Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:52:43.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prosecutor’s Request Concerning the Rohingya Deportation to Bangladesh: Certain Procedural Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

MICHAIL VAGIAS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On 9 April 2018, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed a request seeking the composition of a Pre-Trial Chamber, in order to decide whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction over the Rohingya deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh as a crime against humanity. This filing is a first for the Court on at least two fronts; it is the first time the Prosecutor has asked the Court to interpret Article 12(2)(a) and apply qualified territoriality; it is also the first time the Prosecutor has asked for a ruling on jurisdiction under Article 19(3).

This study explores certain procedural questions emerging from this request, such as the Court’s authority to decide while its jurisdiction is ‘dormant’; the function of Article 19(3) within the Rome Statute’s overall system concerning jurisdictional determinations; issuing a decision on jurisdiction, while avoiding prejudice to subsequent proceedings and without rendering meaningless the right to challenge jurisdiction under Article 19(2) of the Statute. The article accepts that the request is a step in the right direction, as it signals the Prosecutor’s determination to investigate the Rohingya crisis. However, the manner and timing of its presentation give rise to plausible claims of incompatibility with the Court’s procedural framework. Arguably, the Court may well instruct the Prosecutor to assume the risk of wasting precious resources and proceed with further investigations, pending the final determination of the jurisdictional question at a later stage.

Keywords

BangladeshjurisdictionMyanmarRohingyaterritory
Type
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 981 - 1002
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Ph.D., LL.M. (adv.) (Hons.); Senior Lecturer in Law, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Public Management, Law and Safety [[email protected]].

The article benefited greatly from the excellent remarks of the anonymous reviewers, for which I am very grateful. Moreover, I gratefully acknowledge the valuable discussions with and remarks of Gérardine Goh-Escolar and Marina Lostal. The Research Fund of the Platform ‘Good Governance for a Safe and Secure World’ of The Hague University of Applied Sciences provided financial support for the preparation of this article. All errors are my own.

References

1 Application under Regulation 46(3), Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-1, 9 April 2018 (hereinafter: ‘the request’).

2 Ibid., para. 3.

3 Ibid., para. 2.

4 Art. 19 (3) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 37 ILM 999 (1998) (hereinafter ‘the Statute’ or ‘RS’).

5 Decision assigning the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute’ to Pre-Trial Chamber I, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-2, President of the Pre-Trial Division, 11 April 2018.

6 Decision Inviting the Competent Authorities of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to Submit Observations pursuant to Rule 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence on the ‘Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute’, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-3, Pre-T. Ch., 7 May 2018, para. 7(a).

7 The Prosecutor made reference to objective territoriality in the Situation in Afghanistan, Public redacted version of ‘Request for authorization of an investigation pursuant to article 15’, ICC-02/17-7-Conf-Exp, Pre-T. Ch., 20 November 2017, fn. 49 and in Situation in the Republic of Korea, Article 5 Report, June 2014, para. 39.

8 ‘Myanmar says “seriously concerned” over war crimes prosecutor move on Rohingya jurisdiction’, Reuters, 13 April 2018, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-court/myanmar-says-seriously-concerned-over-war-crimes-prosecutor-move-on-rohingya-jurisdiction-idUSKBN1HK1QA (accessed 30 April 2018); ‘Myanmar says ICC lacks jurisdiction to probe Rohingya crisis’, ABS-CBN News, 13 April 2018, available at news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/04/13/18/myanmar-says-icc-lacks-jurisdiction-to-probe-rohingya-crisis (accessed 30 April 2018).

9 Reuters, ibid.

10 This is a different issue from the liability of remote perpetrators; namely, e.g., whether a perpetrator in Pyongyang can be liable for contributing to a crime in the DRC. The Prosecutor – somewhat optimistically – has considered the matter settled in favour of the Court’s jurisdiction. Situation in Afghanistan, supra note 7, para. 47.

