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
427.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Medical Officer, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
428.
Ibid.
429.
Rule 28(C) of the STL Rules of Detention.
430.
Regulation 156(2) of the ICC RoR.
431.
Penal Reform International 2001, p. 93.
432.
Complaints about the organisation of medical care in the institution are not admissible. Such complaints must be submitted through the regular complaints procedure. See De Jonge and Cremers 2008, p. 194. See, further, Kelk 2007, pp. 271–274; and Van der Helm 2005, p. 168–180.
433.
Article 30(1) of the Penitentiaire Maatregel.
434.
See, further, Hendriks and Van Dijk 2008, pp. 73-90.
435.
ECtHR, Jordan v. United Kingdom, judgment of 4 May 2001, Application No. 24746/9, para 103.
436.
Id., para 105.
437.
Id., para 106.
438.
ECtHR, Ergı v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, para 83–84; ECtHR, Jordan v. United Kingdom, judgment of 4 May 2001, Application No. 24746/9, para 106.
439.
ECtHR, Jordan v. United Kingdom, judgment of 4 May 2001, Application No. 24746/9, para 107.
440.
Ibid.
441.
Id., para 108.
442.
Id., para 109.
443.
Ibid.
444.
Livingstone 2000, p. 314.
445.
ECtHR, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2001, Application No. 27229/95, para 123.
446.
Van Dijk 2006, p. 1013.
447.
ECtHR, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 3 April 2001, Application No. 27229/95, para 130.
448.
HRC, Bazarov v. Uzbekistan, Communication No. 959/2000, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/87/D/959/2000 (2006), views of 8 August 2006.
449.
Beresford 2002.
450.
ICTY, Appointment of Inspecting Authority for the Detention Unit, Exchange of Letters between Antonio Cassese President of the ICTY and Cornelio Sommaruga President of the ICRC, 28 April and 5 May 1995.
451.
Ibid.
452.
ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1111^e, The Hague, 20 September 2006. According to David Kennedy, UNDU’s Commanding Officer, the ICRC visits the UNDU annually, i.e. one visit per year; ICTY, interview conducted by the author with David Kennedy, Commanding Officer of the ICTY UNDU, The Hague–Netherlands, 17 June 2011.
453.
ICTY, Press Release, RH/MOW/1132e, The Hague, 30 November 2006.
454.
See para 12 of the Agreement between the ICRC and the ICTY; ICTY, Appointment of Inspecting Authority for the Detention Unit, Exchange of Letters between Antonio Cassese President of the ICTY and Cornelio Sommaruga President of the ICRC, 28 April and 5 May 1995.
455.
ICTY, Appointment of Inspecting Authority for the Detention Unit, Exchange of Letters between Antonio Cassese President of the ICTY and Cornelio Sommaruga President of the ICRC, 28 April and 5 May 1995.
456.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, 19 October 2009.
457.
In the Netherlands, for instance, the Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing visits all prisons and remand centers on a regular basis and publishes its audit reports on such visits. See http://www.inspectiesanctietoepassing.nl (last visited by the author on 13 July 2011).
458.
The SPT has visited places of confinement in, inter alia, Mexico, Benin, Paraguay, Cambodia and Honduras. See SPT, Second Annual Report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, CAT/C/42/2, 7 April 2009. See, also, Article 11 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
459.
ICTY, Press Release, AM/MO/1060e, The Hague, 31 March 2006; ICTY, Weekly Press Briefing, 12 April 2006; ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006; ICTY, Press Release, LM/MOW/1078e, The Hague, 15 May 2006.
460.
ICTY, Independent Audit of the Detention Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 4 May 2006, para 1.1.
461.
ICTY, Order to the Registrar to Separate Convicted and Non-Convicted Detainees held in the Detention Unit, Case no. IT-06-89-Misc. 1, President, 15 June 2006. It is unclear whether the other points of concern raised in the audit report were addressed by the tribunal. Although a working group of representatives of the Judges, Registry and the detention administration was established to address such other issues, there is no detailed information available as to the implementation of the report’s other recommendations. See Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. Doc. A/61/271-S/2006/666, 21 August 2006, para 100; ICTY, Letter dated 15 November 2006 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2006/898, 16 November 2006, para 6. According to the President’s Letter (para 7), ‘the Working Group found it important to reiterate that the report found the conditions of the UNDU to be of the very highest standards but also considered that the majority of recommendations made by it were reasonable and feasible’. Emphasis added. See also ICTY, Statement by Judge Fausto Pocar, President, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 15 December 2006, MO/1136e annex, The Hague, 15 December 2006.
