Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Modalities of Victim Participation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Victim Advocacy before the International Criminal Court

  • 295 Accesses

Abstract

Victim participation is an important part of the international criminal justice process. Victims should be involved with the international criminal justice process in a manner meaningful to them: to be treated with respect, to be kept informed about their case and to be given the possibility for their voice to be heard. However victim participation also presents a number of challenges. Since its inception, the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has evolved and its workload is growing due to the steady increase in the number of situations and cases under investigation. The corollary to this growing workload is a surge in the number of victims applying to participate in proceedings. If the international criminal justice process is to remain real and tangible the ICC has to identify a system which balances the needs of the victims to have their views and concerns heard in the proceedings with the need to conduct judicial proceedings efficiently whilst at the same time protecting the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 art. 43(6).

  2. 2.

    Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 art. 75.

  3. 3.

    The Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. 18 January 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment on the Appeals of the Prosecutor and the Defence Against Trial Chamber I’s Decision on Victims’ Participation, para 94.

  4. 4.

    Article 68(3): “Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence”.

  5. 5.

    Booklet, Victims before the International Criminal Court – A Guide for the Participation of Victims in the Proceedings of the Court, p. 10. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/C029F900-C529-46DB-9080-60D92B25F9D2/282477/160910VPRSBookletEnglish3.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2020.

  6. 6.

    For instance, access to justice is provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 19 December 1966, the European Convention on Human Rights of 4 November 1950 or the UN Convention against Torture. See also Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, G.A. Res. 40/34, U.N. Doc. A/RES/40/34 (Nov. 29, 1985); United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, G.A. Res. 55/25, U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/25 (Jan. 8, 2001); Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, G.A. Res. 60/147, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/147 (Mar. 21, 2006).

  7. 7.

    General Assembly Resolution 40/34, 29 November 1985 available at: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/BASICP~4.PDF. Accessed 25 March 2020.

  8. 8.

    President of the ICTR, Letter dated Nov. 9, 2000 from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda addressed to the Secretary-General, in Letter dated Dec. 14, 2000 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, Annex, para 4, U.N. Doc. S/2000/1198 (Dec. 15, 2000). Similar views were also expressed by Judges at the ICTY: See President of the Int’l Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Letter dated Oct. 12, 2000 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the Secretary-General, Annex to a letter dated Nov. 2, 2000 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. A/60/706 (Nov. 2, 2000). See further: Judge Claude Jorda, speaking in Sarajevo on May 12, 2001. Press Release, Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia, The ICTY and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (May 17, 2001). http://www.icty.org/sid/7985. Accessed 10 January 2020.

  9. 9.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence: Rule 89(1) permits the legal representative of victims to make opening and closing statements. Rule 91(2) enables the participation in hearing and the making of written or oral submissions during a hearing. Rule 91(3) allows the questioning of a witness, expert or the accused following an application to the Chamber. Rule 92(5) provides that the Registry notifies participating victims of hearings, decisions, and submissions or motions. Rule 121(10) and Rule 131(2) address the issue of access by the legal representative of victims to the record of proceedings.

  10. 10.

    Rome Statute, article 68 (3). See Prosecutor v. Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui, 13 May 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07, Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case, paras 98–100.

  11. 11.

    Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 68(3).

  12. 12.

    Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, art. 68(1).

  13. 13.

    See Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, 19 December 2008, ICC-01/04-556, Judgment on Victim Participation in the Investigation Stage of the Proceedings in the Appeal of the OPCD Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 7 December 2007 and in the Appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 24 December 2007, para 57.

  14. 14.

    Forms are available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/palestine/Application-form-for-individuals-Eng.pdf, Accessed 25 March 2020.

  15. 15.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(1).

  16. 16.

    The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-01/11- 460; The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-02/11-498; The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo.

  17. 17.

    The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-01/11- 460, para 29; The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-02/11-498, para 28.

  18. 18.

    The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-01/11- 460, para 49; The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-02/11-498, para 48.

  19. 19.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 85(a): “Victims means natural persons who have suffered harm as a result of the commission of any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

  20. 20.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 26 February 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, para 28.

  21. 21.

    DRC Situation, 19 December 2007, ICC-01/04 – 423, para 14.

  22. 22.

    The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., 14 March 2008, ICC-02/04 – 125, para 7.

  23. 23.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 18 January 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1119, paras 87–89.

  24. 24.

    See for instance Judge Kaul, The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 34; The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al’Bashir, Pre-Trial Chamber, 10 December 2009, ICC-02/05-01/09-62, para 9.

  25. 25.

    The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., ICC 02/04 – 125, paras 4–6; ICC-02/04-01/05-371 OA2, para 16.

  26. 26.

    DRC Situation, 19 December 2007, ICC-01/04 – 423, para 15.

  27. 27.

    DRC Situation, 19 December 2007, ICC-01/04 – 423, para 15.

  28. 28.

    The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 64; See also CAR Situation, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 11 November 2011, ICC-01/05-31, para 3.

  29. 29.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1432, para 35.

  30. 30.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 11 July 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1432, paras 32, 38 and 39.

  31. 31.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1119, paras 90–92.

  32. 32.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 50.

  33. 33.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 45.

  34. 34.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 47.

  35. 35.

    Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 89(1).

  36. 36.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 44.

  37. 37.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 49.

  38. 38.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 50 citing ICC-01/04-01/06-1432 OA9, para 32.

  39. 39.

    The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., 14 March 2008, ICC-02/04-125 and ICC-02/04-01/05-367, public redacted versions.

  40. 40.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1501-Conf-Exp, para 4 & ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 52.

  41. 41.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 52.

  42. 42.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber, 8 April 2009, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, para 45.

  43. 43.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1432, para 62.

  44. 44.

    For the victims’ arguments, see Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, para 32. For the Appeals Chambers’ arguments, see Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, para 45.

  45. 45.

    Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177.

  46. 46.

    Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, paras 51–52.

  47. 47.

    Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, para 54.

  48. 48.

    Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, para 56.

  49. 49.

    Appeals Chambers decisions in the DRC and Darfur, Sudan situations: ICC-01/04-556 and ICC-02/05-177, para 57.

  50. 50.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1119, paras 103–104.

  51. 51.

    RPE, Rule 92, in particular Rule 92(3).

  52. 52.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 13 May 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07 – 474, paras 124–143.

  53. 53.

    See for instance The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, 19 October 2009, ICC-02/05-02/09-136, para 19; The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 102; The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 22 September 2006, ICC-01/04-01/-06-462-tEN, p. 6.

  54. 54.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, para 68.

  55. 55.

    See for instance The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda,19 October 2009, ICC-02/05-02/09-136, paras 17–18; The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 101.

  56. 56.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 25 October 2010, ICC-01/04-01/06-1351, para 39; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 79–80.

  57. 57.

    See for instance The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09-136, para 13; The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 103 and ICC-01/05-01/08-807, para 47; The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/-06-462-tEN, p. 6 and ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, para 106; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 122–125 and ICC-01/04-01/07-1665, para 103 and ICC-01/04-01/07-T-86-Red-ENG, pp. 1–2.

  58. 58.

    This was decided at a status conference on 1 October 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-T-71-RED-FRA, pp. 5 and 6.

  59. 59.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 122–123.

  60. 60.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 121–122.

  61. 61.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 86–97.

  62. 62.

    In practice, the Bemba case has shown that not all victims will be able to appear before the judges. See Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 21 December 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-2027, second order regarding the application of the legal representatives of victims to present evidence and the views and concerns of victims, para 12.

  63. 63.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, 9 November 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2517.

  64. 64.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, 9 November 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2602.

  65. 65.

    See for instance The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09-136, paras 22–23. For the Trial Chamber in The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo see ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, paras 108, 113, 117; ICC-01/04-01/06-2127, paras 24–30; ICC-01/04-01/06-2340, paras 35–39. For the Trial Chamber in The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui see ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 68–78; ICC-01/04-01/07-1665, paras 14–48 and 90–91; For the Trial Chamber in The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo see ICC-01/05-01/08-807, paras 38–40.

  66. 66.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 16 September 2010, ICC-01/04-01/06-2127.

  67. 67.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 16 September 2010, ICC-01/04-01/06-2127. para 28 & para 30.

  68. 68.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, para.109 and The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, para 104.

