The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Stegmiller, I. (2011). The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC. Criteria for Situation Selection. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53350-3
Stegmiller, Ignaz. The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC: Criteria for Situation Selection. Duncker & Humblot, 2011. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53350-3
Stegmiller, I (2011): The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC: Criteria for Situation Selection, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53350-3
Format
The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC
Criteria for Situation Selection
(2011)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
Abstract
With the first part of this study Ignaz Stegmiller provides an introduction to the problem of pre-investigations, the second part gives an overview of the OTP's structure.Part III addresses how the selection process is performed. In this part, the complexity of pre-investigations is revealed. The three trigger mechanisms - State referrals, SC referrals, and the proprio motu mechanism - are illustrated, Self-referrals are critically analyzed and the author argues that the Prosecutor should use his proprio motu power more frequently. Perceptions of OTP's lack of independence must be rebutted. The proprio motu tool could have a great share in that, while the self-referral practice is associated with nepotism.Part IV analyses the criteria used to select situations including Article 53. As regards admissibility, the two notions of complementarity and gravity can be distinguished. Bearing in mind the inactivity criterion, complementarity is basically analyzed in a threefold manner: (1) as a rule whereby situations and cases are admissible if the State remains inactive; (2) exceptions as found in articles 17 (1) (a)-(c), 20 (3), which can lead to inadmissibility; (3) in turn, article 17 (2), (3) provides "exceptions to the exceptions" if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings. Gravity is a very complex notion. The author differentiates two concepts: "legal" and "relative" gravity. Legal gravity must then be linked to article 53 (1) (b) and relative gravity is part of article 53 (1) (c)'s assessment of the "interest of justice." Only a broad application of the "interest of justice" gives the OTP the flexibility that it needs. Parts V and VI then summarize the most important results of this study.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preface | 7 | ||
| Contents | 9 | ||
| Table of Figures | 15 | ||
| Abbreviations and Terminology | 16 | ||
| Part rI: Introduction | 21 | ||
| A. Introduction to the problem | 21 | ||
| B. Research objective, research questions and structure | 27 | ||
| C. Methodology | 29 | ||
| I. Applicable law | 29 | ||
| 1. Proper law of the ICC | 30 | ||
| 2. The external general law sources | 38 | ||
| 3. Intermediary conclusion | 40 | ||
| II. Rules of interpretation | 41 | ||
| III. Comparative law methodology | 43 | ||
| IV. Conclusion | 46 | ||
| Part II:rStructure of the Office of the Prosecutor | 47 | ||
| A. Overview: Structure of the Court | 47 | ||
| B. Office of the Prosecutor | 50 | ||
| C. Conclusion | 54 | ||
| Part III:rThe pre-investigation stage | 56 | ||
| A. Overview of proceedings before the ICC | 56 | ||
| B. Initiation of analysis –rthe triggering procedure | 66 | ||
| I. Introduction | 66 | ||
| 1. Democratic Republic of Congo | 67 | ||
| 2. Uganda | 73 | ||
| 3. Central African Republic | 77 | ||
| 4. Darfur, Sudan | 80 | ||
| 5. Article 15 situations (Côte d’Ivoire, Iraq, Venezuela, Palestine, Kenya, etc.) | 85 | ||
| II. Definition of the termr"referral" | 90 | ||
| III. Distinguishing situation v. case | 94 | ||
| 1. Defining a situation | 100 | ||
| 2. Defining a case | 115 | ||
| 3. Demarcation line between situation and case | 119 | ||
| 4. Conclusion | 121 | ||
| IV. State referral | 123 | ||
| 1. Drafting history | 124 | ||
| 2. Preconditions of a State referral | 126 | ||
| 3. Self-referrals | 128 | ||
| 4. Waivers of complementarity (including articles 18 and 19 proceedings) | 134 | ||
| 5. Withdrawal of a referral | 140 | ||
| 6. Conclusion | 143 | ||
| V. Security Council referral | 144 | ||
| 1. Preconditions of a referral under article 13 (b) | 145 | ||
| 2. Application of the principle of complementarity to SC referrals | 149 | ||
| 3. Deferral according to article 16 | 152 | ||
| a) Drafting history | 153 | ||
| b) Interpretation of elements | 155 | ||
| aa) Investigation or prosecution | 156 | ||
| bb) Commence or proceed | 158 | ||
| cc) Period of twelve months | 161 | ||
| dd) Resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter | 162 | ||
| ee) SC request | 163 | ||
| ff) Renewal of the request | 167 | ||
| c) Practice of the SC under article 16 | 168 | ||
| aa) SC-Res. 1422 (2002), 1487 (2003) | 171 | ||
| bb) SC-Res. 1497 (2003) | 177 | ||
| cc) SC-Res. 1593 (2005) | 178 | ||
| 4. Conclusion | 181 | ||
| VI. Proprio motu power – article 15 analysis | 182 | ||
| 1. Introduction | 182 | ||
| 2. Drafting history | 183 | ||
| 3. Initiation of pre-investigations (paragraph 1) | 186 | ||
| 4. Analysis of communications (paragraph 2) | 190 | ||
| 5. Submission to the PTC/Victim's representations (paragraph 3) | 195 | ||
| 6. Authorization to commence the full investigation (paragraph 4) | 199 | ||
| 7. Subsequent requests (paragraph 5) | 200 | ||
| 8. Duty to notify information providers (paragraph 6) | 201 | ||
| 9. Intermediary conclusion regarding article 15 | 203 | ||
| 10. Article 12 (3) declarations | 204 | ||
| VII. Conclusion on the trigger mechanisms | 207 | ||
| C. Preliminary examination process | 209 | ||
| I. Relationship between article 15 and article 53 | 209 | ||
| II. Overview of evaluation criteria | 214 | ||
| III. Preliminary examination method –rOTP practice | 215 | ||
| IV. Preliminary examination method – statutory basis | 224 | ||
| D. Seizure of pre-investigations | 229 | ||
| E. Concluding observations Part III | 236 | ||
| Part IV:rSelection criteria | 239 | ||
| A. Introduction | 239 | ||
| B. The initiation of an investigation, article 53 paragraph 1 | 242 | ||
| I. Drafting history of article 53 | 242 | ||
| II. Chapeau | 250 | ||
| 1. Duty to investigate | 251 | ||
| 2. Exception to the duty to investigate | 252 | ||
| 3. Determination of reasonable basis to proceed | 252 | ||
| 4. OTP selection strategy approach | 256 | ||
| 5. Academic approaches towards prosecutorial discretion at the ICC | 260 | ||
| 6. Intermediary conclusion | 266 | ||
| III. Evaluation criteria (subparagraphs a–c)r | 269 | ||
| 1. Subparagraph a –rjurisdiction | 269 | ||
| a) Reasonable basis to believe that a crime exists | 270 | ||
| b) Jurisdiction of the Court | 272 | ||
| 2. Subparagraph b –radmissibility (article 17) | 278 | ||
| a) Drafting history overview | 281 | ||
| b) Complementarity | 284 | ||
| aa) Complementarity regarding situations –r "in a general manner" (degree and standard of specificity) | 285 | ||
| bb) Grounds for inadmissibility | 289 | ||
| cc) Exceptions to the ground of inadmissibility | 295 | ||
| (1) Inactivity | 295 | ||
| (2) Unwillingness (article 17 (2)) | 302 | ||
| (3) Inability (article 17 (3)) | 309 | ||
| (4) Genuineness | 313 | ||
| (5) Ne bis in idem principle | 314 | ||
| c) Legal gravity threshold –rarticle 17 (1) (d) | 316 | ||
| aa) Drafting history | 317 | ||
| bb) Interpretation of gravity | 318 | ||
| (1) OTP approach | 319 | ||
| (2) PTC I arrest warrants decision (Lubanga and Ntaganda) | 322 | ||
| (3) Judgment on appeal against PTC I’s arrest warrants decision | 325 | ||
| (4) Academic approaches | 331 | ||
| (5) Interpretation of gravity: Linking gravity to articles 53 (1) (b), 17 (d) and 53 (1) (c) | 332 | ||
| cc) Criteria for the gravity threshold | 335 | ||
| (1) PTC I arrest warrants decision (Lubanga and Ntaganda) | 335 | ||
| (2) OTP criteria | 336 | ||
| (3) Gravity and sentencing (ad hoc tribunals, SCSL) | 341 | ||
| (4) Recommendation regarding the legal gravity criteria | 349 | ||
| dd) Conclusion: Interpretation and criteria for legal and relative gravity | 353 | ||
| 3. Subparagraph c –rinterests of justice | 356 | ||
| a) Interests of justice | 357 | ||
| aa) Literal, contextual and teleological interpretations | 358 | ||
| (1) NGO input on the "interests of justice"r | 358 | ||
| (2) OTP policy | 362 | ||
| (3) Academic approaches | 365 | ||
