No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Criminal Court: Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Legal Materials
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010
Footnotes
*
The views expressed in this Note are solely those of the author.
References
End notes
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the International Criminal Court official website: (visited January 7, 2010) http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc746819.pdf.
1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf [hereinafter Rome Statute].
2 Prosecutor v. Katanga & Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case (Sept. 25, 2009), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc746819.pdf [hereinafter Katanga, Admissibility Judgment].
3 Rome Statute, supra note 1, arts. 1, 17, & 19.
4 Prosecutor v. Katanga & Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case (Article 19 of the Statute), ¶ 59 (June 16, 2009), available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc711214.pdf [hereinafter Katanga, Reasons for Decision].
5 Id. ¶¶ 71-72.
6 Katanga, Admissibility Judgment, supra note 2, ¶¶ 56-57.
7 See Katanga, Reasons for Decision, supra note 4, ¶¶ 22-23.
8 Id. ¶ 77.
9 Id. ¶¶ 91-95.
10 Katanga, Admissibility Judgment, supra note 2, ¶¶ 75-78.
11 Id. ¶ 82.
12 See id. ¶ 63.
13 Id. ¶ 79.
14 See, e.g., Mark S. Ellis, The International Criminal Court and its Implications for Domestic Law and National Capacity Building, 15 Fla. J. Int’l. L. 215, 222-223 (2002).
1 ‘‘Warrant of Arrest for Germam Katanga’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1, reclassified as public by decision ICC-01/04-01/07-24 of 18 October 2007.
2 ‘‘Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Germain Katanga’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-4 (hereinafter: ‘‘Decision of 6 July 2007’’).
3 Decision of 6 July 2007, para. 19.
4 Decision of 6 July 2007, para. 20; footnotes omitted.
5 See ‘‘Information to the Chamber on the 5 execution of the Request for the arrest and surrender of Germain Katanga’’, 22 October 2007, ICC-01/04-01/07-40.
6 ‘‘Decision on the confirmation of charges’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, dated 30 September 2008 and registered on 1 October 2008.
7 ‘‘Decision constituting Trial Chamber II and referring to it the case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-729.
8 ICC-01/04-01/07-891-Conf-Exp.
9 ‘‘Décision arrêtant la procédure à suivre au titre de l’article 19 du Statut (règle 58 du Règlement de procédure et de preuve’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-943-Conf.
10 ‘‘Ordonnance aux fms de la convocation d’une audience (règle 58-2 du Règlement de procédure et depreuve)’’, 22 May 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1163.
11 ICC-01/04-01/07-T-65-ENG (hereinafter: ‘‘Hearing of 1 June 2009’’).
12 ‘‘Transmission par le Greffier des observations écrites des autorités congolaises telles que présentées à l’audience du 1’’juin 2009’’, 4 June 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1189; ‘‘Observations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the Challenge to Admissibility made by the Defence for Germain Katanga in the case of the Prosecutor versus Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1189-Anx-tENG.
13 Impugned Decision, p. 10.
14 Impugned Decision, pp. 2-3.
15 ICC-01/04-01/07-1213-tENG.
16 ICC-01/04-01/07-1234.
17 ICC-01/04-01/07-1266.
18 ICC-01/04-01/07-1266,p.4.
19 ICC-01/04-01/07-1279.
20 ICC-01/04-01/07-1295.
21 ICC-01/04-01/07-1318-tENG; the document was registered on 20 July 2009.
22 ‘‘Transmission by the Registrar of a letter received from the DRC authorities’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1326, filed on 21 July 2009 and registered on 22 July 2009.
23 ‘‘Transmission by the Registrar of a letter received from the DRC authorities’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1326-Anxl, filed on 21 July 2009 and registered on 22 July 2009.
24 ICC-01/04-01/07-1342-tENG.
25 ICC-01/04-01/07-1346-Conf The Appeals Chamber notes that the OPCV was notified of this document on 3 August 2009.
26 ICC-01/04-01/07-1349.
27 ‘‘Further directions on the submission of observations pursuant to article 19 (3) of the Rome Statuteand rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1348.
28 ICC-01/04-01/07-1354-tENG; the document was addressed to Trial Chamber I, it was transmitted to the Appeals Chamber on 14 August 2009.
29 ICC-01/04-01/07-1369.
30 See ICC-01/04-01/07-1427-Conf-Anxl-tENG.
31 ‘‘Order extending the time limit for the submission of observations by the Democratic Republic of Congo’’, ICC-01/04-01/07-1432.
32 ICC-01/04-01/07-1449-Anx.
33 The Appeals Chamber notes that the Observations of the DRC were received by the Registry on 1 September 2009 at 4:47 p.m. The Appeals Chamber has decided to accept the document nevertheless. Given that the late filing was minimal and did not cause any delay in the disposal of the present appeal, it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the document under regulation 29 (1) of the Regulations of the Court.
34 ICC-01/04-01/07-1459.
35 See ICC-01/04-01/07-1060.
36 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2.
37 See Reasons, paras 29-50.
38 Reasons, para. 56.
39 Reasons, para. 58.
40 Reasons, para. 56.’
41 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 14.
42 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 14.
43 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 41.
44 Response to Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36.
45 Response to Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 37.
46 Observations of the DRC, pp. 2-3.
47 Observations of the DRC, p. 3.
48 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 6-7 and Observations of Victims a/0330/07 and a/0331/07, paras 7-13.
49 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 8.
50 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 8.
51 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 8.
52 Observations by Victims represented by the OPCV, para. 16.’’
53 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 41.
54 MCC-01/04-169.
55 Judgment in DRC OA, para. 84. It may be noted that in this judgment the Appeals Chamber declined to determine whether the standard of review established in article 83 (2) of the Statute applies to appeals under article 82 (1) (a) of the Statute, as ‘‘in any event, the appealed decision was materially affected by the error of law identified in the preceding section of the judgment’’ (para. 83).
56 ICC-01/04-01/06-568.
57 Para. 74 of that judgment.
58 MCC-01/04-01/06-1487.
59 Para. 44 of that judgment.
60 ICC-02/04-179.
61 Para. 40 of that judgment.
62 See Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ‘‘Decision on Victim Participation in the appeal of the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the Prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 24 December 2007’’, 30 June 2008, ICC-01/04-503, para. 30; Situation in Darfur, Sudan, ‘‘Decision on Victim Participation in the appeal of the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 3 December 2007 and in the appeals of the Prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision of 6 December 2007’’, 18 June 2008, ICC-02/05-138, para. 19; Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘‘Decision of the Appeals Chamber upon the Registrar’s Requests of 5 April 2007’’, 27 April 2007, ICC-01/04-01/06-873.
63 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2.
64 Reasons, para. 59.
65 Reasons, para. 59.
66 Reasons, para, 59.
67 Reasons, para. 60.
68 Reasons, paras 61-65.
69 Reasons, para. 65.
70 Reasons, para. 68.
71 Reasons, para. 69.
72 Reasons, para. 72.
73 Reasons, para. 73.
74 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42.
75 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42.
76 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42.
77 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 43.
78 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 45.
79 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.
80 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.
81 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.
82 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.
83 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 48.
84 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.
85 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.
86 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.
87 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.
88 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 51.
89 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 40.
90 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 42.
91 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 43.
92 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 43.
93 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 46.
94 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 44.
95 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 39.
96 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 39.
97 Observations of the DRC, p. 3.
98 Observations of the DRC, p. 3.
99 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 10 et seq.; Observations of Victims a/0330/07 and a/0331/07, paras 14 et seq.
100 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 10.
101 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 11.
102 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 18.
103 Prosecutor’s Response to Observations, para. 13.
104 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2.
105 Reasons, para. 74.
106 Reasons, para. 77.
107 Reasons, para. 77.
108 Reasons, para. 78.
109 Reasons, para. 79.
110 Reasons, para. 80.
111 Reasons, para. 81.
112 Reasons, para. 90.
113 Reasons, para. 93.
114 Reasons, para. 94.
115 Reasons, para. 95.
116 Reasons, para. 95.
117 Reasons, para. 95.
118 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 55.
119 Document in Support of the Appeal, p. 18.
120 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 57.
121 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 57.
122 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 58-59.
123 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 60.
124 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 60.
125 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 60, footnote omitted.
126 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 61.
127 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 64.
128 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 64.
129 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 66.
130 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 66.
131 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 71.
132 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 72.
133 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 72.
134 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 51.
135 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 84.
136 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 53-56.
137 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 57.
138 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 58, footnotes omitted.
139 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 59-66.
140 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 65.
141 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 71-76.
142 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 77-82.
143 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78.
144 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 82, footnotes omitted.
145 Observations of the DRC, p. 4.
146 Observations of the DRC, p. 4.
147 Observations of the DRC, p. 4.
148 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 17.
149 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, p. 18.
150 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp.17-18.
151 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 18-20.
152 Observations of Victims a/033007 and a/0331/08, paras 18-23.
153 Observations of Victims a/033007 and a/0331/08, para. 23.
154 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 19.
155 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 20.
156 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 22.
157 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, paras 23-24.
158 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 25.
159 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 29.
160 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, paras 30-36.
161 Observations of Victims Represented by the OPCV, para. 37.
162 Prosecutor’s Response to Observations, para. 11.
163 Prosecutor’s Response to Observations, para. 12.
164 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 57.
165 See Markus Benzing, ‘The Complementarity Regime of the Intemational Criminal Court:Intemational Criminal Justice between State Sovereignty and the Fight against Impunity,’ 7 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2003), 591 at 601; Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (2003), at 91; William W. Burke-White, Scott Kaplan, ‘Shaping the Contours of Domestic Justice/The International Criminal Court and the Admissibility Challenge in the Ugandan Situation,’ 7 Journal of International Crimmal Justice (2009), 257 at 260; Mohamed El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law (2008), at 161, 221, and 230; John T. Holmes, ‘Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC,’ in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones (ed.). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume I (2002), 667 at 673; Jan Kleffner, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (2008), at 103. et seq.; Claus Kress, ‘‘‘Self-Referrals’’ and ‘‘Waivers of Complementarity’’ – Some Considerations in Law and Policy,’ 2 Journal of International Justice (2004), 944 at 946; Hector Olásolo, The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (2005), 165; Jo Stigen, The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions/The Principle of Complementarity (2008), at 199 et seq.
166 See Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 71; see also William A. Schabas, ‘Article 17 – Issues of Admissibility,’ in: Otto Triffterer (ed.). Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2nd edition, 2008), 605 et seq., at margin number 23.
167 Fifth paragraph of the Preamble of the Statute.
168 Fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the Statute.
169 Note, however, that not every inaction of States will automatically lead to proceedings before the Court; see, below, para. 85, in fine.
170 See ICC-01/04-01/07-40-Anx3.6, p. 3.
171 ICC-01/04-01/07-968-Conf-Exp-AnxJ-tENG; see also ICC-01/04-01/07-T-65-ENG, p. 96.
172 See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ‘Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,’ 6 July 2007, ICC-01/04-02/07-3, para. 21; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, ‘Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article 58(7) of the Statute,’ 27 April 2007, ICC-02/05-01/07-l-Corr, para. 24; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, ‘Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the arrest of Germain Katanga,’ 5 November 2007, ICC-01/04-01/07-55, para. 20; Pre-Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest. Article 58,’ 10 February 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06-8-US-Corr, para. 31.
173 See Reasons, para. 95. Note, however, that the Prosecutor argues at para. 76 of the Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal that the Trial Chamber ‘‘implicitly acknowledged and applied the same-conduct test’’.
174 As stated above at para. 81, the Appeals Chamber sees no need in the context of the present appeal to determine the exact meaning of the word ‘‘case’’ in article 17 (1) of the Statute.
175 It is merely speculative that in this scenario the State could decide to re-open proceedings.
176 See also Jo Stigen, The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions/ The Principle of Complementarity (2008), at 311 et seq., who states that ‘‘[a] national decision not to prosecute may reflect a preference for prosecution in another state or before the ICC. It is submitted that such decisions are outside the scope of article 17 as it is not a decision against prosecution as such. Indeed, the decision reflects the opinion that the person should be prosecuted, only not by that state. It is submitted that article 17(1) (b), read in this context, only regulates decisions reflecting the view that the person should not be prosecuted before any court.’’
177 Sixth paragraph of the Preamble of the Statute.
178 Fifth paragraph of the Preamble of the Statute.
179 See Claus Kress, ‘‘Self-Referrals’’ and ‘‘Waivers of Complementarity’’ – Some Considerations in Law and Policy,’’ 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2004), 944 at 945. Kress notes that ‘‘it would be too rigorous a reading of the words ‘exercise its criminal jurisdiction’ in the sixth preambular paragraph to construe them to mean ‘investigate, prosecute, and eventually punish at the national level’. In light of the overarching goal of the ICC Statute to end impunity, the territorial state should not be prevented from choosing a second option against impunity, namely to refer a situation to the ICC with a view to international investigation.’’ See also Mohamed El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law (2008), at 218 et seq.
180 See, for instance, article 17 (1) (c) and (d), article 19(1), and article 53 of the Statute.
181 See Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 64 et seq.
182 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2.
183 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 73-79.
184 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 73.
185 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 75.
186 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 76.
187 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 77.
188 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78.
189 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78.
190 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 78.
191 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 82.
192 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 83.
193 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 84.
194 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 85; footnote omitted.
195 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 86.
196 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 85.
197 Observations of the DRC, p. 5.
198 Observations of the DRC, p. 5.
199 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 21-22.
200 Observations of Victims a/0330/07 and a/0331/08, para. 25.
201 Observations of Victims a/0330/07 and a/0331/08, paras 26-28.
202 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2.
203 Reasons, para. 84.
204 Reasons, para. 85.
205 Reasons, para. 84.
206 Reasons, paras 86-87.
207 Reasons, para. 88.
208 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 87.
209 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 89.
210 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 90.
211 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 94.
212 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 92.
213 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 93.
214 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 96.
215 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 98.
216 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 99.
217 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 100.
218 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 101.
219 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 86.
220 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 87.
221 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 88.
222 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 90.
223 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 90.
224 Observations of the DRC, p. 5.
225 Observations of the DRC, p. 5.
226 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 22-24.
227 Observations of Victims a/0333/07 and a/0110/08, pp. 23-24.
228 Observations of Victims a/0330/07 and a/0331/07, paras 30-31.
229 See paras 73 et seq.
230 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 98.
231 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 99.
232 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 104.
233 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 103.
234 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 104.
235 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 92.