462.
ICTY, Letter dated 15 November 2006 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2006/898, 16 November 2006, para 8.
463.
See ICTY, Protocol on the Visit of the Pre-Trial Judge to the Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, Pre-Trial Judge, 25 October 2007.
464.
Ibid.
465.
Id., Disposition, sub iv.
466.
Directive for the Registry of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Judicial and legal Services Division, Court management Section, approved by the Judges on 8 June 1998.
467.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
468.
Ibid.
469.
Attached to the Letter of Dr. Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 15 February 1996, ICTR/JUD-11-1-097.
470.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008. Paragraph 5 of the proposition to an agreement between the ICRC and the ICTR provides that ‘[t]he inspections shall take place on a periodic basis. The frequency with which such visits will occur will be determined by the ICRC’.
471.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
472.
Ibid.
473.
Ibid.
474.
Rule 84 of the ICTR Rules of Detention. See also para 7 of the document ‘Complaints Procedure for Detainees’ (document on file with the author).
475.
Proposition to an agreement between the ICTR and the ICRC, attached to Letter of Dr. Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 15 February 1996, ICTR/JUD-11-1-097.
476.
See Leeuw and Bogaerts 2008, p. 40. These scholars argue against making inspection reports publicly available, because this might only present a selective and distorted account of the actual situation within an institution.
477.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
478.
See the ICRC website at http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FMFN8 (last visited by the author on 14 July 2011). See, also the document ICRC Protection Policy, in: 90 International Review of the Red Cross 871, September 2008.
479.
Kalshoven and Zegveld 2001, p. 199.
480.
See the ICRC website at http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5FMFN8 (last visited by the author on 14 July 2011).
481.
ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Georges Rutaganda, President, 18 June 2003; ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Laurent Semanza, President, 18 June 2003; ICTR, The President’s Decision on the Complaint Filed by Detainee Gérard Ntakirutimana, 18 June 2003.
482.
Paragraph 10 of the proposition to an agreement between the ICRC and the ICTR, attached to Letter of Dr. Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 15 February 1996, ICTR/JUD-11-1-097. Paragraph 10 states that the ICTR must first secure the ICRC’s permission when it wants to make a report public.
483.
ICTR, interview conducted by the author with UNDF detention authorities, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008; SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with UNDF detainees, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
484.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with the SCSL Acting Registrar and the Principal Defender, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
485.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 7 April 2003.
486.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 27 May 2003.
487.
SCSL, Report on the Special Court for Sierra Leone—Submitted by the Independent Expert Antonio Cassese, 12 December 2006, pp. 46–47.
488.
SCSL, interviews conducted by the author with SCSL detainees, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
489.
SCSL Press and Public Affairs Office, Press Release, 27 May 2003.
490.
Agreement between the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the International Committee of the Red Cross on Visits to Persons Deprived of their Liberty pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The Agreement greatly resembles the one concluded between the ICRC and ICC, the details of which will be discussed further below.
491.
Id., Preamble.
492.
Rule 4(C) of the STL Rules of Detention.
493.
Rule 4(D) of the STL Rules of Detention. The confidentiality is also prescribed by Article 11(3) of the Agreement between the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the International Committee of the Red Cross on Visits to Persons Deprived of their Liberty pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
494.
ICC, Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the International Committee of the Red Cross on Visits to Persons deprived of Liberty Pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, Signed: 29 March and 13 April 2006, entry into force: 13 April 2006.
495.
‘Detention Centre’, according to the definition in Article 1 of the Agreement, refers to ‘all premises where detainees are held by the ICC’.
496.
Article 7(1)(d) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
497.
Regulation 94(3) of the ICC RoC. See, also, Articles 3(2) and 11 of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
498.
Regulation 94(4) of the ICC RoC.
499.
Regulation 150 of the ICC RoR.