| (4) Own hypothesis: Broader concept of the "interests of justice"r | 367 | ||
| bb) Drafting history | 368 | ||
| cc) Interests of justice in the law of domestic jurisdictions and legislation | 370 | ||
| dd) International(ized) jurisdictions | 371 | ||
| ee) Conclusion and summary | 378 | ||
| b) Nonetheless substantial reasons: Proportionality test | 380 | ||
| c) All the circumstances –ropen list of sub-criteria | 381 | ||
| d) Explicit factors to be considered | 382 | ||
| aa) Gravity of the crime –rrelative gravity under article 53 (1) (c) | 382 | ||
| bb) Interests of victims | 384 | ||
| e) Other potential considerations | 386 | ||
| aa) Impact of an investigation (peace and security) | 387 | ||
| bb) Feasibility and effectiveness of an investigation | 396 | ||
| cc) Other alternative justice mechanisms | 397 | ||
| dd) Amnesties (and truth commissions revisited) | 409 | ||
| f) Conclusion | 416 | ||
| C. Article 53 paragraph 2 | 418 | ||
| I. Chapeau | 419 | ||
| II. Warrant or summons under article 58 | 420 | ||
| III. Admissibility | 423 | ||
| IV. Interests of Justice | 424 | ||
| 1. Taking into account all the circumstances | 425 | ||
| 2. Gravity of the crime –rrelative gravity under article 53 (2) (c) | 425 | ||
| 3. The interest of the victims | 426 | ||
| 4. Particular circumstances of the accused | 427 | ||
| a) The age or infirmity of the alleged perpetrator | 427 | ||
| b) Role in the alleged crime –rthose bearing the greatest responsibility | 428 | ||
| aa) Big fish v. small fish debate: Focused investigations on those "bearing the greatest responsibility"r | 428 | ||
| bb) ICTY and ICTR completion strategies (and sentencing decisions) | 431 | ||
| cc) SCSL and ECCC | 434 | ||
| dd) PTC I arrest warrants decision (Lubanga and Ntaganda) | 438 | ||
| ee) OTP policy | 441 | ||
| ff) Conclusion | 442 | ||
| D. Duty to notify of a decision not to investigate | 445 | ||
| E. Article 53 paragraph 3 | 447 | ||
| F. Concluding observations Part IV: Prosecutorial guidelines approach and referrals to national jurisdictions | 451 | ||
| Part V:rConcluding remarks | 456 | ||
| A. Summary of Parts I and II | 456 | ||
| B. Summary of Part III | 457 | ||
| C. Summary of Part IV | 459 | ||
| Part VI:rZusammenfassung | 465 | ||
| Annex 1: Graphs of the Pre-Investigation Stage | 476 | ||
| A. Graph of the distinction situations and cases (Part III, B., III.) | 476 | ||
| B. Pre-Investigation Stage as conducted by the OTP (Situation Selection) | 476 | ||
| C. OTP Analysis Phase I-III (in detail) | 477 | ||
| Annex 2:rCountry analysis | 478 | ||
| A. Working hypothesis | 478 | ||
| B. Country analysis | 480 | ||
| I. Austria (Civil law, Germanic family) | 480 | ||
| II. Canada (Common law and Civil law) | 482 | ||
| III. Cameroon (civil law and common law influence; African family) | 485 | ||
| IV. China (Chinese law) | 488 | ||
| V. Colombia (Civil law, Romanistic family, potential situation country) | 490 | ||
| VI. Côte d’Ivoire (Civil law, Romanistic family, African family, situation country) | 494 | ||
| VII. Democratic Republic of Congo (Civil law, Romanistic family, African family, situation country) | 496 | ||
| VIII. France (Civil law, Romanistic family) | 499 | ||
| IX. Germany (Civil law, Germanic family) | 502 | ||
| X. India (Common law, Hindu law) | 508 | ||
| XI. Kenya (Common law, African family, situation country) | 511 | ||
| XII. The Netherlands (Civil law) | 514 | ||
| XIII. Norway (Civil law, Nordic family) | 518 | ||
| XIV. South Africa (Common law) | 520 | ||
| XV. Sudan (Common law, Sharia law) | 525 | ||
| XVI. Uganda (Common law, African family, situation country) | 527 | ||
| XVII. United Kingdom (England and Wales) (Common law) | 530 | ||
| XVIII. United States (Common law) | 537 | ||
| C. Conclusion regarding the country analysis | 540 | ||
| Annex 3:rSC-Res. 1593 (2005) | 542 | ||
| Bibliographyr | 544 | ||
| 1. Books and monographs | 544 | ||
| 2. Articles (journals, yearbooks and posted on the internet) | 547 | ||
| 3. Contributions to collected work | 563 | ||
| 4. International documents and reports | 578 | ||
| 5. Domestic legislation | 601 | ||
| Table of Cases | 605 | ||
| 1. International | 605 | ||
| 2. Internationalized | 616 | ||
| 3. National | 617 | ||
| Index | 619 |