Torture in the Jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc Tribunals: A critical assessment

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 159-182

  Burchard, Christoph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44649102692     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqn013     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. http://www.amnesty.org/resources/pdf/combating.torture/sections/section 6-5.pdf (visited 20 May 2007).
2. These were often contained in the ordinary penal codes, cf. for example section 11 8 1§ 'Codex juris bavarici criminalis' (1751).
3. Cf. for example, to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 5): 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'
4. As to the significance ot the United Nations Conventions against Torture (UNCAT, 1984) see infra 2.A.2.
5. Also cf. W.A. Schabas, 'The Crime of Torture and the International Criminal Tribunals,' 37 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006) 349-364.
6. Also cf. A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 117.
7. Cf. Judgement. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1). Trial Chamber. 10 December 1998. §§ 147-157.
8. Also accepted in Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §454.
9. Judgment, Akayesu (ICTR-96-4), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, §681.
10. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §459.
11. Ibid., §§ 473-474.
12. Judgment. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1). Trial Chamber. 10 December 1998. §162.
13. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, §§ 465-471.
14. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §147.
15. Cf. for example Judgement, Limaj et al. (IT-03-66], Trial Chamber, 30 November 2005, §240.
16. Cf for example Judgement, Semanza (ICTR-97-20), Appeals Chamber, 20 May 2005, § 240
17. Judgment, Simić et al. (IT-95-9), Trial Chamber, 17 October 2003, §79
18. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 178.
19. As to latest endorsement of this definition cf. Judgment, Brdanin (IT-99-36), Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007. §242.
20. Cf. for example Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebici) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §468.
21. Judgment, Limaj et al. (IT-03-66), Trial Chamber, 30 November 2005, §236.
22. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §150.
23. Judgmeni Brdanin (IT-99-36). Trial Chamber, 1 SepQmher 2004, § 485.
24. Cf. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §150.
25. Judgment, Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1), Trial Chamber, 2 November 2001, §144.
26. Ibid., §144 (italics added).
27. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 182
28. Judgment, Simić et al. (IT-95-9). Trial Chamber. 17 October 2003. §80.
29. Cf. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §149.
30. Cf. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, §182
31. Judgment, Brdanin (IT-99-36), Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004, § 484
32. Judgment, Martić (IT-95-11), Trial Chamber, 12 June 2007, § 75.
33. Judgement Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1), Trial Chamber, 2 Nowember 2001, §148
34. Judgement, Brdanin (IT-99-36) Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004, § 484.
35. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §§ 135, 150.
36. Judgment, Naletilić et al. (IT-98-34), Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, §300.
37. Cf. Judgment. Brdanin (IT-99-36). Appeals Chamber. 3 April 2007, §241 et seq.
38. Judgment, Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1), Trial Chamber, 2 November 2001, §145 (italics added). Also cf. Judgment, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, §163.
39. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §496 (italics added).
40. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §150.
41. Judgment, Brdanin (IT-99-36), Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004, § 485.
42. Cf. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §468 et seq. (italics added): 'Mistreatment that does not rise to the threshold level of severity necessary to be characterized as torture may constitute another offence ... [I]t is difficult to articulate with any degree of precision the threshold level of suffering at which other forms of mistreatment become torture.'
43. Cf. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, §181.
44. Cf. Ireland v. United Kingdom, ECHR (1978), Case No. 5310/71.
45. Judgement Brdanin (IT-99-36), Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004, § 483. This standard has not been rejected on appeal, cf. Judgment, Brdanin, (IT-99-36), Appeals Chamber, 3 April 2007, §241 et seq. Given the lengthy discussion of torture by the Appeals Chamber, one can conclude that it did not want to discuss this standard. Yet reading the decision as an (implicit) rejection goes much too far. Although it might not contain an (implicit) affirmation, the Trial Chamber's standard stands unchallenged in the jurisprudence of the tribunals.
46. Judgment Martić (IT-95-11), Trial Chamber 12 June 2007, §80.
47. Also cf ibid., at §75: 'The pain and suffering inflicted during acts of torture is more severe than the pain and suffering inflicted during other forms of mistreatment and cruel treatment.
