Abstract
Chapter 1 has provided a brief introduction into the topic of the present work. It was clarified that this work will not be yet another contribution to the debate on exclusionary rules within one or more domestic legal systems but that it will transfer the issue to the legal system of the first permanent international criminal court, the ICC. Before entering into the discussion on the exclusion of evidence itself however, Chap. 2 will examine in more detail the sources and methods available to develop an ICC approach to the exclusion of evidence. This includes, on the one hand, an assessment of the legal sources that may be drawn from under the ICC Statute and, on the other hand, a short analysis of the methods of interpretation applicable to these legal sources. As part of the latter of these two assessments, special attention will be given to the purposes that have guided the establishment of the International Criminal Court. This analysis is necessary to be able later on to develop the central rationale that guides the exclusion of illicitly obtained evidence under the ICC Statute.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Schabas 2010, p. 379.
- 2.
Triffterer 2008—Margaret McAuliffe de Guzman, Article 21, para 140.
- 3.
The term ‘international organization’ has been defined as a “collectivity of States established by a treaty, with a constitution and common organs, having a personality distinct from that of its member-States […]”, see ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963) II, p. 167, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/1963.htm (last visited: October 2013).
- 4.
Fedorova and Sluiter 2009, p. 20. Legal personality is expressly attributed to the ICC by Article 4(1) of the ICC Statute.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
ICC Elements of Crimes, adopted on 9 September 2002, entered into force on 9 September 2002; available at: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/legal%20texts%20and%20tools/official%20journal/Pages/elements%20of%20crimes.asp (last visited: October 2013).
- 8.
ICC Rule’s of Procedure an Evidence, adopted on 9 September 2002, entered into force on 9 September 2002; available at: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/legal%20texts%20and%20tools/official%20journal/Pages/rules%20of%20procedure%20and%20evidence.asp (last visited: October 2013).
- 9.
Safferling 2012, p. 114; Young 2011, p. 207. But see for a different view, Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 72, referring to Article 21(2) as a ‘subsidiary source’; see also Zahar and Sluiter 2008, p. 18, who characterize Article 21(3) as the most superior source of law in the hierarchy of norms set out by Article 21 of the ICC Statute.
- 10.
- 11.
See Sect. 4.3.3.3.
- 12.
- 13.
Among the sources containing the proper law of the ICC, Article 21(1)(a) of the ICC Statute does not specify any hierarchy. The Statute however takes precedent over the Rules of Procedure and Elements according to Article 51(5) of the ICC Statute and over the Elements of Crimes according to Article 9(3) of the ICC Statute.
- 14.
Schabas 2003, p. 849 et seq.
- 15.
- 16.
Staker 2010, p. 212.
- 17.
Safferling 2012, p. 113.
- 18.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 50.
- 19.
- 20.
Sluiter 2009, p. 477.
- 21.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980, UN Doc A/CONF. 39/27; 1155 UNTS 331, available at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/vclt/vclt.html (last visited: October 2013).
- 22.
Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 141.
- 23.
Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 139.
- 24.
Cassese 2005, p. 179.
- 25.
See ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session and on its eighteenth session’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966) II, p. 219 et seq., available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_1_1966.pdf (last visited: October 2013).
- 26.
Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 141.
- 27.
Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 144.
- 28.
Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of the Pre-Trial Chambers I’s 31 March Decision Denying Leave to Appeal), ICC (Appeals Chamber), decision of 13 July 2006, para 33; Volker Nerlich 2009, p. 295; Grover 2010, p. 546; Schabas 2010, p. 387. The applicability of the VCLT to the ICTY and ICTR Statutes is more in dispute but has mostly been recognized, see Lister 2005, p. 77 et seq.; it has also been confirmed by both tribunals, see Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., (Judgment) ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 16 November 1998, para 1161 et seq.; Prosecutor v. Bagosara and 28 others (Decision on the Admissibility of the Prosecutor’s Appeal from the Decision of a Confirming Judge Dismissing an Indictment against Theoneste Bagosara and 28 Others), ICTR (Appeals Chamber), decision of 8 June 1998, para 28.
- 29.
Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 141 et seq.
- 30.
ILC, Summary records of the eighteenth session, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966) I/2, p. 188, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/Ybkvolumes(e)/ILC_1966_v1_p2_e.pdf (last visited: October 2013); see also Nerlich 2009, p. 318.