11 Among many others Abdelkader, E., ‘The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar: Past, Present and Future’, (2013) 15 Oregon Review of International Law 393, at 394–6Google Scholar.

12 The request, supra note 1, paras. 2, 13, 26.

13 UN Secretary General, Report of the Secretary General on conflict-related sexual violence, UN Doc. S/2018/250, 23 March 2018, para. 10; ‘UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein highlights human rights concerns around the world in an address to the 36th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva’, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 11 September 2017, available at www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22044&LangID=E (accessed 15 April 2018).

14 The request, supra note 1, para. 10 with extensive references to NGO and media reports.

15 Ibid., paras. 2, 11.

16 Ibid., paras. 2, 13.

17 Ibid., paras. 8–14.

18 Ibid., para. 11.

19 Ibid., paras. 13, 27, 28–30.

20 Ibid., paras. 4–6.

21 Art. 42(1) of the Statute.

22 Brubacher, M.R., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion within the International Criminal Court’, (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 71, at 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 O’Brien, M., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion as an Obstacle to Prosecution of United Nations Peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court: The Big Fish/Small Fish Debate and the Gravity Threshold’, (2012) 10 Journal of International Criminal Justice 525, at 526, 544CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rastan, R., ‘Comment on Victor’s Justice & the Viability of Ex Ante Standards’, (2010) 43 The John Marshall Law Review 569, at 570–1Google Scholar; Hall, C.K., ‘The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity’, (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 121–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Art. 53, paras. 1 and 2 RS; Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice, ICC-OTP, September 2007, available at www.legal-tools.org/doc/bb02e5/ (accessed 15 April 2018); Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, ICC-OTP, November 2013, available at www.legal-tools.org/doc/acb906, paras. 67–71 (accessed 15 April 2018); de Souza Dias, T., ‘“Interests of Justice”: Defining the scope of prosecutorial discretion in Article 53(1)(c) and 2(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 731–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 For a detailed discussion, Smeulers, A., Weerdesteijn, M. and Hola, B., ‘The Selection of Situations by the ICC: An Empirically Based Evaluation of the OTP’s Performance’, (2015) 15 International Criminal Law Review 1, at 5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Schabas, W.A., ‘Victor’s Justice: Selecting “Situations” at the International Criminal Court’, (2010) 43 The John Marshall Law Review 535, at 547–9Google Scholar.

27 Draft Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation, ICC-OTP, 29 February 2016, para. 5, available at www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/29.02.16_Draft_Policy-Paper-on-Case-Selection-and-Prioritisation_ENG.pdf (accessed 15 April 2018). The first case before the Court focused on three crimes. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch., 14 March 2012, paras. 1–3.

28 The request, supra note 1, para. 42.

29 The request, supra note 1, paras. 4, 28, 45, fn. 51; further, paras. 28, 45.

30 The request, supra note 1, paras. 29, 31 and fn. 96.

31 Final Report, Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, August 2017, at 53, available at www.rakhinecommission.org/app/uploads/2017/08/FinalReport_Eng.pdf (accessed 15 April 2018).

32 Ibid., at 45.

33 UN Security Council, Presidential Statement, UN Doc. S/PRST/2017/22, 6 November 2017.

34 Ibid., paras. 1–3.

35 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Advance Unedited Version, A/HRC/37/70, 9 March 2018, para. 65; S. Quadir, ‘U.N. Official says will raise sexual violence against Rohingya with ICC’, Reuters, 12 November 2017, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-myanmar/u-n-official-says-will-raise-sexual-violence-against-rohingya-with-icc-idUSKBN1DC0N7 (accessed 15 April 2018); Ibrahim, A., The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Genocide (2018)Google Scholar.

36 These are the classic examples of continuous crimes. Paust, J.J., ‘Ten Types of Israeli and Palestinian Violations of the Laws of War and the ICC’, (2015) 31 Connecticut Journal of International Law 27, at 48–9Google Scholar; Nissel, A., ‘Continuing Crimes in the Rome Statute’, (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 653, at 668Google Scholar.

