I. SALIENT POINTS IN THE AGREEMENT
The proposed agreement was supposed to be entered into between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). It was an agreement that would define the ancestral domain of the “Bangsamoros”, the people the MILF is representing.
A. ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
The agreement was premised on the historical claim of all Moros and indigenous peoples of Mindanao or also called “Bangsamoros”. They are those that are the natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent lands Sulu and Palawan. This territorial claim can e traced on ancestral territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of their sultanates and the Pat a Pangampong ku Ranaw. The reason for the grant of ancestral domain is to secure the group’s identity and posterity, to protect their property rights and resources as well as to establish a system of governance suitable and acceptable to them as a distinct dominant people.
B. TERRITORY DEFINED
The agreement defined the Bangsamoro territory as those that does not only refer to land mass but to maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains and the aerial domains. It also defines those provinces or political subdivisions that form part of such territory as well as its internal and territorial waters.
C. BANGSAMORO JURIDICAL ENTITY (BJE) and its powers
The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (JBE) was given the authority over the ancestral domain and ancestral lands, including both alienable and non-alienable land encompassed within their homeland. The BJE has authority over the use, development, conservation and disposition of their land and its natural resources geared towards self-sufficiency and the stimulation of its local economy to improve living conditions so as to alleviate poverty.
The BJE is tasked to grant licenses, concessions, contracts and agreements in the use of natural resources. It is allowed to enact agrarian laws and programs.
The BJE is free to enter into economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries as long as these do not constitute acts of aggression against the GRP. In fact, the Central Government shall take necessary steps to ensure the BJE’s participation in international meetings and events.
D. ROLE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
The Central Government, on the other hand, shares in the wealth of the BJE in the ratio of 75% - 25% in favor of the BJE. The relationship between the Central Government and BJE is associative in nature, characterized by shared authority and responsibility with a structure of governance based on executive, legislative, judicial and administrative institutions. The Central Government shall exclusively have the power of external defense.
II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposed agreement, to my mind, is the epitome of the government’s weakness to handle the MILF issue. It has almost given up on all of its jurisdiction over the Bangsamoro “territory” and handing over to the BJE all of its rights and obligations except that of external defense.
Let us review the elements of a state according the Montevideo conference :
1. a permanent population
2. a defined territory
3. a government
4. capacity to conduct external relations with other states
This agreement, without hesitation, just granted the BJE, its sovereignty and statehood. It is an international principle that recognition is a right of every state and that for BJE to become a state and to enter into external relations, it has somehow to be recognized expressly or impliedly by others. However, the recognition of the GRP itself hastens the process. The provision in the agreement wherein the BJE is given international rights and authorities by assuring it that it will ensure its participation in international meetings and events is an act of recognition by GRP of the legal personality of BJE in the international community. This is a matter of great concern. What will stop subsequent calls for statehood by other political subdivisions as well?
Besides, is the agreement even constitutional? Does it not result to a contradiction to the constitutional provisions on definition of territory and the creation of political divisions? Don’t these acts warrant constitutional amendments that require a more formal process than entering into an agreement?
The agreement has clearly defined the territorial, maritime and fluvial domains of the BJE and effectively separated this from the currently defined territory of the Philippines. This means the Phils, as a result, will become a smaller state. The Constitution also defines the political subdivisions of the Philippines. The creation of a BJE makes changes on those political subdivisions and thus, again, constitute changes in the constitution. This highest law of the land provides that charter changes require a plebiscite by the people after a constitutional convention or the legislative department as a constituent assembly shall have reviewed such and made proposals therein.
