Menu Expand

International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure

Cite BOOK

Style

Heinze, A. (2014). International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure. An Attempt to Better Understand and Regulate Disclosure and Communication at the ICC on the Basis of a Comprehensive and Comparative Theory of Criminal Procedure. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54343-4
Heinze, Alexander. International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure: An Attempt to Better Understand and Regulate Disclosure and Communication at the ICC on the Basis of a Comprehensive and Comparative Theory of Criminal Procedure. Duncker & Humblot, 2014. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54343-4
Heinze, A (2014): International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure: An Attempt to Better Understand and Regulate Disclosure and Communication at the ICC on the Basis of a Comprehensive and Comparative Theory of Criminal Procedure, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54343-4

Format

International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure

An Attempt to Better Understand and Regulate Disclosure and Communication at the ICC on the Basis of a Comprehensive and Comparative Theory of Criminal Procedure

Heinze, Alexander

Beiträge zum Internationalen und Europäischen Strafrecht / Studies in International and European Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 20

(2014)

Additional Information

Book Details

Pricing

About The Author

Alexander Heinze ist Akademischer Rat a.Z. am Institut für Kriminalwissenschaften, Abteilung für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. Er wurde an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen mit summa cum laude promoviert und absolvierte seinen Master am Trinity College Dublin, wo er den prestigeträchtigen Trinity College Alumni Scholarship erhielt. Forschungsgebiete von Herrn Dr. Heinze sind das Völkerstrafrecht, vergleichende Strafprozessrecht sowie Medienstrafrecht. Alexander Heinze ist Sachverständiger für Private Ermittlungen im Völkerstrafrecht, bei der International Nuremberg Principles Academy, gewähltes Mitglied des Committee on Complementarity in International Criminal Law der International Law Association, und Mitherausgeber des German Law Journal. Seine Monographie »International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure« (Duncker & Humblot 2014) ist dreifach preisgekrönt.

