We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 April 2016
The ICC's Regulation 55, which allows the Trial Chamber to modify the legal characterization of facts in the final judgment, has been used too often and too carelessly. Recharacterization must not exceed the facts and circumstances described in the charges, but material facts and their legal qualification are like communicating vessels; changing the latter affects the former (and vice versa). In their application of Regulation 55 to date, chambers have underappreciated this, treating cases as if they have blurry factual boundaries where material facts can be swapped, neglected, or created at will. This article is not a plea for abolition of Regulation 55, though, but explores which modifications are permissible, and finds that when comparing a change regarding the contextual elements or (sub)categories of crimes to a change regarding the mode of participation the latter is most problematic and often detrimental to the rights of the accused.
1 These other cases are Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain, Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, and Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé. All cases in which Regulation 55 is/was an issue or in which it has been applied are discussed in Section 3.2., infra.
2 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterization of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/05-01/08-2324, T.Ch. III, 21 September 2012, para. 5.
3 See, e.g., Heller, K.J., ‘“A Stick To Hit the Accused With”: The Legal Recharacterization of Facts Under Regulation 55’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (2015), 981Google Scholar; Jacobs, D., ‘A Shifting Scale of Power: Who is in Charge of the Charges at the International Criminal Court’, in Schabas, W.A., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N. (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (2013), 205Google Scholar.
4 Friman, H.et al., ‘Charges’, in Sluiter, G.et al. (eds.), International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules (2013), 381Google Scholar, at 383.
5 ICC Regulations of the Court, Reg. 52.
6 ICC Statute, Art. 61.
7 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Order for the prosecution to file an amended document containing the charges, ICC-01/04-01/06-1548, T.Ch. I, 9 December 2008, para. 13.
8 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the Defence Application to Obtain a Ruling to Correct the Revised Second Amended Document Containing the Charges, ICC-01/05-01/06-935, T.Ch. III, 8 October 2010, para. 12.
9 ICC Statute, Art. 61(9).
10 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red, A.Ch., 1 December 2014, para. 129.
11 ICTY Statute, Art. 21(4)(a); ICTR Statute, Art. 20(4)(a); SCSL Statute, Art. 17(4)(a); STL Statute, Art. 16(4)(a); ICC Statute, Art. 67(1)(a); ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 21(1)(d).
12 I.H. v. Austria, Judgment of 20 April 2006, ECHR, Application No. 42780/98, at 30; Pélissier and Sassi v. France, Judgment of 25 March 1999, ECHR, Application No. 25444/94, at 51. See also Jordash, W. and Martin, S., ‘Due Process and Fair Trial Rights at the Special Court: How the Desire for Accountability Outweighed the Demands of Justice at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, (2010) 23 LJIL 585CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 588; W.A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2010), 803.
13 ICC Statute, Art. 67(1)(a) (emphasis added).
14 W.A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2010), 803; O. Triffterer, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Observers’ Notes, Article by Article (2008), 1257; Amnesty International, Making the right choices – Part V: Recommendations to the diplomatic conference, AI Index: IOR 40/10/98, at 60.
15 Ibid.
16 Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision adjourning the hearing on the confirmation of charges pursuant to article 61(7)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute, ICC-02/11-01/11-432, P.T.Ch. I, 3 June 2013, para. 19.
17 Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto, ICC-02/11-01/11-325, P.T.Ch. I, 14 December 2012, para. 27.
18 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Germain Katanga against the decision of Trial Chamber II of 21 November 2012 entitled “Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3363, A.Ch., 27 March 2013, para. 50. Judge Van den Wyngaert mentions in one of her dissents that the following terms have been used: ‘factual allegations which support each of the legal elements of the crime charged’, ‘facts underlying the charges’, ‘material facts’, and ‘constitutive facts’. See footnote 18 in Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Décision relative à la mise en oeuvre de la norme 55 du Règlement de la Cour et prononçant la disjonction des charges portées contre les accuses, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, T.Ch. II, 21 November 2012, para. 14 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert).
19 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-14-A, A.Ch., 29 July 2004, para. 219; Prosecutor v. Simba, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-01-76-A, A.Ch., 27 November 2007, para. 264.
20 In common law, evidentiary facts have been defined as those subsidiary facts introduced to prove material facts. See Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 470, 67 S.E.2d 639, 644 (1951): ‘Ultimate facts are the final facts required to establish the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defense; and evidentiary facts are those subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts.’ In common law, material facts are usually referred to as ‘ultimate facts’, but that terminology is not used at the international criminal courts and tribunals. See also Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth ed., West Publishing Company 1979), at 500.
21 Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, ICC-02/05-03/09-121-Corr-Red, P.T. Ch. I, 7 March 2011, para. 37.
22 Fry, E., ‘International Crimes and Case Demarcation: What Are We Trying To Prove?’, (2015) 27 Florida Journal of International Law 163Google Scholar, at 192.
23 E.g., Banda and Jerbo Confirmation Decision, supra note 21, para. 36; Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/09-01/11-373, P.T.Ch. II, 23 January 2012, para. 47.
24 Prosecutor v. Naletilić and Martinović, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-34-A, A.Ch., 3 May 2006, para. 23; Blaškić Appeal Judgment, supra note 19, para. 210; Prosecutor v. Stakić, Judgment, Case No. IT-97-24-A, A.Ch., 22 March 2006, para. 116; Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, A.Ch., 21 July 2000, paras. 61, 147, 153; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, A.Ch., 7 July 2006, para. 21; Prosecutor v. Simić, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-9-A, A.Ch., 28 November 2006, para. 20; Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Judgment, Case No. IT-95-16-A, A.Ch., 23 October 2001, para. 88.
25 Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the date of the confirmation of charges hearing and proceedings leading thereto, ICC-02/11-01/11-325, 14 December 2012, para. 27.
27 Halilović Appeal Judgment, supra note 26, para. 86; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura et al., Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A, A.Ch., 7 July 2006, para. 121; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Judgment, Case No. IT-97-2S-A, A.Ch., 17 September 2003, para. 132; Kupreškić Appeal Judgment, supra note 24, para. 89; Blaškić Appeal Judgment, supra note 19, para. 210.
28 Prosecutor v. Galić, Decision on Application by Defence for Leave to Appeal, Case No. IT-98-29-AR72, A.Ch., 30 November 2001, para. 15; Kupreškić Appeal Judgment, supra note 24, paras 88-90; Banda and Jerbo Confirmation Decision, supra note 21, para. 134; Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, P.T. Ch. II, 15 June 2009, para. 134.
29 Prosecutor v. Muthaura & Kenyatta, Order regarding the content of the charges, ICC-01/09-02/11-536, T.Ch. V, 20 November 2012, para. 14.
30 Prosecutor v. Muthaura & Kenyatta, Decision on the content of the updated document containing the charges, ICC-01/09-02/11-584, T.Ch. V, 28 December 2012, paras. 13, 23.
31 Lubanga Appeal Judgment, supra note 10.
32 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch. I, 14 March 2012, paras. 478–84.
33 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red, A.Ch., 1 December 2014, para. 18 (Dissenting Opinion Judge Ušacka).
34 Ibid. para. 17.
35 Ibid., para. 20.
36 Lubanga Appeal Judgment, supra note 10, para. 136.
37 Ibid., paras. 132, 134.
38 Ibid., paras. 124, 130, 132.
39 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Germain Katanga against the decision of Trial Chamber II of 21 November 2012 entitled “Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3363, A.Ch., 27 March 2013, para. 50.
40 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Décision relative à la mise en oeuvre de la norme 55 du Règlement de la Cour et prononçant la disjonction des charges portées contre les accuses, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, T. Ch. II, 21 November 2012, para. 15 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert).
41 See Art. 373 Criminal Procedural Code (Albania); Section 262 Code of Criminal Procedure (Austria); §265 Code of Criminal Procedure (Germany); Art. 521(1) Code of Criminal Procedure (Italy); Art. 312 Code of Criminal Procedure (Japan). See also Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Judgment, Case No. IT-95-16-T, T.Ch., 14 January 2000, paras. 733–7; Friman et al., supra note 4, at 467–9; Stahn, C., ‘Modification of the Legal Characterization of Facts in the ICC System: A Portrayal of Regulation 55’, (2005) 16 Criminal Law Forum 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 5–6.
42 See, e.g., Rule 31(c) of the US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 750 (1989); Section 6(3) Criminal Law Act 1967 (UK); R. v. Mandair [1994] 2 WLR 700, (H.L.); Section 662 Criminal Code 1985 (Canada). See also Kupreškić Trial Judgment, supra note 41, paras. 729–32.
43 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 entitled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, ICC-01/04-01/06-2205, A.Ch., 8 December 2009, para. 77. See also Kaul, H.-P., ‘Construction Site for More Justice: The International Criminal Court after Two Years’, (2005) 99 AJIL 370CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 377.
44 Stahn, supra note 41, at 3. See also ICC-OTP Informal Expert Paper, Measures available to the International Criminal Court to reduce the length of proceedings (2003), paras. 41–6, available at www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/library/organs/otp/length_of_proceedings.pdf.
45 Stahn, supra note 41, at 30.
46 Heller, supra note 3, at 29–30.
47 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, P.T.Ch. I, 29 January 2007, para. 220.
48 Ibid., para. 204.
49 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shall be submitted, ICC-01/04-01/06-1084, T.Ch. I, 13 December 2007, paras. 49–50.
50 Lubanga Trial Judgment, supra note 32, para. 566.
51 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto et al., Decision on the “Request by the Victims’ Representative for authorization by the Chamber to make written submissions on specific issues of law and/or fact”, ICC-01/09-01/11-274, P.T.Ch. II, 19 August 2011, paras. 7–8.
52 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Joint Application of the Legal Representatives of the Victims for the Implementation of the Procedure under Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/04-01/06-1891-tENG, 22 May 2009, paras. 17 et seq.
53 Lubanga Regulation 55 Appeal Decision, supra note 43, paras 88–91.
54 Ibid., para. 94.
55 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/05-01/08-2324, T.Ch. III, 21 September 2012.
56 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence Submission on the Trial Chamber's Notification under Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/05-01/08-2365-Red, Defence, 18 October 2012, para. 17.
57 Ibid., para. 18.
58 Ibid., paras. 18–20.
59 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision lifting the temporary suspension of the trial proceedings and addressing additional issues raised in defence submissions ICC-01/05-01/08-2490-Red and ICC-01/05-01/0802497, ICC-01/05- 01/08-2500, T.Ch. III, 6 February 2013.
60 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, P.T. Ch. I, 30 September 2008, para. 487.
61 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, T.Ch. II, 21 November 2012.
62 Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-02/12-3-tENG, T.Ch. II, 18 December 2012.
63 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Jugement rendu en application de l'article 74 du Statut, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436, T.Ch. II, 7 March 2014.
64 Ibid., paras. 14–17.
65 Ibid., para. 20 (emphasis added).
66 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons, ICC-01/04-01/07-3319, T.Ch. II, 21 November 2012, para. 22 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert).
67 Katanga Trial Judgment, supra note 63, para. 19 (Dissenting Opinion Judge Christine van den Wyngaert).
68 Ibid., paras. 19–24. Note that Van den Wyngaert argues this added element is based on the Majority's erroneous interpretation of common purpose liability: ‘it confuses a finding that a number of individuals acted with intent and knowledge with finding that a group had a common plan to commit crimes, which is a requirement under the newly charged mode of criminal responsibility (article 25(3)(d)’. She does concede that the latter may be inferred from the former (para. 23).
69 Ibid., para. 28 et seq.
70 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/04-01/06-2054, T.Ch. I, 17 July 2009, para. 19 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Fulford).
71 Katanga Trial Judgment, supra note 63, para. 35 (Dissenting Opinion Judge Christine van den Wyngaert).
72 Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on Applications for Notice of Possibility of Variation of Legal Characterisation, ICC-01/09-01/11-1122, T.Ch. V(A), 12 December 2013, para. 44.
73 Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain, Prosecution request for notice to be given of a possible recharacterisation under Regulation 55, ICC-02/05-03/09-549, Prosecution, 28 March 2014.
74 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Prosecution request for notice to be given of a possible recharacterisation pursuant to regulation 55(2), ICC-01/04-02/06-501, Prosecution, 9 March 2015.