- 31.
See Sect. 2.3.2 2.
- 32.
See Sect. 4.3.2.
- 33.
The Preparatory Committee was charged by the UN General Assembly in 1995 with the work on a draft statute for the future ICC. It held six sessions from 1996 to 1998. It is not to be confused with the Preparatory Commission that was appointed by the Final Act of the Rome Conference to work on further practical issues that where related to the establishment of the Court. See Werle 2012, paras 59 and 68.
- 34.
The preparatory materials for the ICC Statute are all available at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/index.html (last visited: October 2013). For a critical view of the use of the preparatory materials of consensus-based international treaties see Young 2011, p. 197.
- 35.
Damaška 2009, p. 175.
- 36.
Damaška 2009, p. 178.
- 37.
Werle 2012, para 97.
- 38.
Neubacher 2006, p. 967.
- 39.
- 40.
On the latter notion, see Ambos 2002, p. 307 et seq.
- 41.
Neubacher 2006, p. 967 et seq.
- 42.
See Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al. (Judgment) ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 14 January 2000, para 848 et seq., where the tribunal explicitly recognizes the different rationales for punishment known from domestic law.
- 43.
- 44.
See Sect. 5 of the Preamble of the ICC Statute.
- 45.
Neubacher 2006, p. 968.
- 46.
In favour of the significance of special prevention in general, Werle 2012, para 106.
- 47.
Ambos 2002, p. 319.
- 48.
Neubacher 2006, p. 969.
- 49.
Damaška 2009, p. 183.
- 50.
- 51.
Damaška 2009, p. 184.
- 52.
Jackson and Summers 2012, p. 17.
- 53.
Safferling 2012, p. 125.
- 54.
- 55.
Neubacher 2006, p. 969.
- 56.
- 57.
See Damaška 2009, p. 180, who doubts that historical documentation is a proper goal for an international criminal court given the constraints that legal relevancy and the need for expediency place on judicial fact-finding.
- 58.
- 59.
Damaška 2012, p. 619.
- 60.
See Prosecutor v. Al Bashir (Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar al Bashir), ICC (Pre-Trial Chamber), decision of 4 March 2009, para 126.
- 61.
Also see Safferling 2012, p. 111, who identifies a preference of both the ICC and the Ad hoc tribunals for a positivist approach.
- 62.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 71.
- 63.
- 64.
Burghardt and Geneuss 2009, p. 132.
- 65.
Burghardt and Geneuss 2009, p. 133.
- 66.
Safferling 2012, p. 113.
- 67.
- 68.
With respect to general principles of law, see Gallant 1999, p. 709, fn. 86.
- 69.
Safferling 2012, p. 111.
- 70.
See Sect. 2.2.1.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
See Sect. 2.2.3.
- 77.
- 78.
See for instance Prosecutor v. Tadić (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY (Appeals Chamber), decision of 2 October 1995, para 45: “For a tribunal such as this one to be established according to the rule of law, it must be established in accordance with the proper international standards; it must provide all the guarantees of fairness, justice and even-handedness, in full conformity with internationally recognized human rights instruments.” But see Swoboda 2012, p. 89 et seq. for a sceptical assessment of this decision.
- 79.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 93.
- 80.
See Schabas 2010, p. 398 with further references.
- 81.
- 82.
See Sect. 4.3.3.5.3 with respect to the significance of Article 21(3) for the establishment of the requirement of a search warrant.
- 83.
- 84.
With respect to the power to stay the proceedings, see Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 19(2)(a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006), ICC (Appeals Chamber), decision of 14 December 2006, para 37; Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008”), ICC (Appeals Chamber), decision of 21 October 2008, para 77.
- 85.
- 86.
See Sect. 2.3.1.1.
- 87.
On the principle of legality with respect to the law of criminal procedure, see Sect. 2.3.1.1.
- 88.
Sheppard 2010, p. 44.
- 89.
