The Problems with the Implementation of the Prosecutorial Discretion at the ICC

Year 2021, Volume: 79 Issue: 4, 1391 - 1419, 31.12.2021

Ebru Demir

https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2021.79.4.0009

Abstract

The International Criminal Court’s (the ICC or the Court) status and its judicial practices have been controversial since its establishment in 2002. Critics argue that the Court is used by great powers as an instrument to achieve their political objectives and hence it has long lost its legitimacy. The ICC prosecutor has played a key role in aggravating these criticisms. The ICC’s legitimacy is further endangered by the Prosecutor’s situation and case selection process and the criteria that they have applied. This article argues that the ambiguity embedded in the admissibility conditions in the Rome Statute results in the critique that the ICC is partial, biased and selective. Even though the ICC Prosecutor has recently published various reports in order to make the admissibility conditions transparent, a detailed examination of these reports shows that these criteria are still far from being transparent. The cases analysed in this article manifest that there are different and contrasting understandings of the admissibility conditions even within the ICC itself. This article acknowledges the difficulties that the ICC Prosecutor faces. In order not to overwhelm the ICC with numerous applications, the Prosecutor has to reject some of them. Having admitted that, this article shows that the Prosecutor’s practices regarding the admissibility conditions aggravate the criticisms against the ICC’s legitimacy and objectivity. The examples in this article illustrate that the admissibility conditions were interpreted in a way which contrasts with the Rome Statute itself.

Keywords

International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Prosecutorial Discretion, Admissibility Conditions, Politicisation, Legitimacy Crisis

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Savcısına Kabul Edilebilirlik Değerlendirmesinde Tanınan Geniş Takdir Yetkisinin Kullanımında Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlar

Abstract

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi kurulduğu tarihten itibaren uluslararası kamuoyunda tartışmalı bir yere sahiptir. Mahkeme, politik saikler doğrultusunda hareket ettiği ve bunun bir sonucu olarak da meşruiyetini yitirdiği yönünde çeşitli eleştirilere muhatap olmaktadır. Mahkemenin bu şekilde eleştirilmesinde ve mahkemenin bir meşruiyet krizine girmesinde Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Savcılarının oynadığı rol büyüktür. Savcının verdiği kararlar ve yaptığı seçimler, mahkemeye yönelik politikleşme ve meşruiyetini yitirme iddialarını daha da derinleştirmektedir. Makalede, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Savcılarının olay ve dava seçiminde başvurduğu kabul edilebilirlik şartları incelenmektedir. Bu makaleye göre, mahkemenin kurucu sözleşmesi olan Roma Statüsünde yer alan kabul edilebilirlik şartlarının muğlaklığı ve bu muğlak şartları uygulamada Savcıya tanınan geniş takdir yetkisi, mahkemenin seçici, yanlı ve önyargılı bir şekilde hareket ettiği iddialarının kaynağını oluşturmaktadır. Her ne kadar Savcı, bu şartları şeffaflaştırmak ve uluslararası kamuoyunu olay ve dava seçiminde tarafsız davrandığına dair temin etmek amacıyla çeşitli raporlar yayınlamış olsa da, makalede bu raporların detaylı bir şekilde incelemesi göstermektedir ki kabul edilebilirlik şartları hala muğlaklığını korumaktadır. Ayrıca, makalede incelenen dava örnekleri mahkemenin farklı birimleri arasında da kabul edilebilirlik şartlarına ilişkin anlayış farklılıkları olduğunu net bir şekilde gözler önüne sermektedir. Makale, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Savcılarının karşılaştıkları güçlükleri göz ardı etmemekte, karşılaştıkları ve karşılaşabilecekleri problemleri ve zorlukları kabul etmektedir. Ek olarak makalede, Roma Statüsünün bu konuda muğlak olduğu ve Savcılara kabul edilebilirlik şartlarıyla ilgili olarak yeterince yönlendirme yapmadığı da belirtilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, Savcıların uygulamaları incelendiğinde kabul edilebilirlik kriterlerinin uygulanması aşamasında Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin meşruiyetine ve objektifliğine yönelik eleştirileri güçlendiren durumların ortaya çıktığı görülmektedir.