75 See Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Germain Katanga against the decision of Trial Chamber II of 21 November 2012 entitled “Decision on the implementation of regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court and severing the charges against the accused persons”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3363, A.Ch., 27 March 2013 (Dissenting Opinion Judge Cuno Tarfusser).
76 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309, P.T.Ch. II, 9 June 2014, para. 97; Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-656-Red, P.T.Ch. I, 12 June 2014, para. 266; Prosecutor v. Charles Blé Goudé, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Charles Blé Goudé, ICC-02/11-02/11-186, PT.Ch. I, 11 December 2014, para. 194.
77 Charging alternatively is not the same as charging cumulatively. While having the same practical effect of keeping more than one door open potentially delaying proceedings and overburdening the defence, charging cumulatively refers to the situation in which more than one crime is charged and may be convicted upon based on the same underlying facts – instead of choosing one of the alternatives, which the judges must do when deciding upon alternative charges. The practice at the ICC is still evolving regarding this matter: the Bemba Pre-Trial Chamber showed a general disinclination towards cumulative charging pointing at the negative effect on the rights of the defence and the availability of Reg. 55, while the Pre-Trial Chamber in Al-Bashir allowed it when issuing the arrest warrant. See Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 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-01/05-01/08-424, P.T.Ch. II, 15 June 2009, paras. 200–3; Prosecutor v. Omar Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-3, P.T.Ch. I, 4 March 2009, paras. 95–6 (accepting both extermination and murder as crimes against humanity based on the same underlying conduct). See also Friman et al., supra note 4, at 392–3.
78 Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, Decision giving notice pursuant to Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-02/11-01/15-185, T.Ch. I, 19 August 2015.
79 See Gbagbo Confirmation of Charges Decision, supra note 76, para. 263.
80 See Gbagbo Confirmation of Charges Decision, supra note 76, para. 265.
81 See Gbagbo and Blé Goudé Regulation 55 Decision, supra note 78, para. 12.
82 See supra, Section 3.1.4.
83 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-309, P.T.Ch. II, 9 June 2014, paras. 99–100.
84 Ambos, K., ‘Critical Issues in the Bemba Confirmation Decision’, (2009) 22 LJIL 715CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 724.
85 A. Whiting, ‘Guest Post: The ICC's End Days? Not So Fast’, Spreading the Jam, 20 March 2014, available at dovjacobs.com/2014/03/20/guest-post-the-iccs-end-days-not-so-fast/ (accessed 26 April 2015).
86 Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, Decision on the “Defence request to amend the document containing the charges for lack of specificity”, ICC-02/11-02/11-143, PT.Ch. I, 1 September 2014, paras. 8–9. See also Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, Defence request to amend the document containing the charges for lack of specificity, ICC-02/11-02/11-126, Defence, 25 August 2014.
87 See supra, Section 2.2.
88 See Jacobs, supra note 3, at 211.
89 Compare Art. 7(1)(a) and (b) with Art. 8(2)(a)(i), (b)(i), (c)(i), and (e)(i) of the ICC Statute.
90 ICC Elements of Crimes, Art. 7 (Introduction), para. 3.
91 Ibid., Art. 6.
92 Kupreškić Trial Chamber Judgment, supra note 41, para. 742(c).
93 Ibid., paras. 742–3.
94 Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch., 2 September 1998, para. 469.
95 Ibid., para. 470.
96 A. Cassese et al., Cassese's International Criminal Law (2013), at 169.
97 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shall be submitted, ICC-01/04-01/06-1084, T.Ch. I, 13 December 2007, para. 49.
98 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Corrigendum to ‘Minority opinion on the “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterisation of facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court” of 17 July 2009’, ICC-01/04-01/06-2061-Anx, T.Ch. I, 21 July 2009, para. 20 (Minority Opinion Judge Adrian Fulford).
99 Lubanga Regulation 55 Appeal Decision, supra note 43, paras. 99–100. See also Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Legal Representatives’ Joint Submissions concerning the Appeals Chamber's Decision on 8 December 2009 on Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/04-01/06-2223, T.Ch. I, 8 January 2010, para. 12.
100 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence Submission on the Trial Chamber's Notification under Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/05-01/08-2365-Red, Defence, 18 October 2012, para. 21.
101 Ibid., para. 26.
