Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-level Prosecutions of Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law

  • 606 Accesses

Abstract

After highlighting that the book will only consider the crucial stage of the procedural iter which can lead to prosecutions, this being either the surrender or extradition of individuals, this chapter unravels the various distinct institutional levels of prosecution. Distinctions are drawn between the domestic, international and hybrid models, whereas the main features of the latter model are explained. With the exception of the African Criminal Court, there is no system which allows for regional prosecutions. When an alleged core crime is not prosecuted, other systems are established. These include special prosecutions which undertake sui generis trials before special courts and/or tribunals. Therefore, multi-layered levels (frameworks) of different types and kinds of prosecutions also comprise extraordinary mechanisms of a sui generis nature, such as the Lockerbie trial. Special courts can be constituted by means of specialized units within the local criminal justice system, such as the ICD of the HC of Uganda and the ICT of Bangladesh. There is no formal relationship between the ICC and the ICD of the HC of Uganda, although the latter can be regarded as a court of complementarity with the ICC. In the case of the ICT of Bangladesh, unlike the KSC which are staffed with international prosecutors and judges, there is no involvement of the international community. These special courts are also distinguished from hybrid tribunals. The determining factor is the involvement or otherwise of external (not domestic) elements. If there is no international involvement at all, the hybrid dimension is missing.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Malekian 2011, p. 138.

  2. 2.

    The words ‘domestic’, ‘national’, ‘local’ and/or ‘municipal’ are also used inter-changeably.

  3. 3.

    de Serpa Soares 2015, p. 672.

  4. 4.

    Notwithstanding that the gravity threshold within Article 17(1)(d) of the ICC Statute (ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) can be said to justify (and possibly demand) selective prosecutions , Charles Chernor Jalloh states that the concept of ‘greatest responsibility ’ was formally introduced into international criminal law by the Statute of the SCSL [Statute of the SCSL (2002) Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone] (Jalloh 2011, p. 412). Selectivity has been considered by some as inconsistent with the principle of equality of all persons before the law (Nielsen 2008, pp. 81 and 85, cited in Eberechi 2011, p. 55, n. 24).

  5. 5.

    Article 59 of the ICC Statute, above n. 4.

  6. 6.

    Rastan 2007, p. 1.

  7. 7.

    Rastan 2007, p. 6.

  8. 8.

    Article 17, sub-article 1, para (a) of the ICC Statute, above n. 4.

  9. 9.

    Boister 2003, p. 972.

  10. 10.

    See Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, and the subsequent legislative proposal of a Regulation, dealing with the EPPO ’s Office, undertaken by the European Commission on 17 July 2013. For a background of the concept of the European Public Prosecutor , see Ligeti 2013, pp. 1–6, and Weyembergh and Briere 2016. This legislative proposal was the subject of discussion at European Council level (D’Alfonso 2015). On 12 October 2017 the Regulation establishing the EPPO was adopted by the EU Member States which are part of the EPPO enhanced cooperation. The EPPO will be based in Luxembourg and shall assume its investigative and prosecutorial tasks not before the expiration of three years after the entry into force of the Regulation (Council of the EU (2017) 20 Member States Confirm the Creation of a European Public Prosecutor ’s Office. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/10/12/eppo-20-ms-confirms/. Accessed 25 April 2018).

  11. 11.

    ECtHR Grand Chamber, Mazin Jum’Aa Gatteh Al-Skeini and Others v UK , 7 July 2011, Application No. 55721/07; ECtHR Grand Chamber, Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda v UK , 7 July 2011, Application No. 27021/08; vide also ECtHR Grand Chamber, Sabah Jaloud v The Netherlands , 20 November 2014, Application No. 47708/08.

  12. 12.

    Miko 2013; see also Lopas 2011, cited in Mutyaba 2015, p. 20.

  13. 13.

    For a thorough analysis of the jurisdiction of the ACJHR , see Magliveras and Naldi 2013, pp. 117–131 and see also Ssenyonjo and Nakitto 2016, pp. 71–102.

  14. 14.

    Mutyaba 2015, p. 20.

  15. 15.

