•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The interests of justice are criteria of the requirements under Article 53 of the Rome Statute to open a formal investigation of a case. However, it can be misinterpreted due to its lack of clear scopes and standards. The Afghanistan case highlighted this obscurity when The Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) decided that the case should not proceed due to the interests of justice despite lacking negative determination from the Prosecutor, and the Appeals Chamber (AC) overturned this decision by excluding the interests of justice from proprio motu cases. This article verifies the limitations of the criteria in international criminal law (ICL) through the interpretation of the Rome Statute. In addition, it includes the other ICC’s supporting documents and the application to previous cases. This study is of the position that, in the Afghanistan decision, the PTC had overstepped their authority and made an arbitrary decision. The AC had misinterpreted the conjunction between Article 53(3) and Article 15(4) by excluding requirements under Article 53 from proprio motu cases. Based on the opinion, the interpretation on the interests of justice to ensure the criteria still valid as a balancing mechanism under the Rome Statute is very urgent.

Menyeimbangkan Kepentingan Keadilan: Studi Putusan Pra-Peradilan dan Banding Mahkamah Pidana Internasional untuk Kasus Afghanistan

Abstrak

Kepentingan keadilan adalah salah satu kriteria dalam Pasal 53 Statuta Roma tentang pembukaan penyidikan kasus. Akan tetapi, kriteria ini sangat mungkin untuk disalahgunakan karena kurangnya kejelasan akan cakupan dan standarnya. Kasus Afghanistan adalah contoh hasil produk dari ketidakjelasan ini. Kamar pra-Peradilan (KPP) memutuskan untuk tidak melanjutkan kasus ini karena melawan kepentingan keadilan meskipun Jaksa menyatakan bahwa kepentingan keadilan telah terpenuhi. Kemudian, Kamar Banding (KB) membatalkan putusan tersebut dengan menyatakan bahwa kepentingan keadilan dalam Pasal 53 tidak seharusnya dipertimbangkan dalam kasus proprio motu. Tulisan ini menganalisis batasan dari kepentingan keadilan dalam hukum pidana internasional dengan mengkaji keberadaannya di hukum domestik dan perspektif Mahkamah Pidana Internasional dalam memaknainya. Melalui kajian ini, ditemukan bahwa KPP telah melangkahi kewenangan mereka dan membuat keputusan tak berdasar pada kasus Afghanistan, dan KB salah memaknai hubungan antara Pasal 53(1) dan Pasal 15(4) Statuta Roma dalam putusannya. Karena pentingnya kriteria kepentingan keadilan, penting untuk segera memberikan penafsiran yang baku agar kriteria tersebut dapat digunakan tanpa melanggar Statuta Roma.

Kata kunci: Afghanistan, kepentingan keadilan, Statuta Roma.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a6

References

Books

Ainley, Kirsten, “Retreat or Retrenchment? An Analysis Of The International Criminal Court's Failure To Prosecute Presidents”, in Brysk, Alison and Stohl, Michael, (eds.) Contracting Human Rights: Crisis, Accountability, and Opportunity, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2017.

Garner, B.A. (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson Reuters, St. Paul, 2009.

Klamberg, Mark, Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court, Torkel Opsahl E-Publisher, Brussels, 2017.

Ligeti, K, the Place of the Prosecutor in Common Law and Civil Law Jurisdictions, in the Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019.

Moffet, Luke, Justice for Victims before the International Criminal Court, Routledge Publishing, New York, 2014.

Seetahal, Dana, Commonwealth Caribbean Criminal Practice and Procedure, Cavendish Publishing, New York, 2001.

Trifterer, Otto and Kai Ambos (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, CH Publishing House, Berlin, 2016.

Other Documents

Bibas, Stephano, “The Need for Prosecutorial Discretion”, Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2010.

Bitti, Gilbert, “Interests of Justice: Where Does It Come From? Part II” https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-interests-of-justice-where-does-that-come-from-part-ii/.