It is just appropriate that a petition to prevent this agreement to be entered into was made and a subsequent grant to the petition was given by the Supreme Court. The provisions in this agreement should be a cause of alarm for the concerned citizens of the country. One cannot chip off a portion of its territory just because it wants to end insurgency in a locality. The solution to the problem of insurgents is not to give in to what they want. It is to look through history and review and understand the original rights and the subsequent rights that rose from thereon. The current situation speaks for itself. The failure on the agreement triggered violence and showed the real intent of the MILF. These group is not out to preserve the very land they profess to love for if it did, it would never abuse the resources by wrecking havoc to the place. Nor shall it even attempt to hurt its inhabitants, the Bangsamoros they claim to be part of the land and they vow to protect. The destruction of property and means of livelihood as well as the death of innocent inhabitants could have been prevented if government never gave hope to the MILFs on having a territory and government for themselves.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
GEORGIA – RUSSIA CONFLICT
I. BACKGROUND
On August 7, 2008, the tension between Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia grew to its highest peak when Georgia allegedly attacked a break-away region in South Ossetia. Russia allegedly fought back because it retaliated as Russian peacemakers within the region were killed. The attack was massive – involving land, air and sea. The war lasted for about five days.
As a result, effect of the Georgia-Russia war resulted in an estimated 30,000 refugees from South Ossetia fleeing into Russia. The territory has around 70,000 overall population. Meanwhile out 68,000 ethnic Georgians had fled their homes due to the conflict.
On 12 August 2008 Georgia instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Russia for violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The case (Georgia v. Russian Federation) was accepted by the court on 15 August. The first public hearings are planned on 8 September 2008.
A preliminary ceasefire was signed by Georgia and Russia on 15 August 2008. The Russian military has announced a ten-day withdrawal from advance positions, while Georgian authorities have expressed discontent with the rate and extent of the pull-back, and with the continuing Russian presence in the port of Poti. The six-point peace plan was established with the mediation of French President, Nicolas Sarkozy to get the two dignitaries Russian President Medvedev and Georgian President Saakashvili. The two parties agreed on the following points : no recourse to the use of force, definitive cessation of hostilities, free access to humanitarian aid, Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities while awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping force will implement additional security measures and finally, the opening of international discussions on the modalities of lasting security in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
On August 26, the Russian President formally recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia denounced this move as an annexation of its territory.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE CONFLICT
The Georgia-Russia war came to be because of years of tension (1992 to mid-2004) between the two countries as to sovereignty over South Ossetia. South Ossetia, which has a Georgian ethnic minority of around one fifth (14,000) of the total population (70,000), broke away from Georgia in the 1991–1992 war. Russia, on the other hand, was accused of issuing passports to the residents of this territory, first in order to lay claim on its people, with the intention of laying claim to its land. The attack of Georgia in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia was according to Russia a violation of the 1992 ceasefire agreement and Russia had to retaliate on what it claims as “acts of genocide”. Georgia upholds that South Ossetia is part of their republic and that the issues within is an internal conflict that no other state shall interfere in.
But what do the Ossetians really want? For 100 years now, South Ossetia wants independence and want to be recognized as a sovereignty within USSR. In fact, to manifest this further, Ossetians boycotted Georgian parliamentary elections and held their own contest in 1990. The Georgian government then, declared this election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status altogether. Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991. Many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned down as well along with Georgian houses and schools. As a result of the violence, approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and moved mostly to North Ossetia, a republic within the Russian Federation.
III. REACTIONS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Various and conflicting reactions were drawn from other states on the existing conflict. Some say that the Russians’ justification on the attack of Georgia was unacceptable It may be remembered that Russia’s attack was based on its need to “Russian” citizens and the peacekeepers in the area of conflict. Other states fear that Russia will not hesitate to attack other states as well to protect their citizens. The action of Russia was considered as aggression as South Ossetia is not a considered a state but part of Georgian jurisdiction. These states call for the recognition and due respect of the territorial integrity of Georgia. In fact, the Russian attack was seen as a crime against international law.
