Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:46:41.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Complementarity Regime of the International Criminal Court in Practice: Is it Truly Serving the Purpose? Some Lessons from Libya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

NIDAL NABIL JURDI
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interplay between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and domestic jurisdictions under the complementarity regime has unveiled statutory and policy limitations. These loopholes became vivid when the ICC faced new complex situations that were not initially envisaged by the drafters of the Rome Statute. On the practical side, the Libyan situation revealed setbacks and shortages in the policy(ies) adopted by the ICC. The first of these setbacks is the apparent lack of a coherent strategy on positive complementarity as invoked by (some) organs of the Court. The second aspect is the Court's adoption of a restrictive interpretation of the constituencies of the complementarity regime, making it extremely difficult even for some willing and able states to exercise their primary duty to prosecute core international crimes.

The unfortunate loose interpretation of ‘unavailability’ that the ICC has developed has led to inaccurate interpretations of the complementarity mechanism in certain situations, such as Libya. Furthermore, the fair trial standards within the admissibility regime should not be exaggerated, but rather invoked to determine whether the state has a bona fide intention to investigate and prosecute these crimes. Contrary to some writers’ interpretation, this is an objective test of intention, not one of relativity or specific result.

The ICC practice has shown a patchy approach that lacks a consistent and clear vision of its relation with domestic jurisdictions. While the ICC has not missed every opportunity to hail its commitment to positive complementarity, the reality is that the Court seems keen on understanding its success through conducting more international prosecutions.

Keywords

admissibilitycomplementaritydomestic jurisdictionsdue processunavailability
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 199 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2016 

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.)

References

1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9, Preamble, paras. 5, 6. Preambular paragraph four delineates that ‘. . . the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation’.

2 Dov Jacobs highlights the need to harmonize the current practice(s) of the ICC on complementarity. See D. Jacobs, ‘The ICC and Complementarity: A Tale of false promises and Mixed up Chameleons’, 11 December 2014, Post-Conflict Justice Conference, available at www.postconflictjustice.com/the-icc-and-complementarity-a-tale-of-false-promises-and-mixed-up-chameleons.

3 J.K. Kleffner, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (2008), 3.

4 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Preamble para. 6.

5 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 LJIL 829, at 832–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Crawford, J., ‘The ILC Adopts a Statute for an International Criminal Court’, (1995) 89 AJIL 404, at 414–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; El Zeidy, M., ‘The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law’, (2002) 23 Michigan Journal of International Law 869, at 896Google Scholar; M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice (2008), 157–8.

7 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Art. 17; The International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Paper on Some Policy Issues before the Office of the Prosecutor (2003) ICC-OTP 2003, 1–9, at 4–5.

8 Holmes, J.T., ‘Complementarity: National Courts versus the International Criminal Court’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J.D. (eds.), The ICC Statute of The International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol I, (2002), 677 Google Scholar.

9 See Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, ICC-01/11-01/11-344-Red, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 31 May 2013.

10 Cárdenas, C., ‘The Admissibility Test Before the International Criminal Court under Special Consideration of Amnesties and Truth Commissions’, in Kleffner, et al. (eds.), Complementary Views on Complementarity Proceedings of the International Roundtable on the Complementary Nature of the International Criminal Court (2006), 8 Google Scholar.

11 Bassiouni, C., ‘The ICC - Quo Vadis’, (2006) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 421, at 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, vol. II, UN Doc. A/51/22 (1996), UN GAOR, 51st Session, Supp. No. 22, at 1 [‘Preparatory Committee Report’].

13 ILC, Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court: Commentary to the Preamble, 1994 YILC, Vol. II (Part Two), at 27.

14 See Brown, D.J., ‘The International Criminal Court and Trial In Absentia ’, (1999) 24 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 763 Google Scholar.

15 Oxford Dictionaries, available at www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/unavailable.

16 Informal Expert Paper: The Principle of Complementarity in Practice, ICC-OTP 2003, 1–38, at 15.

17 In the Informal Expert Paper, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) sought the opinion of experts to flesh out the textual meaning of the constituencies of Article 17 – including ‘unavailability’; ibid., at 14.

18 Ibid., at 31.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Art. 17(3).

22 Criticisms against some arguments raised by the Informal Expert Paper can be noted. For instance, see Walker, A., ‘The ICC Versus Libya: How to End the Cycle of Impunity for Atrocity Crimes by Protecting Due Process’, (2014) 18 UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 303, at 331Google Scholar.

