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?.

No description available.

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this study is to scrutinise, in particular, the legal bases of and decisions taken by various hybrid courts with regards to such consolidating or fragmenting effects on substantive international criminal law. The first section (Chapter 2), it will examine what is to be understood by the notion of a hybrid court. This will be followed by an analysis of the hybrid courts that have been established thus far. Furthermore, the advantages and reasons for which hybrid courts have been established in recent decades will be discussed, especially regarding their potential advantages as a transitional justice instrument. Moreover, disadvantages of hybrid courts and their deficiencies in the past will be addressed. Subsequently, the role of hybrid courts within the international legal system and their utility in the future will be discussed. This will include, on the one hand, the scope of the jurisdiction of hybrid courts in relation to other national and international criminal courts, especially vis-à-vis the ICC. On the other hand, it will be addressed whether hybrid courts will – or should – be established in the future, given the creation of the permanent ICC as well as the shortcomings of hybrid courts in the past. Against this background, the impact of hybrid courts on the further development of international criminal law will be assessed in the third section of the paper (Chapter 4). In this regard, the discussion will focus on a representative selection of hybrid courts, namely the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). It will be discussed how their legal bases as well as their jurisprudence relate to the previous state of international criminal law, and whether they constitute adverse diversifications or positive contributions to international criminal law. In a concluding section (Chapter 5), the results of the study will be analysed and possible correlations between the structural elements of hybrid courts and their impact on international criminal law will be discussed. Finally, further questions regarding the use of hybrid courts in the future will be addressed.