Abstract

Alexander Heinze untersucht die unterschiedliche Interpretation der Beweisoffenlegungsregelungen vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) und schlägt ein neues System der Beweisoffenlegung vor, in dem die Parteien die Konsequenzen ihres Handels im Allgemeinen und der Verletzung ihrer Offenlegungspflichten im Speziellen in Grundzügen voraussehen können. Durch eine kritische Rechtsprechungsanalyse weist er nach, dass die uneinheitliche Einordnung des geltenden IStGH-Prozesssystems über die Anwendung der systematischen Auslegungsmethode direkte Auswirkungen auf die Lösung prozessualer Fragestellungen hat, von denen die Beweisoffenlegung das prominenteste Beispiel darstellt. Aus diesem Grund klassifiziert der Autor den IStGH-Prozess neu und kommt zu dem Schluss, dass es sich bei dem IStGH um ein »hierarchisch« strukturiertes Gericht in Form einer internationalen Organisation handelt, dessen Prozesssystem dem »programmatischen« Ideal gleicht. Diese Klassifizierung wird nun als allgemeine Rechtslehre im technischen Sinne für eine weite systematische Auslegung fruchtbar gemacht und direkt auf die bestehenden Beweisoffenlegungsregelungen angewendet. Aufwendige philosophische und rechtstheoretische Überlegungen werden so mit einer hoch relevanten und praktischen Fragestellung verknüpft.»International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure« analyses the different interpretations of disclosure rules at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and introduces a new disclosure regime, where the parties will be able to actually foresee the consequences of their conduct (i.e. non-disclosure). Through a critical case law analysis Heinze illustrates that an inconsistent classification of the nature of the ICC-process has - via the application of a contextual interpretation - a direct impact on decisions about concrete procedural issues, of which disclosure is the most prominent example. For this very reason Heinze re-classifies the ICC-process and concludes that the ICC is a hierarchically structured international organisation with a »policy-implementing« form of procedure, that nevertheless contains adversarial elements usually found in a system of coordinate authority with a »conflict-solving« form of justice. This classification serves as a »general jurisprudence« in its technical sense, which enables the Judges to conduct a coherent contextual interpretation. The book thereby establishes a connection between legal theory, philosophy, sociology and comparative law on the one hand and a highly relevant procedural question on the other hand.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Preface 7
Table of Contents 9
Table of Figures 17
List of Abbreviations 19
A. Introduction and Abstract 27
I. The Problem 27
II. Methodology 29
B. The Four Issues 34
I. Introduction 34
II. Truth and the Pre-Trial Chamber 34
III. Exculpatory Evidence 36
IV. Analysis of the Relevant Evidence 38
V. General Communication Obligations – Broad or Narrow 39
C. Case-by-case Approach or Consistency 41
I. The Problem of the Case-by-case Approach 41
II. So What? Or: Is Consistency Necessary? 46
D. How to Interpret the Law at the ICC – Methodology of the ICC? 47
I. Sources 48
II. Interpretation 51
1. Interpretation in Domestic Legal Systems 52
a) Interpretation in Germany 52
b) Interpretation in Common Law 55
aa) Interpretation of Statutes 55
(1) Literal Rule 56
(2) The Historical Interpretation 58
(3) Teleological Interpretation (Purpose Approach) 59
bb) Interpretation of Case Law 60
c) Intermediate Conclusion 62
2. Interpretation in International Law 66
3. Specifics of Interpretation in International Criminal Law 69
a) Specifics of Criminal Law 69
aa) General 69
bb) International Criminal Law 71
b) Language 72
III. Finding or Justification 75
E. Interpretation of the ICC Disclosure Regime 77
I. The Applicable Law 77
II. Methods of Interpretation 80
1. The Extent of Communication 80
a) Literal Interpretation 80
b) Contextual Interpretation 82
c) Teleological Interpretation 84
d) Contextual/Teleological Interpretation 85
2. Disclosure Inter Partes or Trough the Registry? 86
3. Intermediate Conclusion 88
4. The Broad Contextual Interpretation 89
5. Intermediate Conclusion 91
III. A New Contextual Interpretation 92
1. Goals and Extent 95
2. Disclosure Rules Transplants or Translation: The Approach of Máximo Langer 99
a) The Approach 99
b) Transplants 100
c) “Translations” Instead of “Transplants” 103
3. Categorisation of the Procedural System/Criminal Justice System of the ICC 104
a) Families of Legal Systems/Legal Tradition 104
aa) Terminology 105
bb) Civil Law 107
cc) Common Law 110
b) Models of Criminal Procedure/Criminal Justice 113
c) “Adversarial” and "Inquisitorial” 117
aa) Traditional Meaning 118
bb) Theoretical Model 119
cc) Procedural Type 120
dd) Ideal of Procedure 120
ee) Historical Meaning 122
ff) Máximo Langer: A New Theoretical Framework 123
(1) The Technique for Handling Cases 124
(2) The Procedural Culture 125
(a) The Structure of Interpretation and Meaning 125
(b) Internal Dispositions of Legal Actors 126
(3) Ways to Distribute Powers and Responsibilities Between the Main Legal Actors 127
gg) Conclusion 129
hh) Appendix: Adversarial – Accusatorial 131
d) Packer’s Model 133
aa) The Crime Control Model 133
bb) The Due Process Model 135
e) Packer Extended 136
f) Value and Principle Approaches 141
g) Damaška’s Concept 144
h) Other Procedural Models 148
4. Conclusion: Which Model is Suitable? 152
a) Models of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice – How to Find Out of the Jungle 152
aa) Wrong Modelling in Domestic (Criminal) Procedure 152
bb) Wrong Modelling in International (Criminal) Procedure 158
b) How to Model ICC Procedure? 162
aa) General Identification of a Purpose 163
bb) Concrete Parameters of a Concept 164
cc) Function of a Concept 166
(1) Some Terminological Thoughts 167
(2) Jurisprudence 168
(3) General Jurisprudence with a View to the Purpose of this Study 170
c) What Concept is Preferable? 172
aa) Normative/Descriptive 172
(1) Value and Principle Approaches 174
(2) Packer’s Models 174
(3) Packer Extended 176
(4) Vogler’s Approach 177
(5) Damaška’s Concept 178
bb) Sociological/Empirical 180
(1) Ideal-types 180
(2) Sociological/Empirical Elements Within the Said Models 184
cc) Comparative 187
(1) General Remarks on Comparative Law Research 187
(2) Damaška’s Contribution to Comparative Law Research 189
dd) Intermediate Conclusion 191
(1) Concluding Remarks on Wrong Modelling 192
(2) The Inquisitorial/Adversarial Dichotomy and Damaška’s Concept 194
(3) Predictability and Weberian Ideal-types 195
IV. Damaška and ICC Procedure 200
1. Organisation of Authority and Form of Justice in General 201
a) Hierarchical or Coordinate? 202
b) Policy-implementing or Conflict-solving? 207
aa) General Remarks 207
bb) Goals of the ICC, Goals of International Criminal Justice 209
(1) Traditional Goals 211
(2) Special Goals of International Criminal Justice 216
(a) Provision of an Accurate Historical Record of Events/Substantive Truth Finding 218
(aa) Substantive Truth Finding 218
(bb) Provision of an Accurate Historical Record 221
(b) Satisfaction of Victims 223
(c) Other Goals and Intermediate Conclusion 225
2. Organisation of Authority and Form of Procedure 228
a) The Judge 229
aa) Organisation of Authority 229
(1) The Judge Within the Civil Law Tradition 229
(2) The Judge Within the Common Law Tradition 231
(3) The Judge Within the ICC System 233
bb) Form of Procedure 238
(1) The Decision Maker According to Damaška’s Models 238
(a) The Decision Maker in a Policy-implementing Form of Procedure 238
(b) The Decision Maker in a Conflict-solving Form of Procedure 240
(2) The Decision Maker at the ICC 243
(a) Selected Observations: Evidence and Factual Knowledge 243
(b) The Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber 245
(c) The Existence of a Confirmation Hearing 247
(d) The Legal Knowledge 248
(e) Conclusion 249
b) The Prosecutor 250
aa) Organisation of Authority 250
bb) Form of Procedure 254
(1) Power to Initiate Proceedings 254
(2) Obligation to Start Proceedings 255
(3) Enforcement Agencies and Coercive Measures 256
(4) Investigation of Incriminating and Exonerating (Exculpatory) Evidence 257
(5) Conclusion 258
c) Other Procedural Features 264
aa) Case File 264
bb) Concentration of Proceedings, the “Day in Court” and Live Testimony 268
(1) Process England/Wales 269
(2) Process U.S.A. 273
(3) Process Germany 277
(4) Process ICC 281
(5) Conclusion 284
cc) Oral or Written Testimony and Prior Recorded Testimony 288
dd) The Role of Counsel 290
(1) The Role of Counsel in a Conflict-solving Form of Process 290
(2) The Role of Counsel in a Policy-implementing Form of Process 292
(3) Application of Damaška’s Concept to the ICC 294
ee) Guilty Plea and Plea Bargaining 300
3. Intermediate Conclusion 305
F. Prosecution Disclosure Before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective with a View to Damaška’s Models 309
I. Approach 309
II. General 311
1. Equality of Arms and Disclosure - General Remarks 311
2. Equality of Arms and Disclosure Within the Concept of Damaška 316
III. Disclosure Obligations Independent from Trial Stages – Exculpatory Material 322
1. Exculpatory Material in the U.S.A. 322
a) Brady v. Maryland 323
b) United States v. Agurs 324
c) United States v. Bagley 325
d) Kyles v. Whitley and Strickler v. Greene 327
e) The States’ Brady Implementation and Rule 3.8(d) American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct 328
f) A Short Comment on Sanctions and Remedies 330
2. Unused Material in England/Wales 331
a) Application, Common Law and Development Until the CPIA 1996 332