Other states condemn Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia as it undermined the peace in that region. Georgia is perceived to be an allay of the United States and thus was accused that the actions it brought upon South Ossetia were done upon advise of the US. Other states also criticized Georgian leadership for taking non peaceful measures against the separatist region. Concern was expressed on the damage and havoc caused by the war most especially to the innocent civilians of the place.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Georgia-Russia conflict, to my mind, goes deeper than territorial issues. First, the conflict is an offshoot of cultural issues. The composition and ancestral lineage of the population of South Ossetia clearly shows a different kind of people from the dominant race within Georgia. Thus, the cry for sovereignty, for identity for its own people. This is no different from the Muslim issue here in the Philippines. The territory wants to be recognized as a state so it can manifest its culture when dealing with internal as well as external affairs. The achievement of years of almost peaceful existence under a ceasefire agreement was broken because of another irritant, US alliance. It seems that although the USSR is now a broken strongman, the internal conflict with US has never really stopped. Russia will continue to run counter against the principles that US runs by. It will, if given the chance, continue to retaliate any seeming influence such country will have most especially with its neighboring countries. This is a sad reality but the great powers will continue to indirectly influence the affairs of the smaller states as they continue to depend on them for economic benefits, surety for scarce resources and even protection. Is there truly equality and independence of states?
On August 7, 2008, the tension between Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia grew to its highest peak when Georgia allegedly attacked a break-away region in South Ossetia. Russia allegedly fought back because it retaliated as Russian peacemakers within the region were killed. The attack was massive – involving land, air and sea. The war lasted for about five days.
As a result, effect of the Georgia-Russia war resulted in an estimated 30,000 refugees from South Ossetia fleeing into Russia. The territory has around 70,000 overall population. Meanwhile out 68,000 ethnic Georgians had fled their homes due to the conflict.
On 12 August 2008 Georgia instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Russia for violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The case (Georgia v. Russian Federation) was accepted by the court on 15 August. The first public hearings are planned on 8 September 2008.
A preliminary ceasefire was signed by Georgia and Russia on 15 August 2008. The Russian military has announced a ten-day withdrawal from advance positions, while Georgian authorities have expressed discontent with the rate and extent of the pull-back, and with the continuing Russian presence in the port of Poti. The six-point peace plan was established with the mediation of French President, Nicolas Sarkozy to get the two dignitaries Russian President Medvedev and Georgian President Saakashvili. The two parties agreed on the following points : no recourse to the use of force, definitive cessation of hostilities, free access to humanitarian aid, Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities while awaiting an international mechanism, Russian peacekeeping force will implement additional security measures and finally, the opening of international discussions on the modalities of lasting security in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
On August 26, the Russian President formally recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia denounced this move as an annexation of its territory.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE CONFLICT
The Georgia-Russia war came to be because of years of tension (1992 to mid-2004) between the two countries as to sovereignty over South Ossetia. South Ossetia, which has a Georgian ethnic minority of around one fifth (14,000) of the total population (70,000), broke away from Georgia in the 1991–1992 war. Russia, on the other hand, was accused of issuing passports to the residents of this territory, first in order to lay claim on its people, with the intention of laying claim to its land. The attack of Georgia in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia was according to Russia a violation of the 1992 ceasefire agreement and Russia had to retaliate on what it claims as “acts of genocide”. Georgia upholds that South Ossetia is part of their republic and that the issues within is an internal conflict that no other state shall interfere in.
But what do the Ossetians really want? For 100 years now, South Ossetia wants independence and want to be recognized as a sovereignty within USSR. In fact, to manifest this further, Ossetians boycotted Georgian parliamentary elections and held their own contest in 1990. The Georgian government then, declared this election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status altogether. Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991. Many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned down as well along with Georgian houses and schools. As a result of the violence, approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and moved mostly to North Ossetia, a republic within the Russian Federation.
III. REACTIONS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Various and conflicting reactions were drawn from other states on the existing conflict. Some say that the Russians’ justification on the attack of Georgia was unacceptable It may be remembered that Russia’s attack was based on its need to “Russian” citizens and the peacekeepers in the area of conflict. Other states fear that Russia will not hesitate to attack other states as well to protect their citizens. The action of Russia was considered as aggression as South Ossetia is not a considered a state but part of Georgian jurisdiction. These states call for the recognition and due respect of the territorial integrity of Georgia. In fact, the Russian attack was seen as a crime against international law.
Other states condemn Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia as it undermined the peace in that region. Georgia is perceived to be an allay of the United States and thus was accused that the actions it brought upon South Ossetia were done upon advise of the US. Other states also criticized Georgian leadership for taking non peaceful measures against the separatist region. Concern was expressed on the damage and havoc caused by the war most especially to the innocent civilians of the place.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Georgia-Russia conflict, to my mind, goes deeper than territorial issues. First, the conflict is an offshoot of cultural issues. The composition and ancestral lineage of the population of South Ossetia clearly shows a different kind of people from the dominant race within Georgia. Thus, the cry for sovereignty, for identity for its own people. This is no different from the Muslim issue here in the Philippines. The territory wants to be recognized as a state so it can manifest its culture when dealing with internal as well as external affairs. The achievement of years of almost peaceful existence under a ceasefire agreement was broken because of another irritant, US alliance. It seems that although the USSR is now a broken strongman, the internal conflict with US has never really stopped. Russia will continue to run counter against the principles that US runs by. It will, if given the chance, continue to retaliate any seeming influence such country will have most especially with its neighboring countries. This is a sad reality but the great powers will continue to indirectly influence the affairs of the smaller states as they continue to depend on them for economic benefits, surety for scarce resources and even protection. Is there truly equality and independence of states?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pimentel vs Executive Secretary GR 158088 July 6, 2005
Facts
This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the Supreme Court to require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.
It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law. Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.[5]
The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, questioned the standing of the petitioners to file the instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy of courts. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents argue that the executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
Issue
Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute (or any treaty) to the Senate for concurrence.
Ruling
The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this wise:
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as between the parties.
Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even “collapse” in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them.
The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.
Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.
This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the Supreme Court to require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.
It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law. Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.[5]
The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, questioned the standing of the petitioners to file the instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy of courts. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents argue that the executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
Issue
Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute (or any treaty) to the Senate for concurrence.
Ruling
The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this wise:
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as between the parties.
Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even “collapse” in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them.
The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.
Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
HIGHLIGHTS
1. The International Criminal Court is a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.
2. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.
The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.
3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
a. Genocide - " means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
b. Crimes against humanity - means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
• Murder;
• Extermination;
• Enslavement;
• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• Torture;
• Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
• Enforced disappearance of persons;
• The crime of apartheid;
• Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
c. War crimes - includes
• Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
• Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law
• In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
d. The crime of aggression
4. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime :
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.
. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation
5. The Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
6. The Court shall apply first this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict. Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.
7. The ICC follows the following principles of criminal law :
a. Nullum crimen sine lege
b. Nulla poena sine lege
c. Non-retroactivity ratione personae
d. Individual criminal responsibility – natural persons only
e. Exclusion of jurisdiction over persons under eighteen
f. Irrelevance of official capacity
g. Responsibility of commanders and other superiors
h. Non-applicability of statute of limitations
i. Mental element – intent and knowledge
j. Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility – i.e. mental illness; self defense;
k. Mistake of fact or mistake of law
l. Superior orders and prescription of law
8. The Court shall be composed of the following organs:
(a) The Presidency
The President, together with the First and Second Vice-Presidents, shall constitute the Presidency, which shall be responsible for:
• The proper administration of the Court, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor;
• The other functions conferred upon it in accordance with this Statute.