500.
Article 8(1) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
501.
Article 8(2) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
502.
Article 11(2) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
503.
Article 12(2) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
504.
Article 11(2) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
505.
Article 11(3) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
506.
Article 7(1)(a) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
507.
Article 12(1) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
508.
Article 7(1)(b) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
509.
Article 6(2)(a) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
510.
Article 6(2)(b) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
511.
Article 6(2)(c) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
512.
Article 7(1)(c) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
513.
Article 9(2) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
514.
Article 10 of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
515.
Article 13 of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
516.
Article 11(4) of the Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC.
517.
See http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZYGTF (last visited by the author on 14 July 2011).
518.
Ibid.
519.
CPT, Second General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1991, CPT/Inf (92) 3, 13 April 1992.
520.
See Van Bommel 2000, p. 37.
521.
Leeuw and Bogaerts 2008, p. 37; Reynolds 2004, pp. 769–792.
522.
Harding 2007, p. 543.
523.
Van Zyl Smit and Snacken 2009, p. 116.
524.
Ibid.
525.
Sykes 1958, 2007, p. 41.
526.
Vincent 2007, p. 67.
527.
Harding 2007, p. 548.
528.
Klip 1997, pp. 150–151.
529.
The ICRC reports that its delegates ‘visit some 440.000 detainees in approximately 2.000 places of detention in over 70 countries each year’. Such places also include regular prisons. See http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0543.pdf (last visited by the author on 18 July 2011).
530.
See Aeschlimann 2005, p. 86, 87. See, further, Kalshoven and Zegveld 2001, pp. 73, 151, 198–199. According to the document ‘The ICRC Its Mission and Work (which is available at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0963.pdf (last visited by the author on 18 July 2011)), p. 7, footnote 9, ‘[i]nternational humanitarian law expressly confers certain rights on the ICRC, such as that of visiting prisoners of war or civilian internees and providing them with relief supplies, and that of operating the Central Tracing Agency (see Arts 73, 122, 123 and 126, GC III, and Arts 76, 109, 137, 140 and 143, GC IV). In addition, international humanitarian law recognises the ICRC’s right of initiative in the event of armed conflict, whether international or non-international (Art. 3 and Arts 9/9/9/10 common to the four Geneva Conventions). The ICRC’s role is confirmed in Art. 5 of the Statutes of the Movement. In situations falling below the threshold of international humanitarian law, this article of the Statutes alone recognises that the ICRC has a mandate to take action’.
531.
See pp. 6–7 of http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0685.pdf (last visited by the author on 18 July 2011).
532.
Preamble to the Agreement between the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the International Committee of the Red Cross on Visits to Persons Deprived of their Liberty pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. See Article 4(1)(d) and 4(2) of the Statutes of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
533.
SCSL, interview conducted by the author with SCSL detention authorities, Freetown—Sierra Leone, October 2009.
534.
See, also, Penal Reform International 2001, p. 168.
535.
Ibid.
536.
Id., pp. 169, 174.
537.
Van Zyl Smit and Snacken 2009, p. 117.
538.
Id., p. 118.
539.
It is noted, however, that in the Netherlands, in order to be permitted to carry a medical title and perform medical operations, one must be registered. All registered medical practitioners are subject to medical disciplinary rules. See Articles 2, 35 and 36 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Wet op de beroepen in de individuele gezondheidszorg. These rules also apply to such persons when practicing their profession inside an international remand institution.
540.
In this research, the terms monitoring and inspecting are used interchangeably.
541.
Penal Reform International 2001, p. 167.
542.
Ibid.
543.
With respect to the situation in the Netherlands, see Van Kuijck 2003, p. 173.
544.
See, e.g., para 3 of the document ‘Disciplinary Sanctions at the UNDF’ (on file with the author).
545.
Emphasis added.
546.
This only concerns the situation where an accident has occurred due to the use of instruments of restraint; SCSL, interview conducted by the author with a senior staff member of the ICTR Office of the Registrar, Arusha—Tanzania, May 2008.
547.
See, e.g., Regulation 19 of the ICTR Regulations governing Visits and Communications with Detainees (on file with the author).
548.