The ICC would in any case be able to apply customary international law under Article 38 ICJ Statute since, as an international organisation, it is bound by general international law. Article 21 of the ICC Statute in turn does not explicitly refer to custom as a source of law. There is however consensus that customary law is encompassed by the “principles and rules of international law” as referred to in Article 21(1)(b) ICC Statute. While the exclusion of the word ‘custom’ is not entirely clear, the term might have been avoided for its vagueness in order to adhere to the principle of legality, see Pellet 2002, p. 1071. At the same time, the formulation “principles and rules of international law” can hardly be considered more precise. In particular, it is unclear which other notions besides customary international law are included in this term; see Schabas 2010, p. 390 et seq.
- 90.
There is some debate on whether Article 21(1)(c) of the ICC Statute parallels Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute or whether the “general principles” in the latter provision should better be subsumed under Article 21(1)(b) of the ICC Statute. Given the similarity in wording, a parallelism between Articles 21(1)(c) and 38(1)(c) will be assumed in this research; for this understanding see also Pellet 2002, p. 1073; Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 71. For a different view, see Safferling 2012, p. 114; Schabas 2010, p. 391.
- 91.
Werle 2012, para 45.
- 92.
Gray 2004, pp. 287 and 290.
- 93.
- 94.
Gosnell 2010, p. 379 et seq.
- 95.
See for instance Møse 2005, p. 9.
- 96.
- 97.
Bitti 2009, p. 296.
- 98.
- 99.
For a detailed rejection of the categorization of precedents of the Ad hoc tribunals as autonomous sources of law, see Nerlich 2009, p. 315 et seq.
- 100.
See Sect. 2.1.
- 101.
See for instance Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., (Decision on the Prosecutor’s Position on the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II to Redact Factual Descriptions of Crimes in the Warrants of Arrest, Motion for Reconsideration, and Motion for Clarification), ICC (Pre-Trial-Chamber), decision of 28 October 2005, para 19: “[T]he rules and practice of other jurisdictions, whether national or international, are not as such ‘applicable law"before the Court beyond the scope of Article 21 of the Statute. […]”. See also Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya), ICC (Pre-Trial Chamber) decision of 31 March 2010, Dissenting Opinion Judge Kaul, para 29.
- 102.
Schabas 2010, p. 396. See also Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya), ICC (Pre-Trial-Chamber), decision of 31 March 2010, Dissenting Opinion Judge Kaul, para 30.
- 103.
For the subsumption of customary law under Article 21(1)(b) of the ICC Statute, see fn. 114.
- 104.
See Germany v. Denmark/Germany v. The Netherlands (North Sea Continental Shelf case), ICJ, decision of 20 February 1969, para 77. Also see Werle 2012, para 154, with references to the discussion of this term in public international law.
- 105.
The statutes of the Ad hoc tribunals were included in the Security Council resolutions that established these tribunals. These resolutions are binding upon all members of the United Nations, see Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945, available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ (last visited: October 2013). See also Ipsen et al. 2004, p. 55.
- 106.
Safferling 2012, p. 115 et seq.
- 107.
- 108.
Werle 2012, para 156.
- 109.
- 110.
Swoboda 2012, p. 97.
- 111.
See Sect. 2.3.2.3.
- 112.
Altogether, see Nerlich 2009, p. 315.
- 113.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 90.
- 114.
See Sect. 2.3.2.4.
- 115.
Such an approach is not without problems. Article 31(2) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties defines the context of the terms of a treaty in a narrow way, as comprising only the text of the treaty, including its preamble, as well as agreements concluded in connection with the conclusion of the treaty. A broader definition for the founding documents of an international organisation seems however justified where this foundation was clearly influenced by the existence of a previous institution, see Nerlich 2009, p. 319. Another, albeit more assailable possibility would be to resort to Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT. The Statutes and jurisprudence of the Ad hoc tribunals however can hardly be considered "relevant rules of international law applicable between the parties", see Young 2011, p. 195 et seq., fn. 37. But see Nerlich 2009, p. 320, who argues that the purpose of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT to avoid the fragmentation of international law might allow for a consideration on this basis anyhow.
- 116.
See Sect. 2.3.1.1.
- 117.
- 118.
