States’ obligations to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes: the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316134115.030

21 - States’ obligations to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes: the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights

from PART IV (Continued) - Interpretation and application

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014

Harmen Van Der Wilt

Edited by

Carsten Stahn and

Mohamed M. El Zeidy

Show author details

Carsten Stahn: Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Mohamed M. El Zeidy: Affiliation:
International Criminal Court

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Although the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) operate within a different legal context and have different functions and goals, these courts definitely share some common ground. Both courts are expected to exercise subsidiary jurisdiction. The ICC's principle of complementarity dictates that a case is only admissible before the Court if a state is ‘unwilling or unable’ to carry out investigations and prosecute itself. In respect of the European Court, the court's subsidiary position comes to the fore in the ‘exhaustion of local remedies’ rule and in the provision that victims should enjoy an effective remedy under national law to have violations of their rights redressed (Article 13 ECHR). The philosophy sustaining the courts’ procedures emphasizes the primary obligations of states to deal adequately with human rights violations and international crimes.

This chapter seeks to explore whether the standards that have been developed by the European Court to expose member states as ‘under-achievers’ in respect of their procedural obligations may equally serve the ICC as useful guidelines in its assessment of ‘unwillingness’. The analysis of the European Court's case law indeed reveals that those standards bear striking resemblance to the Rome Statute's indicators of ‘unwillingness’. Section 4 of the chapter puts the findings and assumptions to a critical test. After all, the distinctive aims of the courts should not be ignored. Whereas the ICC may primarily be interested in the substantive quality of the state's administration of criminal justice, the European Court is likely to stress the fairness of criminal procedures. In spite of these different perspectives, so the chapter concludes, the standards of the European Court on procedural obligations serve the ICC as a highly useful frame of reference in order to find its way in largely uncharted terrain.

Type: Chapter
Information: The International Criminal Court and Complementarity
From Theory to Practice
, pp. 685 - 706

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316134115.030 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kress, C., ‘“Self-Referrals” and “Waivers of Complementarity”: Some Considerations in Law and Policy’, (2004) 2 JICJ 944–8Google Scholar

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Auto-referrals and the Complementary Nature of the ICC’, in C. Stahn and G. Sluiter (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009), 41–53

Schabas, W. A., ‘Complementarity in Practice: Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts’, (2007) 19 Crim. L.F. 5Google Scholar

El Zeidy, M., ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Test of the Complementarity Principle: An Assessment of the First State's Party Referral to the ICC’, (2005) 5 Int'l Crim. L. Rev. 83–119CrossRef Google Scholar

Coomans, F., Grünfeld, F., Westendorp, I. and Willems, J. (eds.) Rendering Justice to the Vulnerable; Liber Amicorum in Honour of Theo van Boven (2000), 323–39

Kleffner, J. K., Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Jurisdictions (2007), 120

van der Wilt, H. and Lyngdorf, S., ‘Procedural Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: Useful Guidelines for the Assessment of “Unwillingness” and “Inability” in the Context of the Complementarity Principle’ (2009) 9 Int'l Crim. L. Rev.39CrossRef Google Scholar

Prevost, R., International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2002)

Staal, C. J., De vaststelling van de reikwijdte van de rechten van de mens (1995), 107–12

Nollkaemper, A., ‘Concurrence between Individual Responsibility and State Responsibility in International Law’, (2003) 52 ICLQ615CrossRef Google Scholar

Nollkaemper, A. and van der Wilt, H. (eds.), System Criminality in International Law (2009)

Turkey, Yaşa v., ECtHR, Decision, 2 September 1998; confirmed in Luluyev and others v. Russia, ECtHR, Decision, 9 November 2006, and Bazorkina, supra note 24

Rojo, E. C., ‘The Role of Fair Trial Considerations in the Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court: From “No Peace without Justice” to “No Peace with Victor's Justice?”’ (2005) 18 LJIL829CrossRef Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., ‘The Shadow Side of Complementarity: The Effect of Article 17 of the Rome Statute on National Due Process’, (2006) 17 Crim. L.F.255CrossRef Google Scholar

Bassiouni, M. C., Introduction to International Criminal Law (2003), 518

Gurulé, J., ‘United States Opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court: Is the Court's Jurisdiction Truly Complementary to National Criminal's Jurisdictions?’, (2001/2002) 35 Cornell Int'l LJ. 1, 23Google Scholar

Lee, R. S. (ed.), Introduction to the International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (1999), 49

Bohlander, M., ‘Last Exit Bosnia -- Transferring War Crimes Prosecution from the International Tribunal to Domestic Courts’, (2003) 14 Crim. L.F.59CrossRef Google Scholar

Raab, D., ‘Evaluating the ICTY and its Completion Strategy’, (2005) 3 JICJ82Google Scholar

Dieckmann, J. and Kerll, C., ‘UN Ad Hoc Tribunals Under Time Pressure – Completion Strategy and Referral Practice of the ICTY and ICTR from the Perspective of the Defence’, (2008) 8 ICLR87–108Google Scholar