(b) An Appeals Division, a Trial Division and a Pre-Trial Division;
As soon as possible after the election of the judges, the Court shall organize itself into the divisions specified in article 34, paragraph (b). The Appeals Division shall be composed of the President and four other judges, the Trial Division of not less than six judges and the Pre-Trial Division of not less than six judges. The assignment of judges to divisions shall be based on the nature of the functions to be performed by each division and the qualifications and experience of the judges elected to the Court, in such a way that each division shall contain an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and in international law. The Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions shall be composed predominantly of judges with criminal trial experience
(c) The Office of the Prosecutor;
The Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently as a separate organ of the Court. It shall be responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. A member of the Office shall not seek or act on instructions from any external source.
(d) The Registry.
. The Registry shall be responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court, without prejudice to the functions and powers of the Prosecutor in accordance with article 42.
9. The Prosecutor shall, having evaluated the information made available to him or her, initiate an investigation unless he or she determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed under this Statute. In deciding whether to initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor shall consider whether:
• The information available to the Prosecutor provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
• The case is or would be admissible under article 17; and
• Taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.
If the Prosecutor determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed and his or her determination is based solely on subparagraph (c) above, he or she shall inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.
10. In respect of an investigation under this Statute, a person:
(a) Shall not be compelled to incriminate himself or herself or to confess guilt;
(b) Shall not be subjected to any form of coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(c) Shall, if questioned in a language other than a language the person fully understands and speaks, have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness; and
(d) Shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and shall not be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established in this Statute.
11. Where there are grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court and that person is about to be questioned either by the Prosecutor, or by national authorities pursuant to a request made under Part 9, that person shall also have the following rights of which he or she shall be informed prior to being questioned:
(a) To be informed, prior to being questioned, that there are grounds to believe that he or she has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) To remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;
(c) To have legal assistance of the person's choosing, or, if the person does not have legal assistance, to have legal assistance assigned to him or her, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by the person in any such case if the person does not have sufficient means to pay for it; and
(d) To be questioned in the presence of counsel unless the person has voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.
12. Where the Prosecutor considers an investigation to present a unique opportunity to take testimony or a statement from a witness or to examine, collect or test evidence, which may not be available subsequently for the purposes of a trial, the Prosecutor shall so inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.
In that case, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor, take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings and, in particular, to protect the rights of the defence.
Unless the Pre-Trial Chamber orders otherwise, the Prosecutor shall provide the relevant information to the person who has been arrested or appeared in response to a summons in connection with the investigation referred to in subparagraph (a), in order that he or she may be heard on the matter.
13. A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9.
A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that:
(a) The warrant applies to that person;
(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
(c) The person's rights have been respected.
The person arrested shall have the right to apply to the competent authority in the custodial State for interim release pending surrender.
14. Unless otherwise decided, the place of the trial shall be the seat of the Court. The accused shall be present during the trial. If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be taken only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required. Upon assignment of a case for trial in accordance with this Statute, the Trial Chamber assigned to deal with the case shall:
(a) Confer with the parties and adopt such procedures as are necessary to facilitate the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings;
(b) Determine the language or languages to be used at trial; and
(c) Subject to any other relevant provisions of this Statute, provide for disclosure of documents or information not previously disclosed, sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the trial to enable adequate preparation for trial.
15. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the determination of any charge, the accused shall be entitled to a public hearing, having regard to the provisions of this Statute, to a fair hearing conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused's choosing in confidence;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
16. The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the Court shall have regard to all relevant factors, including age, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health, and the nature of the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The Prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
17. Before testifying, each witness shall, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, give an undertaking as to the truthfulness of the evidence to be given by that witness. The testimony of a witness at trial shall be given in person, except to the extent provided by the measures set forth in article 68 or in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Court may also permit the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts, subject to this Statute and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused. The parties may submit evidence relevant to the case, in accordance with article 64. The Court shall have the authority to request the submission of all evidence that it considers necessary for the determination of the truth. The Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, inter alia, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Trial Chamber's decision shall be based on its evaluation of the evidence and the entire proceedings. The decision shall not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges and any amendments to the charges. The Court may base its decision only on evidence submitted and discussed before it at the trial. The judges shall attempt to achieve unanimity in their decision, failing which the decision shall be taken by a majority of the judges. The deliberations of the Trial Chamber shall remain secret.
