Dans le cadre du procès pénal, un minimum de garanties doivent être accordées à chaque accusé. La justice pénale internationale n’est pas exempte de cette prescription, qui est également valable pour les individus accusés des crimes les plus affreux contre le genre humain, comme les crimes de compétence de la Cour pénale internationale. L’année 1998, année de la signature à Rome du Statut de la Cour pénale internationale, a marqué une étape définitive dans le processus de codification du D.I.P.. Le statut se fonde sur des valeurs communes propres à la communauté des Etats signataires, qui ont formellement introduits en droit international l’élément de la sanction et de la responsabilité pénale individuelle, sans toutefois négliger l’élément de la réglementation procédurale qui conduit à la sanction pénale à travers le respect des droits de la défense. Le Statut de la C.P.I. représente l’enveloppe normative formelle qui contient le patrimoine de droits inhérents à l’individu et, en même temps, le texte normatif de garantie sur lequel se fonde le consensus de la communauté des Etats en ce qui concerne la nécessité de combattre l’impunité selon les règles démocratiques du vivre social et de juger et punir selon les règles propres à l’état de droit universellement reconnues. / Dopted on July 1998 by the Rome Diplomatic Conference, the Statute of the International Criminal Court marks the culmination of a process of the international criminal justice, that started at Nuremberg and Tokyo and further developed through the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Rome Statute crystallizes the whole body of law that has gradually emerged over the past fifty years in the international community in this particularly problematic area and guarantees the same rights of the accused that are enshrined expressly in several conventions and treaties. In particular, the Statute of the International Criminal Court provides in articles 55 and 67 that the accused is entitled of a number of rights during investigation and trial. One come into existence the ICC has started a new era for the effective prosecution and punishment of serious violation of international humanitarian law wherever such abuses may occur and by whomever they may be perpetrated. This is accomplished in conformity to the rule of law and in the respect of the rights of the accused.

Approach of African states towards International Criminal Court This diploma thesis aims to depict in the most exhaustive manner the approach of the African states towards the institution of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter as "the Court"). To offer a better understanding of this complicated bond, in the first chapter, I intend to describe the basic characteristics of the Court - the process of its creation along with all the necessary historical background of such efforts, its purpose or mission, financing, the composition and administration of the Court as well as detailed analysis of the proceedings before the Court and its decision making. The second chapter deals with brief introduction to other international criminal tribunals with jurisdiction in Africa and remarks on African Union, the most recognized international integration on the African continent. Third chapter starts to explain the nature and development of the approach of the African states towards the Court which is marked mainly by the initial support to the idea of its creation and followed by a slow aggravation of the stance and loss of most of the support and co-operation primarily due to alleged narrow focus of the prosecution almost exclusively towards African nationals. There were certain attempts to reestablish...

Magister Legum - LLM

Magister Legum - LLM

Magister Legum - LLM / The coming into force of the Rome Statute on the 1st July 2002 signified the birth of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC came into existence as a permanent criminal court for the prosecution of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Crime of Aggression. There are 121 states-parties to the Rome Statute. This means there are many states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC would ordinarily not have jurisdiction over the nationals of these states if they committed offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC on the territories of the non-states parties. This paper intends to analyse whether the ICC has jurisdiction over nationals of non-state parties who commit crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC on the territories of non-states parties to the Rome Statute. There are situations and cases that are before the ICC involving nationals of non-state parties that committed crimes on territories of non-states parties. These cases have come before the ICC by way of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referrals. This paper will therefore examine the legality of UNSC referrals under international law in respect of nationals of non-states parties, who commit crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, on territories of non-states parties.