<p>Савремени концепти међународног кривичног права одавно су напустили правне оквире, начела и традицију очувања светског мира, јер се међународно право више не примењује, оно се тумачи и то на онај начин који одговара политичким струјама у међународним односима.<br />На који начин је дошло до вулгаризације међународног кривичног права и у којој мери је оно изражено најприближније говоре случајеви покренути пред међународним кривичним судовима. Анализом рада међународних кривичних судова у смислу: конституисања суда, дефинисања материјалних и процесних норми, извођењу доказа, изменом и допуном Правилника о поступку и доказима, истицању одређених кривичних дела, различитим стандардима и начину вредновања наступелих последица, националниј припадности субјеката у поступку... могу се препознати многи проблеми који су дискредитовали постојање начелних питања истине, објективности и правичности. У овим начелима налазе се потенцијална решења ефикасности међународних кривичних судова, али стиче се утисак да би решењем ових проблема правда била достижна и за оне који су проузроковали низ озбиљних сукоба у свету. Сходно томе, потребно је запитати се да ли међународна заједница уопште жели да постоји институција као што је Међународни кривични суд?<br />Међународни кривични судови, до сада су више личили на институције које су биле подређене медијским кампањама усмереним против унапред етикетираних држава и носиоца њихове суверене власти, што се у великом броју случајева показало као идеалан параван за покретање агресивних ратова. Ако је Међународни кривични суд надлежан, између осталог, и за дела агресије, због чега целокупна међународна заједница ћути и ништа не предузима по питању окупације аутономне покрајне Косова и Метохије и&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; не супротстави се рушилачким идеологијама припајања суседним државама. Зар то не представља рушилачки фактор безбедности и мира у региону? Већина држава у свету, а посебно у Европи, има сличних проблема који су мање или више транспарентни, али уколико се настави садашњим путем слична судбина могла би и њих да задеси.<br />Да би међународни кривични судови били у могућности да обављају функцију због које су основани њихова надлежност треба да искqучи сваки вид економске и политичке зависности. Своју надлежност судови треба да заснивају на правилима бона фидес којима би као Судови региона своју правну снагу црпили из кодификованог међународног кривичног права и постулата обичајних правних правила. Такве судове је могуће успоставити, под условом да се постојећи политизовани бирократски систем судија и тужилаца у међународним кривичним судовима замени новим регионалним решењима и концепцијама независних механизама контроле.</p> / <p>Savremeni koncepti međunarodnog krivičnog prava odavno su napustili pravne okvire, načela i tradiciju očuvanja svetskog mira, jer se međunarodno pravo više ne primenjuje, ono se tumači i to na onaj način koji odgovara političkim strujama u međunarodnim odnosima.<br />Na koji način je došlo do vulgarizacije međunarodnog krivičnog prava i u kojoj meri je ono izraženo najpribližnije govore slučajevi pokrenuti pred međunarodnim krivičnim sudovima. Analizom rada međunarodnih krivičnih sudova u smislu: konstituisanja suda, definisanja materijalnih i procesnih normi, izvođenju dokaza, izmenom i dopunom Pravilnika o postupku i dokazima, isticanju određenih krivičnih dela, različitim standardima i načinu vrednovanja nastupelih posledica, nacionalnij pripadnosti subjekata u postupku... mogu se prepoznati mnogi problemi koji su diskreditovali postojanje načelnih pitanja istine, objektivnosti i pravičnosti. U ovim načelima nalaze se potencijalna rešenja efikasnosti međunarodnih krivičnih sudova, ali stiče se utisak da bi rešenjem ovih problema pravda bila dostižna i za one koji su prouzrokovali niz ozbiljnih sukoba u svetu. Shodno tome, potrebno je zapitati se da li međunarodna zajednica uopšte želi da postoji institucija kao što je Međunarodni krivični sud?<br />Međunarodni krivični sudovi, do sada su više ličili na institucije koje su bile podređene medijskim kampanjama usmerenim protiv unapred etiketiranih država i nosioca njihove suverene vlasti, što se u velikom broju slučajeva pokazalo kao idealan paravan za pokretanje agresivnih ratova. Ako je Međunarodni krivični sud nadležan, između ostalog, i za dela agresije, zbog čega celokupna međunarodna zajednica ćuti i ništa ne preduzima po pitanju okupacije autonomne pokrajne Kosova i Metohije i&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ne suprotstavi se rušilačkim ideologijama pripajanja susednim državama. Zar to ne predstavlja rušilački faktor bezbednosti i mira u regionu? Većina država u svetu, a posebno u Evropi, ima sličnih problema koji su manje ili više transparentni, ali ukoliko se nastavi sadašnjim putem slična sudbina mogla bi i njih da zadesi.<br />Da bi međunarodni krivični sudovi bili u mogućnosti da obavljaju funkciju zbog koje su osnovani njihova nadležnost treba da iskquči svaki vid ekonomske i političke zavisnosti. Svoju nadležnost sudovi treba da zasnivaju na pravilima bona fides kojima bi kao Sudovi regiona svoju pravnu snagu crpili iz kodifikovanog međunarodnog krivičnog prava i postulata običajnih pravnih pravila. Takve sudove je moguće uspostaviti, pod uslovom da se postojeći politizovani birokratski sistem sudija i tužilaca u međunarodnim krivičnim sudovima zameni novim regionalnim rešenjima i koncepcijama nezavisnih mehanizama kontrole.</p> / <p>Modern concepts of international criminal law have long since left the legal frameworks, principles and tradition of preserving world peace, because international law is no longer applicable, it is interpreted in a way that is consistent with political currents in international relations.<br />How has the vulgarisation of international criminal law come about and to what extent is it most closely illustrated by cases brought before international criminal courts. By analyzing the work of international criminal courts in terms of: constituting a court, defining substantive and procedural norms, presenting evidence, amending the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, highlighting certain criminal offenses, different standards and the way of evaluating the consequences, the national affiliation of the subjects in the proceedings ... many problems can be identified that have discredited the existence of fundamental questions of truth, objectivity and fairness. These principles provide potential solutions to the effectiveness of international criminal courts, but the impression is that by resolving these problems, justice would be attainable for those who have caused a number of serious conflicts in the world. Accordingly, one has to wonder if the international community wants an institution such as the International Criminal Court at all?<br />International criminal courts have so far been more like institutions subordinate to media campaigns against pre-labeled states and holders of their sovereign power, which in many cases proved to be an ideal front for launching aggressive wars. If the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over, among other things, acts of aggression, for which reason the entire international community is silent and does nothing about the occupation of the autonomous provincial Kosovo and Metohija and does not oppose the destructive ideologies of annexation to neighboring countries. Doesn&#39;t that represent the destructive factor of security and peace in the region? Most countries in the world, and especially in Europe, have similar problems that are more or less transparent, but if they continue along the same path, a similar fate could befall them.<br />In order for international criminal courts to be able to perform the function for which they were founded, their jurisdiction should exclude any form of economic and political dependence. Courts should base their jurisdiction on bona fides rules which, as the Courts of the Region, derive their legal power from codified international criminal law and the common law rules. Such courts can be established, provided that the existing politicized bureaucratic system of judges and prosecutors in international criminal courts is replaced by new regional solutions and concepts of independent control mechanisms.</p>