International Criminal Procedure and Disclosure
BOOK
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
(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 |