Acceso Abierto

Procedural issues concerning ICC trial chamber I´s no case to answer decision in the Gbagbo and Blé Goudé case

dc.contributor.gruplacClínica Jurídica Internacionalspa
dc.creatorCampos Sánchez, Sofía
dc.creatorJaramillo Gómez, María Fernanda
dc.creatorLinares Botero, Sofía
dc.creatorMosquera López, Sara
dc.descriptionThis research paper is part of the research work by the International Law Clinic, organized by the Universidad del Rosario (Bogotá, Colombia) and the Ibero-American Institute of the Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (IIH, The Netherlands), in cooperation with the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It seeks to analyse the following three procedural issues relating to the ICC Trial Chamber I ́s No Case To Answer Decision in the Gbagbo and Blé Goudé case: - Do ICC chambers have the power to define the applicable standard of proof or approach to evidence ex post facto – i.e. after issuing its decision? - Are the principles of fairness and expeditiousness of the proceedings only in benefit of the accused? - In which instances a declaration of mistrial is appropriate?spa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Jurisprudenciaspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, Judgment, July 13, 1983.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Judgment, December 16, 1992.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands, Judgment, October 27, 1993.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Dombo Beeher BV v. The Netherlands, Judgment, December 27, 1993.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, Judgment, January 21, 1999.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Khan v. United Kingdom, Judgment, May 12, 2000.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, P.K. v. Finland. Judgment, July 9, 2002.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Melnychuk v. Ukraine, Decision, July 5, 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Judgment, July 6, 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia, Judgment, December 18 ,2018.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Judgment of 19 November, 1999, (Merits), November 19, 1999.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Durand and Ugarte v. Perú, Judgment of 16 August, 2000 (Merits), August 16th, 2000.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Barrios Altos v. Perú, Judgment of 14 March, 2001 (Merits), March 14, 2001.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Las Palmeras v. Colombia, Judgment of 6 December, 2001 (Merits), December 6, 2001.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Judgment of 19 September, 2006 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), September 19, 2006.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, Judgment of 28 November 2006 (Preliminary Objections and Merits), November 28, 2006.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Judgment of 5 August, 2008, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), August 5, 2008.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Anzualdo Castro v. Perú, Judgment of 22 September, 2009 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), September 22, 2009.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment of 3 September, 2012, (Preliminary Objection and Merits), September 3, 2012.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Mémoliv.Argentina.Judgmentof22August,2013(PreliminaryObjections,Merits, Reparations and Costs), August 22, 2013.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, Judgment of 22 June, 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), June 22, 2015.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Favela Nova Brasília v. Brasil, Judgment of 16 February, 2017 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), February 16, 2017.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, Situation in Uganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Prosecutor's Application for Leave to Appeal in Part Pre-trial Chamber II's Decision on the Prosecutor's Applications for Warrants of Arrest Under Article 58, August 19, 2005, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-02/04-01/05- 20.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 'Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Leave to Appeal the Chamber's Decision of 17 January 2006 on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS5 and VPRS6, ICC -01 / 04-135-Teng ', March 31, 2006, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-01/04- 135-tEN.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the challenge of the defense before the jurisdiction of the Court, December 13, 2006, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-01 / 04-01 / 06-772.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, 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, June 13, 2008, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-01/04-01/06- 1401.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor vs. Katanga and Ngudjolo, Appeals Chamber, on the Appeal of Mr Katanga Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 20 November 2009 Entitled "Decision on the Motion of the Defence for Germain Katanga for a Declaration on Unlawful Detention and Stay of Proceedings", July 28 2010, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 10, July 12, 2010.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Trial Chamber V(A), Public redacted version of “Corrigendum of Ruto Defence Request for Judgment of Acquittal”, ICC-01/09-01/11-1990-Conf-Corr, October 26, 2015, ICC Doc.: ICC-01/09- 01/11-1990-Corr-Red.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Trial Chamber V(A), Scheduling Order for Oral Hearings on the Defence 'No Case to Answer' Motions, November 6, 2015, ICC Doc.:ICC-01/09-01/11-1999.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Ruto and Sang case: ICC Trial Chamber V(A) terminates the case without prejudice to re-prosecution in future, April 5, 2016, ICC Press Release of April 5th, 2016: ICC-CPI-20160405-PR1205.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, June 8, 2018, ICC Doc No.: ICC-01 / 05-01 / 08-3636.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICC, the Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Appeals Chamber, Public redacted version of “Prosecution Document in Support of Appeal”, October 17, 2019, ICC Doc. No.: ICC-02/11-01/15.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, October 19, 2000, Case No.: ICTR-97-23-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, June 1, 2001, Case No.:ICTR-96-4.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Clement Kayishema, Obed Ruzindana, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, June 1, 2001, Case No.: ICTR-95-1spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Karemera, Trial Chamber III, decision on Severance of André Rwamakuba and Amendments of the Indictment, December 7, 2003, Case No.: ICTR–98– 44–PT.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, March 18, 2010, Case No.:ICTR-01-72.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Calixte Kalimanzira, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, October 20, 2010, Case No.: ICTR-05-88-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Renzaho, Appeals Chamber, Judgement April 1, 2011, Case No.: ICTR-97-31-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Aloys Ntabakuze, Appellation Chamber, Judgement, May 8, 2012, Case No.: 98-41A-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Justin Mugenzi, Prosper Mugiranzea, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, February 4, 2013, Case No.: ICTR-99-50-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Gregoire Ndhaimana, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, December 16, 2013, Case No.: ICTR-01-68.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTR, the Prosecutor v. Edouard Karemera, Mathieu Ngirumpatse, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, September 29, 2014, Case No.: ICTR-98-44.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor vs. Zlatko Aleksovski, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Prosecutor's Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, February 16, 1999, Case No.:IT-95-14/1.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, July 15, 1999, Case No.: IT-94-1-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, March 24, 2000, Case No.: IT-95-14/1.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, July 21, 2000, Case No.: IT-95-17/1-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic & Esad Landžo, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, February 20, 2001, Case No.: IT-96-21-A.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović, Trial Chamber III, Decision on Prosecution’s Request for Certification of Rule 73 bis Issue for Appeal, August 30, 2006, Case No.: IT – 05–87 – T.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor vs. Milan Martić, Appeals Chamber, Decision on Appeal against the Trial Chamber's Decision on the Evidence of Witness Milan Babić, September 14, 2006, Case No.:IT-95-11-AR73.2.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor vs. Jadranko Prlic et al., Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Prosecution Appeal Concerning the Trial Chamber's Ruling Reducing Time for the Prosecution Case, February 6, 2007, Case No.: IT-04-74-AR73.4.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj & Lahi Brahimaj, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, July 19, 2010, Case No.: IT-04-84.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic & Sredoje Lukic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, December 4, 2012, Case No.:IT-98-32/1.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Nikola Sainovic, Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vladimir Lazarevic & Sreten Lukic, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, January 23, 2014, Case No.:IT-05-87.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationICTY, the Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Appeals Chamber, Judgement, April 8, 2015, Case No.:IT-05-88/2.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSCSL, the Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi & Assad Hassan Sabra (The Prosecutor v. Ayyash and Others), Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal of the Defense of Badreddine on the “Provisional Decision on the Death of Mr. Mustafa Amine Badreddine and the Possible Termination of Proceedings”, July 11, 2016, Case No.: STL-11-01/T/AC/ AR126.11.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSCSL, the Prosecutor v. Norman et al., Appeals Chamber, Decision on the applications for a stay of proceedings and denial of right to appeal, November 4, 2003, Case No.: SCSL- 2003-09-PT.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECCC, the Prosecutor v. Khieu Samphân & Nuon Chea, Supreme Court Chamber, Appeal Judgment, November 23, 2016, Case No.: 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/SC.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBurgorgue-Larsen, L., Ubeda de Torres, A. (2011), Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, p.656.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMcdermott, Y., (2011). Rights in reverse: A critical analysis of fair trial rights under international criminal law. In Schabas, W, Mcdermott, Y & Hayes, N. (Ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives, Aldershot: Ashgate.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRainey, B., Wicks E., & Ovey C., (2017), Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 7th. Ed., Oxford University Press.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationStewart, J.K., (2014) ‘Fair Trial Rights under the Rome Statute from a Prosecution Perspective ICTR Symposium - Arusha, Tanzania’, Compendium on the Legacy of the ICTR and the Development of International Law.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTochilovsky, V., (2008) Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedure and Evidence. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECCC, Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts Of Cambodia for the Prosecution Of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea. August 10, 2011, Modification of October 27, 2004.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationECtHR (2020), Rules of Court, January 1, 2020, page 58. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/rules_court_eng.pdfspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIACtHR, Jurisprudence booklet of the Inter American Court of Human Rights N°12. Due Process. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/libros/todos/docs/cuadernillo12.pdfspa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOrganization of American States (1969), American Convention on Human Rights (adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, 22 November,1969), November 22, 1969.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUnited Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1757 (2007), Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, May 30, 2007, UN Doc. No.: S/RES/1757.spa
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.titleProcedural issues concerning ICC trial chamber I´s no case to answer decision in the Gbagbo and Blé Goudé casespa
dc.type.spaDocumento de trabajospa
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
2019 - II Procedures Issues related to No Case to Answer Motion Gbagbo and Ble Goude Case.pdf
351.42 KB
Adobe Portable Document Format
Artículo principal
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
1.44 KB
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission