Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_nz_rule100
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:57:47+00:00

Document:
No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court, respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4).
The manual further provides that it is a grave breach “to deprive [a prisoner of war] of his rights to a fair and regular trial” and to “wilfully deprive a protected civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1702(2) and 1702(3)(d).
The manual also states that depriving “any person protected by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or the [1977 Additional] Protocol [I] of a fair and regular trial” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1703(4)(e).
With regard to non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1807(1)(d).
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vi) and (c)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
 I am satisfied that the right to a fair ultimate trial is absolute and that New Zealand law will not permit conduct in this country which will imperil such right, whether the trial is to take place here or elsewhere. There are a number of pointers, all to the same conclusion.
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and the law.
 In R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 3)  1 AC 147, 197 Lord Browne-Wilkinson cited the Nuremberg principles of international law. He observed that while the concept of personal liability under international law for international crimes is of comparatively recent growth, at least from the date of the General Assembly’s affirmation, the concept of personal liability for a crime under international law must have been part of international law.
 The same must apply to the principles formulated as to the rights of an accused. The Lords’ approach in Pinochet is consistent, for present purposes, with the recent recognition of the Geneva Conventions as part of the domestic law of the United States of America in Hamdan v Rumsfeld 126 S Ct 2749 (2006) (case 05-184). The discussion of Pinochet in Jones v Ministry of the Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya as Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)  2 WLR 1424 (HL) leaves the present point unaffected.
As expressions of the right to a fair trial these must be regarded not merely as undertakings by the states which, like New Zealand, have acceded to the treaties but as rules of international law.
Given the status of the Nuremberg principles and the decisions in Pinochet and Hamdan, I accept Mr Illingworth’s submission that the right to a fair trial must be accepted via international law as a rule of New Zealand law.
 The importance of that conclusion is that it relieves X from having to rely on either rules of the common law or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to establish his right in New Zealand to ensure that nothing occurring in this state will impede a fair trial of any genocide charges, if pursued. But I am satisfied that both the common law and the Bill of Rights require the same conclusion.
New Zealand, High Court Auckland, X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority, Judgment, 14 July 2006, §§ 42–48.
Prisoners may only be tried by a civil court if the Detaining Power’s Forces may be so tried for the offence involved, and provided the tribunal offers the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality generally recognised as compatible with the rule of law.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 930(1).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4); see also § 1815(1).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(d).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1815(1)(d).
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Before any disciplinary punishment is awarded, the accused internee shall be given precise information regarding the offences of which he is accused”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(a).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1330(1); see also § 1815(2)(a).
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that a prisoner of war “must be allowed to present his defence and be represented by qualified counsel or an advocate”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 932(2); see also § 1130 (civilian internees).
With respect to occupied territory, the manual states that accused persons “have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who must be able to visit them freely and to enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1330(2) and (4).
Insofar as civilians accused of war crimes are held by a Power of which they are not nationals, they are entitled to the safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less than those provided for prisoners of war by Articles 105 to 108 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III].
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1716.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, the manual states that, as a minimum, “the accused shall be … afforded all the necessary rights and means of defence”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1815(2)(a).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1129(5).
The manual further provides that the accused “must be brought to trial as rapidly as possible”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1330(1).
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that the accused “shall have recourse, if necessary, to the services of a qualified interpreter”.
Both during the preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court, the accused must be aided by an interpreter, unless such assistance is voluntarily waived. Similarly, an accused has the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states, in an explanatory footnote: “No prisoner may be tried in absentia”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 932(3), footnote 145.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(e).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1815(4)(e).
New Zealand’s Court Martial Act (2007) provides that the “Court Martial … must sit in the presence of the accused”.
New Zealand, Court Martial Act, 2007, § 37(1).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(f).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1815(4)(f).
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that prisoners charged with offences shall be informed “with details as to the right of appeal”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(j).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1815(2).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 931(1).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1128.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137(4)(h).

References: § 1137
 § 1703
 § 1807
 § 930
 § 1137
 § 1815
 § 1137
 § 1815
 § 1137
 § 1330
 § 1815
 § 932
 § 1130
 § 1330
 § 1716
 § 1815
 § 1129
 § 1330
 § 932
 § 1137
 § 1815
 § 37
 § 1137
 § 1815
 § 1137
 § 1815
 § 931
 § 1128
 § 1137