  69. 69.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1432, para 97.

  70. 70.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 22 January 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788-tENG, paras 102–103.

  71. 71.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 16 July 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2288, para 112. In The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, paras 93–99, the Appeals Chamber decided that victims did not have the right to present evidence on the guilt of the accused, but that the Trial Chamber may request the submission of all evidence which it considers necessary for the determination of the truth.

  72. 72.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, 16 July 2010, ICC-01/04-01/07-2288, para 81.

  73. 73.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, 18 January 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06 – 1119, paras 108–111.

  74. 74.

    Rome Statute, Article 64(2): “The Trial Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.”

  75. 75.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/0601432, para 93.

  76. 76.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/0601432, para 511–13. “‘Victims’ means natural persons who have suffered harm as a result of the commission of any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.” RPE, Rule 85(a).

  77. 77.

    The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/0601432, para 513–14.

  78. 78.

    Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2013, p. 177.

  79. 79.

    The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 61.

  80. 80.

    The Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, 12 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, para 63.

  81. 81.

    The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo, 26 February 2009, ICC-01/04-01/07-933. See also Situation in DRC, 19 December 2008, ICC-01/04-556, 4; Situation in Darfur, 2 February 2009, ICC-02/05-177, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, 3 November 2010, ICC-01/09-24, 16.

  82. 82.

    Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2013, p. 181.

  83. 83.

    RPE, Rule 90(2) and Rule 90(3).

  84. 84.

    The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 10 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-1005, Decision on Common Legal Representation of Victims for the Purpose of Trial.

  85. 85.

    The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-01/11- 460 at para 60; The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-02/11-498 at para 59.

  86. 86.

    The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, 4 June 2012, ICC-01/09-01/11-138, Decision on Victims Participation and Victims’ Common Legal Representation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, para 42.

  87. 87.

    The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-01/11- 460; The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-02/11-498.

References

  • Funk, T. M. (2010). Victims’ rights and advocacy at the International Criminal Court. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garkawe, S. (2008). Victims and the International Criminal Court: Three major issues. ICLR, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horovitz, S. (2013). The role of victims. In L. Carter & F. Pocar (Eds.), International criminal procedure: The interface of civil law and common law. Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. (2008). Faces of transnational justice: Two attempts to build common standards beyond national boundaries. In J. Jackson, M. Langer, & P. Tillers (Eds.), Crime, procedure and evidence in a comparative and international context. Hart Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamatali, J.-M. (2006). From ICTR to ICC: Learning from the ICTR experience in bringing justice to Rwandans. New England Journal of International Law and Comparative Law, 12(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonigle Leyh, B. (2011a). Procedural justice? Victim participation in international criminal proceedings. Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonigle Leyh, B. (2011b). Victim participation and the International Criminal Court. In R. Letschert, R. Haveman, A.-M. De Brouwer, & A. Pemberton (Eds.), Victimological approaches to international crimes: Africa. Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, V., & Scharf, P. (1995). An insider’s guide to the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Transnational Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas, W. A. (2007). An introduction to the International Criminal Court (3rd ed.). University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stahn, C., Olásolo, H., & Gibson, K. (2006). Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4(2), 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbull, C. P., IV. (2008). The victims of victim participation in international criminal proceedings. Michigan Journal of International Law, 29(4), 777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Wyngaert, C. (2011). Victims before international criminal courts: Some views and concerns of an ICC trial judge. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 44(1–2), 483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemmers, J.-A. (2010). Victims’ rights and the International Criminal Court: Perceptions within the court regarding the victims’ right to participate. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(3), 633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappalà, S. (2010). The rights of victims v. the rights of the accused. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8(1), 144.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Solange Mouthaan

Authors
  1. Solange Mouthaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solange Mouthaan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Member, List of Counsel, International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Elizabeth King

  2. President of Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Rianne Letschert

  3. School of Law and Justice, Southern Cross University, East Lismore, NSW, Australia

    Sam Garkawe

  4. International Law, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Erin Pobjie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mouthaan, S. (2022). The Modalities of Victim Participation. In: King, E., Letschert, R., Garkawe, S., Pobjie, E. (eds) Victim Advocacy before the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56733-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56733-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56731-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56733-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation