Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:41:48.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS’ BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2011

Rebecca Young
Rebecca Young
Affiliation:
Associate Legal Adviser, Presidency, International Criminal Court.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute)1 provides that the International Criminal Court must consider ‘internationally recognized human rights’ in its interpretation and application of applicable law. This article highlights the difficulty of meaningfully interpreting this reference to ‘internationally recognized human rights’ in accordance with the ordinary rules of treaty interpretation. These interpretative difficulties lead the article to adopt a practical focus, examining the initial jurisprudence of the Court utilizing this aspect of article 21(3), concluding that although such jurisprudence reveals a number of shortcomings, the provision's tremendous potential as a tool of evolution and innovation is evident.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 189 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002).

2 Opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980).

3 See J Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 96; See generally Wessel, RA, ‘The Kadi Case: Towards a More Substantive Hierarchy in International Law’ (2008) 5 International Organizations Law Review 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 326; Reisman, MW, ‘Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law’ (1990) 84 AJIL 866CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 872; Fry, JD, ‘International Human Rights Law in Investment Arbitration: Evidence of International Law's Unity’ (2007–2008) 18 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 77, 123Google Scholar; Shelton, D, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’ (2006) 100 AJIL 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 294; Parker, K and Neylon, LB, ‘Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights’ (1988–1989) 12 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 411Google Scholar.

4 Bos, A, ‘1948–1998: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (1998–1999) 22 Fordham International Law Journal 229–230Google Scholar.

5 Robinson, D, ‘The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law’ (2008) 21 Leiden Journal of International Law 925, 925–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 On the participation of victims see eg Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the appeals of the Prosecutor and the Defence against Trial Chamber I's Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008', ICC-01/04-01/05-1432 (11 July 2008).

7 On such mistrust see Hunt, D, ‘The International Criminal Court: High Hopes, ‘Creative Ambiguity’ and an Unfortunate Mistrust in International Judges’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 56, 61Google Scholar; Cassese, A, ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’ (1999) 10 EJIL 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 163.

8 Arsanjani, MH, ‘The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (1999) 93 AJIL 22, 28–29Google Scholar; M McAuliffe deGuzman, ‘Article 21: Applicable Law’ in O Triffterer (ed), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2nd edn, Munich, Portland, 2008) 712.

9 McAuliffe deGuzman ibid.

10 WA Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (2nd edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2004) 93.

11 On the Record: International Criminal Court, Vol 1, Issue 13 (7 July 1998).

12 A Pellet, ‘Applicable Law’ in Antonio Cassese, P Gaeta and RWD Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary Volume II (OUP, Oxford, 2002) 1082.

13 Pellet ibid 1080–1081; See also Manning, J, ‘On Power, Participation and Authority: The International Criminal Court's Initial Appellate Jurisprudence’ (2006–2007) 38 Georgetown Journal of International Law 803, 834Google Scholar.

14 D Akande, ‘Sources of International Criminal Law’ in A Cassese (ed), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (OUP, Oxford, 2009) 47.

15 P Saland, ‘International Criminal Law Principles’ in RS Lee (ed), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (The Hague, Kluwer, 1999) 214; United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome 15 June–17 July 1998, Official Records, Volume II, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, UN Doc A/CONF.183/13 (Vol II), record of the 12th meeting, 23 June 2998 at 10:20 am, 221–222 (Per Saland).

16 Bos (n 4) 229, 234.

17 WA Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (OUP, Oxford, 2010) 385.

18 The VCLT is widely regarded as customary international law in this respect, See eg Competence of the Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1950] ICJ Rep 4, 8; Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, 21–22; Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (Qatar v Bahrain) [1995] ICJ Rep 6, 18; Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v Namibia) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045, 1059. Moreover, the ICC itself has commonly regarded it as providing the appropriate parameter by which to interpret any provision of the Rome Statute, see eg Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 33; Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Bashir, ‘Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-02/05-01/09-3 (4 March 2009), para 44.

19 Art 69(7) provides that ‘[e]vidence obtained by means of a violation of this Statute or internationally recognized human rights shall not be admissible if: (a) The violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the evidence; or (b) The admission of the evidence would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings’.

20 Rome Statute, art 36(3)(b)(ii).

21 See Rome Statute, arts 54, 55 and 67.

22 See Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal”’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 33.

23 Rome Statute, arts 20, 22–24, 54–55, 66–67.

24 Hunt (n 7) 70.

25 Pauwelyn (n 3) 260–262.

26 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Conventions Against Transnational Organized Crime, opened for signature 15 November 2000, UN Doc A/55/383, art 2(b) (entered into force 25 December 2003); Convention (No. 169) concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its seventy-sixth session, 27 June 1989, 1650 UNTS 384, arts 8(2), 9(1) (entered into force 5 September 1991).

27 Dayton Peace Accords, Annex 6: Agreement on Human Rights, opened for signature 21 November 1995 (entered into force 14 December 1995).

28 Art 31(3)(c) provides that ‘[t]here shall be taken into account, together with the context … any relevant rules of international law applicable in relations between the parties’.

29 Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Judgment) [2003] ICJ Rep 161, 182; Bankovic et al v Belgium et al, Application No 52207/99, Grand Chamber Decision as to Admissibility (12 December 2001), para 57; Al-Adsani v the United Kingdom, Application No. 35763/97, Judgment of the Grand Chamber (21 November 2001), para 55.

30 See eg McLachlan, C, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pauwelyn (n 3).

31 Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 54th session, provision agenda item 4, (29 May 2002) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/WG.2/WP.1.

32 ibid, ‘The phrases ‘internationally recognized human rights’ and ‘international human rights’ include civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, as set forth in the international Bill of Rights and other human rights treaties, as well as the right to development and rights recognized in international humanitarian law, international refugee law, international labour law, and other relevant instruments, adopted within the United Nations system'.

33 Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, (55th session) Commentary on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (26 August 2003) UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2.

34 Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Comments to Azerbaijan, (25 August 1999) UN Doc A/54/18; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Comments to Colombia (9 April 1992); UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.2 Human Rights Committee, Concluding Comments to Croatia (30 April 2001) UN Doc CCPR/CO/71/HRV; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Comments to the Czech Republic, (27 August 2001) UN Doc CCPR/CO/72/CZE.

35 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, Case No IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber (2 October 1995), para 45; See also Prosecutor v Tolimir, Case No IT-05-88/2, Decision on Preliminary Motions on the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules, Trial Chamber II (14 December 2007), para 35.

36 Prosecutor v Furundzija, Case No IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment, Trial Chamber (10 December 1998), para 183.

37 Moreover, even if the ICTY's practice could inform the present interpretative process, it is doubtful that jurisprudence of the ICTY could constitute ‘international law applicable between the parties’ for the purposes of art 31(3)(c). The commentary on 31(3)(c) refers only to treaties, customs and general principles as international law potentially applicable between the parties (see Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, adopted by the International Law Commission (58th session) Yearbook of the International Commission (2006) vol II, part 2, principle 18; Pauwelyn (n 3) 254; Linderfolk, U, ‘“Who are ‘the Parties?’” Article 31, Paragraph 3(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention and the “Principle of Systemic Integration” Revisited’ (2008) 3 Netherlands International Law Review 343, 344Google Scholar. Judicial decisions are generally treated as a subsidiary source of international law (see eg Statute of the International Court of Justice, art 38(1)(d) and Rome Statute, art 21(2)). They are not regarded as binding on all States (Statute of the International Court of Justice, art 59). In addition, in the context of international criminal tribunals, the State is not even a party to the judicial process. Thus, even if the ICTY offered a more relevant and useful understanding of the phrase being interpreted, it would arguably not be regarded as within the scope of art 31(3)(c).

38 I Sinclair, The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (2nd edn, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1984) 142.

39 Sinclair ibid; Ris, M, ‘Treaty Interpretation and ICJ Recourse to Travaux Préparartoires: Towards a Proposed Amendment of Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties’ (1991) 14 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 111Google Scholar, 113.

40 Lauterpacht, H, ‘Some Observations on Preparatory Work in the Interpretation of Treaties’ (1934–1935) 48 Harvard Law Review 549, 586Google Scholar; A Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2nd edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2007) 244; Ris ibid; International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries’ Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966) vol II, 220Google Scholar.

41 Ris (n 39) 111, 113.

42 Kirsch, P and Holmes, JT, ‘The Birth of the International Criminal Court: The 1998 Rome Conference’ (1998) 36 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3Google Scholar, 4; Cassese, A, ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’ (1999) 10 EJIL 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 145.

43 Although the US forced a last minute vote, the Diplomatic Conference was conducted on the understanding that it was to produce a consensus text: see Kirsch and Holmes, ibid.

44 Allott, P, ‘Power Sharing in the Law of the Sea’ (1985) 77 AJIL 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 7.

45 ‘Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court—Alternative to the ILC Draft (Siracusa-Draft)’ prepared by a Committee of Experts (Siracusa/Freiburg, July 1995), art 44(6).

46 ibid 48.

47 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, vol I (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March-April and August 1996), UNGA Official Records, 51st session, Supplement No. 22, UN Doc A/51/22, para 270; International Criminal Court—Press Release GA/L/3044 11th Meeting (PM) (21 October 1997); See also contributions by Amnesty International on the general importance of human rights protections in the Statute: Amnesty International, ‘Establishing a Just, Fair and Effective International Criminal Court’, AI Index IOR 40/05/94 (October 1994).

48 Human Rights Watch, ‘Commentary for the March–April Preparatory Committee Meeting’ (copy on file with author).

49 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Addendum, Submitted to the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (Rome, Italy, 15 June–17 July 1998), UN Doc A/CONF.183/2/Add.1.

50 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome 15 June–17 July 1998, Official Records, Volume II, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, UN Doc A/CONF.183/13 (Vol II), various plenary meetings, 222–224.

51 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome 15 June–17 July 1998, Official Records, Volume II, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, UN Doc A/CONF.183/13 (Vol II), 2nd plenary meeting, 15 June 1998, 70–71.

52 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The High Commissioner's Position Paper on the Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court’ (Geneva, 15 June 1998), UNICC/NONE/98/T, paras 46–50.

53 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome 15 June–17 July 1998, Official Records, Volume II, Summary records of the plenary meetings and of the meetings of the Committee of the Whole, UN Doc A/CONF.183/13 (Vol II), 12th plenary meeting, 23 June 1998, 221–222.

54 ibid 223.

55 See Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘Second Decision on the Prosecution Requests and Amended Requests for Redactions under Rule 81’’ Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-774 (14 December 2006), para 11.

56 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 37; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber I's Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008', Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432 (11 July 2008), para 13 (Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pikis); Prosecutor v Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, ‘Decision on the Prosecutor's application for leave to appeal Pre-Trial Chamber Ill's decision on disclosure’, Pre-Trial Chamber III, ICC-01/05-01/08-75 (25 August 2008), para 13; Prosecutor v Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, ‘Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation', Pre-Trial Chamber III, ICC-01/05-01/08-320 (12 December 2008), paras 16–17.

57 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ibid, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 37; See also Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Leave to Reply to “Conclusions de la défense en réponse au mémoire d‘appel du Procureur’”, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-424 (12 September 2006), para 3 (Judge Pikis); See also Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Décision sur la demande de mise en liberté provisoire de Thomas Lubanga Dyilo”, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-824 (13 February 2007), para 16 (Judge Pikis).

58 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ibid, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 11 (emphasis added); see also Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19 (2) (a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-772 (14 December 2006), para 36.

59 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ibid, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-772 (14 December 2006), para 37 (emphasis added).

60 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, ‘Decision on the Joinder of the Cases against Germain KATANGA and Mathieu NGUDJOLO CHUI’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-257 (10 March 2008) 7; Prosecutor v Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the Joinder of the Cases against Germain KATANGA and Mathieu NGUDJOLO CHUI’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-307 (10 March 2008) 7; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber to review proprio motu the pretrial detention of Germain Katanga’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-330 (18 March 2008), page 6; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 (13 May 2008), para 78.

61 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr (17 January 2006), para 81; Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Bashir, ‘Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-02/05-01/09-3 (4 March 2009), para 44.

62 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarisation and Witness Proofing’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/06-679 (8 November 2006).

63 ibid para 10.

64 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision Establishing General Principles Governing Applications to Restrict Disclosure pursuant to Rule 81 (2) and (4) of the Statute’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/06-108 (19 May 2006), para 7; Prosecutor v Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the Joinder of the Cases against Germain KATANGA and Mathieu NGUDJOLO CHUI’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-307 (10 March 2008) 7; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, ‘Decision on the Joinder of the Cases against Germain KATANGA and Mathieu NGUDJOLO CHUI’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-257 (10 March 2008), 7; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, ‘Judgment on the appeal of Mr Germain Katanga against the decision of Prc-Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the Defence Request Concerning Languages”’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/07-522 (27 May 2008), para 38; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision On The Final System Of Disclosure And The Establishment Of A Timetable’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/06-102 (15 May 2006), paras 1–3 of annex 1.

65 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ibid, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/06-108 (19 May 2006), para 7.

66 For example, it is common to see judicial pronouncement to the effect of ‘this interpretation of article 60(2) of the Statute is consistent with the case law of the Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’: Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber to review proprio motu the pretrial detention of Germain Katanga’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-330 (18 March 2008) 7, 9; Similarly, the Appeals Chamber has pronounced its interpretation of a particular provision and subsequently determined that ‘this interpretation is in adherence with the requirements in article 21(3) of the Statute … The Appeals Chamber has had regard to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in this area of the law’: Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, ‘Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘First Decision on the Prosecution Request for Authorisation to Redact Witness Statements’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/07-475 (13 May 2008), para 57; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008”’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-1486 (21 October 2008), para 46.

