Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor
Chapter 3. Specific duties
Section 1. Objective truth-seeking
49. In compliance with the duty to establish the truth under article 54(1)(a) of the Statute, the Office shall investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally in all steps involved in the planning and conduct of investigative and prosecutorial activities. In particular, Members of the Office shall:
(a) conduct investigations with the goal of establishing the truth, and in the interests of justice;
(b) consider all relevant circumstances when assessing evidence, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or the disadvantage of the prosecution;
(c) ensure that all necessary and reasonable enquiries are made and the results disclosed in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial, whether they point to the guilt or the innocence of the suspect.
50. Staff members shall report to the Prosecutor concerns which, if substantiated, would tend to render a previous conviction made by the Court unsafe, bring the administration of justice into disrepute or constitute a miscarriage of justice.
It should be an article of faith that before the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor (ICC OTP) seeks an arrest warrant on a person, it has reliable, authentic, and relevant evidence to achieve a conviction. Put differently, the prosecution must not only have evidence to overcome the low hurdle of sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged for confirmation, but evidence that would: (a) overcome any challenges raised in a motion for a directed verdict (judgment of acquittal) at the end of the prosecution’s case-in-chief; and (b) secure a conviction at the end of trial, having met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nothing is guaranteed. The evidence gathered by the prosecution between the arrest and trial can alter or even be lost – as witnesses become unavailable or with the discovery of new evidence that was previously unknown or unavailable. Of course, with the opportunity to collect additional evidence during this interim period, the prosecution can and usually does enhance its case. Continue reading “ICC Prosecutor Withdraws Charges Against Mokom: Commendable, Yet Questions Abound”
Palestine cannot have it both ways. As a State Party, it cannot expect the ICC to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed against Palestinians by Israel (through the Israeli Defense Forces), yet not be held to account for crimes alleged to have been committed by Hamas against Israelis.
Article 7(2) of the ICC Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel (Code) presumes that list counsel possess a high level of knowledge of the applicable law and a high level of skills required for the adopted party-driven, adversarial hybrid procedure, and thus must “participate in training initiatives required to maintain such competence.” This presumption is fanciful. Not all list counsel are sufficiently competent – let alone to a high level – simply because they have managed to get themselves on the list. Counsel cannot “maintain a high level of competence” unless they are already competent to a high level. Query whose responsibility is it to ensure that at least those counsel appearing in proceedings before the ICC have a high level of competence. In no small measure I suggest it is the ICC Registrar, through the Counsel Support Section (CSS), which is responsible for setting the standards for the admission of counsel. 
With an opening gambit that potential Russian accused charged with atrocity crimes witnessed daily on the news and social media cannot get a fair trial because they’ve been already tried, judged, and convicted in the court of public opinion (as if this is not the norm for all suspects and accused before international and even national criminal tribunals), I was asked by a colleague my views. Read on.
Most agree that Putin’s war-making was unprovoked, unjustified, and unlawful. I say most because there are some who believe that Russia had legitimate reasons for initiating what Putin has characterized as Russia’s “special military operation.” Most also agree – or seem to agree despite any legitimate findings by an independent international tribunal – that Putin is guilty beyond any doubt of the crime of aggression. And many of those who have made their findings and conclusions of Putin’s guilt, call for the establishment of a tribunal with the singular purpose to try and convict Putin, expeditiously, for aggression. Of course, they envisage that a few others would also be charged and tried as well for aggression, but Putin is the great white whale (though it should be remembered that Moby Dick was both Ahab’s obsession and the prize he could not have). 