No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo: Judgment on the Appeal Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on Jurisdiction and Stay of the Proceedings (Int’l. Crim. CT.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Extract
On December 12, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (Court) in the case of Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo unanimously confirmed the Pre-Trial Chamber I decision to dismiss Mr. Gbagbo’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Judgment, the Appeals Chamber, for the first time, was called to interpret Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute (Statute), which allows a non-party State to accept the jurisdiction of the Court on an ad hoc basis without acceding to the Statute. The Judgment further includes two procedural issues. Firstly, the Appeals Chamber found that although the Pre-Trial Chamber erred by not rendering a separate decision on Côte d’Ivoire’s request for leave to submit its observations, this error did not materially affect the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision. Secondly, the Appeals Chamber dismissed, in limine, Mr. Gbagbo’s request for a stay of proceedings based on allegations of violations of his fundamental rights, since it was not jurisdictional in nature and thus fell outside the scope of the appealable matter.
- Type
- International Legal Materials
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2014
References
1 Prosecutor v. Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, Case No. ICC-02/11- 01/11-321 OA 2, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Laurent Koudou Gbagbo Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on Jurisdiction and Stay of the Proceedings, ¶¶ 1-3 (Dec. 12, 2012) [hereinafter Gbagbo Appeal Judgment], http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1526463.pdf.
2 Id. ¶¶ 36-46.
3 The Appeals Chamber explained that while “[a] decision with respect to jurisdiction” is appealable pursuant to Article 82(1)( a) of the Statute, a decision on a request for stay of proceedings can only be appealed with leave of the Pre-Trial Chamber in accordance with Article 82(1)(d). See id. ¶¶ 99- 105.
4 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Preamble [hereinafter Rome Statute] (emphasis added).
5 James Chan, Judicial Oversight Over Article 12(3) of the ICC Statute, 11 FICHL Pol’y Brief Series (2013), at 1., http://www.fichl.org/fileadmin/fichl/documents/FICHL_Policy_ Brief_Series/FICHL_PB11.pdf.
6 See Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Case No. ICC-02/11-01/11-212, Decision on the “Corrigendum of the Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the Basis of Articles 12(3), 19(2), 21(3), 55 and 59 of the Rome Statute filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo (ICC-02/11-01/11-129),” ¶ 59 (Aug. 15, 2012), [hereinafter Gbagbo Pre-Trial Chamber Decision], http://www.legal-tools.org/uploads/tx_ltpdb/2012-08_1454492_03.PDF. See also William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court 85-86 (4th ed. 2011).
7 Uganda, a State Party to the Statute, has also lodged a declaration extending the temporal jurisdiction of the Court to the time of the entry into force of the Statute, which is two months earlier than its entry into force with respect to Uganda. This declaration is widely understood as a declaration under Article 12(3). See Situation in Uganda, Case No. ICC-02/04-1, Decision Assigning the Situation in Uganda to Pre-Trial Chamber II, Annex (July 5, 2004), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc271808.pdf. In addition, on December 13, 2013, the Registrar of the Court received a document seeking to accept the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12(3) with respect to alleged crimes committed in Egypt from June 1, 2013. However, the Office of the Prosecutor determined that the purported declaration was not submitted by any person with the requisite authority to represent the country. It thus treated it as a “communication” pursuant to Article 15 of the Statute, and subsequently determined that the allegations contained in the communication are outside of the Court’s territorial and personal jurisdiction. See Press Release, The Determination of the Office of the Prosecutor on the Communication Received in relation to Egypt, ICC-OTP-20140508-PR1003 (May 5, 2014), http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr1003.aspx.
8 Palestinian National Authority, Declaration Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute (Jan. 22, 2009), http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf
9 Office of the Prosecutor, Situation in Palestine (Apr. 3, 2012), http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/9B651B80-EC43-4945-BF5A-FAFF5F334B92/284387/SituationinPalestine030412ENG.pdf.
10 Embassy of Ukraine, Declaration Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute (Apr. 17, 2014), http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Documents/997/declarationRecognitionJuristiction09-04-2014.pdf.
11 Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Declaration Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute (Apr. 18, 2003), http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/CBE1F16B-5712-4452-87E7-4FDDE5DD70D9/279779/ICDE.pdf [hereinafter Declaration of Côte d’Ivoire]. At the time of the declaration, Côte d’Ivoire was not a State Party to the Rome Statute. It had signed the Rome Statute on November 30, 1998, but has not ratified it. Côte d’Ivoire has finally ratified the Rome Statute on February 15, 2013.
12 Id.
13 See Gbagbo Appeals Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 48.
14 Declaration of Côte d’Ivoire, supra note 11. 15 Initially, Pre-Trial Chamber III granted, by majority, the Prosecutor’s request to initiate an investigation into crimes committed in Côte d’Ivoire “since November 2010” and ordered the Prosecutor to revert to the Chamber with additional information available to him on any crimes committed between 2002 and 2010. See Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Case No. ICC-02/11-14, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ¶¶ 212-213 (Oct. 3, 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1240553.pdf. Subsequently, based on additional information provided by the Prosecutor, on February 22, 2012, Pre-Trial Chamber III expanded its authorization for an investigation in Côte d’Ivoire to include crimes allegedly committed between September 19, 2002 and November 28, 2010. See Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Case No. ICC-02/11-36, Decision on the “Prosecution’s Provision of Further Information Regarding Potentially Relevant Crimes Committed Between 2002 and 2010”, ¶ 37 (Feb. 22, 2012), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1341467.pdf.
16 Id. ¶ 36.
17 International Criminal Court, Situation in Côte d’Ivoire, Case No. ICC 02/11-01/11-1, Warrant of Arrest for Laurent Koudou Gbagbo (Nov. 23, 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1276751.pdf.
18 See Gbagbo Pre-Trial Chamber Decision, supra note 6, ¶ 60.
19 Id.
20 See Gbagbo Appeals Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 77-84.
21 Id. ¶ 80.
22 Id. ¶¶ 81-82.
23 Id. ¶ 83.
24 Id. ¶ 84.
25 Id. ¶¶ 87-89.
26 See Rome Statute, supra note 4, art. 15.
27 See Gbagbo Appeal Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 84.
28 Schabas, supra note 6, at 84; Zhu Wenqi, On Co-operation by States Not Party to the International Criminal Court, 88:861 Int’l Rev Red Cross 87 (2006), http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_wenqi.pdf.
1 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Corr-tENG.
2 ICC-02/11-01/11-153 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/829d3f/.
3 “Request by the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire to submit observations on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of articles 12(3), 19(2), 21(3), 55 and 59 of the Rome Statute filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo”, ICC-02/11-01/11-154-tENG.
4 “Observations of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of articles 12(3), 19(2), 21(3), 55 and 59 of the Rome Statute filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo”, ICC-02111-01111-156-tENG.
5 “Defence motion to deny requests, namely to attend the confirmation hearing and to file observations on the jurisdictional challenge, from Counsel claiming to represent the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire”, ICC-02/11-01/11-163-tENG http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a30fc7/.
6 ICC-02/11-01/11-165 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/23f03a/.
7 ICC-02/11-01/11-167-Red-Corr http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/991ada/.
8 ICC-02/11-01/11-212 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/Od14c3/.
9 Impugned Decision, p. 41.
10 Impugned Decision, p. 41.
11 “Defence appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision on the ‘Corrigendum of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the basis of articles 12(3), 19(2), 21(3), 55 and 59 of the Rome Statute filed by the Defence for President Gbagbo’ (ICC-02/11-01/11-212)”, ICC-02/11-01/11-225-tENG (OA 2) http://www.lega1-tools.org/doc/f32a45/.
12 “Directions on the submissions of observations”, ICC-02/11- 01/11-236 (OA 2) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/43a732/.
13 ICC-02/11-01/11-240-tENG (OA 2).
14 ICC-02/11-01/11-251 (OA 2) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/9cbb8c/.
15 ICC-02/11-01/11-250 (OA 2) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/52n59/.
16 Annex 1 to “Transmission du Greffe d’un document reçu le 28 septembre 2012 á 15h35 de Mme Karine Wetzel, Conseillère Représentante de l’Etat de Côte d’Ivoire auprès de Ia Cour pénale internationale”, 28 September 2012, ICC- 02/11-01/11-253 (OA 2).
17 “Decision on Observations submitted by the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire”, 1 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-254 (OA 2).
18 ICC-02/11-01/11-258-tENG (OA 2).
19 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. IV.
20 On 5 October 2012, the OPCV had filed the “Observations on behalf of victims on the Defence’s document in support of the appeal against Pre-Trial Chamber I’s Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court”, ICC-02/11-01/11-255 (OA 2). On the same day, the Appeals Chamber decided to disregard this document and invited the victims represented by the OPCV to submit their observations by 8 October 2012; see “Decision on Observations submitted by OPCV on behalf of victims”, 5 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-256 (OA 2).
21 ICC-02/11-01/11-259 (OA 2).
22 ICC-02/11-01/11-266 (OA 2).
23 ICC-02/11-01/11-274 (OA 2).
24 ICC-02/11-01/11-271-tENG (OA 2); see “Decision further to the ‘Directions on the submissions of observations’ issued on 31 August 2012 and on the Clarification Request of Mr Gbagbo”, 18 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-268-tENG (OA 2).
25 ICC-02/11-01/ll-269 (OA 2).
26 Response of Cote d’Ivoire on Reclassification, para. l 0.
27 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, “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”, 25 September 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497 (OA 8) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/ba82b5/; Prosecutor v. Saif Al-/slam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi, “Decision on ‘Government of Libya’s Appeal Against the “Decision Regarding the Second Request by the Government of Libya for Postponement of the Surrender of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi of 10 April 2012””’, 25 April 2012, ICC-01/11-01/11-126 (OA 2).
28 Decision on Observations submitted by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire”, 1 October 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-254 (OA 2).
29 See Situation in the Republic of Kenya, “Application of Dr. David Nyekorach-Matsanga for leave to reply, pursuant to Regulations of the Court, Regulation 24 (5), to the Prosecution’s confidential comments, dated 12 June 2012”, 12 June 2012, ICC-01/09-92-Red (OA 2) http://www.legaltools.org/doc/bc9af3/; see also “Decision on the reclassification or filing of public redacted versions of certain documents”, 6 September 2012, ICC-01/09-104-Conf-Exp, para. 3; see also “Decision on the Request for Disqualification of the Prosecutor in the Investigation against Mr David Nyekorach-Matsanga”, 11 July 2012, redacted version of 6 September 2012, ICC-01/09-96-Red (OA 2) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a77532/.
30 See, e.g., Decision on page limits and reclassification.
31 See Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 1.
32 See also Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, “Order Relating to the Authorities Relied Upon in the Document in Support of Germain Katanga’s Appeal Against the ‘Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial’”, 19 May 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07- 2113 (OA 11) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/dc1fcd/.
33 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 76-78; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 24-31.
34 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 79-84.
35 Impugned Decision, para. 23.
36 Impugned Decision, para. 22.
37 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 76; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 29.
38 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 25-26, 29.
39 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 77, referring to “Decision on the ‘Request by the Government of Kenya in respect of the Confirmation of Charges Proceedings’”, 20 September 2011, ICC-01/09-02/11-340 http://www.legaltools.org/doc/79a169/, paras 9-11.
40 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 25-26.
41 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 25-26.
42 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 74-75, 79-83.
43 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 80.
44 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 81.
45 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 36.
46 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 38.
47 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 38.
48 Prosecutor’s Response, para. 16.
49 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 28; Prosecutor’s Response, para. 17.
50 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 28, 29.
51 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 29.
52 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 28.
53 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 28, referring to Transcript of 8 March 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-20-CONF-ENG CT2, p. 1, line 13 - p. 4, line 2, p. 7, line 23 - p. 8, line 13 and “Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”, 24 June 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-802 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a5de24/, para. 24.
54 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 30.
55 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32.
56 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32, referring to Objection to the Request for Leave to Submit Observations, paras 33-51, p. 17.
57 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32, referring to Impugned Decision, paras 20-23.
58 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32, referring to Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 80-81.
59 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32, referring to Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 79-84.
60 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32.
61 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32.
62 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 32.
63 OPCV’s Observations, paras 27-34.
64 OPCV’s Observations, para. 27.
65 OPCV’s Observations, para. 27, referring to Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, “Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the ‘Decision on the admissibility of the case under article 19 (1) of the Statute’ of 10 March 2009”, 16 September 2009, ICC- 02/04-01/05-408 (OA 3) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c40d73/(hereinafter: “Kony OA 3 Judgment”), paras 46-47.
66 OPCV’s Observations, para. 32.
67 OPCV’s Observations, paras 33-34.
68 Coˆte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 4.
69 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, paras 6-7.
70 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, paras 7, 10. 71 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 7.
72 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 8.
73 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 12.
74 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 12.
75 Prosecutor’s Response, para. 16; OPCV’s Observations, para. 27.
76 See Kony OA 3 Judgment, paras 46-47; Prosecutor v. Jean- Pierre Bemba Gombo, “Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of 24 June 2010 entitled ‘Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”’, 19 October 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-962-Corr (OA 3) http://www. legal-tools.org/doc/37e559/(hereinafter: “Bemba OA 3 Judgment”), paras 100-101.
77 Document in Support of the Appeal, para.77.
78 Kony OA 3 Judgment, para. 48; see also Prosecutor v. Jean- Pierre Bemba Gombo, “Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean- Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of 28 July 2010 entitled ‘Decision on the review of the detention of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence”’, 19 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-1019 (OA 4) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f5c41c/, para. 69; Bemba OA 3 Judgment, para. 102.
79 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, “Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article 58”’, 13 July 2006, ICC-01/04- 169 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8c20eb/, para. 84.
80 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 81; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 36.
81 See ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx17-tENG.
82 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, p. 2.
83 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, p. 6.
84 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx16-tENG http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/e44492/.
85 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, para. 3(i).
86 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, part VII, para. 5.
87 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx19-tENG.
88 “Warrant of Arrest for Laurent Koudou Gbagbo”, 23 November 2011, ICC-02/11-01/11-1 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/80881e/, paras 8-9; “Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 for a warrant of arrest against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo”, 30 November 2011, ICC- 02/11-01/11-9-Red http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f8bdcb/, para. 11; Annex 1 to “Soumission de l’Accusation du Document de notification des charges, de l’Inventaire des éléments de preuve á charge et des Tableaux des éléments constitutifs des crimes”, 16 May 2012, ICC-02/11-01/11-124-Conf-Anx1; public redacted version: ICC-02/11-01/11-124-Anx1-Red http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2c1a6e/, paras 18-19.
89 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations on the Jurisdictional Challenge, para. 46; Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 5.
90 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx1 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a1a4d9/.
91 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx2 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b747d2/.
92 ICC-02111-01/11-129-Anx14-tENG.
93 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx15-tENG.
94 ICC-02/11-01/11-129-Anx3-tENG http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/f432f1/.
95 Impugned Decision, paras 55-65.
96 Impugned Decision, paras 56-58.
97 Impugned Decision, para. 59.
98 Impugned Decision, para. 59.
99 Impugned Decision, para. 59.
100 Impugned Decision, para. 59.
101 Impugned Decision, para. 60.
102 Impugned Decision, para. 61.
103 Impugned Decision, para. 61.
104 Impugned Decision, para. 61.
105 Impugned Decision, para. 63.
106 Impugned Decision, para. 63.
107 Impugned Decision, para. 64.
108 Impugned Decision, para. 65.
109 Impugned Decision, para. 66.
110 Impugned Decision, para. 66.
111 See Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 86-98.
112 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 90; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 44.
113 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 91; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 45.
114 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 90; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 45.
115 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 93; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 45.
116 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 93.
117 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42; see also Jurisdictional Challenge, para. 79.
118 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 99-107.
119 United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the International Law Commission Fifty-eighth session, 11 May - 9 June and 3 July - 11 August 2006, A/61/10 (2006), pp. 367-381; see also Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 103-104.
120 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 104; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42.
121 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 105; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42.
122 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 105; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42.
123 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 106.
124 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 106.
125 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 108-110; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 53. 126 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 111; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 53-54.
127 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 34; OPCV’s Observations, paras 35-40.
128 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 35-36.
129 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 37.
130 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 37.
131 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 38.
132 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 38.
133 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 39.
134 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 49.
135 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 50.
136 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 51; see also Prosecutor’s Response, para. 19.
137 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 52.
138 Prosecutor’s Response, para. 20.
139 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 54.
140 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 54.
141 OPCV’s Observations, para. 37.
142 OPCV’s Observations, para. 39.
143 OPCV’s Observations, para. 40.
144 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 15. 145 See article 112 of the Statute.
146 See supra paragraph 49.
147 Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, “Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Trial Chamber IV of 12 September 2011 entitled ‘Reasons for the Order on translation of witness statements (ICC-02/05-03/09-199) and additional instructions on translation”’, 17 February 2012, ICC-02/05-03/09-295 (OA 2), para. 20; see also Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, “Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 16 December 2011 entitled ‘Decision on the confirmation of charges”’, 30 May 2012, ICC-01/04-01/10-514 (OA 4) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/256bb2/, para. 15.
148 Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42; see also Jurisdictional Challenge, para. 79.
149 See Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 93; see also Jurisdictional Challenge, para. 79. The French version reads: “á l’égard du crime dont il s’agit”.
150 See articles 15bis and 15ter of the Statute with respect to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.
151 Impugned Decision, paras 59-64.
152 In the context of the present appeal, the Appeals Chamber does not have to address which specific limitations to a declaration under article 12 (3) of the Statute may be acceptable under the Court’s legal framework. 153 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 105; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42.
154 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 105; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 42.
155 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 103; see also supra paragraph 65, footnote 119.
156 See generally, Guiding Principles.
157 See C. Tomuschat, “Article 36”, in: A. Zimmermann, et al. (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2006) (hereinafter: “C. Tomuschat in A. Zimmermann”), paras 33, 65; see also ICJ, Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), “Preliminary Objections”, 26 May 1961, ICJ Reports 1961, pp. 17-22, and ICJ, Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), “Jurisdiction of the Court”, 4 December 1998, ICJ Reports 1998 (hereinafter: “ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction”), para. 44.
158 See C. Tomuschat in A. Zimmermann, para 65; see also ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction, para. 47.
159 Impugned Decision, para. 66.
160 14 December 2006, ICC-01/04-01/06-772 http://www.legaltoo1s.org/doc/1505f7/.
161 Impugned Decision, para. 88.
162 Impugned Decision, para. 90.
163 Impugned Decision, para. 94.
164 Impugned Decision, para. 94; see also paras 107-112.
165 Impugned Decision, para. 108.
166 Impugned Decision, para. 109, referring to the Lubanga OA 4 Judgment, para. 42.
167 Impugned Decision, para. 111.
168 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 115-134; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 59-82. 169 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 136-145; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 83-94. 170 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 146-151.
171 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 152-154; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 95-105.
172 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 155-165.
173 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 152.
174 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 152-153; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, paras 96-97. 175 ICC-01/05-01/08-80-Anx http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/08f9d3/.
176 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 153; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 102.
171 Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 153-154; Mr Gbagbo’s Response, para. 102. 178 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 79, 82.
179 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 80.
180 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 81.
181 Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 82.
182 Prosecutor’s Response, para. 23.
183 OPCV’s Observations, paras 42, 45.
184 OPCV’s Observations, para. 45.
185 OPCV’s Observations, para. 51.
186 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, paras 24-26. 187 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, paras 17-18. 188 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, paras 27-38. 189 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 28, referring to ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dragan Nikolic, “Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Legality of Arrest”, 5 June 2003, IT-94- 2-AR73 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c8648d/, para. 30.
190 Côte d’Ivoire’s Observations, para. 28. 191 See Lubanga OA 4 Judgment, paras 34-35. It is noted that several participants to these appeals proceedings as well as the Pre-Trial Chamber itself in the Impugned Decision referred to the “abuse of process doctrine”.
192 Lubanga OA 4 Judgment, para. 24.
193 See Trial Chamber I, “Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Leave to Appeal the ‘Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused”’, 2 July 2008, ICC- 01/04-01/06-1417 http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/798121/; see also Transcript of 15 July 2010, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-314- ENG http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d1d118/, p. 14, line 5 - p. 17, line 7, where leave was granted orally.
194 See “Decision on the appeal of Mr Kirimi Muthaura and Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled ‘Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute”’, 24 May 2012, ICC-0l/09-02/11-425 (OA 4) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b6aad9/; see also “Decision on the appeal of Mr William Samoei Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled ‘Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61 (7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute”’, 24 May 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-414 (OA 3 OA 4) http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/8f555e/.
195 Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 153.
196 Bemba Decision, para. 27, summarising Mr Bemba’s submissions.
197 See Jurisdictional Challenge, paras 293 et seq.
198 Impugned Decision, para. 90.