For a much discussed procedural decision confirming this conclusion, see Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial), ICC (Trial Chamber), decision of 30 November 2007, where the Chamber prohibited witness proofing, thereby declining to adopt the respective jurisprudence of the ICTY; see in particular para 45, stating: “The ICC Statute has, through important advances, created a procedural framework which differs markedly from the ad hoc tribunals, […]. Therefore, the Statute moves away from the procedural regime of the ad hoc tribunals, introducing additional and novel elements to aid the process of establishing the truth. […] Therefore, while acknowledging the importance of considering the practice and jurisprudence at the ad hoc tribunals, the Chamber is not persuaded that the application of ad hoc procedures, in the context of preparation of witnesses for trial, is appropriate.”
- 119.
Nerlich 2009, p. 314.
- 120.
Kamardi 2009, p. 120 et seq.
- 121.
The first of the hybrid tribunals were the Special Panels for Serious Crimes (SPSC) in East Timor, which was created in 2000. For a summary on the establishment of the hybrid tribunals, see Werle 2012, para 326 et seq. For an introduction into their procedural systems, see Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 52 et seq.
- 122.
See Sect. 4.3.3.
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial), ICC (Trial Chamber), decision of 30 November 2007, para 41; Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of the Pre-Trial Chamber I, 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal), ICC (Appeals Chamber), decision of 13 July 2006, para 32.
- 126.
See for instance Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Sentencing Judgment), ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 29 November 1996, para 31. Prosecutor v. Furundžjia (Sentencing Judgment), ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 10 December 1998, para 177 et seq. Also see Prosecutor v. Furundžija (Judgment), ICTY (Appeals Chamber), decision of 21 July 2000, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, para 256.
- 127.
See for example United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania (Corfu Channel Case), ICJ, decision of 9 April 1949, p. 22; Effects of awards of compensation made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal (Advisory Opinion), ICJ, decision of 13 July 1954, p. 10.
- 128.
Similar for international criminal law in general, Cassese 2005, p. 193.
- 129.
Edwards 2001, p. 406 et seq.
- 130.
Staker 2010, p. 203.
- 131.
Bitti 2009, p. 300.
- 132.
Bothe 1976, p. 288.
- 133.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 71.
- 134.
- 135.
Bothe 1976, p. 283.
- 136.
- 137.
- 138.
Burghardt 2011, p. 162 et seq.
- 139.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p 68 and p 70.
- 140.
- 141.
- 142.
For an enumeration of examples, see Staker 2010, p. 203.
- 143.
Most distinctively, see Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al. (Judgment), ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 14 January 2000, para 738; Prosecutor v. Mucić et al. (Judgment), ICTY (Appeals Chamber), decision of 20 February 2001, para 412. On the approach adopted in these decisions, see also Staker 2010, p. 202. A similar approach seems to have guided the ICC judges when adopting the so-called ‘control of the crime’ theory in the Luganga case. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber, while referring to the acceptance of the theory in “numerous legal systems”, did not explicitly mention whether its adoption of this theory was actually based on the establishment of a general principle. It rather seems to have adopted the approach that it considered most adequate among the approaches found at the national level, thus using domestic law rather as a source of inspiration than a legal source in the strict sense, see Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges), ICC (Pre-Trial Chamber), decision of 29 January 2007, para 322 et seq. The ICC Trial Chamber in its very first judgment, has accepted this jurisprudence, see Prosecutor v. Lubanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute), ICC (Trial Chamber I), decision of 14 March 2012, para 1018. For a critical assessment, see however the Separate Opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford annexed to this judgement, para 10 et seq. Judge Fulford rejects the ‘control of the crime theory’, inter alia in view of the methodological approach applied by the Pre-Trial Chamber and by the Trial Chamber majority.
- 144.
Bothe 1976, p. 290 et seq.
- 145.
See also Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 70, who consider it difficult to interpret the rules of international criminal procedure “entirely independently from the legal-cultural setting and mental habits that shaped them.”
- 146.
See also Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 70, who, while acknowledging the necessity to turn to domestic law at this point of the development, already detect a beginning autonomization.
- 147.
For more details on the cooperation of these institutions with states, see Sect. 4.2.
- 148.
See Article 5 of the ICC Statute, Article 1 of the ICTY Statute and Article 1 of the ICTR Statute.
- 149.
- 150.
See UNSC, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to para 2 of the Security Council Resolution 808 (UN Doc. S/225704) (1993), para 106; available at http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_re808_1993_en.pdf (last visited: October 2013): “It is axiomatic that the International Tribunal must fully respect internationally recognized standards regarding the rights of the accused at all stages of its proceedings. In the view of the Secretary-General, such internationally recognized standards are, in particular, contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
- 151.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed on 16 December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.asp (last visited: October 2013).