Magister Legum - LLM / By any standard, victim participation is a relatively new phenomenon in international criminal law proceedings. Incredible advances have been made in the effort to end impunity for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and, more recently, aggression. As a result, great strides have been made in ensuring the direct participation of victims of grave violations of human rights in court proceedings against their perpetrators. Prior to this, grave violations of human rights committed during conflicts or periods of mass violence were either largely ignored or even if action was taken, victims of the crimes hardly had a ‘say’ in the proceedings. With the advent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) a new dawn in the proceedings of international criminal law has emerged. The statutes that govern the ICC and ECCC have given a voice to victims in court proceeding buy ensuring victims participation. Despite these advances, scholars have criticized victim participation for being inconsistent in its application at the International Criminal Court. The criticism has come from scholars who have highlighted the unintended consequences of victim participation in court proceedings, arguing that their participation has resulted in the under- or misrepresentation of the actual experience of survivors of war, mass violence, or repression. These problems have arisen largely because the need to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused and to protect their due process rights, to abide by the rules of evidence and procedure, and to conserve judicial resources all cut against victim-witnesses' ability to tell their stories at these tribunals thereby resulting in a limited, and sometimes inaccurate, record of victims' experience. Background: The idea that victims should be allowed to participate in international criminal proceedings stems from a broader movement over the last several decades advocating for restorative, as opposed to merely retributive justice. Proponents of this restorative justice movement maintain that “justice should not only address traditional retributive justice, i.e., punishment of the guilty, but should also provide a measure of restorative justice by, inter alia, allowing victims to participate in the proceedings and by providing compensation to victims for their injuries.” In other words, advocates of this movement believe that criminal justice mechanisms should serve the interests of victims, in addition to punishing wrongdoers, and that the participation of victims in criminal proceedings is an integral part of serving victims' interests. Although the concept of victim participation in criminal proceedings is not easily defined, it has been described as victims “being in control, having a say, being listened to, or being treated with dignity and respect.” Human rights activists supported the concept for several reasons. Many believed, as did victim advocates more generally, that participation in criminal proceedings has a number of potential restorative benefits, including the promotion of victims' “healing and rehabilitation.” Indeed, in its recommendations to the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court (Preparatory Committee I), “participation is significant not only to protecting the rights of the victim at various stages of the proceeding, but also to advancing the process of healing from trauma and degradation.” Some believed that victim participation would bring the court “closer to the persons who have suffered atrocities” and thus increase the likelihood that victims would be satisfied that justice was done. set of recommendations on the ICC elements of crimes and rules of procedure and evidence, noted “the right of victims to participate in the proceedings was included in the Rome Statute to ensure that the process is as respectful and transparent as possible so that justice can be seen to be done . . .” Finally, and significantly for the purpose of this study, human rights activists thought that victim participation might help address the under- or misrepresentation of the experiences of victims. Research questions and objectives of the study: The question this research paper poses is whether victim participation has increased the visibility of the actual lived experience of survivors in the context of war, mass violence, or repression? Under the Rome Statute, victims of the world's most serious crimes were given unprecedented rights to participate in proceedings before the court. Nearly a decade later, a similar scheme was established to allow victims to participate as civil parties in the proceedings before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, created with UN support to prosecute atrocities committed by leaders of the Khmer Rouge during the period of 1975 to 1979. Although there are some significant differences in how the schemes work at the ICC and ECCC, both courts allow victims to participate in criminal proceedings independent of their role as witnesses for either the prosecution or defence. In other words, both have victim participation schemes intended to give victims a voice in the proceedings. Have these new participation schemes before the ICC and ECCC, in fact, helped in satisfying the victims? What impact have they had on the ability of survivors of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to tell their story and to talk about their experiences in their own words? In particular, has victim participation enabled more of them to tell their stories than would have been possible under the more traditional adversarial model employed by the ad hoc tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Has it allowed them to expand the historical record produced by these tribunals with narratives that would otherwise have been left out because of prosecutorial or judicial decisions not to prosecute violations committed against them? Has it enabled victims to communicate a richer, more nuanced picture of their experiences than they were able to in the context of prior tribunals? The aim is to explore whether these novel victim participation schemes, as implemented by the ICC and ECCC thus far, have actually allowed for greater recognition of victims' voices and experiences than was possible in proceedings before their predecessor tribunals. Have these schemes actually allowed victims to communicate a fuller and more nuanced picture of their experiences than they would have been able to do as victim-witnesses before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)? In other words, can the victim participation schemes at the ICC answer the call for increased visibility of the actual lived experience of survivors of human rights violations in the context of war, mass violence, or repression?.

Magister Legum - LLM

Doctor Legum - LLD / The crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are customary international law crimes. The African continent has experienced quite a number of cases involving these crimes, and the continent's ability and willingness to prosecute offenders’ remains in doubt. As a result, in the past decade or so, non-African states have sought to institute proceedings against African leaders accused of perpetrating international customary law crimes. These attempts have taken two distinct formats, the first being the use of Universal Jurisdiction {UJ), and the second being the attempts by the International Criminal Court {ICC) to indict and prosecute African leaders. The African Union {AU) has vehemently opposed both these attempts on the grounds that they are inspired by neo-colonial thinking that is aimed at stifling peace and reconciliation efforts on the continent.Proponents of UJ argue that this principle is fundamental to international justice and the global fight to end impunity for international crimes. UJ allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory and for which the normal jurisdictional links of nationality and passive personality do not exist. Although the concept of UJ has been part of international law for quite some time, its relevance today has been questioned by national courts and international judicial bodies. Its recent usage by both Belgian and French courts, as well as by international tribunals, such as the ICC, has attracted sharp criticism from many African states. Given that African states constitute the biggest block of signatory states to the Rome Statute, their voice cannot be ignored. Their principal concern is that the ICC is unfairly targeting African leaders for prosecution. The negative sentiment is also evidenced by some African leaders' deliberate refusal to comply with ICC requests or to cooperate in cases where warrants of arrest have been issued against African leaders, such as in the case of the Sudanese President, Omar Al Bashir, and the present prosecution of the Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto. Given the aversion shown by African states to ICC prosecution of state leaders, and attempts by some non-African states to resort to UJ in order to try African leaders, the question is whether African states themselves have a solution to the problem of impunity on the continent? The answer might lie, partly, in the age old concept of UJ, where individual African states might be able to exercise jurisdiction over the international crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It might also lie in the ability and willingness of African states to strengthen the Continent’s own, regional institutions by setting up an African international criminal tribunal, or strengthening an existing one to deal with these issues. It therefore becomes important to assess what the African standpoint on UJ is, as against what the practical realities are. In other words, what continental or regional institutions exist to combat impunity for international crimes: what do states do in fact?

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper will explore the history of the outbreak of religious related violence in Nigeria and the response of Nigeria and the African Union to the acts of the Boko Haram group both legally and procedurally. The intervention of the ICC as a viable option to combat the scourge of the group will also be examined. Other options such as trial in the Court of third States under the principle of universal jurisdiction and a special court jointly facilitated by the States involved will also be assessed.

Magister Legum - LLM / Africa seemingly cursed with instability, conflict and gross human rights violations has been the largest scene of operation of international criminal justice. This understanding led African States to be some of the key proponents in the push for an International Criminal Court. Of late however, mounting policy and operational fluxes between African States and international criminal justice has put Africa's relationship with international justice on ice. This in turn has awoken within the region's geopolitical body, the African Union, the need for an exclusively African response to international criminal justice as it is currently considering extending the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to cover international crimes. This Research Paper aims to chart the genesis of this move through the decision-making system of the African Union and within the broader context of the Union's emerging Human Rights, Peace and Security Architecture. It will simultaneously assess the viability of this proposal within the backdrop of recent global developments with a view to identifying key legal and policy ramifications. It aims to show that there may be room for the adoption of an empowered African Court as a regional complement to the international criminal justice system.