    This court, established by means of a Protocol [Malabo Protocol (2014) Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights] which is available at http://www.africancourtcoalition.org/images/docs/legal-texts/acjhr_protocol.pdf (accessed 22 April 2018), merges the ACtHPR {Gherari 2010, pp. 780–788}, and the Court of Justice of the AU. Such Protocol was adopted by the AU on 1 July 2008. Before the Protocol was in vigore, the AU started the process to amend the Protocol itself. The legal validity of such amendments is questionable since the Protocol can only be amended after having entered into force (vide Articles 58–60 of the Protocol itself, cited in Ssenyonko 2013, pp. 414–415, n. 176). Notwithstanding such concerns, the Protocol has been amended in the 23rd ordinary session of the Assembly of the AU, held in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea , on 26 June 2014, as a result of which the AU has decided to specifically exempt senior government officials from prosecution by the proposed regional criminal court , which will otherwise be authorized to try individuals accused of core crimes (International Justice Resource Centre 2014).

  16. 16.

    Jalloh 2017, p. 801.

  17. 17.

    The African Criminal Court shall constitute a special Chamber under the ‘roof’ of the ACJHR (van der Wilt 2017a, p. 969). I concur with van der Wilt to the effect that the ACJHR should focus on transnational crimes, rather than core crimes (van der Wilt 2017b, p. 202).

  18. 18.

    See Sects. 13.2 and 13.4.

  19. 19.

    Dixon and Khan 2013, pp. 75–93.

  20. 20.

    These are sometimes proposed where State cooperation with an international criminal tribunal has not been forthcoming, as in the case of Kenya with the ICC (Kenyans for Peace with Truth & Justice 2014, pp. 11–12, and Kenyans for Peace with Truth & Justice and Kenya Human Rights Commission 2013, pp. 45–51).

  21. 21.

    ICD 2018.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    These are seated in The Hague and are staffed with international prosecutors and judges (KSC & Specialist Prosecutor’s Office 2018).

  24. 24.

    For a thorough understanding of the institutional and procedural aspects of the SCSL , the ECCC , and the STL , see Mackenzie et al. 2010, pp. 212–247; see also Jalloh and Meisenberg 2012, passim.

  25. 25.

    The importance of having hybrid tribunals housed within the locus delicti commissi is explained by Padraig McAuliffe in McAuliffe 2008, pp. 370–380.

  26. 26.

    Mackenzie et al. 2010, p. 244.

  27. 27.

    Totten 2013, p. 1065.

  28. 28.

    Totten 2013, pp. 1065–1066.

  29. 29.

    Luban et al. 2010, pp. 122–129.

  30. 30.

    Nouwen 2006, p. 213.

  31. 31.

    Mackenzie et al. 2010, p. 245.

  32. 32.

    Tessema 2018, p. 149.

  33. 33.

    Nouwen 2006, p. 192.

  34. 34.

    SCSL Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Charles Ghankay Taylor , Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, 31 May 2004, Case No. SCSL -2003-01-I, paras 40–42.

  35. 35.

    Fidelma Donlon notes that most commentators argue that hybrid tribunals can be a powerful mechanism to combat impunity (Donlon 2011, p. 101).

  36. 36.

    Totten 2013, p. 1066 and p. 1068.

References

  • Boister N (2003) Transnational Criminal Law? EJIL 14(5):953–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU (2017) 20 Member States Confirm the Creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/10/12/eppo-20-ms-confirms/. Accessed 25 April 2018

  • D’Alfonso A (2015) The European Public Prosecutor’s Office – EPPO, European Parliamentary Research Service. http://epthinktank.eu/2015/01/08/the-european-public-prosecutors-office-eppo/. Accessed 22 April 2018

  • de Serpa Soares M (2015) An Age of Accountability, Special Editorial. JICJ 13(4):669–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon R, Khan KAA (2013) Archbold International Criminal Courts: Practice, Procedure and Evidence. S & M, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Donlon F (2011) Hybrid Tribunals. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. T & F, London/NY, pp. 85–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberechi I (2011) Rounding Up the Usual Suspects: Exclusion, Selectivity, and Impunity in the Enforcement of International Criminal Justice and the African Union’s Emerging Resistance. AJLS 4(1):51–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherari H (2010) Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights Obligations: African Mechanisms. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) and Parlett K (assistant ed) The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, Oxford, pp. 775–789

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

    Google Scholar 

  • ICD (2018) http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Courts/Domestic. Accessed 22 April 2018

  • International Justice Resource Centre (2014) African Union Approves Immunity for Government Officials in Amendment to African Court of Justice and Human Rights’ Statute. http://www.ijrcenter.org/2014/07/02/african-union-approves-immunity-for-heads-of-state-in-amendment-to-african-court-of-justice-and-human-rights-statute/. Accessed 4 July 2014