67 See references to the ICCPR, ECHR, IACHR and African Charter on Human and Peoples's Rights in Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 11 and in Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Reasons for ‘Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Defence application “Demande de suspension de toute action ou procédure afin de permettre la désignation d'un nouveau Conseil de la Défense filed on 20 February 2007” issued on 23 February 2007’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-844 (9 March 2007), para 12; See references to the ICCPR, ECHR and IACHR in Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the admissibility of the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Décision sur la confirmation des charges” of 29 January 2007’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-926 (13 June 2007), para 13; See references to the UDHR, ICCPR, IACHR, CRC, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and Arab Charter on Human Rights in Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on ‘Mr Mathieu Ngudjolo's Complaint Under Regulation 221(1) of the Regulations of the Registry Against the Registrar's Decision of 18 November 2008’, Presidency, ICC-RoR217-02/08-8 (10 March 2009), para 44; See reference to the case law of the Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ibid, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-01/07-330 (18 March 2008) 7.

68 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ibid, Presidency, ICC-RoR217-02/08-8 (10 March 2009), para 44.

69 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-168 (13 July 2006), para 38; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Reasons for ‘Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Defence application ‘Demande de suspension de toute action ou procédure afin de permettre la désignation d'un nouveau Conseil de la Défense’ filed on 20 February 2007' issued on 23 February 2007', Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-844 (9 March 2007), para 12.

70 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19 (2) (a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-772 (14 December 2006), para 38; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, ‘Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “First Decision on the Prosecution Request for Authorisation to Redact Witness Statements”’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/07-475 (13 May 2008), paras 57–59; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008’, Trial Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-1401 (13 June 2008), para 46; Although at least one decision has been dominated in some respects by its focus on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Prosecutor v Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, ‘Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation', Pre-Trial Chamber III, ICC-01/05-01/08-320 (12 December 2008), paras 44–45.

71 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Defence Appeal against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to Jurisdiction of 3 October 2006’, ICC-01/04-01/06-620 (26 October 2006), para 39.

72 Udombana, NJ, ‘The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Development of Fair Trial Norms in Africa' (2006) 6 African Human Rights Law Review 299, 311Google Scholar; See eg Right to a defence: International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998), paragraphs 99–101; Right to communicate with counsel of choice and the necessity of public proceedings except for exceptional circumstances: Media Rights Agenda and Others v Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 2000 (ACHPR 1998), paras 52, 56; Equality of arms: Advocats San Frontieres (on behalf of Bwampamye) v Burundi (2000) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR, 2000), para 27.

73 Murray, R, ‘International Human Rights: Neglect of Perspectives from African Institutions’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 195.

74 Slaughter, A-M, ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’ (1994–1995) University of Richmond Law Review 99, 121Google Scholar.

75 Caso Ceasar v Trinidad and Tobago, No. 123, Ser C, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 11 March 2005, paragraphs 7,12 (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade); Higgins, R, ‘A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 791, 798Google Scholar.

76 See also Heyns, C, ‘African Human Rights Law and the European Convention’ (1995) South African Journal of Human Rights 252, 259Google Scholar.

77 Udombana (n 72).

78 Murray (n 73) 203; Heyns (n 76) 263.

79 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on “Mr Mathieu Ngudjolo's Complaint Under Regulation 221(1) of the Regulations of the Registry Against the Registrar's Decision of 18 November 2008”’, Presidency, ICC-RoR217-02/08-8 (10 March 2009), para 31.

80 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Joint Application of Victims a/0001/06 to a/0003/06 and a/0105/06 concerning the “Directions and Decision of the Appeals Chamber” of 2 February 2007’, Appeals Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-925 (13 June 2007), para 16 (Judge Song); Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ibid, Presidency, ICC-RoR217-02/08-8 (10 March 2009); Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6’, Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr (17 January 2006), para 115; Prosecutor v Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, ‘Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation', Pre-Trial Chamber III, ICC-01/05-01/08-320 (12 December 2008), para 16; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on victims’ participation', Trial Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119 (18 January 2008), para 35; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the applications by victims to participate in the proceedings’, Trial Chamber, ICC-01/04-01/06-1556-Corr-Anx1 (15 December 2008), para 48.

81 See French, D, ‘Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 308.

82 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on “Mr Mathieu Ngudjolo's Complaint Under Regulation 221(1) of the Regulations of the Registry Against the Registrar's Decision of 18 November 2008”’, Presidency, ICC-RoR217-02/08-8 (10 March 2009).

83 ibid para 31.

84 French (n 81) 314.

85 See ‘Unleashing the Laws of War’ The Economist Vol 393, No 8644, (London England 15 August 2009) 44.Google Scholar

86 See A Boyle and C Chinkin, The Making of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2007) 274.

87 Caso Ceasar vs Trinidad and Tobago No 123, Ser C, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 11 March 2005, para 7 (Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade).

88 Slaughter (n 74) 99.

89 Higgins (n 75) 791.