The role and extent of a proportionality analysis in the judicial assessment of human rights limitations within international criminal proceedings / by Nicolas A.J. Croquet.
2015
KZ7000 .C76 2015 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Title
The role and extent of a proportionality analysis in the judicial assessment of human rights limitations within international criminal proceedings / by Nicolas A.J. Croquet.
Published
Leiden : Koninklijke Brill NV, [2015]
Call Number
KZ7000 .C76 2015
ISBN
9789004231429
9004231420
9004231420
Description
xxxix, 395 pages ; 24 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)932175386
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 375-387) and index.
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xv
Abbreviations
xvi
Table of cases and statutes
xvii
Introduction: Purpose, Methodology and Scope of the Monograph
1
1.
Purpose of the Monograph
1
2.
Underlying Methodology
7
3.
Scope of the Monograph
7
4.
Outline of the Chapters
13
I.
Conceptual Tools for Assessing Limitations upon the Exercise of Human Rights
17
1.
Introduction
17
2.
Justifications of Interferences with Human Rights
17
2.1.
Internal and External Theories of Rights
18
2.2.
Internal and External Limits on Rights
19
2.3.
Techniques for the Resolution of Conflicts of Values
23
2.3.1.
Conflict between Rights and Public Interest Grounds
24
2.3.1.1.
Theory of Rights as 'Trumps'
25
2.3.1.2.
End-Test (Legitimate Objective) and Broad Proportionality Analysis (Suitability, Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests)
27
2.3.1.3.
End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Less Restrictive Means Tests)
33
2.3.1.4.
End-Test and One-Prong Proportionality Analysis (Balancing)
34
2.3.1.5.
End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Suitability and Balancing Tests)
35
2.3.1.6.
End-Test and Two-Prong Proportionality Model (Less Restrictive Means and Balancing Tests)
36
2.3.1.7.
'Priority to Rights' Principle and Definitional Balancing
36
2.3.2.
Conflict of Rights
37
2.3.2.1.
Terminology
37
2.3.2.2.
Interpretative Model: Determination of the Scope of the Conflicting Human Rights
40
2.3.2.3.
Transposition of the End-Test and the Broad Proportionality Analysis to Conflict of Rights Situations
41
2.3.2.4.
Hierarchy of Human Rights Principle
42
2.3.2.5.
Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance'
44
2.3.3.
Neighbouring Concepts to Proportionality that are Relevant to Both Types of Conflicts of Values
45
2.3.3.1.
Role of the Legality Principle
45
2.3.3.2.
The 'Essence' of Rights Doctrine
46
3.
Conclusion
48
II.
Institutional and Regulatory Context Underpinning the International Criminal Courts' Human Rights Limitation Analyses
52
1.
Legal Basis for Human Rights Enforcement
52
1.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
52
1.2.
The ICC
58
2.
Procedural Guarantees at the Investigation and Interrogation Stages
59
2.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
59
2.2.
The ICC
60
3.
The Rights of the Accused
61
3.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
61
3.2.
The ICC
68
3.3.
Common Considerations: Features of the Right to a Fair Trial
70
4.
Victims' Participation Rights
71
5.
Substantive Human Rights
73
5.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
74
5.2.
The ICC
76
6.
Absence of Derogation Clause and Presence of Limitation and Qualification Clauses within International Criminal Procedural Law
76
6.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
76
6.1.1.
General Framework
76
6.1.2.
Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause
79
6.1.3.
Presence of Various Qualification Clauses
80
6.2.
The ICC
82
6.2.1.
General Framework
82
6.2.2.
Presence of a Statutory Limitation Clause
82
6.2.3.
Presence of Various Qualification Clauses
83
6.3.
Commonalities
84
7.
Role of the Legality Principle under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law
85
8.
Structural Difficulties in Drawing on a Hierarchy of Human Rights Model for Resolving Conflicts of Rights
86
9.
Methods of Interpretation under International Criminal Procedural Law and International Criminal Law
89
10.
Conclusion
92
III.
Formation of a Generic Justificatory Framework for Assessing External Limits upon any Fundamental Right or Defence Right
95
1.
The ICTY and ICTR
95
2.
The ICC
101
3.
Conclusion
102
IV.
Implied External Limits on the Right to Self-Representation through the Assignment of Defence Counsel and of Standby Counsel
104
1.
Introduction
104
2.
Conceptions of the Right to Self-Representation
105
3.
Qualification Clauses Affecting the Exercise of the Right to Self-Representation
106
3.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
106
3.2.
The ICC
109
4.
Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Interferences with the Right to Self-Representation
111
4.1.
Ad Hoc Tribunals' Case-Law Prior to the Milo[š]evic Appeals Representation Decision
113
4.1.1.
The ICTR's Reliance on the Concepts of 'Inherent Powers' and 'Waiver of Rights' as Legal Bases and on 'The Interests of Justice' as an End-Test
114
4.1.2.
The ICTY's Limitation Process Based on Various End-Tests
117
4.2.
