Choose language:
  • Home page
  • Articles
  • Standards of Appellate Review in the International Administration of Criminal Justice
Main topic

spt1/2016

Standards of Appellate Review in the International Administration of Criminal Justice

Aleksandar V. Gajić

Abstract

Proceedings before contemporary international courts and tribunals are truly international, without counterpart in national legal systems, and that is also a characteristic of the proceedings on appeal. The author discusses standards of appellate review, namely standards of review applied by appeals chambers of various international courts and tribunals (the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals and International Criminal Court). The issues discussed in this article are whether standards of appellate review applied by international courts and tribunals safeguards the appellant’s right to a fair trial and whether they are appropriate for international criminal proceedings.

keywords :

References

    1. Ambos, K. (2003) “International Criminal Procedure: “adversarial”, “inquisitorial” or mixed?”, International Criminal Law Review, 3:1-37.
    2. Antonio Cassese, Opinion: The ICTY and Human Rights, European Human Rights Law Review, vol. II, European Human Rights Law Review 2/1997
    3. Book, J. P. (2011) Appeal and Sentence in International Criminal Law. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschats – Verlag
    4. Brady, H. and Jennings M. (1999) “Appeal and Revision”. In Lee., R. L (ed.) The International Criminal Court, The Making of the Rome Statute.  The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International
    5. Brown, C. (2007) A Common Law of International Adjudication, New York: Oxford University Press
    6. Brown, R. A. (1943), “Fact and Law in Judicial Review”, Harvard Law Review, 899-928.
    7. Calkins, M. and Kicks, M., (2003) Identifying and Understanding Standards of Review, Georgetown:The Writing Centre Georgetown University Law Centre, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/Standards-of-Review.pdf [Accessed: 10 March 2016]
    8. Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press
    9. Chartier, R. (April 2011) ”Standards of Review on Criminal Appeals: Your Sword or Your Shield”, Montiba Bar Association Criminal Justice Subsection Meeting.
    10. Crayer, R., Friman, H., Robinson D. and Wilmshurst, E. (2008) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    11. Damaška, M. (1974) “Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure”, Yale Law Journal, pp.480-490
    12. Davis, M. M. (2000) “Standards of Review: Judicial Review of Discretionary Decisionmaking”, The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 2: 47-84.
    13. Davis, M. S. (1988) “A Basic Guide to Standards of Judicial Review”, South Dakota Law Review, 3: 469-483.
    14. Drumbl, A. and Gallant, K. S. (2001) “Appeals in the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals: Structure Procedure and Recent Cases”, The Journal of Appellate Practice and  Process, 2:2001: 589-659.
    15. Fleming, M. C. (2002) “Appellate Review in the International Criminal Tribunals”, Texas International Law Journal, 1: 111-156
    16. Fon, V. and Parisi, P. (2006) “Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis”, International Review of Law and Economics, 519-535.,
    17. Gajić, A. V. (2010) “The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – Human Rights Perspective”. In: Jovanović, M. and Krstić, I. (eds.) Human Rights Today- 60 Years of the Universal Declaration, Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing, pp. 127-142.
    18. Gajić, A. V. (2012) „Formalni prijem na znanje presuđenih činjenica u međunarodnom krivičnom pravosuđu“, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 2:292-326.
    19. Kansas Appellate Practice Handbook, 5th (2013) Kanzas: Kanzas Judicial Council
    20. Karibi-Whyte, A. G. (2000) “Appeal Procedures and Practices”. In: McDonald G. K. and Swaak-Goldman O. (eds.) Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law – The Experience of International and National Courts Vol 1 – Commentary, (eds.), The Hague:Kluwer Law International, pp. 644-653.
    21. Kevin John Haller, K. J. (2011) The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press
    22. Klamberg, M. Klamberg Commentary, “Appeal against decision of acquittal or conviction or against sentence, Commentary on the Law of the International Crimianal Court”,  Case Marix Network, https://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome-statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-8/, [Accessed 01 February 2016]
    23. Klamberg, M. (2010) “What are the Objectives of International Criminal Procedure? – Reflections on the Fragmentation of a Legal Regime”, Nordic Journal of International Law, 79:279-302.
    24. Klamberg, M. (2013) Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events, Leiden-Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
    25. Marshall, P. D. (2011), “A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 1:1-45.
    26. McIntyre, G. (2011) “The International Residual Mechanism and the Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 3: 923-983.
    27. Murphy, S. D. (1999) “Progress and Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, American Journal of International Law, 57-96.
    28. O’Hear, M. M. (2010) ”Appellate Review of Sentences: Reconsidering Deference”, William and Mary Law Review, 6: 2123-2167
    29. Pejović, Č. (2001) “Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal”, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 32:817-842.
    30. Peters, A. (2009) “The Meaning, Measure, and Misuse of Standards of Review”, Lewis & Clark Law Review, 1:233-278
    31. Pocar, F. (2006) “Criminal Proceedings Before the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda”, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 1: 89-102.
    32. Rives, R. T. (1959) “The Source of Review of Fact by United States Courts of Appeal”, pp. 70-78.
    33. Roesnbaum, B. L. (2013) “Sentence Appeals in England: Promoting Consistent Sentencing Through Robust Appellate Review”, The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 14:81-157
    34. Rohan, C. M. (2010) “Reasonable Doubt Standard of Proof in International Criminal Trials”. In: Khan, K. A. A., Buisman, C. and Gosnell C. (eds.), Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press
    35. Roth R. and Henzelin, M. (2002) “The Appeal Procedure of the ICC”. In: Cassese, A., Gaeta P. and Jones J. R. W. D (eds.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. II. New York: University Press. pp. 1535-15578
    36. Schomburg, W. (2005) ”The Protection of human Rights of the Accused before the International Criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR)“. In: Bard K. and Soyer R. (eds.) Internationale Strafgerichtsbarakeit – Status quo and Perspectiven, Wien-Gratz-Berlin: BWB Berliner
    37. Škulić, M. (2005) Međunarodni krivični sud, nadležnost i postupak, Beograd: Dosije
    38. Sward, E. E. (1991) “Appellate Review of Judicial Fact-Finding”,The University of Kansas Law Review, 1-43.