- 152.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed on 4 November 1950, entered into force on 3 September 1950, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.asp?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer (last visited: October 2013).
- 153.
American Convention on Human Rights, signed on 22 November 1969, entered into force on 18 July 1978, available at http://www.cidh.org/Basicos/English/Basic3.American%20Convention.htm (last visited: October 2013).
- 154.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, signed on 27 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986, available at www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/ (last visited: October 2013).
- 155.
- 156.
- 157.
Gallant 1999, p. 695.
- 158.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 81.
- 159.
- 160.
- 161.
See Sect. 2.3.2.
- 162.
Jackson and Summers 2012, p. 132.
- 163.
For a detailed discussion of the nature of human rights as minimum standards, see Fedorova and Sluiter 2009, p. 9 et seq.
- 164.
On the ECtHR’s margin of appreciation doctrine, see Sect. 3.2.2.
- 165.
- 166.
For an overview of the different positions on the issue, see Damaška 2012, p. 612.
- 167.
Prosecutor v. Tadić (Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses), ICTY (Trial Chamber), decision of 10 August 1995, para 28.
- 168.
Swoboda 2012, p. 87 et seq.
- 169.
Swoboda 2012, p. 93.
- 170.
Similar, Edwards 2001, p. 334.
- 171.
- 172.
Torres Chedraui 2010, p. 228.
- 173.
- 174.
Gradoni et al. 2013, p. 85.
- 175.
Altogether, Damaška 2012, p. 614 et seq.
- 176.
Fedorova and Sluiter 2009, p. 41.
References
Ambos K (2002) On the rationale of punishment at the domestic and international level. In: Marc Henzelin M, Roth R (eds) Le Droit Pénal à l’Épreuve de l’Internationalisation. Bruylant, Paris, pp 305–323
Arsanjani M (1999) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The American Journal of International Law 93:22-43
Bantekas I (2006) Reflections on some sources and methods of international criminal and humanitarian law. Int Crim Law Rev 6:121–136
Berger M (2012) The right to silence in The Hague international criminal courts. Univ San Franc Law Rev 47:1–54
Bitti G (2009) Article 21 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the treatment of the sources of law in the jurisprudence of the ICC. In: Carsten S, Goran S (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 285–304
Bothe M (1976) Die Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung in der Praxis internationaler Gerichte. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 36:280–299
Burghardt B (2011) Die Rechtsvergleichung in der völkerstrafrechtlichen Rechtsprechung – von der Rechtsvergleichung als Mittel der Rechtsfindung zur diskursiv-vermittelnden Rechtsvergleichung. In: Beck S, Burchard C, Fateh-Moghadam F (eds) Strafrechtsvergleichung als Problem und Lösung. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 235–254
Burghardt B, Geneuss J (2009) Der Präsident und sein Gericht. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 4:126–142
Cassese A (2003) The influence of the European Court of Human Rights on international criminal tribunals—some methodological remarks. In: Bergsmo A, Eide A (eds) Human rights and criminal justice for the downtrodden: essays in honour of Asbjørn Eide. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 19–52
Cassese A (2005) International law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Currat P (2007) L’Interprétation du Statut de Rome. Revue québécoise de droit international 2:137–163
Damaška M (2009) Problematic features of international criminal procedure. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 175–186
Damaška M (2012) Reflections on fairness in international criminal justice. J Int Crim Justice 10:611–620
Douglas L (2006) The didactic trial: filtering history and memory into the courtroom. Eur Rev 14:513–522
Edwards G (2001) International human rights law challenges to the new International Criminal Court: the search and seizure right to privacy. Yale J Int Law 26:323–412
Fedorova M, Sluiter G (2009) Human rights as minimum standards in international criminal proceedings. Hum Rights Int Leg Discourse 3:9–56
Gallant K (1999) Individual human rights in a new international organization: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Bassiouni C (ed) International criminal law, Volume II: procedural and enforcement mechanisms, 2nd edn. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 693–723
Gosnell C (2010) Admissibility of evidence. In: Khan A, Buisman C, Gosnell C (eds) Principles of evidence in international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 375–442
Gradoni L, Lewis D, Mégret F, Nouwen S, Ohlin J (2013) General framework of international criminal justice. In: Sluiter G, Friman H, Linton S, Zappalà S, Vasiliev S (eds) International criminal procedure: principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 39–130
Gray R (2004) Evidence before the ICC. In: McGoldrick D, Rowe P, Donnelly E (eds) The permanent international criminal court: legal and policy issues. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 287–314
Grover L (2010) A Call to Arms: Fundamental Dilemmas Confronting the Interpretation of Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. European Journal of International Law 21:543-583
Hafner G, Binder C (2004) The interpretation of Article 21(3) ICC statute opinion reviewed. Austrian Rev Int Eur Law 9:163–190
Ipsen K, Epping V, Heintschel von Heinegg W (2004) Völkerrecht, 5th edn. C.H.Beck, Munich
Jackson J, Summers S (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jäger H (1995) Markoverbrechen als Gegenstand des Völkerstrafrechts. In: Hankel G, Stuby G (eds) Strafgerichte gegen Menschheitsverbrechen: Zum Völkerstrafrecht 50 Jahre nach den Nürnberger Prozessen. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg, pp 325–354
Kamardi C (2009) Die Ausformung einer Prozessordnung sui generis durch das ICTY unter Berücksichtigung des Fair-Trial-Prinzips. Springer, Berlin
Lister C (2005) What’s in a Name? Labels and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Leiden Journal of International Law 18:77-92
McIntyre G (2003) Defining human rights in the arena of international humanitarian law: human rights in the jurisprudence of the ICTY. In: Boas W, Schabas W (eds) International criminal law: developments in the case law of the ICTY. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 193–238
Miller N (2002) An international jurisprudence? The operation of across international tribunals. Leiden J Int Law 15:483–526
Møse E (2005) The ICTR: experiences and challenges. New Engl J Int Comp Law 12:1–16
Nemitz J (2002) Strafzumessung im, Völkerstrafrecht edn. Iuscrim, Freiburg
Nerlich V (2009) The status of ICTY and ICTR precedence in proceedings before the ICC. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 305–326
Neubacher F (2006) Strafzwecke und Völkerstrafrecht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 14:966–970
Orie A (2002) Accusatorial versus inquisitorial approach in international criminal proceedings. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1439–1495
Pellet A (2002) Applicable law. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1084
Safferling C (2012) International criminal procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schabas W (2003) Interpreting the statutes of the Ad hoc tribunals. In: Vohrah LC et al. (eds) Man’s inhumanity to man: essays on international law in honour of Antonio Cassese. Kluwer International Law, The Hague, pp 847–888
Schabas W (2010) The International Criminal Court—a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sheppard D (2010) The International Criminal Court and “Internationally recognized human rights”: understanding Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute. Int Crim Law Rev 10:43–71
Sluiter G (2009) Human rights protection in the ICC pre-trial phase. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 459–476
Sluiter G (2010) Trends in the development of a unified law of international criminal procedure. In: Stahn C, Van den Herik L (eds) Future perspectives on international criminal justice. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 585–599
Staker C (2010) Interpretive methodologies and the use of precedent in cases before international criminal courts. In: Khan A, Buisman C, Gosnell C (eds) Principles of evidence in international criminal justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–213
Swoboda S (2012) Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention in Strafverfahren vor internationalen Gerichten. In: Höland A (ed) Wirkungen der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte im deutschen Recht. BMW Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 83–118
Torres Chedraui A (2010) An analysis of the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of human rights in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Tilburg Law Rev 15:205–234
Triffterer O (2008) (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck et al., Baden-Baden
Villiger M (1985) Customary international law and treaties: a study of their interactions and interrelations, with special consideration of the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Werle G (1997) Menschenrechtsschutz durch Völkerstrafrecht’. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 109:808–829
Werle G (2012) Völkerstrafrecht, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Young R (2011) “Internationally recognized human rights” before the International Criminal Court. Int Comp Law Q 60:189–208
Zahar A, Sluiter G (2008) International criminal law: a critical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Viebig, P. (2016). Legal Sources and Legal Methodology Under the ICC Statute. In: Illicitly Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 4. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-093-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-093-0_2
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-092-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-093-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