The Milo[š]evic Appeals Representation Decision and the Introduction of a Proportionality Analysis
125
4.3.
ICTR's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milo[š]evic Appeals Representation Decision
127
4.4.
ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Milo[š]evic Appeals Representation Decision but Pre-dating the Insertion of r 45 ter Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules
129
4.4.1.
Overview of Judicial Trends
129
4.4.2.
Status of the Right to Self-Representation as a 'Presumptive' and as a Qualified Defence Right
130
4.4.3.
The Emphasis on a Particular Aspect of the 'Interests of Justice' as an End-Test, Namely the Need to End a Substantial and Persistent Obstructive Behavior
131
4.4.4.
The Inspiration Drawn from ECHR Authorities Unrelated to the Right to Self-Representation and the Distanciation from the HRC's Case-Law
131
4.4.5.
The Focus on the Less Restrictive Means Test in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis
132
4.4.6.
Different Levels of Judicial Scrutiny in the Tribunal's Proportionality Analysis
135
4.4.7.
'Proceduralisation' of the Justificatory Framework
137
4.4.8.
Extension of the Scope of the Right to Self-Representation and of its Corresponding Justificatory Framework to Appeals Proceedings
138
4.4.9.
Increasing Deference to the Accused's Preferences
138
4.4.10.
Extension of the 'Interests of Justice' Criterion to Victim and Witness Protection
140
4.4.11.
Progressive Judicial Fatigue in the Tribunal's Review of International Human Rights Authorities
141
4.5.
ICTY's Case-Law Subsequent to the Insertion of a Qualification Clause into the ICTY Rules
141
5.
Elevation of the 'Interests of Justice' to an Overarching Legitimate Objective and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values
148
5.1.
Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights
149
5.2.
Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict between a Right and a Public Interest Ground
150
6.
Recognition of a Means-Test
152
6.1.
Suitability Test
152
6.2.
Less Restrictive Means Test
154
7.
Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance'
158
8.
Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement
160
9.
Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective
163
10.
Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation
165
11.
Confrontation of Specific Justificatory Criteria with Generic Justificatory Criteria
167
12.
Influence of International Human Rights Law
168
13.
Conclusion
171
V.
Implied External Limits on the Right to Cross-Examination through Absolute Witness Anonymity and Rolling Disclosure Measures
174
1.
Introduction
174
2.
Terminology
175
3.
Impact of the Pre-existing Qualification Clauses Affecting the Right to Cross-Examination on the Judicial Admission of Absolute Anonymity Measures
178
3.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
178
3.2.
The ICC
181
4.
Emergence of a Justificatory Framework for Reviewing Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination
184
4.1.
The ICTY and the Conditional Admission of Absolute Anonymity
188
4.1.1.
The Tadic Protective Measures Decision
189
4.1.2.
Reinforcement of the Conditions Laid Down in the Tadic Protective Measures Decision
197
4.1.3.
Relaxation of the Conditions Set Forth in the Tadic Protective Measures Decision
202
4.1.4.
Progressive Retreat from the Tadic Protective Measures Decision
203
4.2.
The ICTY's Judicial Admission of an Intermediary Form of Implied External Limit on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination
205
4.3.
The ICTR's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination
207
4.3.1.
Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures
207
4.3.2.
The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism
209
4.4.
The ICC's Judicial Admission of Implied External Limits on the Accused's Right to Cross-Examination
216
4.4.1.
Absence of Principled Position on the Validity of Absolute Anonymity Measures
217
4.4.2.
Requests for Victim Anonymity
219
4.4.3.
The Judicial Endorsement of a Rolling Disclosure Mechanism
220
5.
The Legitimate Objective Requirement and the Presence of a Mixed Conflict of Values
222
5.1.
Manifestation of the Underlying Conflict of Rights
222
5.2.
Manifestation of a Conflict between a Human Right and a Public Interest Ground
223
6.
Recognition of a Means-Test
224
6.1.
Suitability Test
224
6.1.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
224
6.1.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
225
6.2.
Less Restrictive Means Test
225
6.2.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
225
6.2.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
230
7.
Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance'
231
7.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
231
7.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
232
8.
Recognition of a Strict Proportionality Requirement
233
8.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
233
8.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
234
9.
Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective
235
10.
Adoption of a Teleological Method of Interpretation
237
10.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
237
10.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
238
11.
Legal Uncertainty Generated by the Multiplicity of Justificatory Criteria
239
11.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
240
11.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
240
12.
Influence of International Human Rights Law
241
12.1.
Absolute Anonymity Case-Law
242
12.2.
Rolling Disclosure Case-Law
244
13.
Conclusion
245
VI.
Implied External Limits upon the Accused's Rights to Effective Participation in his Trial and to be Presumed Innocent
249
1.
Introduction
249
2.
Regulatory Framework
249
2.1.
The Right to Effective Participation in One's Own Trial
249
2.2.
The Presumption of Innocence
250
3.
