Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinde Malvarlığının Dondurulması ve Devletlerin İş birliği Yükümlülüğü

Öz

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (UCM), uluslararası alanda işlenen ağır suçların yargılanmasını sağlamaktadır. Malvarlığının dondurulması ise, bu suçların mağdurları açısından adaletin tesisi ve uğradıkları zararların tazmininde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Roma Statüsü’nde, “tanımlama, izleme, dondurma veya el koyma” terimleri bir arada kullanılmaktadır ve bu kavramların tanımları da ne ilgili hukuki düzenlemelerde ne de UCM tarafından yapılmıştır. Ancak UCM’nin uygulamasına bakıldığında, bu kavram iki farklı çerçevede değerlendirilebilir. Birincisi, koruyucu tedbir kapsamında malvarlığının dondurulmasıdır. Bu tedbir, esasen mahkûmiyet öncesinde mağdurların zararlarının tazmini amacıyla uygulanmaktadır. İkincisi ise, mahkûmiyet sonrası malvarlığının dondurulmasıdır. Bu durumda hem müsadereyi sağlamak hem de mağdurların zararlarının tazminini güvence altına almak hedeflenmektedir. Birincisi, koruyucu tedbir kapsamında malvarlığının dondurulmasıdır. Bu tedbir, esasen mahkûmiyet öncesinde mağdurların zararlarının tazmini amacıyla uygulanmaktadır. İkincisi ise, mahkûmiyet sonrası malvarlığının dondurulmasıdır. Bu durumda hem müsadereyi sağlamak hem de mağdurların zararlarının tazminini güvence altına almak hedeflenmektedir. Ancak UCM’nin kendi başına bir yaptırım veya icra mekanizması bulunmadığından, devletlerle iş birliği yapması zorunludur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi bağlamında malvarlığının dondurulmasına ilişkin hukuki sistemi ortaya koymak ve devletlerin bu çerçevedeki iş birliği yükümlülüklerini incelemektir. Çalışma üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde malvarlığının dondurulması kavramı ve hukuki niteliği açıklanmaktadır. İkinci bölümde UCM uygulamasında malvarlığının dondurulması ele alınmaktadır. Üçüncü bölümde ise devletlerin UCM ile iş birliği yükümlülüğü değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi
• Malvarlıklarının dondurulması
• Müsadere
• Zararın tazmini
• İş birliği yükümlülüğü.

Freezing of Assets before the International Criminal Court and the Obligation of States to Cooperate

Öz

The International Criminal Court (ICC) ensures the prosecution of serious international crimes. The freezing of assets plays an important role in establishing justice for the victims of these crimes and reparation for the harm they have suffered. The Rome Statute uses the terms' identification, tracing, freezing or seizure' together, and the definitions of these concepts have not been provided in the relevant legal regulations or by the ICC. However, based on the ICC's practice, this concept can be evaluated in two frameworks. The first is the freezing of assets as a protective measure. This measure is primarily applied before a conviction to ensure the reparation of the victims’ losses. The second is freezing assets after conviction, which aims both to facilitate confiscation and to secure the reparation of the victims’ damages. This study aims to outline the legal framework for freezing assets within the context of the International Criminal Court and examine the obligations of states to cooperate in this regard. The study is divided into three sections. The first section will explain the concept of asset freezing and its legal nature. The second section will address the freezing of assets in the ICC’s practice. The third section will evaluate the obligations of states to cooperate with the ICC.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• International Criminal Court
• Freezing of assets
• Forfeiture
• Reparation
• Obligation to cooperate.

Kaynakça

1. Akande D and Dias T d S, ‘Cooperation with the ICC What the Security Council and ASP Must Do’ (ISS Africa Report 2019).
2. Aksar Y, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku (Seçkin 2022).
3. Aksar Y, Uluslararası Hukuk II (Genişletilmiş ve Güncellenmiş 7. Baskı, Seçkin 2023).
4. Ambos K, ‘The International Criminal Court and the Traditional Principles of International Cooperation in Criminal Matters’ (1998) IX The Finnish Yearbook of International Law 413.
5. Bassiouni M C and Schabas W A, The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court (Second Revised and Expanded Edition, Brill 2016).
6. Bekou O and Miariti K K ‘International Criminal Law Guidelines: Implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (2017) Centre for International Law Research and Policy accessed 06 August 2025.
7. Birkett D J, Asset Freezing at the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council: A legal Protection Perspective (Eleven International Publishing 2021).
8. Caşın M H, Modern Uluslararası Hukukun Temel Esasları (2. Baskı, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Yayınevi 2020).

9. Çakan S, ‘Mağdurlar için Güven Fonu’ (2021) 8(2) İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 361.
10. Çakan S, Uluslararası Hukukta Bireyin Onarım Hakkı (Astana Yayınları 2021).
11. Erhan Bulut Z, ‘Devletlerin Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ile İş Birliği Yükümlülüklerinin İhlali ve Yaptırım Mekanizmaları’ (2024) 4(2) KHM 703.
12. Eser A, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Kurulması: Roma Statüsünün Ortaya Çıkışı ve Temel Özellikleri’ in Feridun Yenisey (ed), Uluslararası Ceza Divanı (Arıkan 2007) (Çeviren: Faruk Turhan).
13. Gündüz A, Milletlerarası Hukuk (11. Baskı, Savaş Yayınevi 2021) (Reşat Volkan Günel(ed)).
14. Jones A, ‘Non-cooperation and the Efficiency of the International Criminal Court’ in O. Bekou and D. J. Birkett (eds), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court: Perspectives from Theory and Practice (Brill/Nijhoff 2016).
15. Kreß C and Prost K, ‘Article 87 Requests for Cooperation: General Provisions’ (2015) ssrn accessed 16 August 2025, 1517.
16. Kul M C, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uluslararası Tecavüz (Saldırı) Suçu (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2016).
17. Martinez M G, ‘Forfeiture of Assets at the International Criminal Court; The Short Arm of International Criminal Justice’ (2014) 12(2) Journal of International Criminal Justice 193.
18. Oosterveld V, Perry M and McManus J, ‘The Cooperation of States With the International Criminal Court’ (2001) 25 Fordham International Law Journal 767.
19. Owiso O, ‘Responsibility for Property and Assets Frozen or Seized upon Request by the International Criminal Court’ in R. Barbosa, F. Mazzacuva and M. Ochi (eds), Contemporary Challenges and Alternatives to International Criminal Justice (Maastricht University 2022).
20. Önok R M, ‘UCD’nin Görev Alanı ve Uygulanan Hukuk’ in Feridun Yenisey (ed), Uluslararası Ceza Divanı (Arıkan 2007).
21. Önok R. M, Tarihi Perspektifiyle Uluslararası Ceza Divanı (Turhan Kitabevi 2003).
22. Pavlidis G, ‘Asset Recovery in the Context of International Criminal Court Proceedings in Light of FATF Standards’ (2020) 30(4) Swiss Review of International and European Law 521.
23. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk (Gözden Geçirilmiş ve Güncellenmiş 20. Bası, Turhan Kitabevi 2021).
24. Pikis G M, The Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court-Analysis of the Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Regulations of the Court and Supplementary Instruments (Martinus/Nijhoff Publishers 2010).
25. Prost K, ‘Co-operation with the ICC: Arrests and Surrender, the Gathering of Evidence and Asset Forfeiture’ (2009) 73-94 accessed 10 June 2025.
26. Rastan R, ‘Testing Co-operation: The International Criminal Court and National Authorities’ (2008) 21 Leiden Journal of International Law 431.
27. REDRESS, Financial Accountability at the International Criminal Court: Compliance with ICC Asset Recovery Requests (2024).
28. Schabas W A, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Third Edition, Cambridge University Press 2007).
29. Schabas W A, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Second Edition, Oxford University Press 2016).
30. Scheffer D, ‘The International Criminal Court’ in W. A. Schabas and N. Bernaz (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law (Routledge 2011).
31. Simonato M, ‘Confiscation and Fundamental Rights Across Criminal and Non-criminal Domains’ (2017) 18 Era Forum 365.
32. Sluiter G and Talontsi, ‘Credible and Authoritative Enforcement of State Cooperation with the International Criminal Court’ in O. Bekou and D. J. Birkett (eds), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court: Perspectives from Theory and Practice (Brill/Nijhoff 2016).
33. Tezcan D, Erdem M R ve Önok M, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku (Güncellenmiş 6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021).
34. Turhan F, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin Yargı Yetkisi’ in Feridun Yenisey (ed), Uluslararası Ceza Divanı (Arıkan 2007).
35. Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Court on Cooperation, ICC-ASP/18/16, 21 October 2019.
36. ICC, ‘Financial Investigations and Recovery of Assets’ (2017) 5 accessed 10 June 2025.
37. ICC, Regulations of the Office of the Prosecutor (2011), Date of entry into force: 23th April 2009.
38. ICC, Statement to the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in Darfur, Pursuant to UNSCR 1593 (2005), Statement: 29 June 2015 accessed 16 August 2025.
39. Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, Entry into Force: 04.10.2004, ICC-ASP/3/Res.1.
40. Regulations of the Court, Adopted by the Judges of the Court on 26 May 2004, As amended on 2 November 2011 Date of entry into force of amendments: 29 June 2012 Official Documents of the International Criminal Court ICC-BD/01-03-11.
41. The Assembly of States Parties, ICC-ASP/17/Res.5 Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties, ICC-ASP/17/20, Adopted at the 13th Plenary Meeting, on 12 December 2018, Annex II Assembly Procedures Relating to Non-cooperation.
42. The Assembly of States Parties, Report of the Court on Cooperation, ICC-ASP/22/24, 26 October 2023.
43. The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision Concerning Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 10 February 2006 and the Incorporation of Documents into the Record of the Case against Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-8-Corr, 24 February 2006.
44. The Prosecutor v. [Redacted, Judgment on the Appeal of the Prosecutor Against the Decision Of [Redacted], ICC-ACRed-01/16, 15-02-2016.
45. The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Reparations Order, No.: ICC-01/12-01/15 Date: 17 August 2017.
46. The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”), Decision Informing the United Nations Security Council about the Lack of Cooperation by the Republic of the Sudan No: ICC-02/05-01/07 25 May 2010.
47. The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision on the Prosecution Application for a Warrant of Arrest, No: ICC‐01/04‐02/06 Date: 6 March 2007.
48. The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Reparations Order, No: ICC-01/04-02/06 Date: 8 March 2021.
49. The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Decision Ordering the Registrar to Prepare and Transmit a Request for Cooperation to the Republic of Kenya for the Purpose of Securing the Identification, Tracing and Freezing or Seizure of Property and Assets of Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, No: ICC-01/09-02/11 Date: 5 April 2011.
50. The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Order for Reparations Pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute With One Public Annex (Annex I) and One Confidential Annex ex parte, Common Legal Representative of the Victims, Office of Public Counsel for Victims and Defence Team for Germain Katanga (Annex II), No: ICC 01/04-01/07 Date: 24 March 2017.
51. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcisse Arido, Decision on Mr Kilolo’s “Notice of Appeal against the Decision of the Single Judge ICC01/0501/13-743Conf-Exp” dated 10 November 2014 and on the Urgent Request for the Partial Lifting of the Seizure on Mr Kilolo’s Assets dated 24 November 2014, No: ICC-01/05-01/13, 1 December 2014.
52. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest, Article 58, No: ICC-01/04-01/06 Date: 10 February 2006.
53. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcısse Arido, the ‘Requête de la défense aux fins de levée du gel des avoirs de Monsieur Aimé Kilolo Musamba’, No: ICC-01/05-01/13, 17 November 2015.
54. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu aand Narcissei, Decision on Requests to Exclude Dutch Intercepts and Call Data Records, No: ICC-01/05-01/13 Date: 29 April 2016.
55. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Public Redacted Version of “Decision on Mr Bemba’s Preliminary Application for Reclassification of Filings, Disclosure, Accounts, and Partial Unfreezing of Mr Bemba’s Assets and the Registry’s Request for Guidance” 18 October 2018, No: ICC-01/05-01/08 Date: 20 November 2018.
56. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Corrigendum to the Decision Pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Failure by the Republic of Malawi to Comply with the Cooperation Requests Issued by the Court with Respect to the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No: ICC-02/05-01/09 Date: 13 December 2011.
57. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Decision Informing the United Nations Security Council and the Assembly of the States Parties to the Rome Statute about Omar Al-Bashir’s recent visit to the Republic of Chad, No: ICC-02/05-01/09 Date: 27 August 2010.
58. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Decision Informing the United Nations Security Council and the Assembly of the States Parties to the Rome Statute about Omar Al-Bashir’s Presence in the Territory of the Republic of Kenya, No: ICC-02/05-01/09 Date: 27 August 2010.
59. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, No: ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2 Date: 6 May 2019.
60. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Order For Reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA 03 March 2015.
61. The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on Prosecution’s Applications for a Finding of Non compliance Pursuant to Article 87(7) and for an Adjournment of the Provisional Trial Date, No: ICC-01/09-02/11 Date: 31 March 2014.
62. The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Decision on the Implementation of the Request to Freeze Assets, No: ICC-01/09/02/11, 8 July 2014.
63. The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Appeal against Trial Chamber V (B)’s “Decision on Prosecution’s Application for a Finding of Non-compliance under Article 87(7) of the Statute”, No: ICC-01/09-02/11 OA 5 Date: 19 August 2015.
64. The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Mulgai Kenyatta, Decision on the Prosecution’s Revised Cooperation Request, No: ICC-01/09-02l11 Date: 29 July 2014.
65. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Decision Pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Refusal of the Republic of Chad to Comply with the Cooperation Requests Issued by the Court with Respect to the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No: ICC-02/0501/09 Date: 13 December 2011.
66. United Nations Office On Drugs And Crime, Manual On International Cooperation for the Purposes of Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime (2012).
67. United Nations Security Council, ‘Sanction’ accessed 14 August 2025.
68. United Nations Security Council, 849th Meeting Wednesday, 17 October 2012, New York, S/PV.6849.