Michael G. Karnavas, Author at michaelgkarnavas.net/Blog

The ADC’s Continuing Relevance: MICT’s Rules Committee Practice Direction

The Association of Defence Counsel Practising Before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, commonly referred to as the ADC-ICTY, is the association of defence counsel formally recognized by the ICTY. As part of the completion strategy of both the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (MICT) was established for both these courts. Trials, appeals, and post-conviction relief have been under the MICT since 1 July 2012 for the ICTR and 1 July 2013 for the ICTY, as ongoing matters are winding down.

The ADC-ICTY remains the only professional association recognized as the official and exclusive association of any of the past and present international and internationalized courts or tribunals. In October 2002, Rule 44 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) was amended to make membership in an association of defence counsel compulsory,((ICTY Press Release ‘Judges’ Plenary Session Adopt Reforms Concerning Defense Counsel Teams’ (19 July 2002) http://www.icty.org/sid/8083.)) firmly establishing the ADC-ICTY as the sole professional association dedicated to the interests of all defence counsel – and by extension their staff – practicing at the ICTY.

The original draft of the MICT RPE did not include this requirement, but after the ADC-ICTY requested an amendment, the final version of the Rules included the requirement of compulsory membership of an association of defence counsel in Rule 42. With the MICT coming into existence, the ADC-ICTY was selected to continue in its capacity as the association for counsel practicing before the MICT. The ADC-ICTY was initially provisionally recognized in December 2012 and has been functioning as the de facto Association for the MICT. This recognition was confirmed on 24 August 2015.((MICT-12-01/25-08-2015/(5-3), Decision Recognizing the ADC-ICTY as an Association of Defence Counsel Practicing at the Mechanism, 24 August 2015.)) Other budding associations at international or internationalized courts and tribunals would do well to emulate the lessons learned by the ADC-ICTY over the past 14 years.

Now my point for indulging in this post. Continue reading “The ADC’s Continuing Relevance: MICT’s Rules Committee Practice Direction”

Amnesty Part IV: The Case Against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Before the ICC

In the previous post I examined the principle of ne bis in idem / double jeopardy, setting out the general characteristics, underlying rationale, exceptions to the principle, and its transnational applications.

This series on Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the ICC was prompted by the press conference organized by Gaddafi’s lawyers calling for the ICC to dismiss the crimes against humanity (murder and persecution) charges against Gaddafi for which he has been indicted. Continue reading “Amnesty Part IV: The Case Against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Before the ICC”

Amnesty Part III: Ne Bis in Idem in International Criminal Law

In my previous post in this series I discussed some general points on amnesties and pardons, and examined the validity of domestic amnesties for jus cogens crimes with reference to some international examples of this issue in practice.

In this post I will examine the principle of ne bis in idem, or, as it is known in common law systems, double jeopardy.((“The Right to be Protected from Double Jeopardy. This right is designed to prevent the state from repeatedly subjecting a person to prosecution for offenses arising out of the same event until the desired results are achieved. It derives from a sense of fairness, and can be analogized to the civil law concept of res judicata. The non-common law countries refer to it as non bis in idem.” M. Cherif Bassiouni, Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions, 3 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 235, 288 (1993). )) This principle prevents prosecution by a subsequent court of an individual for the same offense (and sometimes the same conduct, facts or cause of action) for which that individual was already finally convicted or acquitted. In the United States (“US”), it is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

To start with, I will set out some general characteristics, underlying rationale, and exceptions to this principle. I will then discuss the question of whether the ne bis in idem principle has transnational application. I will conclude with a checklist to consider when determining the applicability of the ne bis in idem principle to bar prosecution. Continue reading “Amnesty Part III: Ne Bis in Idem in International Criminal Law”

Amnesties and Pardons in International Criminal Law – Part II

Amnesty is defined as complete and lasting forgetfulness of wrongs and offences previously committed. Therefore, when an amnesty is given, since all deeds are consigned to perpetual oblivion and everlasting silence, no one can be accused or punished for acts before committed.((CHRISTIAN WOLFF, JUS GENTIUM METHODO SCIENTIFICA PERTRACTATUM Vol. 2, para. 989 (transl. by and Joseph H. Drake, Oxford 1995). ))

In my previous post I briefly recounted the background and recent developments in the case against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi at the ICC, and how these recent developments relate to the issues of amnesties, pardons, and ne bis in idem. I was prompted by recent news reports that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was pardoned and released from prison after being convicted and sentenced to death, and his legal teams’ press conference and statements that the ICC should dismiss the case against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi because he was pardoned and because of double jeopardy. Continue reading “Amnesties and Pardons in International Criminal Law – Part II”

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the ICC: is the purported “amnesty” (or pardon) and “double jeopardy” a game-changer?

On 26 February 2011, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to refer the situation in Libya since 15 February 2011 to the ICC Prosecutor to hold accountable those responsible for attacks on civilians by forces under the control of those responsible. After conducting a preliminary examination, the ICC Prosecutor concluded on 3 March 2011 that there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction have been committed in Libya, and decided to open an investigation. Continue reading “Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the ICC: is the purported “amnesty” (or pardon) and “double jeopardy” a game-changer?”

The ICCBA is born. Huzzah! Now for the steep climb ahead.

On 30 June and 1 July 2016, the International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA) came into being. The ICCBA is the first Bar Association for Counsel and their Assistants practising before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was launched at the ICC in The Hague, the Netherlands, thanks to the generous support of the ICC Registrar.

For some of us it has been a long journey of persistent hard work. Few believed it could happen. Even fewer rolled up their sleeves to pitch in. As one of the midwives of the ICCBA, I celebrate the birth and respect that the baby has now been handed over to the duly elected leadership. In doing so, however, I take the liberty of also delivering a figurative Finnish baby box of observations, suggestions and warnings. Continue reading “The ICCBA is born. Huzzah! Now for the steep climb ahead.”

Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof — Part IV

Part IV – International criminal courts and tribunals: mixing, matching & inventing

The latest type of international crimes courts, inter alia dubbed ‘hybrid courts’, has been welcomed with great expectations. The hybrid model that is characterized by a mix of national and international components is said to ‘hold a good deal of promise and actually offer an approach that may address some of the concerns about purely international justice, on the one hand, and purely local justice, on the other.’ The hybrid courts are thought to avoid the drawbacks of purely domestic trials and proceedings by purely international courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The model of hybrid courts ‘endeavors to combine the strengths of the ad hoc tribunals with the benefits of local prosecutions.’((Sarah M.H. Nouwen, ‘Hybrid Courts’ The Hybrid Category of a New Type of International Crimes Courts, 2(2) Utrecht L. Rev. ,190 (2006). An excellent expose on what is referred to as hybrid courts, the features they purportedly share and their fundamental differences. With the vast range of differences, Nouwen questions whether there is a promising model hybrid court.))

This is the final post on my discussion of standards and burdens of proof in hybrid courts. In the first post, I briefly discussed the terms standard and burden of proof. The second post dealt with the history of the reasonable doubt standard of proof and the in dubio pro reo principle to provide some context and a background understanding of how the common law and civil law standards of proof diverged and evolved over the centuries. The third and fourth posts dealt with common law and civil law systems and the practical application of standards and burdens of proof in national criminal systems. In this final post to this series, I will address these issues in the context of the international criminal courts and tribunals. I will also touch upon some of the jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”). Continue reading “Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof — Part IV”

Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof, Part III-B – Civil Law

Part III-B – Civil Law

Considering the outlined differences between continental and common law attitudes, there remains only one understanding of free proof that can safely be employed across Western legal systems. On this view, free proof rhetoric expresses the preference for a factfinding regime in which adjudicators are permitted to use ordinary processes of cognition, free to follow the same procedures as the informed public in arriving at the verdict. Both continental and common law jurisdictions seem to subscribe to this preference – at least in principle, or as a prima facie matter – as an organizing schema for technical arrangements.((Mirjan Damaška, Free Proof and Its Detractors, 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 343, 347-48 (1995) (hereinafter “Damaška”). ))