37 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/06, Pre-T.Ch. I, 29 January 2007, para. 248.

38 Art. 7(1)(a) of the Statute.

39 May 2018 marked nine months since the August 2017 campaign and NGOs in the field are reported to prepare for a number of rape-related births in refugee camps. Safi, M. and Azizur Rahman, S., ‘Nine months after Myanmar assaults, Rohingya camps ready for spate of births’, The Guardian, 1 May 2018, available at www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/01/nine-months-after-myanmar-assaults-rohingya-camps-ready-for-spate-of-births (accessed 15 May 2018)Google Scholar.

40 SS Lotus case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Rep. Series A No. 10, at 19–20.

41 ‘Codification of International Law: Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime (Harvard Draft Convention)’, (1935) 29 American Journal of International Law (suppl.) 439.

42 The request, supra note 1, para. 31 (the effects doctrine), para. 36 (rule of reason), para. 40 (ubiquity).

43 Ibid., para. 42 (emphasis in the original; footnote omitted).

44 Rastan, R., ‘Jurisdiction’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (2015), 164–5Google Scholar.

45 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, American Law Institute 1987, Sections 402–3; further, Ryngaert, C., Jurisdiction in International Law (2015), 152–6Google Scholar.

46 Stahn, C., ‘Limits of the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Doctrine’, (2016) 49 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 443, at 446–8Google Scholar; Kress, C. and Prost, K., ‘Article 98’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, A Commentary (2016) at 2132–3Google Scholar. The authors explain that international criminal law is not a matter of delegation but rather a manifestation of a universal jus puniendi of the international community as a whole; Akande, D., ‘The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits’, (2003) 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 618, at 626 (delegation is both universal under international law criminalizing conduct as well as territorial due to state authorization)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 The request, supra note 1, para. 36, fn. 70.

48 Ryngaert, supra note 45.

49 Preamble of the Rome Statute, supra note 4, para. 9.

50 Declaration, RC/Decl.1, adopted on 1 June 2010 by consensus, preambular para. 2, available at asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Decl.1-ENG.pdf (accessed 15 April 2018).

51 Resolution, RC/Res. 2, adopted on 8 June 2010 by consensus, operative para. 2, available at asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.2-ENG.pdf (accessed 15 April 2018).

52 Condorelli, L. and Villalpando, S., ‘Can the Security Council Extend the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’, in Cassesse, A., et al. (eds.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (2002), Vol. I, at 571Google Scholar.

53 Olasolo, H., The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (2005), 136–41Google Scholar; Bloommestijn, M. and Ryngaert, C., ‘Exploring the Obligations for States to Act upon the ICC’s Arrest Warrant for Omar Al-Bashir’, (2010) 6 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 428, at 436, fn. 56Google Scholar.

54 The request, supra note 1, para. 3.

55 Ibid., para. 53.

56 Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Pre-T. Ch., 15 June 2009, para. 23.

57 Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti, Decision on the admissibility of the case under Article 19(1) of the Statute, ICC-02/04-01/05-377, Pre-T. Ch., 10 March 2009, para. 45.

58 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang’, ICC-01/09-01/11-1, Pre-T. Ch., 8 March 2011, para. 8.

59 On effective interpretation see infra note 80 and text.

60 The request, supra note 1, para. 53.

61 Ibid., para. 52.

62 Ibid., para. 53.

63 Ibid., para. 54.

64 Ibid., para. 54.

65 Ibid., para. 55.

66 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’, ICC-01/04-169, 13 July 2006, para. 30.

67 Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, First session, New York, 3–10 September 2002 (ICC ASP/1/3 and Corr.1), part II.A (hereinafter: The Rules).

68 The request, supra note 1, para. 54.

69 Ibid., paras. 54–5.

70 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on the Appeals 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’, ICC-01/09-01/11-414, A.Ch., 24 May 2012, para. 28 (emphasis added).