18. The decision shall be in writing and shall contain a full and reasoned statement of the Trial Chamber's findings on the evidence and conclusions. The Trial Chamber shall issue one decision. When there is no unanimity, the Trial Chamber's decision shall contain the views of the majority and the minority. The decision or a summary thereof shall be delivered in open court.
19. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:
(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:
(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.
20. A decision under article 74 may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as follows:
(a) The Prosecutor may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact, or
(iii) Error of law;
(b) The convicted person, or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf, may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact,
(iii) Error of law, or
(iv) Any other ground that affects the fairness or reliability of the proceedings or decision.
Link : http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm
1. The International Criminal Court is a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.
2. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.
The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.
3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
a. Genocide - " means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
b. Crimes against humanity - means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
• Murder;
• Extermination;
• Enslavement;
• Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• Torture;
• Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
• Enforced disappearance of persons;
• The crime of apartheid;
• Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
c. War crimes - includes
• Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
• Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law
• In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
d. The crime of aggression
4. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime :
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.
. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation
5. The Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
6. The Court shall apply first this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict. Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.
7. The ICC follows the following principles of criminal law :
a. Nullum crimen sine lege
b. Nulla poena sine lege
c. Non-retroactivity ratione personae
d. Individual criminal responsibility – natural persons only
e. Exclusion of jurisdiction over persons under eighteen
f. Irrelevance of official capacity
g. Responsibility of commanders and other superiors
h. Non-applicability of statute of limitations
i. Mental element – intent and knowledge
j. Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility – i.e. mental illness; self defense;
k. Mistake of fact or mistake of law
l. Superior orders and prescription of law
8. The Court shall be composed of the following organs:
(a) The Presidency
The President, together with the First and Second Vice-Presidents, shall constitute the Presidency, which shall be responsible for:
• The proper administration of the Court, with the exception of the Office of the Prosecutor;
• The other functions conferred upon it in accordance with this Statute.
(b) An Appeals Division, a Trial Division and a Pre-Trial Division;
As soon as possible after the election of the judges, the Court shall organize itself into the divisions specified in article 34, paragraph (b). The Appeals Division shall be composed of the President and four other judges, the Trial Division of not less than six judges and the Pre-Trial Division of not less than six judges. The assignment of judges to divisions shall be based on the nature of the functions to be performed by each division and the qualifications and experience of the judges elected to the Court, in such a way that each division shall contain an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and in international law. The Trial and Pre-Trial Divisions shall be composed predominantly of judges with criminal trial experience
(c) The Office of the Prosecutor;
The Office of the Prosecutor shall act independently as a separate organ of the Court. It shall be responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting investigations and prosecutions before the Court. A member of the Office shall not seek or act on instructions from any external source.
(d) The Registry.
. The Registry shall be responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and servicing of the Court, without prejudice to the functions and powers of the Prosecutor in accordance with article 42.
9. The Prosecutor shall, having evaluated the information made available to him or her, initiate an investigation unless he or she determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed under this Statute. In deciding whether to initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor shall consider whether:
• The information available to the Prosecutor provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
• The case is or would be admissible under article 17; and
• Taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.
If the Prosecutor determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed and his or her determination is based solely on subparagraph (c) above, he or she shall inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.
10. In respect of an investigation under this Statute, a person:
(a) Shall not be compelled to incriminate himself or herself or to confess guilt;
(b) Shall not be subjected to any form of coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(c) Shall, if questioned in a language other than a language the person fully understands and speaks, have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness; and
(d) Shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and shall not be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established in this Statute.