Justificatory Framework
250
3.1.
The Right to Effective Participation in one's own Trial
250
3.2.
The Presumption of Innocence
252
3.3.
Overall Assessment
254
4.
Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance'
255
5.
Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective
256
6.
Confrontation of Specific Justificatory Criteria with Generic Justificatory Criteria
257
7.
Influence of International Human Rights Law
258
8.
Conclusion
258
VII.
Incidental Implied External Limits Placed upon Substantive Human Rights: The Rights to Freedom of Expression and to Privacy
260
1.
Introduction
260
2.
Emergence of a Justificatory Framework
261
2.1.
Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide
262
2.2.
Contempt of Court
267
2.3.
Restrictions on the Accused's Conditions of Detention
271
2.4.
Inadmissibility of Evidence Obtained in Breach of Human Rights
275
2.5.
War Correspondents' Qualified Testimonial Privilege
279
3.
Outline of the Specific Justificatory Criteria and Influence of International Human Rights Law
285
3.1.
Justificatory Criteria under International Human Rights Law
285
3.1.1.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
286
3.1.2.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
286
3.1.3.
European Convention on Human Rights
289
3.2.
Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide
297
3.3.
Contempt Procedure
298
3.4.
Restrictions on the Detainees' Communication with the Media
299
3.5.
Inadmissibility of Evidence Obtained in Breach of the Right to Privacy
300
3.6.
War Correspondents' Qualified Testimonial Privilege
301
4.
Mechanism of 'Practical Concordance'
302
5.
Failure of the Hierarchy of Rights Model to Capture the Judicial Rulings under Review from a Conflict of Rights Perspective
303
6.
Confrontation of Specific Justificatory Criteria with Generic Justificatory Criteria
303
7.
Conclusion
304
VIII.
Implied Internal Limit Placed on the Right of Silence and Judicial Refusal to Place Any Implied Limits on the Right Not to Self-Incriminate
308
1.
Introduction
308
2.
Regulatory Framework
310
2.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
310
2.2.
The ICC
312
2.3.
Common Considerations
313
3.
Evolution of the International Criminal Procedural Case-Law
314
3.1.
The ICTY and ICTR
314
3.1.1.
Judicial Confirmation of the Express Internal Limit Affecting the Witness' Right not to Self-incriminate
314
3.1.2.
Judicial Extension of the Right not to Self-incriminate to Situations Involving Psychological Coercion
315
3.1.3.
Judicial Refusal to Place Any Implied Limit upon the Rights of Silence and Not to Self-incriminate
316
3.1.4.
Judicial Clarification of the Implications of and of the Conditions Attached to the Waiver of the Rights of Silence and not to Self-incriminate
323
3.1.5.
Judicial Admission of an Implied Internal Limit upon the Right of Silence
324
3.1.6.
Status quo in the limitation process of the right of silence
325
3.2.
The ICC
325
4.
Influence of International Human Rights Law
326
5.
Conclusion
333
General Conclusions
336
1.
Overview of Implied External Limits upon Human Rights Validated or Endorsed by International Criminal Courts
336
2.
Legal Uncertainty in the International Criminal Courts' Judicial Treatment of Human Rights Limitations
338
2.1.
Notion of Legal Uncertainty in a Judicial Context
338
2.2.
Legal Uncertainty in the Ad Hoc Tribunals' Judicial Practices
340
2.2.1.
The Coexistence of Generic and of Specific Justificatory Criteria
340
2.2.2.
The Multiplicity of and Lack of Clarity in the Content of Specific Justificatory Criteria
344
2.2.3.
The Normative Status Attached to Fair Trial Rights
347
2.2.4.
Inconsistent Reliance on International Human Rights Law
348
2.2.5.
Inconsistency in the Choice of the Interpretative Method
353
2.3.
Legal Uncertainty in the ICC's Judicial Practice
356
2.3.1.
External Limitations on the Right to Self-Representation
356
2.3.2.
Absolute Anonymity and Rolling Disclosure Mechanism
357
2.4.
Ways to Provide More Legal Certainty in the International Criminal Courts' Human Rights Case-Law
358
2.4.1.
Substantive Solutions
359
2.4.1.1.
Mutually Compatible Justificatory Criteria and Rationalization of the Various Justificatory Analyses
359
2.4.1.2.
Coherent Normative Choices in the Conception of Human Rights
360
2.4.1.3.
More Consistency in the Choice of the Interpretative Method
360
2.4.2.
Institutional Solutions
361
2.4.2.1.
Appointment of a Permanent Amicus Curiae or of a Permanent Legal Advisor
361
2.4.2.2.
Establishment of a Specialized Human Rights Unit
363
2.4.2.3.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice
363
2.4.2.4.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from an International Human Rights Monitoring Body
365
3.
Legal Bases for Placing Implied External Limits upon Those Human Rights Relevant to International Criminal Proceedings
368
4.
Final Considerations
372
Bibliography
375
Index
388