48. Cf. for example N.S. Rodley, 'The Definition(s) of Torture in International Law', 55 Current Legal Problems (2002) 467-93; Association for the Prevention of Torture, 'The Definition of Torture: Proceedings of an Expert Seminar' (Geneva 2001), at 18; at http://www.apt.ch/component/option.com.docman/task,cat.view/gid,89/ Itemid,59/lang,en/ (visited 10 March 2008).
49. On this issue also cf. Rodley, supra note 42.
50. Cf. for example Judgment, Limaj et al. (IT-03 -66), Trial Chamber, 30 November 2005, §235.
51. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1). Appeals Chamber. 20 June 2002. §§ 140, 137.
52. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §153.
53. As to this requirement, the ICC will have to decide whether the perpetrator can establish the control over the victim by the infliction of pain or suffering, or whether successively the control over the victim has to precede it. The latter alternative would reflect the classical 'ideal type' of torture. The former alternative would comprise spontaneous mistreatments of substantial gravity.
54. Restated in Sentencing Judgment, Zelenović (IT-96-23/2), Trial Chamber, 4 April 2007, §36.
55. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001. §497
56. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 184.
57. Cf http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/9.htm (last updated 19 April 2007) (visited 11 June 2007).
58. Cf. http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=romeratification (visited 11 June 2007).
59. Cf. for example Judgment, Simić et al. (IT-95-9), Trial Chamber, 17 October 2003, §79.
60. Cf. for example Judgment, Limaj et al. (IT-03-66), Trial Chamber 30 November 200V §235 (italics added); Judgment, Martić (IT-95-11), Trial Chamber, 12 June 2007, §77 ('non-exhaustive list of prohibited purpose').
61. Judgment, Brdanin (IT-99-36), Trial Chamber, 1 September 2004, §§ 481, 487 probably unintentionally diluted the dispute by, on the one hand, drawing on the enumerative definition and, on the other, explicitly stating that the prohibited purposes set forth in the definition are not exhaustive.
62. Judgment, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, §162.
63. Accepted by the Appeals Chamber in Judgment, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Appeals Chamber, 21 July 2000, §111.
64. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998 §485.
65. Not taking a position also Judgment, Naletilic et al.. Trial Chamber, 31 March 2003, §338.
66. Judgment, Kvočka et al. (IT-98-30/1), Trial Chamber, 2 November 2001, §157.
67. Judgment, Krnojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 186. Endorsed in Judgment, Simić et al. (IT-95-9). Trial Chamber. 17 October 2003, §79, note 137.
68. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Çelebići) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §470.
69. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §155.
70. Judgment, Kronojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 184.
71. Judgment, Kronojelac (IT-97-25), Trial Chamber, 15 March 2002, § 180.
72. For a most recent confirmation cf. Judgment, Semanza (ICTR-97-20), Appeals Chaumer, 20 May 2005, §247 et seq.
73. Judgment, Akayesa (ICTR-96-4), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, §681.
74. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebici) (IT-96-21), Trial Chamber. 16 November 1998, §473 et seq.
75. Judgment, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, §162.
76. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber, 22 Februarv 2001, §496 (italics added).
77. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2001, §413.
78. Ibid., §412.
79. Also cf. Judgment, Kordić et al. (IT-96-21), Appeals Chmaber, 17 December 2004, §1032 et seq.
80. Judgment, Limaj et al. (IT-03-66), Trial Chamber, 30 November 2005, §236.
81. Judgment, Delalić et al. (Čelebići) (IT-96-21), Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2001, §420, 425.
82. Also cf. Sentencing Judgment, Bralo (IT-95-17), Trial Chamber. 7 December 2005, §28, note 26.
83. See at supra note 69.
84. Judgment, Naletilić et al. (IT-98-34), Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, §590.
85. Also cf. Judgment, Martić(IT-955-11), Trial Chamber, 12 June 2007, §475.
86. Judgment, Naletilić et al. (IT-98-34), Appeals Chamber, 3 May 2006, Joint Dissent of Judges Schomburg and Güney.
87. Also cf. Judgment, Kordić et al. (IT-95-14/2), Appeals Chamber, 17 December 2004, Joint Dissent of Judges Schomburg and Güney, §6.
