The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence: More of the Same Hybridity with Added Prosecutorial Transparency

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence: More of the Same Hybridity with Added Prosecutorial Transparency, an article by Michael G. Karnavas, has been published in the International Criminal Law Review.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers incorporates procedural rules from Kosovo’s domestic legal system, innovative and useful modalities, procedural rules, practice directives, and lessons learned from the other international(ised) criminal tribunals. Based on a presentation given by Michael G. Karnavas on 22 June 2018 at Leiden University’s Grotius Centre Supranational Criminal Law Lecture Series — The Kosovo Specialist Chambers: Comparative Legal Perspectives — this article provides a defence perspective on some of the modalities found in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In the author’s opinion, some of the provisions on disclosure provide greater protections of fair trial rights for suspects and accused during the confirmation and pre-trial stages than the rules of other international(ised) criminal tribunals, while also maintaining the schizophrenic features found in these international(ised) jurisdictions — placing the burden of proof on the prosecution while granting the trial judges discretionary authority to engage in truth-seeking activities.

For an earlier discussion of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, see Michael’s seven-part series:

Share

One thought on “The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence: More of the Same Hybridity with Added Prosecutorial Transparency”

  1. Hi! Sorry to divert form the topic of the article, but I read your review of Red Famine – which I found via your response to Serbyn (I disagree on the use of special intent but overall it was a good piece). I wanted to ask two questions in particular:

    1) Do you have any comments on Kai Ambos 2009 article on meaning of “intent to destroy”? Would you consider their objection to ‘dolus specialis’ justified?
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-the-red-cross/article/what-does-intent-to-destroy-in-genocide-mean/636C654F125D59B1CCE36994485A20D7

    2) Given the recent change of judges in Ratko Mladić appeal, I was curious if you still believe that the Massacres at Srebrenica were extermination vs genocide?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *