Obtaining Evidence for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: An Overview and Assessment of Domestic Implementing Legislation

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 87-113

  Sluiter, Güran ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889716478     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X00000061     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, Case No. IT-95-14-PT AR108bis, 29 October 1997.
2. Prosecutors. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1997.
3. Prosecutors Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1997.
4. Sc Res. 827 (1993), adopted by the Security Council at its 3217th meeting, on 25 May 1993.
5. Sc Res. 827 (1993), adopted by the Security Council at its 3217th meeting, on 25 May 1993.
6. SC Res. 955 (1994), adopted by the Security Council at its 3453rd meeting on 8 November 1994; see para. 2 of that Resolution.
7. Art. 28 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal contains identical language; see SC Res. 955 (1994). 12. Art. 17(2) of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal contains identical language.
8. Para. 126 of the Report of the Secretary-General, The Concept of Habitual Residence n. 10. 16. Cf., Art. 25 of the UN Charter. See also A. Pellet, ‘Le Tribunal Criminel International pour TEx-Yougoslavie - Poudre aux Yeux ou AvancSe Decisive?’, 98 RGDIP (1994) p. 7 at p. 56.
9. For a negative answer see P.H. Weckel, ‘L'Institution d'un Tribunal International pour la Repression des Crimes de Droit Humanitaire en Yougoslavie’, 39 AFDl (1993) p. 232 at p. 257.
10. Blaskic decision, Trial Chamber, para. 98, n. 2.
11. Blaskic decision, Trial Chamber, para. 102, n. 2; view upheld by the Appeals Chamber, para. 32, n. 3, which, in addition, attached specific conditions to a request or an order for production of documents issued under Art. 29(2).
12. Art. 18(2) of the Statute of the Yugoslavia Tribunal.
13. Art. 9(1) of the Tentative Guidelines.
14. Blaskic decision, Appeals Chamber, para. 41, n. 3.
15. Blaskic decision, Trial Chamber, para. 77, n. 2.
16. Art. 10(l)(b) of the Swiss implementing law; Art. 1 l(3)(c-bis) of the Italian implementing law.
17. Cf., Art. 3 of the Croatian implementing which makes compliance with a request dependent on the compatibility with the national constitution; Art. 9 of the Croatian constitution rules out the extradition of nationals. 49. Cf., Art. ll(3)(c-ter) of the Italian implementing law; section 57(b) of the New Zealand implementing law.
18. Art. 12(2) of the Federal Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (Austrian implementing law).
19. Cf., sections 26(3)(a), 33(2)(a) of the Australian implementing law, and section 57(a) of the New Zealand implementing law.
20. Blaskic decision, Trial Chamber, para. 133, n. 2.
21. Blaskic decision, Appeals Chamber, para. 64, n. 3.
22. Idem, para. 67.
23. Idem, see para. 68.
24. Idem, para. 66.
25. Mucic decision, para. 43, n. 4.
26. Cf., K.-F. Nagel, Beweisaufiiahmeim Ausland i FreibuTg, Max-Planck-Institut 1988) p. ISO-176; C. Lombois, Droit Pinal International (Paris, Dalloz 1979) p. 630.
27. Cf. Art. 10 (2) Austrian implementing law; section 6 Finnish implementing law; Art. 2(1) Hungarian implementing law; Art. 10(4) Italian implementing law; Art. 19(2) Swiss implementing law
28. See Art. 3(2) ECMACM; Art. 6 UN Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, A/RES/45/117, adopted at the 68th plenary meeting, 14 December 1990; see also on this matter Nagel, n. 61, at p. 165.
29. Cf., Art. 10(2) of the Austrian implementing law; section 4(4) German implementing law; Art. 10(4) Italian implementing law.
30. Cf. Nagel, Austrian implementing law n. 61, at p. 156.
31. European Court H.R., 7 July 1989, Ser. A, Vol. 161.
32. In inter-state cooperation in criminal matters a difference has already been made between the ‘pre-Soering’ era and the ‘post-Soering’ era. Cf., S. Trechsel, ‘The Role of International Organs Controlling Human Rights in the Field of International Co-operation’, in A. Eser and O. Lagodny, eds., Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law (Freibucg, Max-Planck-Institut 1992) p. 633 at p. 634.
33. Charles ChitatNg v. Canada, Communication No. 469/1991, 5 November 1993, para. 14(2). Moreover, it is noteworthy that in a prior case, Kindlerv. Canada, Communication No. 470/1991, 30 July 1993, the Committee already had had ‘careful regard to the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in the Soering v. United Kingdom case’
34. Cf., section 23 of the Australian implementing law; Art. 16 of the Austrian implementing law; Art. 12 of the Belgian implementing law; Art. 14 of the Croatian implementing law; chapter II of title II of the French implementing law.
35. Cf., section 6 of the Icelandic implementing law; section 5 of the United Kingdom implementing law.
36. Cf., Art. 13 of the Belgian implementing law. 92. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a Dule Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995, para. 26.
37. However, in the Mucic case, the Trial Chamber made use of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the right to counsel during interrogation can be considered an internationally protected human right; para. 50, n. 4. Thus, there is some improvement.
38. For example the United States; cf., 28 US Code para. 1782; only those acts not involving measures of constraints may be performed by the defence; cf., Markees, n. 75, at p. 172.
39. Idem, at p. 173.
40. V. Morris and M.P. Scharf, An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Vol. I (New York, Transnational Publishers 1995) p. 240
41. Cf., section (b) of the United States implementing law
42. See for scope and object of this section A J. Doyle, ‘Judicial Assistance: Obtaining Evidence in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782, for Use in a Foreign or International Tribunal’, 5 Boston College Int 7 & Comp. L. Rev. (1982) pp. 175-193; S.M. Saraisky, ‘Howto Construe section 1782: A Textual Prescription to Restore the Judge's Discretion’, 61 The University of Chicago Law Review (1994) pp. 127–151.
43. Section 29 of the Australian implementing law, and section 24 of the New Zealand implementing law.
44. Blaskic decision, Trial Chamber, para. 133, n. 2. 102. See para. 78 of the Annual Report of 1996 of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
45. Lotus case, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 10 (1927), 18; for a discussion of this basic rule and the Lotus case see Nagel, n. 61, at p. 18; I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1990) p. 307; Sir R. Jennings and Sir A. Watts, eds., Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. I - Peace, 9th edn. (London, Longman 1992) p. 458. 104. See for an overview C. Gane and M. Mackarel, ‘The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained from Abroad into Criminal Proceedings: The Interpretation of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and Use of Evidence Irregularly Obtained’, 2 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (1996) pp. 98–119.
46. Cf., United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259, 108 LEd2d222, 110SQ 1056, reh den 494 US 1092, 108 L Ed 2d 968, 110 S Ct 1839, where evidence obtained irregularly under international law and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was nonetheless admitted; for a comment on this case see R. Wedgwood, 84 AJIL (1990) pp. 747–755.
47. Source of these numbers: ICTY Bulletin 17, 4, 22 April 1997
48. A third option, left aside here, is testimony by means of video conference, as was made use of in the Tadic case; see infra n. 128.
49. Morris and Scharf, Tadic case n. 96, at p. 249.
50. Cf., Rule 90(A).
51. D. McClean, International Judicial Assistance (Oxford, Clarendon 1992) p. 137.
52. Cf., Art. 8 (witness who has failed to answer a summons to appear shall not be subject to punishment or restraint…) of the ECMACM (1959).
53. Cf., Art. 11 of the ECMACM (1959); however, on the basis of the UN Model Treaty on MLAT (1991) transfer of a witness is subject to his or her consent (Art. 13).
54. McClean, ECMACM n. 118, at p. 137.
55. Cf., Arts. 3–6 of the ECMACM (1959), and Art. 1 of the UN Model Treaty on MLAT (1991). 123. Section 9 of the Finnish implementing law.