Conflict between the Prosecutor and the ICC Chambers about Understanding the Reasonable Basis and the Interests of Justice in the Afghanistan Situation

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Prof. of Payam-e-Noor University

Abstract

Initiating an investigation at the prosecutor discretion on Afghanistan situation is one of the mechanisms for exercising the ICC jurisdiction. This is the Prosecutor’s approach to counteract the inaction of the Security Council and the Afghanistan state which do not seek to prosecute war crimes on its territory. The Prosecutor’s consideration in this way relies on establishing a reasonable basis in article 15(3) of the Statute which must also be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber. But the Pre-Trial Chamber’s assessment of the Afghanistan situation is in line with the interests of justice in article 53(1)(c) of the Statute and has prevented to initiate an investigation the Afghanistan situation. Therefore, the analysis of the ICC jurisprudence of the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Appeal Chamber in this regard is of importance, originality and research innovation. The method of study in this article is descriptive-analytical and critical in order to answer a question: what is the function of the interests of justice in the ICC jurisprudence to initiate the Prosecutor investigation in the Afghanistan situation? Research findings show that the factor of interests of justice in article 53(1)(c) of the Statute is not related to the request of the prosecutor under article 15(3) of the Statute. Accordingly, the Pre-Trial Chamber’s approach to the argument that there is no interest in justice in refusing to issue a permit to investigate in the Afghanistan situation is inconsistent with the components of article 15(4) of the Statute. Therefore, the Appeal Chamber as a result of the Prosecutor’s appeal, considers to initiate an investigation in the Afghanistan situation without the need to pursue the interests of justice.

Keywords

References

  1. برزگرزاده، عبدالحسین؛ امینی‌نیا، عاطفه (1397). «تداوم عدالت تبعیض‌آمیز و مناسبات حقوق دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی و شورای امنیت»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، دورۀ 35، ش 59، ص 274-249.
  2. بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ عبداللهی، محمدعلی (1397). «موازنۀ آرمان عدالت کیفری و موازین حقوقی: اعمال صلاحیت دیوان بین‌المللی کیفری نسبت به اتباع دولت‌های غیرعضو»، فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوقی، دورۀ 21، ش 84، ص 41-11.
  3. پورحسن زیوه، سحر؛ قدسی، ابراهیم؛ جاویدزاده، حمیدرضا (1398). «مشارکت سازمان‌های بین‌المللی در تحقیقات مقدماتی دیوان بین‌المللی کیفری»، مجلة پژوهش‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دورۀ 7، ش 14، ص 272-247.
  4. رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، محمدحسین (1398). «ابتکار دادستان دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی برای آغاز تحقیقات»، فصلنامة دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دورة 24، ش 86، ص 111-87.
  5. زمانی، قاسم؛ حسینی اکبرنژاد، هاله (1394). «جامعة بین‌المللی و عدالت کیفری جهانی»، فصلنامة مطالعات حقوقی عمومی، دورة 45، ش 3، ص 339-315.
  6. حبیبی مجنده، محمد؛ کریمی، سیامک (1395). «دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی و تحقق دموکراتیک عدالت کیفری»، پژوهشنامة حقوق کیفری، دورة 7، ش 2 (پیاپی 14)، ص 104-79.
  7. ساعدی، زهرا؛ صادقی، آزاده (1397). «بررسی مفهوم منافع عدالت در تعقیب جرائم در دیوان بین‌المللی کیفری؛ با نگاهی بر سایر نظام‌های حقوقی»، فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوقی معاهده، دورة 2، ش 4، ص 298-267.
  8. صالحی، جواد (1399). «ابعاد جرائم جنگی آمریکا در افغانستان و امکان‌سنجی تعقیب آن در دیوان بین‌المللی کیفری (با تأکید بر رویکردهای رسانه‌ای)»، پژوهشنامة رسانۀ بین‌الملل، دورة 5، ش 1، ص 91-63.

 

  1. Bergsmo, Morten; Pejic, Jelena & Zhu, Dan (2016). “Article 15, Prosecutor”, in; Kai Ambos and Otto Triffterer (ed.). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd ed., C.H.BECK. Hart. Nomos, pp. 725-741.
  2. Dias, Talita de Souza (2017). ‘‘Interests of Justice’: Defining the Scope of Prosecutorial Discretion in Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 30, No.3, pp 731-751.
  3. International Criminal Court (2010). “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”, Case No. ICC-01/09-19-Corr, 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II.
  4. International Criminal Court (2011a). “Corrigendum to ‘Judge Fernandez de Gurmendi’s Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion to the Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire”, Case No. ICC-02/11-15-Corr, 5 October 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III.
  5. International Criminal Court (2011b). “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire”, Case No. ICC-02/11-14-Corr, 15 November 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber III.
  6. International Criminal Court (2016). “Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Georgia”, Case No. ICC-01/15-12, 27 January 2016, Pre-Trial Chamber I.
  7. International Criminal Court (2017). “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Burundi”, Case No. ICC-01/17-9-Red, 9 November 2017, Pre-Trial Chamber III.
  8. International Criminal Court (2019a). “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, Case No. ICC-02/17-33, 12 April 2019.
  9. International Criminal Court (2019b). “Concurring and Separate Opinion of Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, Case No. ICC-02/17-33-Anx-Corr, 31 May 2019.
  10. International Criminal Court (2019c). “Transcript of Hearing”, Case No. ICC-02/17-T-002-ENG, 5 December 2019.
  11. International Criminal Court (2019d). “Corrigendum of Victims’ Joint Appeal Brief against the ‘Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’”, Case No. ICC-02/17-75-Corr, 1 October 2019.
  12. International Criminal Court (2020). “Judgment on the Appeal against the Decision on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, Case No. ICC-02/17-138, 5 March 2020.
  13. International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor (2017). “Request for Authorisation of an Investigation Pursuant to Article 15”, Case No. ICC-02/17-7-Red, 20 November 2017.
  14. International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor (2019). “Prosecution Appeal Brief”, Case No. ICC-02/17-74, 30 September 2019.
  15. Office of the Prosecutor (2007). Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice.
  16. Office of the Prosecutor (2011). Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, 13 December 2011.
  17. Office of the Prosecutor (2013). “Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations”.
  18. Russkikh, Kristina  (2020). “A Bitter Aftertaste: A Commentary to the ICC Decisions on the Situation in Afghanistan of April 12, 2019 and March 5, 2020]”, Journal of Mezhdu­narodnoe Pravosudie, Vol.10, No.2), pp. 47–65.
  19. Stegmiller, Ignaz (2017). “Article 15”, in Mark Klamberg (ed.). Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court, Brussels, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, pp. 182-191.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics