Reference:
Fedorchenko A.A..
Procedural rights of victims in the judicial proceedings of the international criminal tribunals ad hoc.
// Legal Studies. – 2014. – № 4.
– P. 208-224.
DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2014.4.11695.
DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2014.4.11695
Read the article
Abstract: The article concerns three existing forms of participation of victims in the processes of the international criminal tribunals ad hoc: as witnesses, as amicus curiae, as significant statements of victims. The author analyzes the rules for the functioning of hte international criminal ad hoc tribunals and their judical practice. The author notes considerable difference in attitude towards regulation of access of victims as such to the judicial proceedings in the ad hoc tribunals and the permanent criminal court (the International Criminal Court). In the tribunals the victims as such do not gain much of a right to participate, they are just involved as witnesses. Therefore, the ad hoc tribunals fail to recognize that the victims may have lawful interests in the participation in the proceedings in this very status. The tribunals have made attempts to change the rules, and the significant statements of victims were introduced. However, the Prosecutor remains the main source of protection of the interests of victims, since the victims have no access to tribunals. Obviously, this unfortunate experience of the tribunal caused the ICC to take a different approach towards the victims. Their access to the hearings is acceptable, while the provisions regulating this access are not sufficiently clear, and are rather ambigous.
Keywords: international law, international criminal court, international criminal tribunals, international criminal process, complainant, victim, party to the process, judicial proceedings, injured party, ad hoc
References:
Human Rights Watch 1999, Section 11, Part A.
Pravilo 92. Sm takzhe: Rimskiy statut st. 15(6) i Pravila 16, 49, 50, 74, 87, 95, 96 i 99.
CoE Doc. Recommendation No. R (85) 11 and EU Doc. OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 2 (Article 4).
UN Doc. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, par. 13(d).
UN Victim Declaration, st. 6(a).
Kambanda Judgement, par. 42. 19.Krstić Judgement, pars. 701-703.
Foča Judgement, pars. 864, 874 and 879. See also Foča Appeal Judgement, pars. 352 and 354-355.
Blaškić Judgement, pars. 784 and 786-787, Čelebići Judgement, pars. 1225-1226, 1260 i 1273, Erdemović Sentencing Judgement II, par. 15, Kordicand Cerkez Judgement, par. 847, Tadić Sentencing Judgement I, par. 56 i Tadić Sentencing Judgement II, par.
Cyangugu Decision of 24 May 2001, pp. 6-7.
Handbook on Justice for Victims 1999.
Čelebići Judgement, par. 1263, Mrkšić et al. Order of 8 June 1998, Tadić Sentencing Judgement I, par. 4 and Todo