Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
On 29 October 1997, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), composed of Judges Antonio Cassese (presiding), Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, Haopei Li, Ninian Stephen and Lal Chand Vohrah, handed down its Judgement in the Blaškić case on the appeal filed by the Republic of Croatia against the ‘Subpoena Decision’ of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997. The legal issues raised in this case are complicated, rather new and fundamental from the perspective of international law and the inherent powers of international criminal courts established ad hoc by a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. They concern the authority and power of the Tribunal to issue compulsory orders of this kind to states, to high government officials and other individuals; the question of which remedies are available if there is a failure to comply with such subpoenae duces tecum; and other issues, as how to deal with the problem of the national security interests of sovereign states.
1. On the ICTY in general, with further references to the literature, see Malanczuk, P., Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edn., 1997, reprinted 1998, p. 355 et seqGoogle Scholar.
2. Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić case No. IT-95-14-AR bis., 29 October 1997 (hereinafter, ‘Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement’).
3. Decision on the objection of the Republic of Croatia to the issuance of supoenae duces tecum, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blašklć, Case No. IT-95-14-PT. Ch. II. 18 July 1997 (hereinafter, ‘Subpoena Decision’).
4. Malanczuk, P., Amicus Curiae Brief submitted to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Case Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić (Case No. IT-96-14-PT) on the power of a Judge or Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal to issue a subpoena duces tecum to a sovereign state and questions relating to this issue, 04 1997Google Scholar [see International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Bulletin, No. 18, 20 06 1997, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.]; Malanczuk, P., The International Criminal Tribunal's Power to issue subpoena duces tecum, in Denters, Erik/Schrijver, Nico, eds., Reflections on International Law from the Low Countries in Honour of Paul de Waart (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1998) pp. 260–277Google Scholar.
5. Subpoena duces tecum to the Republic of Croatia and to the Defence Minister Gojko Šušak, ‘Subpoena Decision’, op. cit. n. 3, Judge McDonald, IS January 1997.
6. Subpoena duces tecum to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Custodian of the Records of the Central Archive of what was formerly the Ministry of Defence of the Croatian Community of Herceg Bosna, ‘Subpoena Decision’, op. cit. n. 3, Judge McDonald, 15 January 1997.
7. Briefs were submitted by Batram S. Brown; Luigi Condorelli; The Croatian Association of Criminal Science and Practice; Marie-José Domestici-Met; Donald Donavan for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights; Jochen A. Frowein, Georg Nolte, Karin Oellers-Frahm and Andreas Zimmermann for the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law; Annalisa Ciampi and Giorgio Gaja; Juristes sans frontières and Alain Pellet; Juan-Antonio Carrillo Salcedo; Bruno Simma; Thomas Warrick, Rochelle Stern and J. Stefan Lupp; Ruth Wedgwood; and the present author (see supra n. 4).
8. Briefs were submitted by the People's Republic of China; the Government of the Netherlands; The Governments of Canada and New Zealand; the Government of Norway; Ruth Wedgwood; Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law; Juristes sans frontières and Alain Pellet; Carol Elder Bruce; and Herwig Roggemann.
9. Disposition, para. (5).
10. Disposition, para. (1).
11. Disposition, para. (2).
12. Disposition, para. (3).
13. Disposition, para. (4).
14. Rule 54 (‘General Rule’) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (as amended 3 December 1996), IT/32/Rev. 10, states: ‘At the request of either party or proprio motu, a Judge or a Trial Chamber may issue such orders, summonses, subpoenas, warrants and transfer orders as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for die preparation or conduct of the trial.’
15. ‘Subpoena Decision’ op. cit. n. 3, paras. 61–62, 64 and 78.
16. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 21.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Rule 7 of the Rules, op. cit. n. 14, states: ‘The English and French texts of the Rules shall be equally authentic. In case of discrepancy, die version which is more consonant with die spirit of die Statute and die Rules shall prevail.’
