Transcript Irish Centre for Human Rights

Irish Centre for Human Rights
Summer Course on the
International Criminal Court
2010
Modes of Liability
Modes of Liability
Criminal Liability
“An interpretation of the Statute based on
its object and purpose leads to the
conclusion that the Statute intends to
extend the jurisdiction of the International
Tribunal to all those ‘responsible for
serious violations of international
humanitarian law…
2
Modes of Liability
Criminal Liability
Thus, all those who have engaged in
serious violations of international
humanitarian law, whatever the manner in
which they may have perpetrated, or
participated in the perpetration of those
violations, must be brought to justice.
3
Modes of Liability
Criminal Liability
If this is so, it is fair to conclude that the
Statute does not confine itself to providing
for jurisdiction over those persons who
plan, instigate, order, physically
perpetrate a crime or otherwise aid and
abet in its planning, preparation or
execution. The Statute does not stop
there.” Prosecutor v. Tadic Judgement (IT-94-1-A)
(Appeals) (15 July 1999) par 189-190)
4
Modes of Liability
Criminal Liability
ICTY Statute
Article 7 (Individual criminal responsibility)
1. A person who planned, instigated,
ordered, committed or otherwise aided
and abetted in the planning, preparation
or execution of a crime referred to in
articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall
be individually responsible for the crime.
5
Modes of Liability
Criminal Liability



In dubio pro reo
When in doubt, decide in favour of the
accused
“It is a universal principle that if a penal
provision is reasonably capable of two
interpretations, that interpretation which is
most favourable to the accused must be
adopted.” Sweet v. Parsley [1969] 2 W.L.
R. 470 at 474 (H.L.)
6
Modes of Liability
Individual Liability
“Crimes against international law are
committed by men, not by abstract
entities, and only by punishing individuals
who commit such crimes can the
provisions of international law be
enforced.” France et al v. Goering et al.,
(1946) 22 IMT 203
7
Modes of Liability
Individual Liability
“Additionally, by holding individuals
responsible for the crimes committed, it
was hoped that a particular ethnic or
religious group (or even political
organisation) would not be held
responsible for such crimes by members
of other ethnic or religious groups, and
that the guilt of the few would not be
shifted to the innocent.” Prosecutor v. Momir
Nikolic (IT-02-60/1-S) (2 Dec. 2003) par. 60
8
Modes of Liability
Individual Liability

The case as presented by the United States will
be concerned with the brains and authority back
of all the crimes. These defendants were men of
a station and rank which does not soil its own
hands with blood. They were men who knew
how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to
reach the planners and designers, the inciters
and leaders without whose evil architecture the
world would not have been for so long scourged
with the violence and lawlessness, of this terrible
war Justice Jackson’s Opening Address for the US at
Nuremberg http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap_05.asp
9
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
Article 25 (Individual criminal responsibility)
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over
natural persons pursuant to this
Statute.
2. A person who commits a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court
shall be individually responsible and
liable for punishment in accordance
with this Statute.
10
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person
shall be criminally responsible and liable
for punishment for a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an
individual, jointly with another or through
another person, regardless of whether that
other person is criminally responsible;
11
Modes of Liability
Control over the Crime
Par 330: The concept of control over the crime
… is that principals to a crime are not limited to
those who physically carry out the objective
elements of the offence, but also include those
who, in spite of being removed from the scene
of the crime, control or mastermind its
commission because they decide whether and
how the offence will be committed. Situation in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, P. v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo,
ICC-01/04-01/06, 29 January 2007
12
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the
commission of such a crime which in fact
occurs or is attempted;



Person in authority uses that position to order/convince
someone to commit an offence (Akayesu IRTR Judgment
(Sept 1998) par 483; Blaskic ICTY (March 2000) par 601)
Simply passing along an order is sufficient to ground a guilty
finding (Kupreskic ICTY (Jan 2000) par 862)
Mens Rea: person giving order was aware of the substantial
likelihood that a crime would be committed (Blaskic Appeal
(July 2004) par 42)
13
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the
commission of such a crime, aids,
abets or otherwise assists in its
commission or its attempted
commission, including providing the
means for its commission;
14
Modes of Liability
Aiding and Abetting
“The aider and abettor carries out acts
specifically directed to assist, encourage or lend
moral support to the perpetration of a certain
specific crime … and this support has a
substantial effect upon the perpetration of the
crime … the requisite mental element is
knowledge that the acts performed by the aider
and abettor assist the commission of a specific
crime by the principal.” Tadic appeal judgment
(1999) par 229
15
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission
or attempted commission of such a crime by a
group of persons acting with a common
purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional
and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal
activity or criminal purpose of the group, where
such activity or purpose involves the
commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of
the group to commit the crime;
16
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide,
directly and publicly incites others to
commit genocide;
17
Modes of Liability
Rome Statute Provisions
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action
that commences its execution by means of a
substantial step, but the crime does not occur
because of circumstances independent of the
person’s intentions. However, a person who
abandons the effort to commit the crime or
otherwise prevents the completion of the crime
shall not be liable for punishment under this
Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that
person completely and voluntarily gave up the
criminal purpose.
See P. v.. Katanga Decision on the Confirmation of the Charges
(ICC-01/04-01/07, 30 Sept. 2008 pars 458-460
18
Modes of Liability
Case Law


