по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Council of editors > Redaction > Peer-review process > Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it? > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it? > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

Публикация за 72 часа - теперь это реальность!
При необходимости издательство предоставляет авторам услугу сверхсрочной полноценной публикации. Уже через 72 часа статья появляется в числе опубликованных на сайте издательства с DOI и номерами страниц.
По первому требованию предоставляем все подтверждающие публикацию документы!
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Legal Studies
Reference:

Procedural rights of victims in the judicial proceedings of the international criminal tribunals ad hoc.
Fedorchenko Artem Anatol'evich

postgraduate student, member of the International Law Association, Project Exploration and Scientific Research Institue of Maritime Transportation "Soyuzmorniiprojekt"

125319, Russia, Moskva, Bolshoi Koptevskiy pr., 3.

fed-artem@mail.ru
Другие публикации этого автора
 

 

Article was received:

01-04-2014


Review date:

02-04-2014


Abstract.

The article concerns three existing forms of participation of victims in the processes of the international criminal tribunals ad hoc: as witnesses, as amicus curiae, as significant statements of victims. The author analyzes the rules for the functioning of hte international criminal ad hoc tribunals and their judical practice. The author notes considerable difference in attitude towards regulation of access of victims as such to the judicial proceedings in the ad hoc tribunals and the permanent criminal court (the International Criminal Court). In the tribunals the victims as such do not gain much of a right to participate, they are just involved as witnesses.  Therefore, the ad hoc tribunals fail to recognize that the victims may have lawful interests in the participation in the proceedings in this very status. The tribunals have made attempts to change the rules,  and the significant statements of victims were introduced.  However, the Prosecutor remains the main source of protection of the interests of victims, since the victims have no access to tribunals. Obviously, this unfortunate experience of the tribunal caused the ICC to take a different approach towards the victims. Their access to the hearings is acceptable, while the provisions regulating this access are not sufficiently clear, and are rather ambigous.

Keywords: international law, international criminal court, international criminal tribunals, international criminal process, complainant, victim, party to the process, judicial proceedings, injured party, ad hoc

DOI:

10.7256/2305-9699.2014.4.11695

Publish date:

1-4-2014


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Shinkaretskaya G.G. «Pis'ma druzei suda» v praktike Mezhdunarodnogo Suda//Gosudarstvo i pravo 2012, № 5. S.70-79.
2.
Morris V., Scharf M. An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, vol.1. 1995, p.167.
3.
Aleksovski Appeal Decision of 16 February 1999, par. 25.
4.
Kvočka et al. Appeal Decision of 25 May 2001, par. 21.
5.
Pravilo MTBYu 74 i Pravilo 74 MTR.
6.
www.diplomatiejudiciaire.com. 4 fevralya 2003 g.
7.
Akayesu Order of 12 February 1998, Blaškić Orders of 11 April 1997, Furundzija Appeal Judgement, pars. 213-215, Furundzija Judgement, pars. 35-37 and 107, Furundzija Order of 10 November 1998, Furundzija Order of 11 November 1998, Musema Decision of 17 March 1999, Semanza Decision of 9 February 2001, Tadic Order of 25 November 1996 and Tadic Judgement, pars. 11 and 35.
8.
ICSID. Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe SA v The Argentine Republic, para. 13. http: // www.worldbank.org/icsid/highlights/improve-arb.pdf
9.
Bagosora Prosecutor’s Memorial of 10 February 1998
10.
Milošević Orders of 30 August 2001, 19 September 2001,30 October 2001,23 November 2001 and 11 January 2002, ICTY Doc. Archive for the Milošević case and ICTY Doc. Press Release CC/P.I.S./617-e.
11.
Bagosora Decision of 6 June 1998, p. 1.
12.
Bagosora Decision of 6 June 1998, p. 2.
13.
Bagosora Decision of 6 June 1998, pp. 2-3.
14.
Milošević Decision of 10 October 2002.
15.
Cyangugu Decision of 24 May 2001, pp. 6-7.
16.
Handbook on Justice for Victims 1999.
17.
Čelebići Judgement, par. 1263, Mrkšić et al. Order of 8 June 1998, Tadić Sentencing Judgement I, par. 4 and Todorović Sentencing Judgement, par. 53.
18.
Blaškić Judgement, pars. 784 and 786-787, Čelebići Judgement, pars. 1225-1226, 1260 i 1273, Erdemović Sentencing Judgement II, par. 15, Kordicand Cerkez Judgement, par. 847, Tadić Sentencing Judgement I, par. 56 i Tadić Sentencing Judgement II, par.
19.
Kambanda Judgement, par. 42. 19.Krstić Judgement, pars. 701-703.
20.
Foča Judgement, pars. 864, 874 and 879. See also Foča Appeal Judgement, pars. 352 and 354-355.
21.
UN Victim Declaration, st. 6(a).
22.
UN Doc. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, par. 13(d).
23.
CoE Doc. Recommendation No. R (85) 11 and EU Doc. OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 2 (Article 4).
24.
Human Rights Watch 1999, Section 11, Part A.
25.
Pravilo 92. Sm takzhe: Rimskii statut st. 15(6) i Pravila 16, 49, 50, 74, 87, 95, 96 i 99.
26.
Pravila 15, 121(10) i 131(2).
27.
UN Doc. A/50/365, par. 115, UN Doc. A/51/292, par. 122, UN Doc. A/55/435, par. 102 and UN Doc. A/56/352, par. 233.
28.
UN Doc. A/51/292, par. 122.
29.
UN Doc. A/56/351, par. 145 i ICTR Doc. Press Release ICTR/INFO-9-2-241.EN.
30.
UN Doc. A/54/315, par. 108 i UN Doc. A/56/351, pars. 142-147.
31.
UN Doc. A/55/273, par. 214.
32.
UN Doc. A/55/273, pars. 213 and 216 and UN Doc. A/57/379, par. 258.
33.
MTBYu pravilo 90(C) i MTR Pravilo 90(D).
34.
ICTY Doc. Press Release JL/P.I.S./591-e.
35.
V. A. Oganesyan Resheniya mezhdunarodnykh sudov po pravam cheloveka kak osobyi istochnik razvitiya i soblyudeniya printsipov ugolovnogo pravosudiya // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii / International Law and International Organizations.-2012.-1.-C. 65-71
36.
Smbatyan A.S. Protsessual'nye resheniya v ramkakh neot''emlemoi i podrazumevaemoi kompetentsii ORS VTO//Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii, № 2 (10), 2012. S. 113.
37.
G.G. Shinkaretskaya. Iz''yatie iz kompetentsii sudebnykh uchrezhdenii del, otnosyashchikhsya k vnutrennei kompetentsii gosudarstva // Pravo i politika. – 2010. – № 3.
38.
G.G. Shinkaretskaya. Zapret zloupotrebleniya mezhdunarodnoi sudebnoi protseduroi kak faktor obespecheniya sudebnogo protsessa // Pravo i politika. – 2010. – № 2.
39.
R.A. Kalamkaryan, Yu.I. Migachev. Vseobshchaya Deklaratsiya prav cheloveka: rol' i znachenie v usloviyakh miroporyadka na osnove gospodstva prava Rule of Law. // Pravo i politika. – 2008. – № 12. – S. 104-107.
40.
R.A. Kalamkaryan. Vseobshchaya deklaratsiya prav cheloveka-60 let. Pozitiv mezhdunarodno-pravovogo opyta. // Pravo i politika. – 2008. – №
41.
Erpyleva N.Yu. Mezhdunarodnyi kommercheskii arbitrazh: pravovye osnovy funktsionirovaniya // NB: Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. — 2013.-№ 1.-S.1-74. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9899.2013.1.545. URL: http://e-notabene.ru/wl/article_545.html
42.
R. A. Kalamkaryan. Mezhdunarodnyi ugolovnyi sud. // Pravo i politika. – 2002. – № 6. Kalamkaryan R.A. Rol' Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON v dele podderzhaniya mezhdunarodnogo pravoporyadka // NB: Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. — 2013.-№ 1.-S.184-214. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9899.2013.1.690. URL: http://e-notabene.ru/wl/article_690.html
43.
Kalamkaryan R.A. Vklyuchennost' Rossiiskoi Federatsii v deyatel'nost' Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON v dele obespecheniya mezhdunarodnoi zakonnosti i pravoporyadka // NB: Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. — 2013.-№ 2.-S.85-118. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9899.2013.2.691. URL: http://e-notabene.ru/wl/article_691.html
44.
Ranchinskaya P.O.. Spetsifika vzaimodeistviya rossiiskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava v oblasti mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo arbitrazha // Pravo i politika. – 2013. – № 10. – S. 104-107. DOI: 10.7256/1811-9018.2013.10.9581.
45.
A.S. Smbatyan. Perspektivy suda EvrAzES v sisteme organov mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii / International Law and International Organizations. – 2013. – № 1. – S. 104-107. DOI: 10.7256/2226-6305.2013.01.7.
46.
R. A. Kalamkaryan. Mezhdunarodnyi sud OON kak administrativno-pravovoi organ mirovogo soobshchestva po mirnomu razresheniyu mezhdunarodnykh sporov // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii / International Law and International Organizations. – 2011. – № 2
47.
Sazonova K.L. K voprosu o sootnoshenii mezhdunarodnykh prestuplenii gosudarstva, norm jus cogens i obyazatel'stv erga omnes v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave // Pravo i politika.-2013.-9.-C. 1175-1181. DOI: 10.7256/1811-9018.2013.9.9410.
48.
R. A. Gurbanov Evropeiskaya sudebnaya set' i Evroyust kak osnovnye sub''ekty sotrudnichestva organov pravosudiya gosudarstv-chlenov ES v sfere ugolovnogo pravosudiya. // Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii / International Law and International Organizations.-2011.-4.-C. 113-120.
49.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated" Website