Source: https://b-ok.org/book/923273/1809e6
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:49:13+00:00

Document:
Main International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of ICTY (International Humanitarian Law Series,..
At the dawn of the International Criminal Court, the rich experience of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will prove to be the primary source of legal authorities for many years. The creation of the ICTY in 1993 heralded a new-found willingness of the international community to bring to book perpetrators of war crimes and gross or systematic violations of human rights. Written by academics and practitioners, and notably many "insiders" at the ICTY, this volume focuses particularly on the international and criminal law developments that have taken place in the practice and procedure of the Tribunal. Throughout are threads concerning the development and application of international criminal law not only by the ICTY, but also by the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the new International Criminal Court.
and practice of the international legal regulation of armed conlict.
Disarmament Law, and International Criminal Law.
USA. Fees are subject to change.
said to be unique and from which it is to be hoped others can learn.
of these decisions and no easily accessible way to get at them.
– if you want a monument, look around.
Boas & Schabas, eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY, vii-viii.
crimes and gross or systematic violations of human rights.
conlicts, and even in peacetime.
are being taken to expedite proceedings, all of this with an eye on retirement.
And in parallel, the International Criminal Court is inally being established.
prosecution of international crimes in so many ways.
Boas & Schabas, eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY, ix-xi.
Evidence of the International Criminal Court.
considers recent e orts to regulate, and to self-regulate, the profession.
in the case law of the Tribunal.
legal systems and how it has done so.
operation in  are also considered.
so to speak, and write as academics, that we can glimpse the unpublished dissents and, perhaps, the precedents of tomorrow. But we will leave this assessment to the readers.
Documents – Dzonli Testimony”, Case No. IT---PT,  April .
Protection of Victims and Witnesses, Case No. IT---PT,  July .
Co-counsel for Defendant Br anin, Case No. IT---T,  April .
Appeal By Hazim Deli , (Defects in the Form of the Indictment), Case No.
for the Redaction of the Public Record, Case No. IT---T,  June .
Prosecutor v. Dosen & Kolundžija, Decision on Preliminary Motions, Case No.
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment, Case No. IT--/-T,  December .
Prosecutor v. Gali , Decision, Case No. IT---AR,  November .
Prosecutor v. Gali , Order on Defence Motion for Provisional Release, Case No.
Assignment of Defence Counsel, Case No. IT--/-T,  September .
Amended Indictment, Count -, Case No. IT---PT,  January .
Ruling to Proceed by Deposition, Case No. IT---AR.,  July .
Assignment of Defence Counsel, Case No. IT---T,  September .
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  January .
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Joinder, Case No.
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Review of (Bosnia) Indictment, Case No.
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Order Inviting Designation of amicus curiae, Case No.
Motion for Provisional Release, Case No. IT---PT,  October .
of Procedure and Evidence, Case No. IT---R,  September .
Provided by SFOR and Others, Case No. IT---PT,  October .
Prosecutor v. Tadi , Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---A,  June .
Prosecutor v. Tadi , Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Case No.
Prosecutor v. Tadi , Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  May .
Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, Judgment, Case No. ICTR--A-T,  June .
Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment, Case No. ICTR---A,  October .
Prosecutor v. Serushago, Sentence, Case No. ICTR---S,  February .
German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, PCIJ Rep., Series A, No  ().
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion, PCIJ Rep., Series B, No.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Sta in Teheran Case (United States v.
Gea Catalan v. Spain (App. No. /), Judgment (Merits),  February .
X. v. Federal Republic of Germany (App. No. /), ()  Yearbook .
Alba Pietraroia v. Uruguay (No. /), UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/, p. .
Glenford Campbell v. Jamaica (No. /), U.N. Doc. CCPR//Add. , Vol.
Moriana Hernandes Valentini de Bassano v. Uruguay (No. /), UN Doc.
Calley v. Callaway,  F.d  (th Cir. ), cert. denied,  US  ().
Court of Casssation (Criminal Chamber),  December ,  ILR .
R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrate’s Court, ex parte Bennett, []  AC  (HL).
replicated in the Rules of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
considerations in assessing their fairness and credibility.
Rules whilst also interpreting them and developing their meaning and comprehension in a judicial capacity. is tension will be analysed.
Evidence: Nuremberg, Tokyo, e Hague, and Arusha”, ()  Colum. J.
Boas & Schabas, eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY, -.
©  Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands.
how the Tribunal has utilised di erent aspects of these systems of law.
not the ICTY Rules can be properly described as a code of evidence and procedure for international criminal law.
UN Doc. S/RES/ (), para. .
