Review of International Tribunal Decisions for the week of October 1, 2012

This week’s review of decisions has contributions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

International Criminal Law


Prosecutor v. Karadžić[1]

Order in Relation to Accused’s Notice of Request of Protective Measures for Witnesses


The accused filed a notice that a defense witnesses would orally request protective measures from the Tribunal.[2] The notice did not provide the reasons for the request, which were to be given in court by the witness.[3] The Chamber decided not to award protective measures.


The Chamber decided “that implementing the procedure set out in the Request would not only prevent the Chamber from making an informed decision on the forthcoming requests for protective measures based on substantiated submissions from the parties but would also result in an inefficient use of the limited court time.”[4] The Accused was ordered to timely file substantiated requests for protective measures in the future.[5]


Prosecutor v. Ayyash, Badreddine, Oneissi & Sabra[6]

Order on Urgent Request of Counsel for Mr Badreddine of 18 September 2012

One of the counsel for Mr. Badreddine filed a request with clarification on his ability to represent the accused after the United States put the accused on a sanctions list.[7] Among other things, no US person is allowed to provide services to the accused.[8] The US Treasury issued a waiver allowing continued representation, so the President declared the motion for clarification moot.[9]


Prosecutor v. Gaddafi & Al-Senussi[10]

Decision on the “Libyan Government Request, made in the interest of judicial efficacy, to either: (a) treat the hearing scheduled for 9-10 October 2012 as a status conference; or (b) reschedule the admissibility hearing for November 2012”


Libya filed a request with the Trial Chamber to convert the scheduled hearing on admissibility into a status conference or to postpone the admissibility hearing.[11] The Chamber rejected the request.


The Chamber considered that the scheduled hearing will not necessarily be the final word on admissibility submissions and that further proceedings may be necessary depending on what transpires in court.[12] The Chamber did not therefore feel it was necessary to distinguish between an admissibility hearing and a status conference and that Libya had specified who would be able to speak on her behalf in any case.[13]

Prosecutor v. Bemba[14]

Decision on the amended order of witnesses to be called by the defence


Two defense witnesses have either failed to finish giving their testimony or to fly to The Hague to begin giving their testimony.[15] Some hearings were held on possible modification of the order of the defense presentation of evidence.[16]


The Chamber expressed that generally it is to the parties to choose how and in what order evidence will be presented.[17] However, given the present circumstances, and the involvement of the parties, the Chamber ordered a chance in the order that the witnesses would be heard.[18]

[1] IT-95-5/18-T, 2 October 2012.

[2] Ibid. at p. 2.

[3] Ibid. at pp. 2-3.

[4] Ibid. at p. 3.

[5] Ibid.

[6] STL-11-02/PT/PRES, 2 October 2012.

[7] Ibid. at ¶¶ 1, 3.

[8] Ibid. at ¶ 2.

[9] Ibid. at ¶¶ 3-4.

[10] ICC-01/11-01/11, 3 October 2012.

[11] Ibid. at ¶ 10.

[12] Ibid. at ¶ 13.

[13] Ibid. at ¶¶14-15.

[14] ICC-01/05-01/08, 3 October 2012.

[15] Ibid. at ¶¶ 3-4.

[16] Ibid. at ¶¶ 5-9.

[17] Ibid. at ¶ 12.

[18] Ibid. at ¶ 14.


Leave a comment

Filed under Weekly Review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s