ICTY, Decision on the Motion of the Defence Seeking Modification to the Conditions of Detention of General Blaškić, Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, President, 9 May 1996, Disposition, para 5; ICTY, Decision on the Conditions of detention of General Blaškić, Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, President, 26 May 1997, Disposition, para 2; ICTY, Order of the President on the Defence Request to Modify the Conditions of detention of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Plavšić, Case No. IT-00-39 & 40/1, President, 18 January 2001; ICTY, Decision on Defence’s Rule 74BIS Motion; Amended Trial Schedule, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, T. Ch. I, 27 February 2006; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch., 27 November 2006, Pre-Trial Conference, page 843, lines 12–15; ICTY, Decision on Tolimir’s Submission on Violation of his Rights Submitted on 7 September 2007, Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-PT, T. Ch. II, 10 October 2007; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, T. Ch. I, 23 July 2004, 3:03 P.M., Continued Trial, at p. 10, lines 1–23; ICTY, Order to Registry and Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 11 July 2005; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 2 November 2007, Status Conference, p. 135, lines 2–6; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 25 May 2005, 9:33 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 3, line 24–p. 5, line 2; ICTY, internal memorandum from Judge Liu Daqun to the Deputy Registrar, 19 January 2010.
549.
See, e.g., ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Blagojević and Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-A, A. Ch., 30 January 2007, p. 247, lines 1–3 and 8–11; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Delić, Case No. IT-04-83, Pre-Trial Conference, 2 July 2007, p. 178, lines 12–17; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 2 November 2007, Status Conference, p. 119, lines 7–13; ICTY, Order Regarding the Nightly Monitoring of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-T, T. Ch. II, 25 August 2010, para 18.
550.
See, e.g., ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, T. Ch., 28 July 2000, Status Conference, p. 8, lines 4–25; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A, 14 November 2000, Status Conference, p. 27, lines 19–24; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Plavšić, Case No. IT-00-40-I, T. Ch., 11 January 2001, Initial Appearance, p. 7, line 19–23; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-S, T. Ch., 8 September 2003, Status Conference, p. 1463, lines 1–8; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-A, T. Ch., 8 April 2004, Status Conference, p. 4, lines 22–24; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Todović and Rašević, Case No. IT-97-25/1-PT, T. Ch., 21 March 2005, Status Conference, p. 82, line 14–p. 83, line 15; ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 2 November 2007, Status Conference, p. 127, lines 17–24.
551.
ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-02-60/1-S, T. Ch., 8 September 2003, Status Conference, p. 1466, lines 6–13.
552.
ICTY, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal Concerning the Denial of a Request for a Visit to an Accused in the Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-AR73.2, A. Ch., 29 January 2004.
553.
ICTY, Public and Redacted Reasons for Decision on Appeal by Vidoje Blagojević to Replace his Defence Team, Prosecutor v. Blagojević, Case No. IT-02-60-AR73.4, A. Ch., 7 November 2003, para 7. The case did not concern an intramural detention matter, but concerned a request by the accused for the withdrawal of counsel under Article 19 of the ICTY Directive on Assignment of Defence Counsel. Article 19 confers the power to decide on such requests on the Registrar, and grants the accused the right to appeal the Registrar’s decision to the President.
554.
See, also, ICTY, Order Regarding the Disclosure of Information on the Health of the Accused, Prosecutor v. Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-T, T. Ch. II, 29 October 2010.
555.
ICTY, Redacted Version of the “Decision on Monitoring the Privileged Communications of the Accused with Dissenting Opinion by Judge Harhoff in Annex” Filed on 27 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch. III, 1 December 2008, para 19.
556.
Ibid.
557.
Id., para 20.
558.
Id., para 20.
559.
ICTY, Registry Submsission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Seeking Direction from the President Regarding the Trial Chamber’s Decision of 27 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, President, 1 December 2008.
560.
ICTY, Decision on Urgent Registry Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Seeking Direction from the President on the Trial Chamber’s Decision of 27 November 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, President, 17 December 2008, para 8.
561.
Id., para 9. Footnotes omitted.
562.
ICTY, Registry Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Following the President’s Decision of 17 December 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, A. Ch., 17 February 2009.
563.
ICTY, Decision on the Registry Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Following the President’s Decision of 17 December 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, A. Ch., 9 April 2009, para 15.
564.
Ibid. The Appeals Chamber also cited decisions in the cases against Nahimana, Ngeze and Blagojević.
565.
ICTY, Decision on the Registry Submission Pursuant to Rule 33(B) Following the President’s Decision of 17 December 2008, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, A. Ch., 9 April 2009, paras 20–21.
566.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on the Accused’s Motion Concerning the Restrictions on his Communication with Radovan Karadžić, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch. III, 27 April 2009; ICTY, Decision on the Accused’s Oral Request to Reinstate Messrs. Zoran Krasic and Slavko Jerkovic as Privileged Associates, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-T, T. Ch. III, 10 February 2010.
567.
See, e.g., ICTY, Decision on Defence Motion Concerning Conditions of Detention, Prosecutor v. Halilović, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, President, 12 February 2004, para 1. Since the modification of conditions of detention is the President’s prerogative, the Trial Chamber was correct in referring the matter directly to the President.
568.
ICTY, internal memorandum from Judge Liu Daqun to the Deputy Registrar, 19 January 2010.
569.
ICTY, Order to Registry and Commanding Officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, Prosecutor v. Šešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, T. Ch. II, 11 July 2005.
570.
See, supra, p. 241.
571.
ICTY, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 2 November 2007, Status Conference, page 122; ICTY, Decision on Krajišnik Request and on Prosecution Motion, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 11 September 2007, paras 18–19.
572.
ICTY, Decision on Krajišnik Request and on Prosecution Motion, Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, A. Ch., 11 September 2007, para 46. Footnote omitted.
573.
See ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to set Aside President Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate his Marriage, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005, citing ICTY, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Motion for Additional Funds, Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-99-37-AR.73.2, A. Ch., 13 November 2003, para 20; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request to Grant him Leave to Bring his Complaints to the Appeals Chamber, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 12 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request for a Status Conference, Nahimana et al . v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 13 December 2005.
574.
See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Ndayambaje’s Extremely Urgent Motion Regarding Permission for each of Ndayambaje’s Counsel to Bring a Laptop into the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ndayambaje, Case No. ICTR-98-42-T, T. Ch. II, 23 November 2007, para 44; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 15 April 2008 and 2 May 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 15 May 2008, p. 3-4; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 17 June 2008 and 10 July 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, 23 July 2008, pp. 3–5; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 8 and 26 August 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 28 October 2008, p. 326/H.
575.
See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to set Aside President Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate his Marriage, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 17 June 2008 and 10 July 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, 23 July 2008, p. 3; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motions of 8 and 26 August 2008, Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-R, A. Ch., 28 October 2008, p. 326/H.
576.
ICTR, Decision on the Defence Motion for Declaratory Relief from Administrative Measures Imposed on Hasan Ngeze at the UNDF, Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Ngeze and Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-99-52-I, T. Ch. I, 9 May 2002.
577.
ICTR, Decision on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Urgent Motion Requesting Privileged Access to the Appellant without Attendance of Lead Counsel, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 17 August 2006.
578.
ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005, para 2; ICTR, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 3 May 2005, para 6; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to set Aside President Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate his Marriage, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 6 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request to Grant him Leave to Bring his Complaints to the Appeals Chamber, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 12 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request for a Status Conference, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 13 December 2005; ICTR, Decision on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Urgent Motion Requesting Privileged Access to the Appellant without Attendance of Lead Counsel, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 17 August 2006.
579.
ICTR, Decision on Ntabakuze’s Motion Regarding Access to the United Nations Detention Facility, Prosecutor v. Bagosora, Kabiligi, Ntabakuze and Nsengiyumva, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, T. Ch. III, 10 June 2002, para 3. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion Seeking Leave to Marry, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 28 September 2004; ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion Appealing the Registrar’s Denial of Marriage Facilities, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 20 January 2005; ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005, para 2; ICTR, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 3 May 2005, para 6.
580.
ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005; ICTR, Decision on Arsène Shalom Ntahobali’s Extremely Urgent Motion for Greater Access to the Accused at UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ntahobali and Nyiramasuhuko, Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, T. Ch. II, 3 March 2006.
581.
See ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005, para 3, citing: ICTY, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Motion for Additional Funds, Prosecutor v. Milutinović, Ojdanić & Šainović, Case No. IT-99-37-AR73.2, A. Ch., 13 November 2003, paras 19–20. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 3 May 2005, para 7; ICTR, Decision on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Urgent Motion Requesting Privileged Access to the Appellant without Attendance of Lead Counsel, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 17 August 2006.
582.
Rule 73(F) of the ICTR RPE.
583.
See, e.g., ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion Appealing the Registrar’s Denial of Marriage Facilities, Nahimana, Barayagwize and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 20 January 2005. In ICTR, Decision on Arsène Shalom Ntahobali’s Extremely Urgent Motion for Greater Access to the Accused at UNDF, Prosecutor v. Ntahobali and Nyiramasuhuko, Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, T. Ch. II, 3 March 2006, para 19, the Trial Chamber held that the motion was frivolous and warned for future sanctions. See, for a declaration of frivolousness: ICTR, Decision on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Urgent Motion Requesting Privileged Access to the Appellant without Attendance of Lead Counsel, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 17 August 2006.
584.
See ICTR, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him During Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 25 April 2005. Ngeze requested the Appeals Chamber to ‘issue an order “to permit his counsel to communicate with [him] any time whenever the counsel requires to do so in connection with the preparation of his pending Appeal as was the practice during the trial proceedings”’. The decision ICTR, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, A. Ch., 3 May 2005, concerned requests by Nahimana for permission to be visited by his Defence team’s legal assistants and to meet them confidentially in the absence of Counsel.
585.
ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s “Request of an Extremely Urgent Status Conference Pursuant to Rule 65 BIS of Rules of procedure and Evidence”, Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 20 September 2005.
586.
Ibid. See, also, ICTR, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Request for a Status Conference, Nahimana et al. v. the Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Pre-Appeal Judge, 13 December 2005.
587.
Ibid.
588.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 42, lines 3–7.
589.
Id., at p. 42, line 26–p. 43, line 1.
590.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T, T. Ch., 7 September 2004, 10.12 A.M., Trial, at p 3, line 16–p. 9, line 7, p. 39, line 19–p. 40, line 8 and p. 47, lines 7–20. See, also, SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T, T. Ch., 1 November 2004, 9.40 A.M., at p. 8, line 29–p. 10, line 10.
591.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T, T. Ch., 7 September 2004, 10.12 A.M., Trial, at p. 29, line 13–p. 30, line 6.
592.
Id., at p. 34, line 12–p. 35, line 25 and p. 52, line 13–p. 52, line 26.
593.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 18 July 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 13958, lines 7–p. 13960, line 18.
594.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, T. Ch. I, 23 July 2004, Continued Trial, p. 12.
595.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 18 August 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 14052, lines 1–29; SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 19 August 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 14060, lines 1–14. These two decisions concern Taylor’s detention in The Hague. Complaints about transport have also been made by ICTY detainees. One detainee said that he ‘complained about the conditions of transport because after five years I am the only detainee who is made to wear dark glasses while being transported, and they know I have a phobia. We have exchanged many letters. I was told that the Dutch police are responsible for transport. Last time I fell unconscious and they put the glasses on me while I was unconscious, although I was in a bad state. I think only God is looking after us’. He also said that he was ‘not satisfied with the decision and the President’s explanation that the Dutch police are responsible for transport’; ICTY, interviews conducted by the author with ICTY detainees, The Hague–Netherlands, 22 February 2011.
596.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 18 August 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 14052, lines 1–29.
597.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 19 August 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 14059, lines 23–29.
598.
See SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 18 July 2008, 9:30 A.M., Trial, at p. 13960, lines 1–5.
599.
Rule 65bis of the SCSL RPE. See, also, SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-T, T. Ch., 10 January 2004, 10:10 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 2, line 12–p. 3, line 3.
600.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-PT, T. Ch. II, 3 April 2006, Initial Appearance, 3:00 p.m., at pp. 19–20. See, also, SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 2 May 2006, 10:11 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 44, lines 4–9 and at p. 46, lines 20–27; SCSL, Decision on Defence Oral Application for Orders Pertaining to the Transfer of the Accused to The Hague, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-PT, T. Ch. II, 23 June 2006.
601.
Vincent 2007, p. 74.
602.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, T. Ch. I, 23 July 2004, 3:03 P.M., Continued Trial, at p. 25, lines 6–15.
603.
See SCSL, Decision on Defence Oral Application for Orders Pertaining to the Transfer of the Accused to The Hague, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-1-PT, T. Ch. II, 23 June 2006, citing: SCSL, Decision on Brima-Kamara Defence Appeal Motion, Prosecutor v. Brima et al., Case No. SCSL-2004-16-AR73, 8 December 2005, para 7; and the Separate and Concurring Opinion of Justice Robertson, paras 91–94; SCSL, Decision on the Defence Request for Necessary Resources for Investigations, Prosecutor v. Gatete, ICTR-2000-61-1, 2 November 2004, para 5; SCSL, Decision on Confidential Motion on Defence Issue, Prosecutor v. Norman et al., SCSL-04-16-T, 3 March 2005, paras 8–10. See, also, SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 25 June 2007, 9:00 A.M., at p. 6, lines 28–29 and at p. 7, lines 1–6.
604.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-T, T. Ch. I, 25 May 2005, 9:33 A.M., Status Conference, at p. 3, lines 15–28.
605.
Id., at p. 3, line 24–p. 5, line 2.
606.
SCSL, Decision on Joint Defence Motion for General Orders pursuant to Rule 54, Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, T. Ch. II, 28 July 2005, para 2.
607.
Id., para 30.
608.
Id., paras 29, 31.
609.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-T, T. Ch. II, 4 June 2007, 10:30 A.M., Prosecution Opening Statement, at p. 92, lines 14–25.
610.
SCSL, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, T. Ch. I, 23 July 2004, 3:03 P.M., Continued Trial, at p. 12, lines 17–18.
611.
Id., at p. 13, lines 4–9.
612.
Id., at p. 18, lines 31–37.
613.
Id., at p. 14, lines 2–4.
614.
Id., at p. 20, lines 8–10.
615.
Id., at p. 21, lines 8–9.
616.
Id., at p. 21, lines 14–20.
617.
Id., at p. 24, line 33.
618.
Because of the lack of relevant case law, STL practice will not be separately discussed here.
619.
See, e.g., ICC, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, P.-T. Ch. I, 9 November 2006, p. 5, lines 1–25, p. 15, lines 8–17; ICC, Transcripts, Prosecutor v. Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, P.-T. Ch. I, 22 April 2008, p. 3, line 1–p. 6, line 2.
620.
ICC, Supplément d’informations et precisions du Greffier sur le troisième rapport du Greffe sur l’état d’avancement des demandes de visas pour les familles des personnes détenues dans le cadre des visites familiales, Le Procureur c. Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui, Affaire No. ICC-01/04-01/07, La Chambre de Première Instance II, le 25 novembre 2008, p. 5.
621.
Livingstone et al. 2008, p. 100.
622.
See, in a similar vein, Van Zyl Smit 2005, p. 368.
623.
Robertson 1991, p. 333.
624.
Ibid.
625.
Ibid.
626.
Id., p. 334.
627.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, p. 131.
628.
Ploeg and Nijboer 1983, p. 184.
629.
Article 65 of the Penitentiary Principles Act [Penitentiaire Beginselenwet] provides that a detainee has the right to be assisted by a ‘legal aid professional’ or by a ‘confidential counsellor’ [vertrouwenspersoon]. The latter could be another inmate.
630.
Harding 2007, p. 561.
631.
Heres Hoogerkamp 2000, pp. 22–23.
632.
Harding 2007, p. 548.
633.
Penal Reform International 2001, p. 167.
634.
In respect of the situation in the Netherlands, see Van Kuijck 2003, p. 173.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law, University of Amsterdam, Oudemanhuispoort 4–6, 1012, CN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Denis Abels

Authors

Denis Abels
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Abels .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abels, D. (2012). Making and Handling Complaints. In: Prisoners of the International Community. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-888-0_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-888-0_5
Published: 11 September 2012
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-887-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-888-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)