71 Ibid., para. 29.

72 The Appeals Chamber has made it clear that its role is not to issue advisory opinions. 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, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, A. Ch., 25 September 2009, paras. 37–8, fn. 62.

73 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Bosco Ntaganda against the ‘Decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9’, ICC-01/04-02/06-1225, A.Ch., 22 March 2016, para. 37 (emphasis added, hereinafter: Ntaganda OA2).

74 Art. 19(1) of the Statute.

75 Situation in Kenya, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-19-Corr, Pre-T. Ch., 31 March 2010, para. 18.

76 Situation in Kenya, ibid., para. 206; Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Corrigendum to ‘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’, ICC-02/11-14-Corr., Pre-T. Ch., 15 November 2011, paras. 178–9.

77 Situation in Georgia, Decision on the Prosecutor’s request for authorization of an investigation, ICC-01/15-12, Pre-T. Ch., 27 January 2016, para. 3.

78 Hall, C.K., Nsereko, D.D. and Ventura, M.J., ‘Article 19’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – A Commentary (2016), 849 at 875Google Scholar.

79 Ibid.

80 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep. 70, at 125, paras. 132–4; Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 13 July 2009, [2009] ICJ Rep. 123, at 267–8, paras. 50–3; further, Linderfalk, U., On the Interpretation of Treaties. The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2007), 373Google Scholar.

81 The Prosecutor has asked the Court to invite observations from other parties under Rule 103. The request, supra note 1, para. 61.

82 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, supra note 66.

83 The request, supra note 1, para. 55.

84 Friman, H., ‘Interlocutory Appeals in the Early Practice of the International Criminal Court’, in Sluiter, G. and Stahn, C. (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (2009), 553 at 555–6Google Scholar.

85 Situation in Republic of Kenya, Decision on the admissibility of the Appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the ‘Decision on the Request for Assistance Submitted on Behalf of the Government of the Republic of Kenya Pursuant to Article 93(10) of the Statute and Rule 194 of the rules of Procedure and Evidence’, ICC-01/09-78, A.Ch., 10 August 2011, paras. 15–17; further, Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, Decision on the admissibility of the Prosecutor’s appeal against the ‘Decision on the request of the Union of the Comoros to review the Prosecutor’s decision not to initiate an investigation’, ICC-01/13 OA, A. Ch., 6 November 2015, para. 44.

86 Schabas, W.A., The International Criminal Court – A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2016), 1226Google Scholar.

87 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, supra note 73, para. 39.

88 Ibid., para. 40.

89 Rule 59 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, supra note 67, is entitled ‘Participation in proceedings under article 19, paragraph 3’ and provides in paragraph 1 that ‘[f]or the purpose of article 19, paragraph 3, the Registrar shall inform the following of any question or challenge of jurisdiction or admissibility which has arisen pursuant to article 19, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 …’.

90 The Regulation provides that the matter will be assigned by the President of the Pre-Trial division to a Pre-Trial Chamber. This took place on 11 April 2018. See supra note 5.

91 Ibid., at 590.

92 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, ICC-01/04-168 OA 3, A. Ch., 13 July 2006, para. 39.

93 Prosecutor v. Ruto et al., Judgment on the appeals of William Samoei Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Trial Chamber V (A) of 17 April 2014 entitled ‘Decision on Prosecutor’s Application for Witness Summonses and Resulting Request for State Party Cooperation’, ICC-01/09-01/11-1598, A. Ch., 9 October 2014, para. 105.

94 Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Rules of Procedure and Evidence as amended and corrected on 3 April 2017, Rule 68(G), available at www.stl-tsl.org/images/RPE/RPE_EN_April_2017.pdf (accessed 15 May 2018).

95 Art. 30 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 5.

96 Nerlich, V., ‘The Role of the Appeals Chamber’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (2015), 963 at 966Google Scholar.

97 Art. 46 of the Statute.

98 Nerlich, supra note 96, at 978–80.

99 Nerlich, ibid.; see further Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, supra note 72, paras. 37–8, fn. 62.

100 Sluiter, G., ‘Trends in the development of a unified law of international criminal procedure’, in Stahn, C. and van den Herik, L. (eds.), Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice (2010), 581, at 589Google Scholar; Klamberg, M., Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting legal gaps and the reconstruction of disputed events (2013), 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Sluiter, ibid., at 590.

102 Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Urgent Application Dated 26 September 2005, ICC-02/04-01/05, Pre-T. Ch., 27 September 2005, at 3.

103 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, ICC-02/05-01/07, Pre-T. Ch., 25 May 2010, at 6.

104 Extraordinary Review Appeal, ICC-01/04-168, supra note 92. The Appeals Chamber did not discuss why it proceeded to discuss the request, even though it was not provided for in the Statute and the Rules, ibid., para. 3.

105 Supra note 95.

106 Art. 30 of the 2013 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, CETS No. 213. This amendment to Article 30 was proposed by the Court itself; European Court of Human Rights, ‘Opinion of the Court on Draft Protocol no. 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights’ (6 February 2013), para. 7, available at www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2013_Protocol_15_Court_Opinion_ENG.pdf (accessed 21 August 2018).

107 Makarczyk, J., ‘Reform of the ECtHR: The Luxembourg Perspective’, in Steering Committee for Human Rights, Reforming the European Convention on Human Rights: A Work in Progress (2009), 159 at 165Google Scholar.

108 Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 15, supra note 106, para. 16, available at www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Protocol_15_explanatory_report_ENG.pdf (accessed 15 April 2018).

109 Cole Mark, D. and Vandendriessche, A., ‘From Digital Rights Ireland and Schrems in Luxembourg to Zakharow and Szabo/Vissy in Strasbourg’, (2016) 2 European Data Protection Law Review 121, at 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Harris, D., et al., Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2014), 123Google Scholar.

111 Thienel, T., ‘The ECHR in Iraq: The Judgment of the House of Lords in R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence’, (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 155, at 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Reid, K., A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (2011), 12Google Scholar.

113 Recently, Burmych and others v. Ukraine, Judgment of 12 October 2017, Grand Chamber (Appl No. 46852/13, 47786/13, 54125/13 et al.). Further, Harris, supra note 110, at 124; Schabas, W.A., The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (2015), 711–12Google Scholar.

114 Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, supra note 94.

115 Webb, P., ‘Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Alamuddin, A., Nabil Jurdi, N. and Tolbert, D. (eds.), The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Law and Practice (2014), at 90, fn. 8Google Scholar.

116 Rules of Procedure and Evidence – Explanatory Memorandum by the Tribunal’s President – 25 November 2010, para. 11, available at www.stl-tsl.org/en/documents/rules-of-procedure-and-evidence/explanatory-memoranda/216-rules-of-procedure-and-evidence-explanatory-memorandum-by-the-tribunal-s-president-25-november-2010 (accessed 15 May 2018).

117 Powderly, J., ‘Introductory Observations on the STL Appeals Chamber Decision: Context and Critical Remarks’, (2011) 22 Criminal Law Forum 347, at 350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Order on Preliminary Questions Addressed to the Judges of the Appeals Chamber pursuant to Rule 68, paragraph (G), of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, STL-11-01/1, Pre-T. Ch., 21 January 2011.

119 Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Order on Preliminary Questions Concerning the Crime of Criminal Association Addressed to the Appeals Chamber Pursuant to Rules 68 (G) and 71 (A) (Ii) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Case No. STL-II-OI/IIPT, Pre-T. Ch., 2 March 2012.

120 Supra note 118, para. 2.

121 Supra note 119, para. 9.

122 For an exhaustive literature overview, Situation in Afghanistan, supra note 7, paras. 45–6, fns. 41–2.

123 See supra note 8.

124 Preamble of the Statute, supra note 4, para. 5.