88. Judgment, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, §281
89. Sentencing Judgment, Zelenović (IT-96-23/2), Trial Chamber, 4 April 2007, §36.
90. Cf. Judgment, Martić (IT-95-11), Trial Chamber, 12 June 2007, §496 with encompassing references to the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals.
91. Cf. generally Judgment, ibid., §500.
92. Sentencing Judgment, Zelenović (IT-96-23/2), Trial Chamber. 4 April 2007. §36.
93. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber. 22 February 2001, §867.
94. On this issue also cf. J. Marshall, 'Torture Committed by Non-State Actors: The Developing Jurisprudence from the Ad Hoc Tribunals,' 5 Non-State Actors and International Law (2005) 171-182
95. S. Sivakumaran, 'Torture in International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: The Actor and the Ad Hoc Tribunals,' 18 Leiden Journal of International Law 2005) 541-556.
96. On this issue also cf. H. Pearce, 'An Examination of the International Understanding of Torture of Political Rape and the Significance of Labeling it Torture,' 14 International Journal of Refugee Law (2003) 534-560.
97. Cf. for example Arts 3(1) and 14(1) UNCAT.
98. On the German situation cf. Renner, Ausländerrecht (5th edn, Munich: Beck, 2005), Art. 16a Grundgesetz, margin 28.
99. For an implicitly pejorative assessment of the broadened torture definition under the ICCSt. by a national court cf. Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court), Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (2001) 658-662, at 661 et seq.
100. For a line of reasoning which may at least partially be interpreted likewise cf. E.M. Aswad, 'Torture by Means of Rape,' 84 Georgetown Law Journal (1996) 1913-1943, at 1916 et seq.
101. As to the nemo-tenetur-principle being at the core of fair trial cf. J.B. v. Switzerland, ECHR (2001), Case No. 31827/96.
102. Cf. F.-C. Schroeder, 'Der Begriff der Folter', in N. Courakis (ed.), Die Strafrechtswissenschaften im 21. Jahrhundert, vol. 2 (Athens: Komotini, 2001) 983-1003, at 1000.
103. Cf. T. Bruha and D. Steiger, Das Folterverbot im Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), at 28 et seq.
104. On the very limited restrictive consequences of the context requirements (war crimes: A nexus must exist between the alleged violation and an armed conflict; crimes against humanity: The acts of the accused must be part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population) see below.
105. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, §493.
106. Trial of Friedrich Flick and Five Others, US Military Tribunal, 22 December 1947, LRTWC, Vol. IX, at 18.
107. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §58 (italics added).
108. Recently restated by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Judgment, Fofana et al. (SCSL-04-14-T), Trial Chamber, 2 August 2007, §129.
109. Cf. Judgment, Rutaganda (ICTR-96-3), Appeals Chamber, 26 May 2003, §569 et seq: 'closely related'.
110. Cf. G.Werle, Völkerstrafrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), at margin 972.
111. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §58 (italics added).
112. Judgment, Rutaganda (ICTR-96-3), Appeals Chamber, 26 May 2003, § 570.
113. Cf. Werle, supra note 93, at margin 976.
114. See above in and at supra note 89.
115. Cf. the Essen Lynching Case, British Military Court Essen, 22 December 1945, UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals I (1947), at 88 et seq.
116. For a correct critique of this decision cf. Werle, supra note 93, at margin 977.
117. Werle, supra note 93, at margin 978.
118. Cf. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT-96-23&23/1), Appeals Chamber, 20 June 2002, §99.
119. Ibid., §100: 'A crime would be regarded as an "isolated act" when it is so far removed from that attack that, having considered the context and circumstances in which it was committed, it cannot reasonably be said to have been part of the attack.'
120. Werle, supra note 93, at margin 763, 780.
121. Judgment, Limaj et al. (IT-03-66), Trial Chamber, 30 November 2005, §189.
122. Cf. Judgment, Galić (IT-98-29), Trial Chamber, 5 December 2003, §148.
123. Cf. A. Edwards, 'The "Feminizing of Torture" under International Human Rights Law', 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006) 349-391, at 353 et seq. for further references.
124. Cf. the trials against Dusko Tadić or Drazen Erdemović.
125. Cf., for example, V. case, Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes für die Britische Zone in Strafsachen, vol. 1 (Berlin/ Hamburg: Walter de Gruyter, 1949), at 19 et seq.