The prosecution’s duty of disclosure is at the heart of an accused’s right to a fair trial. Information and knowledge is power. Owing to the nature of criminal investigation, the prosecution almost always has more time and resources at its disposal in order to prepare its case than the defence. More importantly, the prosecution has access to certain information that the defence would not have and it has the means to access them. As a consequence, in order to ensure the fundamental rights of the accused are respected, it is crucial for the prosecution to disclose any relevant material to the defence in a timely manner so that the latter has a chance to prepare its case adequately. Despite the undeniable importance of this duty, prosecutors routinely violate their obligations of disclosing material to the defence that is of vital importance for case preparations. This thesis, accordingly, asks the question: why are disclosure problems so hard to resolve? Is the disclosure framework really workable in the international criminal tribunals? Public institutions, like the International Criminal Court, are supposed to be the epitome of justice; however, because of its unique characteristics, and perhaps ironically, international criminal law proved to be an ever harsher environment for the defendant when it comes to disclosure of evidence: the accused faces more obstacles when preparing its case and the Courts’ motivation to sanction prosecutors who fail to honour disclosure duties seems to be significantly lower when compared with national jurisdictions. In particular, due to certain difficulties and challenges faced by the international criminal tribunals and international prosecution, it is often argued that the standard of fairness can be different from the ones guaranteed to the accused in domestic courts. This thesis argues that these departures are not justified. Three main areas will be examined and analysed: the context in which the international criminal tribunals operate in, the nature of the prosecutor’s role, and the attitudes of the judges.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the sentencing practice of the military courts. Since an independent and impartial military judiciary is essential to ensure that justice is done a further aim of this study is to investigate whether the military courts are impartial, independent and affords the accused his fair trial rights. The sentences imposed by military courts are investigated and concerns regarding the imposition of these sentences are identified. Finally the appeal and review procedures followed by the military courts are investigated with specific reference to the military accused’s right appeal and review to a higher court as provided for by the Constitution. The sentencing phase of a trial forms an important part of the whole trial process. This is also true for military trials, yet no research has been done on military sentencing practice. Because of the potential influence of the draft Military Discipline Bill and the Law Reform Commission’s revision of the defence legislation on sentencing, research in this area is critical in the positive development of sentencing law in the military justice environment. An extensive literature study is undertaken to evaluate current military sentencing practices against civilian practices. The result of this study identifies certain concerns regarding the independence of the military courts, the treatment of military offenders and the appeal and review powers of the military reviewing authority. To a large extent it is also found that many concerns are based on the apparent rather than the existence of any real dangers to the independence of the military courts or the rights of the military accused. This thesis contributes to the accessibility of military law for a civilian audience, creating a platform for the development of future military sentences. / Jurisprudence / LLD

Qu’évoque la motivation ? Comment le droit répressif appréhende-t-il la motivation des décisions de justice ? Le concept de motivation renvoie à plusieurs aspects qui changent son sens suivant le rôle assigné à la fonction juridictionnelle. S’il est compréhensible qu'une seule et unique approche ne s'impose pas, la motivation doit être reconsidérée.Elle est en effet généralement perçue comme un instrument contentieux, l’objectif étant de limiter l’arbitraire du juge. A cette fin, elle appelle un ensemble de règles devant s’imposer au juge. L'examen de ces règles dans le domaine du droit répressif aboutit à un résultat peu satisfaisant. Si la motivation est imposée au juge dans certains cas, elle est en revanche écartée dans d’autres, sans qu’on puisse imposer un critère unique légitimant une telle distinction. La nature objective de son contenu est marquée par des lacunes qui alimentent l’approche subjective de la motivation. C'est lorsqu'il est question de méthode que les contournements sont les plus visibles : la motivation à phrase unique, le copier-coller ou encore la pratique de la motivation pré-rédigée. Au demeurant, le contrôle de la motivation, fut-il exercé par le juge européen, laisse au juge répressif une marge d'appréciation, voire parfois une totale liberté. Du droit de la motivation des décisions pénales, le résultat est finalement contrasté.Ne faut-il pas alors aller plus loin et dépasser cette approche contentieuse de la motivation des décisions pénales ? La réponse est évidemment positive. Pour mieux préserver les intérêts du justiciable, la motivation doit se transformer. Cette transformation se marque par un rapprochement de plus en plus fort entre la motivation et les droits fondamentaux du justiciable. La motivation se révèle en effet être la condition de l'exercice des droits de la défense, en même temps qu’elle s’intègre dans le concept plus large du droit au procès équitable. Dans la dynamique de cette évolution, la motivation -en vue de la compréhension et de l’acceptation de la décision par le justiciable- doit occuper une place centrale. Cela implique d'entrevoir, au-delà des règles imposées au juge de motiver la décision, certaines améliorations afin de parvenir à la reconnaissance d’un véritable droit du justiciable à la motivation de la décision, de sa décision. / What evokes motivation? How criminal law grasps motivation of judicial decisions ?The concept of motivation refers to several aspects that change its meaning depending on the role assigned to the judicial function. While it is understandable that a single approach does not compel, motivation should be reconsidered.Motivation is in fact generally perceived as a litigation instrument for the judge, the main aim being to limit its arbitrary power. To this end, a set of rules are binding on the judge. The review of these rules in the field of criminal law leads to an unsatisfactory result. If motivation is imposed on the judge in certain judicial decisions, it is however rejected in others, and a single criterion justifying such a distinction may not appear relevant. The objective nature of its contents is marked by gaps which feed the subjective approach to the motivation. It is when it is about method that the bypassing is the most visible : the motivation with unique sentence, the copy and paste or the practice of the pre-drafted motivation. Moreover, even exercised by the European Court, control of motivation leaves the criminal judge many appreciation margins, even sometimes a total freedom. Concerning the analysis of the criminal decisions, the right of the motivation ends in a contrasted result.Should we then go further and beyond this litigating approach of motivation? The answer is obviously positive. To better safeguard the interests of citizens, motivation must be transformed. This transformation is marked by an increasing connection between motivation and fundamental human rights. The motivation turns out to be the condition for the exercise of the rights of defense, while it fits into the category of the right to fair trial. In the dynamics of this evolution, the motivation - with the aim of the understanding and of the acceptance of the decision by the citizen - has to occupy a central place. It involves to glimpse, beyond rules compulsory for the judge to motivate the decision, certain improvements in order to achieve the recognition of a genuine right of the defendant for the motivation of the decision, its decision.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the sentencing practice of the military courts. Since an independent and impartial military judiciary is essential to ensure that justice is done a further aim of this study is to investigate whether the military courts are impartial, independent and affords the accused his fair trial rights. The sentences imposed by military courts are investigated and concerns regarding the imposition of these sentences are identified. Finally the appeal and review procedures followed by the military courts are investigated with specific reference to the military accused’s right appeal and review to a higher court as provided for by the Constitution. The sentencing phase of a trial forms an important part of the whole trial process. This is also true for military trials, yet no research has been done on military sentencing practice. Because of the potential influence of the draft Military Discipline Bill and the Law Reform Commission’s revision of the defence legislation on sentencing, research in this area is critical in the positive development of sentencing law in the military justice environment. An extensive literature study is undertaken to evaluate current military sentencing practices against civilian practices. The result of this study identifies certain concerns regarding the independence of the military courts, the treatment of military offenders and the appeal and review powers of the military reviewing authority. To a large extent it is also found that many concerns are based on the apparent rather than the existence of any real dangers to the independence of the military courts or the rights of the military accused. This thesis contributes to the accessibility of military law for a civilian audience, creating a platform for the development of future military sentences. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.