Brown, D. K., “How Criminal Law Dictates Rules of Prosecutorial Authority,” https://law.rutgers.edu/sites/law/files/attachments/Brown%20-%20How%20Criminal%20Law%20Dictates%20Rules%20of%20Prosecutorial%20Authority.pdf.

Carcano, Andrea, “On the Exercise of the Judicial Function at the International Criminal Court: No. 5 of Credibility and Structural Design,” QIL Zoom-In, Vol. 67, 2020.

Clark, T. H.,“The Prosecutor of the ICC, Amnesties, and the “Interests of Justice”: Striking A Delicate Balance,” Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005.

Coalition for the International Criminal Court, “ICC’s Decision on Afghanistan Investigation”, https://www.Coalitionfortheicc.Org/Afghanistan-Investigation.

Dancy, Geoff and Florencia Montal, "Unintended Positive Complementarity: Why International Criminal Court Investigations May Increase Domestic Human Rights Prosecutions", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 111, 2017.

Danner, A. M., “Enhancing The Legitimacy And Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion At The International Criminal Court”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, 2003.

De Meester, Karel, “Commentary of Rules of Procedures and Evidence”, https://Www.Casematrixnetwork.Org/Cmn-Knowledge-Hub/Icc-Commentary-Clicc/Commentary-Rules-Of-Procedure-And-Evidence/Commentary-Rpe-Ch-5.html.

Deguzman, M. M., “Choosing To Prosecute: Expressive Selection at The International Criminal Court”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, 2012.

Dempster, Moffett L. (et.al), “Observations by Queen’s University Belfast Human Rights Centre As Amicus Curiae on The Appeal Of PTC II’s 'Decision Pursuant To Article 15 Of The Rome Statute on The Authorisation of An Investigation Into The Situation In The Islamic Republic Of Afghanistan' Of 12 April 2019”, Queen University Belfast – Research Portal, November 2019.

Dong, J., “Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Study”, Journal of Politics and Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2009.

Ðukic, Drazan´, “Transitional Justice and the International Criminal Court – In ‘‘the Interests of Justice’’?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 867, 2007.

Gallavin, Chris, “Article 53 Of The Rome Statute Of The International Criminal Court: In The Interests of Justice?”, King's Law Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003.

Gegout, Catherine, “The International Criminal Court: Limits, Potential and Conditions for the Promotion of Justice and Peace”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2013.

Goldstone, R. J. and Nicole Fritz, “In the Interests of Justice’ and Independent Referral: The ICC Prosecutor's Unprecedented Powers”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2000.

Greenwalt, Alexander K. A., “International Criminal Law for Retributivists”, U. Pa. Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2014.

Hamilton, James, “Non-Prosecutorial Functions of the Prosecutor in Common Law Countries,” in European Conference of Prosecutors 2008, https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2008/07/Speech_to_European_Conference_of_Prosecutors_2_July_2008_PDF.pdf.

Heller, Kevin Jon, “Can the PTC Review the interests of justice?” http://opiniojuris.org/2019/04/12/can-the-ptc-review-the-interests-of-justice/.

Human Rights Watch, “The Meaning Of the ‘Interests of Justice’ in Article 53 of the Rome Statute”, https://www.hrw.org/news/2005/06/01/meaning-interests-justice-article-53-rome-statute#.

Imam, M., “Power To Prosecute And Enter Nolle Prosequi Under The Federal Constitution And Laws of Malaysia: A Viewpoint”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2000.

International Criminal Court, “Policies and Strategies,” https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp/Pages/otp-policies.aspx.

__________________________, “Interests of Justice: Where Does It Come From? Part I”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-interests-of-justice-where-does-that-come-from-part-i/.

Kourabas, M. “A Vienna Convention Interpretation of the Interests of Justice Provision of the Rome Statute, the Legality of Domestic Amnesty Agreements, and the Situation in Northern Uganda: A Great Qualitative Step forward, or a Normative Retreat”, UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 14, No. 59, 2007.

Kremens, K., “The Protection of the Accused in International Criminal Law According the Human Rights Law Standard,” Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2011.

Krzan, Bartłomiej, “International Criminal Court Facing the Peace vs. Justice Dilemma,” International Comparative Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, 2016.

Lin, C. J., “Prosecutorial Discretion in Investigations: A Balance between Politicization and Independence”, https://iccforum.com/forum/permalink/106/6385.

Lovat, H. M., “Delineating the Interests of Justice: Prosecutorial Discretion and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Law”, Bepress Legal Series, 2006.

Macdonald, Anna, “’In the Interests of Justice?’ The International Criminal Court, Peace Talks and the Failed Quest for War Crimes Accountability in Northern Uganda”, Journal of Eastern African Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2017.

Mwalili, J. J., “The Role and Function of Prosecution in Criminal Justice”, 107th International Training Course Participants Papers, Resource Material No. 53.

Robinson, Darryl, “Defining “Crimes against Humanity" at the Rome Conference”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1999.

Rosetti, L. P., “The Pre-Trial Chamber’s Afghanistan Decision: A Step Too Far in the Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion?”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2019.

Stahn, Carsten, “Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2005.

Tucker, Andrew & Gabriele Kuchenbecker, “International Criminal Court Afghanistan Decision – What Are the Implications for Israel/Palestine?” https://www.thinc.info/international-criminal-court-afghanistan-decision-what-are-the-implications-for-israel-palestine/.

Varaki, Maria, “Revisiting the Interests of Justice’ Policy Paper”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Volume 15, No. 3, 2017.

Legal Documents

Amicus Curiae Observations Pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, ICC-02/17, PTC II (PTC), 11 July 2019.

Code of Judicial Ethics, 2005.

Decision on the “Victims’ request for review of Prosecution’s decision to cease active investigation”, ICC-01/09, PTC II, 5 November 2015.

Decision on the Prosecutor’s request for authorization of an investigation, ICC-01/15, PTC I, 27 January 2016.

Decision on the withdrawal of charges against Mr. Muthaura, ICC-01/09-02/11-696, Trial Chamber V, 18 March 2013; Decision on the withdrawal of charges against Mr. Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-02/11-1005, Trial Chamber V(B), 13 March 2015.

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, PTC II, 31 March 2010.

Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17, PTC of International Criminal Court (PTC), 21 April 2019.

Draft Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor, 2003.

Judgment on the appeal against the decision on the authorization of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17 OA4, AC of the International Criminal Court (AC), 5 March 2020.

New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law.

Paper on some policy No. 5 before the Office of the Prosecutor, Office of the Prosecutor, September 2003.

People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2 April 1973

Policy Paper on the interests of justice, Office of the Prosecutor, September 2007.

Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985.

Prosecution’s application to dismiss in limine the Victims’ request for review of Prosecution’s decision to cease active investigation, ICC-01/09-154-Conf-Anx2, Office of the Prosecutor, 25 August 2015.

Public Redacted Version of “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Burundi” ICC-01/17-X-9-US-Exp, PTC III, 25 October 2017.

Public redacted version of “Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15”, ICC-02/17-7-Conf-Exp, Office of the Prosecutor, 20 November 2017.

Public redacted version of “Request for authorization of an investigation pursuant to article 15”, ICC-02/17-7-Conf-Exp, Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (OTP), 20 November 2017.

Queensland Consolidated Acts Criminal Code 1899.

Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Addendum: Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court and Draft Final Act of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, 14 April 1998

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2002.

Rules of Procedures and Evidence, 2002.

UK Discussion Paper on the drafting for the Statute of the International Criminal Court 1990.

United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Vol. II, Rome, 15 June -1 7 July 1998

United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1965.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a6

Download

Share

COinS