Keywords

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Savcısı, Savcının Takdir Yetkisi, Kabul Edilebilirlik Şartları, Politikleşme, Meşruiyet Krizi

References

• Ainley K, ‘The International Criminal Court on Trial’ (2011) 24 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 309.
• Akhavan P, ‘The Lord’s Resistance Army Case: Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to the International Criminal Court’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 403.
• ——, ‘Self-Referrals Before the International Criminal Court: Are States the Villains or the Victims of Atrocities?’ (2010) 21 Criminal Law Forum 103.
• Aksar Y, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD)’ (2003) 52 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 125.
• Alibaba A, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu’ (2000) 49 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 181.
• Amnesty International, ‘Uganda: First Ever Arrest Warrants by International Criminal Court - A First Step Towards Addressing Impunity’ (Ekim 2005) <https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/80000/afr590082005en.pdf>
• Apuuli KP, ‘The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) Insurgency in Northern Uganda’ (2004) 15 Criminal Law Forum 391.
• Arsanjani MH and Reisman WM, ‘The Law-in-Action of the International Criminal Court’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 385. Azarkan E, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ile Eski Yugoslavya Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi’ (2004) 24 Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 211.
• Bekou O, ‘A Case for Review of Article 88, ICC Statute: Strengthening a Forgotten Provision’ (2009) 12 New Criminal Law Review 468.
• ——, ‘Crimes at Crossroads: Incorporating International Crimes at the National Level’ (2012) 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice 677.
• Bergsmo M, Bekou O and Jones A, ‘Complementarity After Kampala: Capacity Building and the ICC’s Legal Tools’ (2010) 2 Goettingen Journal of International Law 791.
• Bikundo E, ‘The International Criminal Court and Africa: Exemplary Justice’ (2012) 23 Law and Critique 21.
• Bolton JR, ‘The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America’s Perspective’ (2001) 64 Law and Contemporary Problems 167.
• Branch A, ‘Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention’ (2007) 21 Ethics & International Affairs 179.
• Buchan R, ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and the International Criminal Court’ (2014) 25 Criminal Law Forum 465.
• Burke-White WW, ‘Proactive Complementarity: The International Criminal Court and National Courts in the Rome System of Justice’ (2008) 49 Harvard International Law Journal 53.
• Burke-White WW, ‘Implementing a Policy of Positive Complementarity in the Rome System of Justice’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum 59.
• Cannon BJ, Pkalya DR and Maragia B, ‘The International Criminal Court and Africa: Contextualizing the Anti-ICC Narrative’ (2016) 2 African Journal of International Criminal Justice 6.
• Cole RJV, ‘Africa’s Relationship with the International Criminal Court: More Political than Legal’ 14 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1.
• Dancy G and others, ‘What Determines Perceptions of Bias toward the International Criminal Court? Evidence from Kenya’ (2020) 64 Journal of Conflict Resolution 1443.
• Dancy G and Montal F, ‘Unintended Positive Complementarity: Why International Criminal Court Investigations May Increase Domestic Human Rights Prosecutions’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 35.
• Danner AM, ‘Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 510.
• Davis C, ‘Political Considerations in Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court’ (2015) 15 International Criminal Law Review 170.
• deGuzman MM, ‘Choosing to Prosecute: Expressive Selection at the International Criminal Court’ (2012) 33 Michigan Journal of International Law 265.
• Dugard J, ‘Palestine and the International Criminal Court: Institutional Failure or Bias?’ (2013) 11 Journal of International Criminal Justice 563.
• Eberechi I, ‘“Rounding Up the Usual Suspects”: Exclusion, Selectivity, and Impunity in the Enforcement of International Criminal Justice and the African Union’s Emerging Resistance’ (2011) 4 African Journal of Legal Studies 51.
• El Zeidy MM, ‘The Gravity Threshold under the Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum 35.
• Ezennia CN, ‘The Modus Operandi of the International Criminal Court System: An Impartial or a Selective Justice Regime?’ (2016) 16 International Criminal Law Review 448.
• France 24, ‘Sudan’s Bashir Blasts ICC’s “New Face of Colonialism”’ (27 May 2013) <https://www.france24.com/en/20130527-african-union-icc-justice-sudan-bashir-kenya-kenyatta>
• Freeland V, ‘Rebranding the State: Uganda’s Strategic Use of the International Criminal Court: Rebranding the State: Uganda and the ICC’ (2015) 46 Development and Change 293.
• Gaeta P, ‘Is the Practice of “Self-Referrals” a Sound Start for the ICC?’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 949.
• Gissel LE, ‘A Different Kind of Court: Africa’s Support for the International Criminal Court, 1993–2003’ (2018) 29 European Journal of International Law 725.
• Helfer LR and Showalter AE, ‘Opposing International Justice: Kenya’s Integrated Backlash Strategy against the ICC’ (2017) 17 International Criminal Law Review 1.
• Heller KJ, ‘Article 18 and the Iraq Declination’ (Aralık 2020) <http://opiniojuris.org/2020/12/12/article-18-and-the-iraq-declination/> ——, ‘The Nine Words That (Wrongly) Doomed the Iraq Investigation’ (Aralık 2020) <http://opiniojuris.org/2020/12/10/the-nine-words-that-wrongly-doomed-the-iraq-investigation/>
• Human Rights Watch, ‘ICC: Investigate All Sides in Uganda’ (ubat 2004) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/02/04/icc-investigate-all-sides-uganda>
• ——, ‘ICC: New Prosecutor Takes Reins’ (13 June 2012) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/13/icc-new-prosecutor-takes-reins>
• Keller LM, ‘The Practice of the International Criminal Court: Comments on the Complementarity Conundrum’ (2010) 8 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 199. Kılıç AS, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Devletlerin Egemenliği Üzerine Ulusal Egemenlik Odaklı Bir İnceleme’ (2009) 58 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 615.
• Labuda PI, ‘The International Criminal Court and Perceptions of Sovereignty, Colonialism and Pan-African Solidarity’ (2014) 20 African Yearbook of International Law Online 289.
• Lugano G, ‘Counter-Shaming the International Criminal Court’s Intervention as Neocolonial: Lessons from Kenya’ (2017) 11 International Journal of Transitional Justice 9.
• Moreno-Ocampo L, ‘Keynote Address: Integrating the Work of the ICC into Local Justice Initiatives’ (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 497.
• Nation, ‘Kagame Tells Why He Is Against ICC Charging Bashir’ (Kigali, Ağustos 2008) <https://nation.africa/kenya/news/africa/kagame-tells-why-he-is-against-icc-charging-bashir--552248>
• Nouwen SMH and Werner WG, ‘Doing Justice to the Political: The International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan’ (2010) 21 European Journal of International Law 941.
• O’Brien M, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion as an Obstacle to Prosecution of United Nations Peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court: The Big Fish/Small Fish Debate and the Gravity Threshold’ (2012) 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice 525.
• Otim M and Wierda M, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’ in Nicholas Waddell and Phil Clark (eds), Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa (Royal African Society 2008).
• Roach SC, ‘Legitimising Negotiated Justice: The International Criminal Court and Flexible Governance’ (2013) 17 The International Journal of Human Rights 619.
• Robinson D, ‘The Controversy over Territorial State Referrals and Reflections on ICL Discourse’ (2011) 9 Journal of International Criminal Justice 355.
• Sã S and Cleary KA, ‘The Gravity Threshold of the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 23 American Journal of International Law 807. Sagan A, ‘African Criminals/African Victims: The Institutionalised Production of Cultural Narratives in International Criminal Law’ (2010) 39 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 3.
• Salter M, Nazi War Crimes, US Intelligence and Selective Prosecution at Nuremberg: Controversies Regarding the Role of the Office of Strategic Services (1st edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2007).
• Schabas WA, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 731.
• Schabas WA, ‘Victor’s Justice: Selecting “Situations” at the International Criminal Court’ (2010) 43 The John Marshall Law Review 535.
• Schueller A, ‘The ICC, British War Crimes in Iraq and a Very British Tradition’ (Aralık 2020) <http://opiniojuris.org/2020/12/11/the-icc-british-war-crimes-in-iraq-and-a-very-british-tradition/>
• Smeulers A, Weerdesteijn M and Hola B, ‘The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the OTP’s Performance’ (2015) 15 International Criminal Law Review 1.
• Sriram CL and Brown S, ‘Kenya in the Shadow of the ICC: Complementarity, Gravity and Impact’ (2012) 12 International Criminal Law Review 219.
• Stahn C, ‘Complementarity: A Tale of Two Notions’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum 87.
• Stegmiller I, ‘The Gravity Threshold under the ICC Statute: Gravity Back and Forth in Lubanga and Ntaganda’ (2009) 9 International Criminal Law Review 547.
• Takemura H, ‘Big Fish and Small Fish Debate–An Examination of the Prosecutorial Discretion’ (2007) 7 International Criminal Law Review 677.
• Tiemessen A, ‘The International Criminal Court and the Politics of Prosecutions’ (2014) 18 The International Journal of Human Rights 444.
• Tillier J, ‘The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity: Strengthening the Rule of Law?’ (2013) 13 International Criminal Law Review 507.
• Tladi D, ‘The African Union and the International Criminal Court: The Battle for the Soul of International Law’ (2009) 34 South African Yearbook of International Law 57.
• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi, Roma Statüsü (1998) <http://sorular.rightsagenda.org/Uploads/UCM%20MEV/Roma%20Statüsü.pdf>
• ——, ‘Kongo Demokratik Cumhuriyeti Olayı’ Ön-Yargılama Mahkemesi Kararı, No: ICC-01/04-01/07 (Şubat 2006) https://www.icc-cpi.int/RelatedRecords/CR2008_04184.PDF
• ——, ‘Kongo Demokratik Cumhuriyeti Olayı’ Temyiz Mahkemesi Kararı, No: ICC-01/04 (Ocak 2011) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2011_01426.PDF>
• ——, ‘Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor’ (Nisan 2009) < https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/fff97111-ecd6-40b5-9cda-792bcbe1e695/280253/iccbd050109eng.pdf>
• ——, ‘The Court Today’, ICC-PIDS-TCT-01-114/20_Eng (Kasım 2020) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/pids/publications/thecourttodayeng.pdf>
• ——, Savcılık Makamı, ‘Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice’ (Eylül 2007) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/772c95c9-f54d-4321-bf09-73422bb23528/143640/iccotpinterestsofjustice.pdf> ——, Savcılık Makamı, ‘Prosecutorial Strategy 2009 – 2012’ (Şubat 2010) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/66A8DCDC-3650-4514-AA62-D229D1128F65/281506/OTPProsecutorialStrategy20092013.pdf >
• ——, Savcılık Makamı, ‘Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations’ (Kasım 2013) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/otp-policy_paper_preliminary_examinations_2013-eng.pdf>
• Uzun E, ‘Milletlerarası Ceza Mahkemesi Düşüncesinin Tarihsel Gelişimi ve Roma Statüsü’ (2003) 2 Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 25.
• Verhoeven S, Wouters J and Demeyere B, ‘The International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor: Navigating between Independence and Accountability?’ (2008) 8 International Criminal Law Review 273.
• Vilmer J-BJ, ‘The African Union and the International Criminal Court: Counteracting the Crisis’ (2016) 92 International Affairs 1319.
• Yigzaw DA, ‘The International Criminal Court: Biased Against Africa or Weak Towards the Powerful?’ (2017) 43 North Carolina Journal of International Law 204.