A Code of Evidence and Procedure?
Resolution  ()”, UN Doc. S/, para. .
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Documentary History and Analysis, , pp.
Addressed to the Secretary-General”, UN Doc. S/, Article .
United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General (April , )”, UN Doc.
United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/.
. Virginia Morris & Michael P. Scharf, supra note , p. .
the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General (April , )”, UN Doc.
proposal addressed to all judges.
unanimously approved by the judges.
(C) Proposals for amendment of the Rules may otherwise be made in accordance with the Practice Direction issued by the President.
to prejudice the rights of the accused in any pending case.
ICC: Some Procedural and Substantive Issues”, ()  Netherlands Int’l L. Rev.
Tribunal”, IT/,  December .
judges on short-term appointment for the limited purpose of hearing speciic trials.
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, ()  Crim. L. Forum .
the manner in which amendments are to be made to the Rules of the ICTY.
ICTY Rules have been amended since their creation.
rules were amended, seven new rules were adopted and one rule was deleted.
constant and sometimes dramatic amendments preceding such an overhaul.
December , the Rules have been amended at least twice each year.
Set Aside the Decision of the Appeals Chamber of  July , Case No. IT--ARbis,  August , paras. -.
force seven days after the date of issue of an o cial Tribunal document containing the amendment”. Prior to this amendment, the Rule provided that amendments should enter into force immediately.
in obtaining information from non-governmental organisations and other bodies.
Case No. IT--,  July .
twenty-ifth session of the Plenary, IT/,  December .
e Bureau is set up under Rule . It is comprised of the President, VicePresident and presiding judges of the Trial Chambers for the purpose of discussing “all major questions relating to the functioning of the Tribunal”.
the rules, like the judges of the ICTY, subject to the approval of States parties.
. Rome Statute, ibid., Article ().
Court and are transmitted to the States parties.
provisional rules referred to in article 51, paragraph 3.
Crimes, National and International Approaches, , pp. , -.
Article  is paragraph , allowing for the urgent adoption of provisional rules.
would seem probable that the urgent amendment provision will be used sparingly.
It appears likely that this was a reaction against the ICTY and ICTR precedents, where the judges were, in a sense, both rule-makers and decision-makers.
Preliminary Relections”, ()  Eur. J. Int’l L. .
the ICC might opt for a more jurisprudentially oriented approach, instead of recodifying and clarifying their development, as has taken place in the ICTY.
potential pitfalls are discussed in detail below.
clariied by the Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Judgment, Case No.
IT---A,  October , para. .
Rules of Evidence, Case No. ICTR---T,  July .
interference of the judiciary in this task.
the absence of one or more of its members”.
and Evidence of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals”, ()  Int’l Crim.
L. Rev. , p. .
to Proceed by Deposition, Case No. IT---AR.,  July , para. .
over the objection of the accused).
December  by authority of IT/,  November .
continue in the absence of that judge for a period of not more than three days.
Chamber so orders, the witnesses shall be called for cross-examination.
Rules require a two-thirds majority vote).
. Ibid.,  May , p. .
. Ibid.,  May , p.  and Rule ter.
witness has been subjected to cross-examination.
Ibid.,  May , p. .
Ibid.,  May , p. .
Ibid.,  May , p. .
Ibid.,  June , p. .
Ibid.,  May , p. .
Ibid.,  May , pp. -.
Ibid.,  July , pp. -.
Ibid.,  May , pp. -.
only a technical requirement but also upholds the rights of the opposing party.
Evidence of Seven A davits and One Formal Statement, Case No. IT--/AR.,  September , para.  (footnotes omitted).
by deleting that Rule and creating a new Rule bis.
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, supra note , para. .
Rules entered into force on  January , pursuant to IT/,  January .
. For an analysis of Rule bis, see Gideon Boas, supra note .
. See also, Daryl Mundis, supra note , pp. -.
whether multiple sentences shall be served consecutively or concurrently”.
single sentence relecting the totality of the criminal conduct of the accused.
exercise of an existing authority (“unless it decides to exercise its power…”).
. For a discussion of these cases, see Daryl Mundis, supra note ..
. Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment, Case No. ICTR---A,  October .
an international criminal law jurisdiction.
parties to be able to rely upon their interpretation at an appellate level.
appropriate. e ICTY is the irst international criminal jurisdiction to prosecute a broad scope of crimes in violation of international humanitarian law.
reasoning when they amend the Rules, or to publish the debates in Plenary.
used as a basis for interpreting legislation.
civil law systems of criminal justice better achieve the goals of criminal justice?
two systems of criminal law.
. See Rules ,  and .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.