b) The CPIA 1996 335
c) The CPIA 1996 as Amended by the CJA 2003: the Current Status 337
3. Exculpatory Material at the ICC 344
IV. Disclosure Obligations Independent from Trial Stages – Documents and Tangible Objects 350
1. U.S.A. 350
2. UK 352
3. ICC 355
V. Disclosure Obligations Independent from Trial Stages – Prior Statements of the Prosecution Witnesses and Names of Witnesses 359
1. U.S.A. 359
a) Witness Lists 359
b) Witness Statements 362
2. UK 366
a) Witness Statements the Prosecution Intends to Use 367
aa) Crown Court (Indictable Offences Only) 367
bb) Magistrates’ Court (Offences Either Way and Summary Offences) 368
b) Witness Statements the Prosecution Does Not Intend to Use 371
c) Withholding of Witness Statements and Witness Identities 373
3. ICC 376
a) Possible Conflict with Rule 121 377
b) Timing and Anonymity 380
c) “Rolling Disclosure“ 385
d) Witness Proofing 387
VI. Prosecution Disclosure Prior and at the Confirmation Hearing 391
1. U.S.A. 391
a) Preliminary Hearing 392
b) Grand Jury Proceedings 394
aa) What Does the Prosecutor Present? 395
bb) What Does the Defendant Receive? 398
2. UK 401
a) The Old Committal 402
b) A Case to Answer Before the Crown Court 405
c) Conclusion 407
3. ICC 408
a) The Confirmation Hearing 408
b) Disclosure Prior to and at the Confirmation Hearing 411
c) Conclusion: The Purpose, Aim and Nature of the Confirmation Hearing 414
VII. Sanctions 421
1. U.S.A. 421
a) Sanctions by Rule or Statute 422
b) Brady-Violation Sanctions? 425
aa) Sanctions by Brady Itself, Due Process and Supervisory Powers 425
bb) Civil Actions and Criminal Charges Against Prosecutors for Brady Violations 427
cc) Disciplinary Proceedings 432
dd) Other Potential Remedies 434
2. UK 437
a) Sanctions and Remedies Available at Trial 438
aa) Stay of the Proceedings Because of an Abuse of Process (Trial) 438
(1) Non-disclosure 440
(2) Insufficient Disclosure 441
bb) Exclusion of Evidence 443
cc) Orders by the Court 444
b) Appeal Because of Disclosure-violations 446
aa) Fresh Evidence Appeals 448
bb) Procedural Irregularities Appeal 449
cc) Stay of the Proceedings Because of an Abuse of Process (Appeal) 451
3. ICC 452
a) Stay of Proceedings Because of an Abuse of Process 453
aa) Non-disclosure in Connection with Art. 54(3)(e) ICC-Statute 454
bb) Non-disclosure in Connection with Intermediaries 458
b) Disciplinary measures 465
aa) General Prohibitions Against Misconduct and Breach of Duty 465
bb) Staff Rules 469
cc) Rules of Professional Conduct 471
VIII. Conclusion 476
1. The Disclosure Rules in the U.S.A. and England/Wales with a View to Damaška’s Categorisation 477
a) Disclosure Problems in the U.S.A. with Regard to Exculpatory Material 477
aa) Connick v. Thompson 479
bb) U.S. v. Stevens 481
cc) Intermediate Conclusion 485
b) Disclosure Problems in England and Wales with Regard to Unused Material 485
aa) Disclosure Failures Caused by Police and Prosecution 487
bb) Disclosure Failures Caused by the Disclosure Test Itself 488
cc) Intermediate Conclusion 489
c) Conclusion 490
2. The Disclosure Rules at the ICC with a View to the Damaška Categorisation 492
G. The Solution 499
I. Active Judge 499
II. The Parties and the System in General 505
III. Communication and Registration 508
1. Communication 508
a) Broad Communication Generally Ensures to Implement ICC Policies 509
b) Broad Communication Specifically Facilitates Disclosure 509
2. Registration – Introduction of the Double-dossier Principle 510
a) Case File for the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Trial Chamber 511
b) Access of the Trial Chamber to a Possible Case File 512
c) The Record of the Proceedings as a Case File 513
aa) The Knowledge Component 514
bb) The Structural Component 516
cc) The Weight Component 517
dd) Advantages of the Case File Vis-à-Vis Its Biased Objections 518
ee) Solutions for a Case File in Line with Art. 74(2) ICC-Statute 520
(1) Does Art. 74(2) ICC-Statute Comprise Pre-Trial and Trial Phase? 520
(a) No Qualitative Difference in the Weight of the Evidence 521
(b) Contradiction Between Broad Communication and Weight 521
(2) Separation of the Case Record for the Pre-Trial Phase and the Trial Phase 522
(a) Case Record at the Confirmation Hearing: Emphasis of the Knowledge Component 522
(b) Case Record at Trial: Emphasis of the Weight Component 523
(aa) First Obstacle: the Prosecutor’s (Alleged) Duty to Continue Investigations Beyond the Confirmation Hearing 524
(bb) Second Obstacle: Admitted Evidence Before the Pre-Trial Chamber is Not Automatically Admitted Evidence Before the Trial Chamber 527
(c) Adoption of the Double Dossier System Known in Italy 529
(d) The Double Dossier System Supplemented by the Adoption of Internal Rule 87(3) of the ECCC Internal Rule 532
ff) Conclusion 533
IV. Summary and Concluding Remarks 535
Bibliography 545
Subject Index 594