III. Certain criminal proceedings in france republic of the congo v france), provisional measures, order of 17 june 2003

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 747-752

  David, Turns ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929878236     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/53.3.747     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Case Concerning Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), Order on the Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure, 17 June 2003.
2. See ICJ Press Release 2003/20.
3. Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment, 14 Feb 2002.
4. See ICJ Press Release 2002/4.
5. Order of 11 July 2003.
6. See ICJ Press Release 2003/21.
7. Order of 17 June 2003, para 10.
8. ICJ Press Release.
9. The reason for the transfer from the Paris parquet to that of Meaux was apparently that General Dabira owned a residence in the latter's area of jurisdiction, and was thus the only person named in the complaint who was likely to be present on French territory: ICJ Press Release, para 13.
10. ICJ Press Release, para 11.
11. UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishments or Treatment (1984) 23 ILM 1027
12. 24 ILM 535.
13. Order of 17 June 2003, para 14.
14. ILM, para 15.
15. ILM, para 16.
16. ILM, para 17.
17. ILM, paras 4 and 24.
18. ILM, paras 1 and 23. The Congo also referred in its oral pleadings to an alleged violation by France of the principle of non bis in idem, in that the proceedings in Meaux related to matters which were also the subject of criminal proceedings in Brazzaville, and to a vaguely defined principle of ‘subsidiarity’ which the Congo claimed was applicable in criminal proceedings with an international element.
19. However, neither of these grounds was invoked by the Congo as conferring upon it ‘specific rights which might be threatened in such a way as to justify their protection by the indication of provisional measures’: ILM, para 25.
20. ILM, paras 26–7.
21. ILM, para 31.
22. ILM, para 33.
23. ILM, para 37.
24. ILM, para 38.
25. ILM, para 41.
26. ILM, para 35.
27. ILM, para 29.
28. ILM, para 39.
29. Judges Koroma and Vereshchetin, Joint Separate Opinion, paras 4–5.
30. See Order of 17 June 2003, para 29.
31. Judges Koroma and Vereshchetin, Joint Separate Opinion, para 8.
32. For criticism, see, eg, D Turns ‘Case Notes’ (2002) 3 Melbourne JIL 383
33. S. Wirth ‘Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in The Congo v. Belgium Case’ (2002) 13 EJIL 877
34. A. Cassese ‘When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on The Congo v Belgium Case’ (2002) 13 EJIL 853.
35. Arrest Warrant Case, above n 2
36. Judge Oda, Dissenting Opinion, para 7.