Menu Expand

The Pre-Investigation Stage of the ICC

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

Stegmiller, Ignaz

Beiträge zum Internationalen und Europäischen Strafrecht / Studies in International and European Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 8

(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