    Reports

    1. Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series –  117, Strasbourg, 22 November1984
    2. Historical Survey of the Question of International Criminal Jurisdiction – Memorandum submitted by the Secretary-General, Topic: Question of international criminal jurisdiction, UN. Doc. A/CN.4/7/Rev.1
    3. Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, IT/201,7 March 2001
    4. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-six session, 2 May-22 July 1994, Official records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth session, Supplement No. 10. , UNN Doc. A/49/10, Yearbook of the ILC 1994, vol. II (2), Draft Code of Crimes Against Pealce and Securtiy of Mankind
    5. Report of the Secretary General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808(1993), UN. Doc. S/25704

    Judgments and decisions of the ICC and the ICTY

    1. Case No. IT-94-1-T, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, 10 August 1995.
    2. Case No. IT-94-2-A, Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolić, Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, 4 February 2005
    3. Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Judgment, 21 July 2000.
    4. Case no. IT-00-39-A, Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, Judgment, 17 March 2009.
    5. Case No. IT-03-69-A, Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, Judgement, 9 December 2015
    6. Case No. IT-04-81-A, Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Judgment, 28 February 2013.
    7. Case No. IT-04-84-A, Prosecutor v. Ramuš Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, Judgment, 19 July 2010.
    8. Case No. IT-05-87/1-A, Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Djordjević, Judgment, 27 January 2014.
    9. Case no. IT-05-87-A, Prosecuor v. Nikola Šainović, Nebojša Pavković, Vladimir Lazarević and Sreten Lukić, Judgement, 23 January 2014.
    10. Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Decision on Motion for Setting a Time Limit for Filing and Appellant’s Brief and for an Extension of Word Limit, 17 May 2013.
    11. Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Judgment,  8 April 2015
    12. Case No. IT-05-88/2-A, Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Public Redacted Version of the Consolidated Appeal Brief, 28 February 2014
    13. Case No. IT-05-88-A, Prosecutor v. Popović et all, Public Redacted Version of 2 May 2014 Decision on Vujdic Popović’s Third and Fifts Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 23 May 2014
    14. Case No. IT-06-90-A, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Judgment, 16 Novemer 2012.
    15. Case No. IT-95-11-A, Procecutor v. Milan Martić, Judgment, 8 October 2008
    16. Case No. IT-95-11-A, Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Judgment, 8 October 2008
    17. Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Judgement, 24 March 2000.
    18. Case No. IT-95-14-A, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Judgement, 29 July 2004
    19. Case No. IT-95-16-A, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjnan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Vladimir Šantić, Appeal Judgement, 26 October 2001
    20. Case No. IT-96-22, Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović, Judgement, 7 October 1997
    21. Case No. IT-96-22, Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović, Sentencing Judgment, 29 November 1996.
    22. Case No. IT-96-22-A, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović, Judgement, 7 October 1997
    23. Case No. IT-97-25-A, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Judgment, 17 September 2003
    24. Case No. IT-98-32-A, Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljević, Judgement, 25 February 2004,
    25. Case No. IT-98-32-A, Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljević, Judgement, 25 February 2004,
    26. Case No.: IT-95-14-T, Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Trial Chamber, Decision on the standing objection of the Defence to the admission of hearsay with no inquiry as to its reliability, 21 January 1998.
    27. ICTY, IT-05-88-A, Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović, Ljubiša Beara, Drago Nikolić and Radivoje Miletić, Judgment, 30 January 2015.
    28. ICC-01/05-01/08-631-Red (OA 2)Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against Pre-Trial Chamber 11’s ‘Decision on the Interim Release of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and Convening Hearings with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, and the Republic of South Africa’, 2 December 2009
    29. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 4 A 6, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo, Judgment on appeals of the Prosecutor and Mr. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo against the “Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, 1 December 2014 (Lumbaga Sentencing AJ)
    30. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5, Appeals Chamber, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo against his conviction,1 December 2014 (Lumbaga Conviction AJ)
    31. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5, Appeals Chamber, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in he case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Thomas Lumbaga Dyilo against his conviction, 1 December 2014.
    32. ICC-01/04-01/10-283 (OA), Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Callixte Mbarushimana against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 19 May 2011 entitled ‘Decision on the “Defence Request for Interim Release'”, 14 July 2011.
    33. ICC-01/04-01/10-283 (OA), Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Callixte Mbarushimana against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 19 May 2011 entitled ‘Decision on the “Defence Request for Interim Release'”, 14 July 2011.
    34. ICC-01/05-01/08-631-Red (OA 2)Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, “Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against Pre-Trial Chamber 11’s ‘Decision on the Interim Release of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and Convening Hearings with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, and the Republic of South Africa'”, 2 December 2009.

    Judgments of the European Court on Human Rights

    1. Case of Krombach v. France, Application no. 29731/96, Judgment of 13 February 2001.
    2. Case of Haser v. Switzerland, Application no. 33050/96, Judgment of 27 April 2000.
    3. Case of Lalmahomed v. the Netherlands, no. 26036/08, Judgment of 22 February 2011.
    4. Case of Pesti and Frodl v. Austria, Applications no(s) 27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-I
PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 1/2016eng 1/2016 UDC 341.645.5:343.13/.15 93-137
https://doi.org/10.22182/spt.1312016.6
Back to Issue Serbian Political Thought - 1/2016