Situation in the Central African Republic, P. v.
Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Adjourning
the Hearing pursuant to Article 61(7)(c)(ii), ICC01/05-01/08, 3 March 2009
Situation in the Central African Republic, P. v.
Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to
Article 61(7)(a) and (b) … on the Charges of the
Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,
ICC-01/05-01/08, 15 June 2009
19
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility
Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws
and Customs of war on Land (1907)
Art 1: The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not
only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for
his subordinates;
 2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable
at a distance;
 3. To carry arms openly; and
 4. To conduct their operations in accordance with
the laws and customs of war.
20
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility




Prosecutor v. Sefer Halilovic, Case No.
IT-01-48-T (16 November 2005),
Appeal (16 Oct 2007
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović et
Kubura Case No. IT-01-47-T (15
March 2006), Appeal (22 April 2008)
Prosecutor v. Blaskic (March 2000)
Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Celebici)
(Nov. 1998)
21
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility
Article 28
28. In addition to other grounds of criminal
responsibility under this Statute for crimes within
the jurisdiction of the Court:
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting
as a military commander shall be criminally
responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the
Court committed by forces under his or her
effective command and control, or effective
authority and control as the case may be, as a
result of his or her failure to exercise control
properly over such forces, where:
22
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility
(i) That military commander or person either
knew or, owing to the circumstances at
the time, should have known that the
forces were committing or about to
commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed
to take all necessary and reasonable
measures within his or her power to
prevent or repress their commission or to
submit the matter to the competent
authorities
for
investigation
and
prosecution.
23
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility
(b) (i) The superior either knew, or
consciously disregarded information
which clearly indicated, that the
subordinates were committing or
about to commit such crimes;
(ii) The crimes concerned activities
that were within the effective
responsibility and control of the
superior;
24
Modes of Liability
Command Responsibility
Things to prove:
1 That there was a superior / subordinate relationship.
(doesn’t have to be direct or immediate in nature)

De facto vs. de jure (prove de facto, but prove de jure
and force other side to prove otherwise)

Effective command and control (the issue in
Halilovic) (test: who stands up and salutes when the
guy comes into the room)

Authority to give an order, and the power to punish
those who disobey (or at least instigate a proper
investigation) (“material ability to prevent or punish
criminal conduct” Celebici Appeal (Feb. 2001) par 256)
25
Modes of Liability
Mens Rea
Rome Statue Article 30
1. Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally
responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are
committed with intent and knowledge.
2. For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:
(a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in
the conduct;
(b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause
that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the
ordinary course of events.
3. For the purposes of this article, “knowledge” means
awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will
occur in the ordinary course of events. “Know” and
“knowingly” shall be construed accordingly.
26
Modes of Liability
Mistake of Fact
Rome Statute Article 32
1.
2.
A mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding
criminal responsibility only if it negates the
mental element required by the crime.
A mistake of law as to whether a particular type
of conduct is a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court shall not be a ground for excluding
criminal responsibility. A mistake of law may,
however, be a ground for excluding criminal
responsibility if it negates the mental element
required by such a crime, or as provided for in
article 33 (superior orders defences).
27
Modes of Liability
Joint Criminal Enterprise
Charter of the IMT (Nuremberg) Art 6
Charter for the IMT for the Far East (Tokyo)
Art 5(c)
6.Leaders, organizers, instigators and
accomplices participating in the formulation
or execution of a common plan or
conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing
crimes are responsible for all acts
performed by any persons in execution of
such plan.
28
Modes of Liability
Joint Criminal Enterprise
Three “classes” of JCE:
1. Co-perpetration, where all of the
participants in the common design
possess the same criminal intent to
commit a crime, and one or more of
them actually commits the crime

The mens rea is the intent to
perpetrate a crime
29
Modes of Liability
Joint Criminal Enterprise
2.

The second is the so-called concentration
camp cases, where the individuals know
of the system of abuse (such as a
concentration camp) and intend to
advance or provide the opportunity for the
abuse
Mens rea is both personal knowledge of
the system of ill-treatment, and the intent
to further the common concerted system
of ill-treatment
30
Modes of Liability
Joint Criminal Enterprise
3.


The third category is where the individuals intend to take
part in a joint criminal enterprise and to further the
criminal purpose of the enterprise, but other crimes, which
are reasonably foreseeable, are committed by some
members of the enterprise.
Mens rea: intention to participate in and further the …
criminal purpose,
intention to contribute to the JCE,
it was foreseeable that the additional crime might be
perpetrated… and
the accused willingly took that risk
Prosecutor vs. Krajisnik (IT-00-39-A) (17 March 2009)
31
Modes of Liability
Joint Criminal Enterprise
Three common essential elements of JCE:
1.
A plurality of persons
2.
The existence of a common plan, design or
purpose which amounts to or involves the
commission of a crime provided for in the
Statute;
3.
Participation of the accused in the
common design involving the perpetration
of one of the crimes provided for in the
Statute. Tadic Appeal decision par 227
32
Summer Course on the ICC
2010
Modes of Liability Bibliography
Mettraux, Guenael, The Law of Command
Responsibility Oxford University Press, New York
(2009)
Robinson, Darryl; The Identity Crisis of
International Criminal Law 21 Leiden J of Int’l Law
(2008) 925
Talligren, I.; The Sensibility and Sense of
International Criminal Law 13 EJIL (2002) 561
33