معیار معقول‌بودن در اساسنامه دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی و تبیین آن از سوی شعب مقدماتی

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشگاه قم

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق کیفری دانشگاه قم

10.22066/cilamag.2018.31889

چکیده

در اساسنامه دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی، معیارهایی مقرر شده که بررسی هر وضعیت اتهامی، مستلزم احراز آن‌هاست. این معیارها، هم برای دادستان و هم برای شعب مقدماتی محدودیت‌هایی ایجاد می‌کند تا آرمان تأسیس دیوان که رسیدگی به شدیدترین جنایات بین‌المللی است، برآورده شود. این معیارها بر مدار معقولیت بنیان نهاده شده است؛ به این معنا که باید مبنا یا قرائن معقولی باشد تا بتوان مظنونی را به دادستانی معرفی یا به شعب مقدماتی احضار کرد. انتظار به‌جا و صحیح از معقولیت رویه دیوان، مستلزم روشن‌بودن مفهوم این معیارها و وضوح معیار معقول‌بودن است. موضوع این پژوهش تفسیری ـ تحلیلی، بررسی این معیارها از نظر مفهوم معقول‌بودن، از ابتدای شروع بررسی مقدماتی تا تأیید اتهام شخص مظنون نزد شعب مقدماتی است. نتیجه اینکه مضامین حقوقی مندرج در اساسنامه که واضح نباشد، موجب بروز تفاسیر مختلف و احیاناً منتهی به صدور آرای متهافت می‌شود و مقبولیت دیوان را با چالش مواجه می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Reasonableness in the Statute of the ICC and Its Explanation by Pre-Trial Chambers

نویسندگان [English]

  • aboolfath khaleghi 1
  • zahra saedi 2
1 associate professor law faculty/ university of Qom/ Qom Iran
2 student of PHD of criminal law university of qom
چکیده [English]

In the Statute of ICC, several criteria have been stipulated that the process of examination of any case requires their verification. These criteria establish limitations on the prosecutor and pre-trial chambers in order to fulfill ideals and purposes of establishment of ICC that is addressing the most serious international crimes. These criteria have been established based on reasonableness; there should exist a reasonable basis or ground so that suspected person be introduced before the prosecutor or be summoned to the pre-trial chamber. A legitimate expectation of ICC procedure reasonableness requires clarification of the challenging concept of the reasonableness. The objective of this study is to investigate these criteria in view of the concept of reasonableness, from initiation of the preliminary examination to confirmation of charges of the suspected person before the pre-trial chamber. This article concluded that if legal concepts contained in the Statute of the ICC are not clear, it probably leads to different interpretations and the issuance of contradictory verdicts which in turn challenges the credibility of ICC.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • International Criminal Courts
  • Reasonableness
  • Preliminary Examination
  • Warrant of Arrest
  • Confirmation of Charges

منابع:

الف) فارسی

  • صالحی، محمدخلیل؛ صادقی، مجید؛ «بررسی پرونده دوم سودان در دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی (ارجاع تا دستور جلب)»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوقی دانشگاه قم، سال سوم، شماره سوم، 1390.
  • فاخری، نریمان و جواد صالحی؛ «رویه شعب بدوی و تجدیدنظر دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی در اصلاح اتهامات لوبانگا: از هماهنگی تا تعارض میان آیین‌نامه دیوان با اساسنامه رم»، مجله حقوقی بینالمللی، شماره 51، پاییز و زمستان 1393.
  • محمدخانی، عباس؛ «جرایم علیه بشریت در رویه‌قضایی محاکم کیفری بین‌المللی سازمان ملل متحد»، فصلنامه علمی ترویجی مطالعات بینالمللی پلیس، شماره 11، دوره سوم، پاییز 1391.
  • معاونت حقوقی و بررسی‌های فقهی، «آزمونی دشوار برای دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی: بررسی حقوقی درخواست دادستان دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی برای صدور حکم جلب رئیس‌جمهور سودان»، مجله حقوقی قضاوت، شماره 57، خرداد و تیر 1388.

 

ب) انگلیسی

- Articles:

  • Ambos, Kai, Miller, Dennis, “Structure and Function of the Confirmation Procedure before the ICC from a Comparative Perspective”, International Criminal Law Review 7, 2007.
  • Kealeboga N. Bojosi, “The Death Row Phenomenon and the Prohibition against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment”, African Human Rights Law Journal, 2004
  • Courtney, Kaoutzanis, “Proactive Gatekeepers: The Jurisprudence of the ICC's Pre-Trial Chambers”, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 15, No. 2, 2015.
  • Gauthier de Beco, “The Confirmation of Charges before the International Criminal Court: Evaluation and First Application”, International Criminal Law Review 7, 2007.
  • Nerlich, Volker, “The Confirmation of Charges Procedure at the International Criminal Court Advance or Failure?”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2012.
  • Ramsden, Michael and Chung, Cecilia, “'Reasonable Grounds to Believe': An Unreasonably Unclear Evidentiary Threshold in the ICC Statute” (June 16, 2015). Journal of International Criminal Justice (2015); The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2015-07. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract= 2646729.
  • Skolnik, Terry, “The Suspicious Distinction between Reasonable Suspicion and Reasonable Grounds to Believe”, available at: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2782237.
  • Otto Triffterer, Kai Ambos, “The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Law: A Commentary”, Hart Publishing, 2015; Manuel J. Ventura, “The ‘Reasonable Basis to Proceed Threshold in the Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire Proprio Motu Investigation Decisions: The International Criminal Court’s Lowest Evidentiary Standard?”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2013) 12(1).
 

- Decisions and Instruments:

  • Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire -02/11, 3 October 2011.
  • Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08), Pre-Trial Chamber III, 10 June 2008.
  • Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 for a Warrant of Arrest against Laurent Koudou Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11 Date: 30 November 2011
  • Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, The Prosecutor v. Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009.
  • 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, 15 June 2009, para. 59.
  • European Convention on Human Rights, art. 5(1)(c).
  • Murray v. United Kingdom, ECtHR (1994) Series A, No. 300
  • O'Hara v. The United Kingdom, ECtHR (2001), App No. 37555/97, § 34.
  • Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, The Office of the Prosecutor, November 2013.
  • Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tENG, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, PTC I, 29 January 2007.
  • Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/ 06-309, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor against Bosco Ntaganda, PTC II, 9 June 2014.
  • Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, UN Doc A/49/10, 2 May–22 July 1994.
  • Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc A/CONF.183/2, 14 April 1998.
  • Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary- 25 January 2005-Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004.
  • Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, Pre-Trial Chamber II, ICC-01/09-19-Corr, 31 March 2010.
  • Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application under Article 58, ICC-01/04-02/06,: 13 July 2012.
  • Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07, 21 October 2011.
  • Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, ICC-01/04-01/10, 16 December 2011.
  • Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Sylvestre Mudacumura, Decision on the Prosecutor's Application under Article 58, ICC-01/04-01/12: 13 July 2012.
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969.