11. Where there are grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court and that person is about to be questioned either by the Prosecutor, or by national authorities pursuant to a request made under Part 9, that person shall also have the following rights of which he or she shall be informed prior to being questioned:
(a) To be informed, prior to being questioned, that there are grounds to believe that he or she has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(b) To remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;
(c) To have legal assistance of the person's choosing, or, if the person does not have legal assistance, to have legal assistance assigned to him or her, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by the person in any such case if the person does not have sufficient means to pay for it; and
(d) To be questioned in the presence of counsel unless the person has voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.
12. Where the Prosecutor considers an investigation to present a unique opportunity to take testimony or a statement from a witness or to examine, collect or test evidence, which may not be available subsequently for the purposes of a trial, the Prosecutor shall so inform the Pre-Trial Chamber.
In that case, the Pre-Trial Chamber may, upon request of the Prosecutor, take such measures as may be necessary to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings and, in particular, to protect the rights of the defence.
Unless the Pre-Trial Chamber orders otherwise, the Prosecutor shall provide the relevant information to the person who has been arrested or appeared in response to a summons in connection with the investigation referred to in subparagraph (a), in order that he or she may be heard on the matter.
13. A State Party which has received a request for provisional arrest or for arrest and surrender shall immediately take steps to arrest the person in question in accordance with its laws and the provisions of Part 9.
A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State, that:
(a) The warrant applies to that person;
(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
(c) The person's rights have been respected.
The person arrested shall have the right to apply to the competent authority in the custodial State for interim release pending surrender.
14. Unless otherwise decided, the place of the trial shall be the seat of the Court. The accused shall be present during the trial. If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial, the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall be taken only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required. Upon assignment of a case for trial in accordance with this Statute, the Trial Chamber assigned to deal with the case shall:
(a) Confer with the parties and adopt such procedures as are necessary to facilitate the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings;
(b) Determine the language or languages to be used at trial; and
(c) Subject to any other relevant provisions of this Statute, provide for disclosure of documents or information not previously disclosed, sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the trial to enable adequate preparation for trial.
15. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the determination of any charge, the accused shall be entitled to a public hearing, having regard to the provisions of this Statute, to a fair hearing conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused's choosing in confidence;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
16. The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. In so doing, the Court shall have regard to all relevant factors, including age, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, and health, and the nature of the crime, in particular, but not limited to, where the crime involves sexual or gender violence or violence against children. The Prosecutor shall take such measures particularly during the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
17. Before testifying, each witness shall, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, give an undertaking as to the truthfulness of the evidence to be given by that witness. The testimony of a witness at trial shall be given in person, except to the extent provided by the measures set forth in article 68 or in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Court may also permit the giving of viva voce (oral) or recorded testimony of a witness by means of video or audio technology, as well as the introduction of documents or written transcripts, subject to this Statute and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. These measures shall not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused. The parties may submit evidence relevant to the case, in accordance with article 64. The Court shall have the authority to request the submission of all evidence that it considers necessary for the determination of the truth. The Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, inter alia, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Trial Chamber's decision shall be based on its evaluation of the evidence and the entire proceedings. The decision shall not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges and any amendments to the charges. The Court may base its decision only on evidence submitted and discussed before it at the trial. The judges shall attempt to achieve unanimity in their decision, failing which the decision shall be taken by a majority of the judges. The deliberations of the Trial Chamber shall remain secret.
18. The decision shall be in writing and shall contain a full and reasoned statement of the Trial Chamber's findings on the evidence and conclusions. The Trial Chamber shall issue one decision. When there is no unanimity, the Trial Chamber's decision shall contain the views of the majority and the minority. The decision or a summary thereof shall be delivered in open court.
19. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:
(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:
(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.
20. A decision under article 74 may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as follows:
(a) The Prosecutor may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact, or
(iii) Error of law;
(b) The convicted person, or the Prosecutor on that person's behalf, may make an appeal on any of the following grounds:
(i) Procedural error,
(ii) Error of fact,
(iii) Error of law, or
(iv) Any other ground that affects the fairness or reliability of the proceedings or decision.
Link : http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)