23 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Preamble, para. 5; see also Williams, S.A., ‘Article 17: Admissibility’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999), 386 Google Scholar.

24 Preparatory Committee Report, supra note 12.

25 Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, supra note 9, para. 215.

26 Heller, K.J., ‘The Shadow Side of Complementarity: The Effect of Article 17 of the Rome Statute on National Due Process’, (2006) 17 Criminal Law Forum 255, at 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 See Kleffner, supra note 3, at 131; C. Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, (2003), 518; Ellis, M.S., ‘The International Criminal Court and Its Implication for Domestic Law and National Capacity Building’, (2002) 15 Florida Journal of International Law 215, at 241Google Scholar; Solera, O., ‘Complementary Jurisdiction and International Criminal Justice’, (2002) 84 International Review of the Red Cross 145, at 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stahn, C., ‘Complementarity, Amnesties, and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court’, (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 695, at 713CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Ibid., at 713.

29 See Heller, supra note 26, at 255; Mégret, F. and Giles Samson, M., ‘Holding the Line on Complementarity in Libya: The Case for Tolerating Flawed Domestic Trials’, (2013) 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice 571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 See Heller, supra note 26, at 262.

31 Ibid., at 261.

32 See Rojo, supra note 5, at 835.

33 Ibid., at 836.

34 Ibid., at 826.

35 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Preamble.

36 See Walker, supra note 22, at 315.

37 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 6 September 1995, UN GAOR, 50th Session, Supp. No. 22, UN Doc. A/50/22 (1995), paras. 41, 43, 45, 162, 177 and 180.

38 Comments Received Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of General Assembly Resolution 49/53, UN Doc. A/AC.244/1/Add.2, at 21. For further discussion, see Rojo, supra note 5, at 829.

39 The relevant paragraph of the Italian proposal read: ‘2. In deciding on issues of admissibility under this article, the Court shall consider whether: . . . (ii) the said investigations or proceedings have been, or are impartial or independent, or were or are designed to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility, or were or are conducted with full respect for the fundamental rights of the accused;. . .’ Draft Proposal by Italy on Article 35, 44, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.3/IP.4 (5 August 1997).

40 See Rojo, supra note 5, at 845.

41 See Walker, supra note 22, at 324; see Rojo, supra note 5, at 840.

42 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, ICC-ASP/1/3 (A) (2000), Rule 51.

43 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.

44 Bo, M., ‘The Situation in Libya and The ICC's Understanding of Complementarity in The Context of UNSC-Referred Cases’, (2014) 25 Criminal Law Forum 505, at 533CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Art. 17(1)(b).

46 Informal Expert Paper, supra note 16, at 15.

47 See Bo, supra note 44, at 533.

48 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Art.19.

49 See Holmes, supra note 8, at 50.

50 K.J. Heller, ‘Why the failure to Provide Saif with Due Process is Relevant to Libya's Admissibility Challenge’, 2 August 2012, Opinio Juris, available at www.opiniojuris.org/2012/08/02/why-the-failure-to-provide-saif-with-due-process-is-relevant-to-libyas-admissibility-challenge/.

51 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 999 UNTS 171, Arts. 9, 14.

52 Rome Statute, supra note 1, Art. 17 (Arabic version), available at www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/284265/RomeStatuteAra.pdf.

53 For example, the documents below are samples in which the term ‘Taqdeem’ to justice is invoked to mean being investigated to establish accountability; See Amer Ali Aldoulaimy, ‘Salahiyat Almuddaai Ala'am Alqannunia lada Almahakem Aljina'ia Aldawliya Almua'qta wa Aldayema’ [The legal powers of the Prosecutor of permanent and ad hoc international criminal courts] Dar Ghaida Lill Nashr Wal Tawzeaa, Amman, Jordan, 2013, 134; ‘Bringing Terrorists to Justice: Challenges in prosecutions related to foreign terrorist fighters’ [Arabic], available at www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/2015/S_2015_123_AR.pdf; Amnesty International Arabic statement on Iraq, ‘The [daman Taqdeem Murtakibi Intihakat Huquq El-Insan lil-Muhakamah]’, available at www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/108000/mde140802003ar.pdf.

54 The obligation to prosecute or extradite for the core international crimes is to a large extent a settled customary norm in international law. See C. Bassiouni and E.M. Wise, Aut Dedare Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law (1995).

55 See Heller, supra note 26, at 260–1.

56 See Rojo, supra note 5, at 853.

57 The Law Dictionary, available at, www.thelawdictionary.org/intent/.

58 ICC Pre-Trial Chambers’ decisions on the cases within the Libyan situation will be discussed infra.

59 See supra note 27.

60 See Heller, supra note 26, at 262.

61 See Holmes, supra note 8, at 50; see also Rojo, supra note 5, at 847.

62 See Bo, supra note 44, at 537.

63 International Law Programme Meeting Summary, ‘The International Criminal Court and Libya: Complementarity in Conflict’, Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 22 September 2014, at 5.

64 See for example, inter alia, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497 OA 8, Appeals Chamber, 25 September 2009, para. 56.

65 Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, ICC-01/11-01/11-466-Red, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 11 October 2013, para. 307.

66 See Bo, supra note 44, at 537.

67 Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, supra note 9, para. 214.

68 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Judgment on the Appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled ‘Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute’, ICC-01/09-01/11-307 OA, Appeals Chamber, 30 August 2011, para. 83.

69 Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo, Public redacted version of Decision on Côte d'Ivoire's Challenge to the Admissibility of the Case Against Simone Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/12-47-Red, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 11 December 2014, para. 35.

70 Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Abdullah Al-Senussi against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, ICC-01/11-01/11-565 OA6, Appeals Chamber, 24 July 2014, para. 190.

71 This discussion is related to the Libyan situation during the period of Challenge of Admissibility. The recent major deterioration in the security situation that witnessed the fragmentation of the central government is beyond the scope of this article.

72 Bawabat Alwasat [Arabic], 28 December 2014, available at www.alwasat.ly/ar/news/libya/54089/.

73 Middle East Online [Arabic], available at www.middle-east-online.com/?id=191099.

74 Ibid.

75 See Alaraby Aljadeed [Arabic], 28 July 2015, available at www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/2015/7/28/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A

76 Alyoum 7 [Arabic], 25 July 2015, available at www.youm7.com/story/2015/7/25/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84/2276988#.VdDb1rffrIU.

77 Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Abdullah Al-Senussi Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled ‘Decision on the admissibility of the Case Against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, supra note 70, para. 190.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid., para 191.

80 For more details, read K.J. Heller, ‘OTP Responds to Libya's Admissibility Challenge’, Opinion Juris, available at www.opiniojuris.org/2012/06/07/otp-responds-to-libyas-admissibility-challenge/.

81 Public redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, Pre-Trial Chamber I, supra note 65, para. 27.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid., para. 87.

85 Decision on Côte d'Ivoire's Challenge to the Admissibility of the Case against Simone Gbagbo, supra note 69, para. 65.

86 Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, supra note 9, para. 215.

87 Ibid., para. 220.

88 Ibid., para. 205.

89 See Holmes, supra note 8, at 53–4; see also N.N. Jurdi, The International Criminal Court and National Courts: A Contentious Relationship (2011), 51.

90 Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, supra note 65.

91 See the discussion in Section 2 on the Gaps in the Complementarity Regime.

92 Informal Expert Paper, supra note 16, at 31.

93 Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Prosecution Response to ‘Libyan Government's Further Submission on Issues related to the Admissibility of the Case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi’, Office of the Prosecutor, Case no. ICC-01/11-01/11, 12 February 2013, para. 41.

94 The submissions of Libya in the case of Al-Senussi confirmed the strong nexus. For instance, at least three of the witness statements were of main relevance to the two cases. This highlights that the two cases, to a large extent, mirror similar facts. See Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, supra note 65, paras. 107, 110, and 111.

95 See Jurdi, N.N., ‘The Prosecutorial Interpretation of the Complementarity Principle: Does It Really Contribute to Ending Impunity on the National Level?’, (2010) 10 International Criminal Law Review 73–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 See supra note 76.

97 See Bo, supra note 44, at 531.

98 See Jurdi, supra note 95.

99 ‘LRA Rebel Dominic Ongwen Surrenders to US forces in CAR’, BBC, 7 January 2015, available at www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30705649.

100 See Holmes, supra note 8, at 51.

101 Public Redacted Decision on the Admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi, supra note 65.

102 Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 11 October 2013 entitled ‘Decision on the admissibility of the Case against Abdullah Al-Senussi’, supra note 70, para. 190.

103 See Heller, supra note 26, at 255; see also Mégret and Samson, supra note 29, at 571.