Civil law based systems, which are also referred to as Romano-Germanic, are judge-driven, lacking many of the adversarial features essential to common law systems. I use the plural for “systems” because there is no single and uniform civil law system. Each civil law based system has its own nuances and distinctions. Query whether any civil law based system, be it modeled after the French system with the investigative judge conducting the investigation or modeled after the German system with the prosecutor in charge of the investigation, can claim to be procedurally pure in the sense that it solely employs inquisitorial procedures. Even within the French and German models there are significant differences. Few contemporary systems fit neatly into one definition; different elements and tools contribute to the degrees of fusion. Indeed, some civil law based systems can more accurately be characterized as hybrid, having adopted adversarial / common law modalities, such as is the case in Italy. Continue reading “Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof, Part III-B – Civil Law”

Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof, Part III-A – Common Law

Part III-A — Common Law Approach

Good men everywhere praise the presumption of innocence. And be they Frenchmen, Germans, or Americans, they agree on the demand of the presumption in practice. Both here and abroad, the state’s invocation of criminal sanctions demands a high degree of proof that the accused has committed the offense charged. To express the requisite standard of proof, common lawyers speak of the prosecutor’s duty to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. And Continental lawyers invoke the maxim in dubio pro reo – a precept requiring triers of fact to acquit in cases of doubt.((George P. Fletcher, Two Kinds of Legal Rules: A Comparative Study of Burden-of-Persuasion Practices in Criminal Cases, 77 Yale L. J. 880, 880 (1968). ))

This post follows up on my discussion on the common and civil law approaches to the standards and burdens of proofs. I began this series of posts by setting out the background and discussing relevant terms and definitions. I then provided a brief overview of how the common and civil law systems split off and developed over the centuries and how the reasonable doubt standard came about. I also touched upon the in dubio pro reo principle as it relates to the standard of proof. In the next two posts I will separately discuss the common and civil law systems in order to compare and contrast their respective approaches to the standards and burdens of proof. Continue reading “Making Sense of the Standard & Burden of Proof in Hybrid Courts: Reflections on the Common Law & Civil Law Approaches to Proof, Part III-A – Common Law”

Historical Aspects of the Standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt & The Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo

We all know that, when a criminal lawyer has to defend a case where the facts are all against him, his uniform and too often unfailing resource is the law. Upon this he falls back. The doctrine of ‘reasonable doubt’ is kept always in the front. The reports are ransacked for loose definitions by careless judges in insignificant cases. The extravagant and unsupported ‘dicta’ of the text-writers, made perhaps in support of a theory of what the law ought to be, rather than as proof of what it has been authoritatively declared to be, are hunted up with untiring zeal. These are reenforced by a series of cases – fabulous and authentic – scattered through the musty annals of crime, in which, it is said that innocent persons have been convicted. The whole mass of bewildering definitions, extravagant ‘dicta,’ astounding facts, or fictions, as the case may be, is then arrayed with greater or less skill, according to the ability of counsel, and paraded before the jury with pathetic solemnity. Of course, the object of all of this is to confound and befog; to bring the jury into that state of amazement, apprehension and uncertainty, which will disqualify them to deal calmly and rationally with the facts of the case before them….((John W. May, Some Rules of Evidence: Reasonable Doubt in Civil and Criminal Cases, 10 Am. L. Rev. 642, 662-663 (1876). ))

In common law and hybrid systems where the proceedings are adversarial defense lawyers are ethically bound to represent zealously their clients. This duty is universally recognized in virtually all national and international codes of professional ethics. Continue reading “Historical Aspects of the Standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt & The Principle of In Dubio Pro Reo”