21. An. 29 of the ICTY Statute, in ICTY Basic Documents (1995) deals with ‘Cooperation and judicial assistance’. It states: 1. States shall cooperate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law. 2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to: the identification and location of persons; the taking of testimony and the production of evidence; the service of documents; the arrest or detention of persons; the surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal.
22. Para. 25. In note 27, the Appeals Chamber correctly distinguishes between the doctrine of ‘inherent powers’, as developed in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice with regard to its own judicial functions and the doctrine of ‘implied powers’ which relates to the competences of international organizations. See Zuleeg, Manfred, ‘International Organizations, Implied Powers’, in: Bernhardt, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. II (North Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam 1995) pp. 1312–1314Google Scholar.
23. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, Para. 25.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., Disposition (1), see also para. 26. For the text of Art. 29 see supra n. 21.
26. Ibid., para. 26.
27. Ibid., para. 27.
28. Ibid., para 28.
29. Ibid., para. 29.
30. On the distinction between ‘two modes of interaction with the International Tribunal: the cooperative and the mandatory compliance’, with preference given to the first mode, as suggested by the Prosecutor, see para. 31.
31. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 32.
32. Rule 7 bis, as cited in para. 34 of the Judgement, states: ‘(A) In addition to cases which Rule 11 [Non-compliance with a Request for Deferral], Rule 13 [Non Bis in Idem], Rule 59 [Failure to Execute a Warrant or Transfer Order] or Rule 61 [Procedure in Case of Failure to Execute a Warrant], applies, where a Trial Chamber or a Judge is satisfied that a State has failed to comply with an obligation under Article 29 of the Statute which relates to any proceedings before that Chamber or Judge, the Chamber or Judge may advise the President, who shall report the matter to the Security Council. (B) If the Prosecutor satisfies the President mat a State has failed to comply with an obligation under Article 29 of the Statute in respect of a request by the Prosecutor under Rule 8 [Request for Information], Rule 39 [Conduct of Investigations] or Rule 40 [Provisional Measures], the President shall notify die Security Council thereof.’
33. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 33.
34. Ibid., para. 34.
35. Ibid., para. 35.
36. Ibid.
37. On the work of the International Law Commission in codifying state responsibility, see Malanczuk, Akehurst's, op. cit. n. 1, p. 254 et seq.
38. On the relationship between the ICI and the Security Council see Malanczuk, ibid., p. 292 et seq., with further references to the literature.
39. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 36.
40. Ibid., para. 26.
41. Ibid., para. 36.
42. Barcelona Traction Case, Second Phase, ICJ Rep. (1970) p. 3 et seqGoogle Scholar. (paras. 33, 34). See Malanczuk, op. cit. n. 1, pp. 58–60 with extensive references to the literature. See also Frowein, Jochen Abr., ‘Obligationsergaomnes’, in Bernhardt, R., ed., Encyclopedia of PublicIntemational Law, Vol. III (1997) pp. 757–759Google Scholar with a bibliography.
43. East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Rep. (1995) p. 90 et seq.Google Scholar (para. 29). See the Dissenting Opinion by Judge Weeramantry.
44. See Malanczuk, op. cit. n. 1, p. 59 et seq., p. 254 et seq.
45. Text in 37 ILM (1998) n. 440 et seq.
46. Ibid., p. 468, see also pp. 474–478.
47. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 38.
48. Ibid., para. 40.
49. Ibid., para. 41.
50. Ibid., para. 43.
51. Ibid., para. 44.
52. Ibid., para. 45.
53. Ibid., para. 46.
54. Ibid., para. 49.
55. Ibid., para. 50.
56. Ibid., para. 51.
57. Ibid., paras. 52–56.
58. Ibid., paras. 45–60.
59. For the argumentation see ibid., paras. 61–66.
60. Ibid., para. 67.
61. Ibid., paras. 68–69.
62. Under Article 33 of die ICTY's Statute, die two working languages of the ICTY are English and French.
63. Appeals Chamber, Subpoena Judgement, op. cit. n. 2, para. 68.
64. Separate Opinion of Judge Adolphus G. Karibi-Whyle, para. 14.
65. See supra n. 4.