  • Jalloh CC (2011) Special Court for Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice? MJIL 32(3):395–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalloh CC (2017) The Nature of the Crimes in the African Criminal Court. JICJ 15(04):799–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalloh CC, Meisenberg SM (eds) (2012) The Law Reports of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. MNP, Dordrecht, Boston, London

    Google Scholar 

  • KSC & Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (2018) https://www.scp-ks.org/en. Accessed 22 April 2018

  • Kenyans for Peace with Truth & Justice (2014) A Real Option for Justice? The International Crimes Division of the High Court of Kenya. Africa Centre for Open Governance

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenyans for Peace with Truth & Justice and Kenya Human Rights Commission (2013) Securing Justice: Establishing a Domestic Mechanism for the 2007/8 Post-Election Violence in Kenya. Kenyans for Peace with Truth & Justice

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligeti K (2013) Introduction. In: Ligeti K (ed) Towards a Prosecutor for the European Union: A Comparative Analysis, Vol. I. Modern Studies in European Law, HP, Bloomsbury, pp. 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisbon Treaty (2007) Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopas M (2011) Two Decisions Expand Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of European Court. HRB. http://hrbrief.org/hearings/two-decisions-expand-extraterritorial-jurisdiction-of-european-court/. Accessed 22 April 2018

  • Luban D, O’Sullivan JR, Stewart DP (2010) International and Transnational Criminal Law. Aspen Casebook Series, WK, Austin/Boston/Chicago/NY/The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P (2010) The Manual on International Courts and Tribunals, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Magliveras KD, Naldi GJ (2013) The African Union (AU). WK, Austin/Boston/Chicago/NY/The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Malabo Protocol (2014) Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights

    Google Scholar 

  • Malekian F (2011) Principles of Islamic International Criminal Law: A Comparative Search, 2nd edn. Brill, Leiden/Boston

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe P (2008) Transitional Justice in Transit: Why Transferring a Special Court for Sierra Leone Trial to The Hague Defeats the Purposes of Hybrid Tribunals. NILR 55(3):365–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miko S (2013) Al Skeini v UK and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention for Human Rights. BCICLR 35(3):63–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutyaba R (2015) The International Criminal Court – Its Impact and the Challenges it Faces in Fulfilling its Mandate. http://www.academia.edu/4019723/The_International_Criminal_Court_Its_Impact_and_the_Challenges_It_Faces. Accessed 22 April 2018

  • Nielsen C (2008) From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Civilizing Mission of the International Criminal Law. AULR 14:81–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen SMH (2006) Hybrid Courts: The Hybrid Category of a New Type of Courts Holding Great Promise. ULR Research Paper 2(2):190–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rastan R (2007) The Power of the Prosecutor in Initiating Investigations, A Paper Prepared for the Symposium on the International Criminal Court, 3–4 February 2007, Beijing, China. International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Vancouver, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Ssenyonjo M, Nakitto S (2016) The African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples Rights “International Criminal Law Section”: Promoting Impunity for African Union Heads of State and Senior State Officials? ICLR 16(1):71–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Ssenyonko M (2013) The Rise of the African Union Opposition to the International Criminal Court’s Investigations and Prosecutions of African Leaders. ICLR 13(2):385–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Statute of the SCSL (2002) Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessema M (2018) Prosecution of Politicide in Ethiopia: The Red Terror Trials. International Criminal Justice Series, Vol. 18. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Totten C (2013) Reviewing Williams S (2012) Hybrid and Internationalised Criminal Tribunals - Selected Jurisdictional Issues, Oxford, HP. In: ICLR 13(5):1065–1068

    Google Scholar 

  • UNSC (2000) Resolution 1315 (2000) UN Doc. S/RES/1315

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt (2017a) Unconstitutional Change of Government: A New Crime Within the Jurisdiction of the African Criminal Court. LJIL 30(4):967–986

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt (2017b) Complementary Jurisdiction (Article 46H). In: Werle G, Vormbaum M (eds) The African Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Malabo Protocol. International Criminal Justice Series, Vol. 10, Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 187–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyembergh A, Briere C (2016) Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Study for the LIBE Committee, Directorate Journal for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, November 2016. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571399/IPOL_STU(2016)571399_EN.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Laws, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta

    Christopher Soler

Authors
  1. Christopher Soler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Soler .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Soler, C. (2019). Multi-level Prosecutions of Serious Crimes of Concern to the International Community. In: The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-334-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-335-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation