Last week saw very important decisions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). In particular, the Appeals Chamber of the ICC issued a decision where it clarified the meaning of an acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by a non-State party.
Prosecutor v. Karadžić
Decision on Appeal From Denial of Judgement of Acquittal for Hostage-Taking
The indictment against the Accused included charges of kidnapping UN personnel who were not taking part in the hostilities during the war in Bosnia in 1995. At the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case, the Accused filed a motion for acquittal inter alia on this count, which the Trial Chamber denied on the grounds that even if they had participated in the fighting the minute they were placed hors de combat they benefited from the prohibition on hostage taking. The Accused appealed arguing that the Trial Chamber erred in affording the UN personnel protection under the Geneva Conventions vis-à-vis this crime. The Appeals Chamber rejected that appeal.
The Appeals Chamber first considered if the UN personnel were covered by the Geneva protections even if they were combatants. The Chamber considered that they were, regardless of whether or not they were combatants as anyone hors de combat is protected against hostage taking. Therefore it was not erroneous for the Trial Chamber to deny his motion for acquittal.
Prosecutor v. Tolimir
The Trial Chamber by majority, found the Accused guilty of Genocide, Conspiracy to Commit Genocide, Extermination as a Crime Against Humanity, Murder as a violation of the laws and customs of war, Persecutions as a Crime Against Humanity and Inhumane Acts through forcible transfer as a Crime Against Humanity. The Accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Prosecutor v. Gaddafi & Al-Senussi
Decision requesting further submissions on issues related to the admissibility of the case against Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi
The Chamber recalled that admissibility challenges are based on two factors: if at the time of the proceeding on admissibility there is a State investigation or proceeding and if so, if the State in question is unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out that investigation or proceeding. The party raising the admissibility challenge bears the burden of proof. To this end the Chamber observed that it would be useful if everyone involved were aware of what kinds of evidence would be necessary to prove the existence of such proceedings. The Chamber also formulated questions for Libya regarding specific investigative acts that have been taken since the filing of the admissibility challenge. The Chamber also questioned the value and sufficiency of evidence offered by Libya to substantiate its claim that it is investigating Mr. Gaddafi.
Prosecutor v. Gaddafi & Al-Senussi
Order in relation to the request for arrest and surrender of Abdullah Al-Senussi
The Pre-Trial Chamber issued an order to Libya to hand over the accused Al-Senussi after his transfer to Libya.
Prosecutor v. Gbagbo
Judgment on the appeal of Mr Laurent Gbagbo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on jurisdiction and stay of the proceedings
The Accused filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the ICC on the grounds that the acceptance of a non-State party of the jurisidiction of the court could only be retroactive and was limited to specific crimes. The Appeals Chamber disagreed and held, importantly giving shape to an otherwise vague term in the Rome Statute that,
The use of the words “crimes referred to in article 5” [in the rules of procedure and evidence] indicates that the term. “crime in question” in article 12 (3) of the Statute refers to the categories of crimes in article 5 of the Statute, i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, and not to specific events in the past, in the course of which such crimes were committed.
This holding of the Appeals Chamber also puts to rest the argument made by some that non-States parties (such as a potential Palestine) can refer only the crimes of their opponents to the Court.
 IT-95-5/18-AR73.9, 11 December 2012.
 Ibid. at ¶¶ 2-3.
 Ibid. at ¶ 4.
 Ibid. at ¶ 9.
 Ibid. at ¶ 15.
 Ibid. at ¶ 16-18, 21.
 ICC-01/11-01/11, 7 December 2012.
 Ibid. at ¶ 6.
 Ibid. at ¶ 8.
 Ibid at ¶ 10.
 Ibid. at ¶¶ 14-15.
 Ibid. at ¶¶ 16-18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 41, 48.
 ICC-01/11-01/11, 10 December 2012.
 ICC-02/11-01/11 OA 2, 12 Decmeber 2012.
 Ibid. at ¶ 80.