نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
چکیده
یکی از پرونده‌های مشکوک به وقوع جرم علیه عدالت کیفری یا سوءرفتار نزد دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی، پروندة دادستان علیه توماس لوبانگو دیالو است. دادستان در این پرونده از اجرای دستورات دیوان در افشای دلایل به متهم و قضات سرپیچی کرده است. دادستان در توجیه این اقدام به مسئولیت خویش در حمایت از مخبرین و پایبندی به شروط قراردادهای محرمانه استناد کرده است که بر اساس مادة (e)(3)54 اساسنامه میان خود و آن‌ها تنظیم شده‌اند. دیوان در صدور دستور افشای دلیل به مادة (2)67 اساسنامه و مادة 77 قانون آیین دادرسی متوسل شده است و دادستان را ملزم به تبعیت از این دستور شناخته است. لیکن با توجه به دلایل موجه دادستان برای سرپیچی از دستورات دیوان و تلاش های مکرر وی برای کسب رضایت مخبرین برای افشاء دلایل و تا حد امکان فراهم کردن شرایط برای افشای دلایل مشابه باعث شده است که شعبة بدوی سرپیچی دادستان را از مصادیق اتهام جرم علیه عدالت کیفری یا سوءرفتار نزد دیوان نشناسد و شعبة تجدیدنظر نیز احترام به قراردادهای محرمانة دادستان را به شعبة بدوی گوشزد کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Protection of Providers’ Security in ICC Jurisprudence; An Exception to Offence Against The Administration of Justice or Misconduct Before The Court
نویسنده [English]
- Javad Salehi
Assistant Professor of Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
One of the cases suspicious to “offence against the administration of justice” or misconduct before the court is the case of the Prosecutor vs. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The prosecutor in this case refused to carry out the court orders to disclosure evidence to the defendant and judges.
Prosecutor justified his action based on his responsibility to support providers and the terms of confidential contracts among them, which have been set up based on article 54(3)(e) of Statute. The Court ordered disclosure of evidences based on article 67(2) of Statute and article 77 of Procedure Law and required the prosecutor to obey this command.
But according to prosecutor’s justified reasons for disobedience of the court’s orders and his frequent attempts to get providers’ consent to disclose evidences and providing conditions for disclosure of similar evidences as much as possible, lead the trial court to not recognize his disobedience as offence against the administration of justice or misconduct before the court, and the appeals court to remind the trial court to respect prosecutor’s confidential contracts
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- International Criminal Court
- Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
- Protection of Providers’ Security
- Offences Against The Administration of Justice
- Misconduct Before The Court
منابع
الف- فارسی
- عابد، رسول؛ مطالعة تطبیقی جرائم علیه عدالت کیفری در نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 1388.
- کوشا، جعفر؛ جرائم علیه عدالت قضایی، تهران، انتشارات میزان، چاپ اول، 1381.
- میرمحمد صادقی، حسین؛ عابد، رسول؛ «جرائم علیه اجرای عدالت کیفری در اساسنامه دادگاه کیفری بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری، 1391، شماره ۱.
- میر محمد صادقی، حسین؛ عابد، رسول؛ «صلاحیت دادگاه کیفری بین‌المللی در رسیدگی به جرائم علیه اجرای عدالت کیفری با مطالعة موردی پروندة توماس لوبانگو»، فصلنامة دیدگاه‌های حقوقی، 1391، شماره 57.
- Ambos, Kai; 2009, "Confidential Investigations (Article 54(3)(E) ICC Statute) vs. Disclosure Obligations: the Lubanga Case and National Law", New Criminal Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 4.
- Arsajani, Mahnoush. H and W. Michael Reisman; 2005, The Law-in-Action of International Criminal Court, AM. J. INT’L L. , Vol. 99.
- Baylis, Elena A; 2009, "Outsourcing Investigations", UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affair, Vol. 14.
- Brady, H; 2001, Disclosure of Evidence, in R. S. Lee et al, (ed), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Transnational Publishers, Oxford University Press.
- Caianiello, Michele; 2010, Disclosure before the ICC: The Emergence of a New Form of Policies Implementation System in International Criminal Justice?, INT’L CRIM. L. REV, Vol. 10.
- De Vos, Christian M; 2008, "Someone who Comes between one Person and Another: Lubanga, Local Cooperation and the Right to a Fair Trial", Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 12.
- Harmon, M. B, and M. Karaginannakis; 2001, "The Disclosure of Exculpatory Material by the Prosecutor to the Defence under Rule 68 of the ICTY Rules", in: R. May et al (eds), Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Kluwer Law Int.
- Klip A and G. Sluiter (eds); 1999, "Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals", in: The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Intersentia.
- Kuschnik, Bernard; 2009, International Criminal Due Process in the Making: New Tendencies in the Law of Non-Disclosure in the Proceedings before the ICC, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 9.
- Leigh, Monroe; 1997, "Witness Anonymity is Inconsistent with Due Process", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91 , No. 1.
- May R and Wierda M; 2002, International Criminal Evidence, Ardsley, Transnational Publishers, New York, U. S. A.
- Nowak, Manfred; 1993, U. N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, Kehlam Rhein, Strasbourg; Arlington.
- Panzavolta, Michele; 2005, "Reforms and Counter-Reforms in the Italian Struggle for an Accusatorial Criminal Law System", North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Vol. 30, No. 3.
- Schabas, William; 2011, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press.
- Schabas,William; 2008A, Prosecutorial Discretion v. Judicial Activism at the International Criminal Court, J. INT’L CRIM. JUST, Vol. 6.
- Schabas, William; 2008B, Complementarity in Practice: Some Uncomplimentary Thoughts, CRIM. L. F. , Vol. 19.
- Stuart, H. Verrijn; 2008, "The ICC in trouble", Journal of international Criminal Justice, Vol. 6, No. 3.
- Swoboda, Sabine; 2008, The ICC Disclosure Regime: A Defence Perspective, Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 19.
- Weissbrodt, D, F. Pekinm and A. Wilson; 2006, "Piercing the Confidentiality Veil: Physician Testimony in International Criminal Trials against Perpetrators of Torture", Minnesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 15.
- Zappala, Salvatore; 2004, "The Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Materials and the Recent Amendment to Rule 68 ICTY RPE", Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, No. 2.
- Prosecutor v. Bagosora; 1998, Decision on the Defence Motion for inadmissibility of Disclosure Based on the Decision of 11 June 1998, Case No. ICTR 96-7-T.
- Prosecutor v. Brima et al; 2005, Decision on Joint Defence Motion on Disclosure of all Original Witness Statements, Interview Notes and Investigators’ Notes Pursuant to Rules 66 and/ or 68, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T.
- Prosecutor v. Furundžija; 1998, Scheduling Order, Case No. IT-95-17/1-PT.
- Prosecutor v. Norman et al; 2004, Decision on Disclosure of Witness Statements and Cross-Examination, Case No. IT- 98-33-A.
- Prosecutor v. Popović et al, 2009, Decision on Borovčanin motion for disclosure of exculpatory information, Case No. IT-05-88-T.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga, 2008, Decision on the consequences of non-disclosure of exculpatory materials covered by Article 54(3)(e) agreements and the application to stay the prosecution of the accused, together with certain other issues raised at the Status Conference on 10 June 2008, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1401.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga; 2009, Reasons for Oral Decision lifting the stay of proceedings, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga; 2008, Prosecution's Document in Support of Appeal against Decision to Stay Proceedings, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1446-Anxl.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga; 2008, Redacted Version of ‘Decision on the prosecution`s Application to Lift the stay of Proceedings’, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1467.
- Prosecutor v. Lubanga; 2008, Transcript of Hearing, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-T-91.
- ____________; 2008, Transcript of Hearing, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-T-86-ENG.
- ____________; 2007, Hearing Transcript, Case No. ICC-01/04-1/06-T-52.
- ____________; 2007, Decision Regarding the Timing and Manner of Disclosure and the Date of Trial, Case No. ICC-01/04-1/06-1019.
- Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic; 2002, Decision on the interpretation and application of rule 70, Case No. IT-02-54-AR108bis & AR 73. 3.
- Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al; 1997, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for the Redaction of the Public Record, Case No. IT-96-21-T.
- Rozenberg, J; 2008, Why the world’s most powerful OTP should resign, available at: http: //www. telegraph. co. uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/ 2236288/Why-the-worlds-mostpowerful-OTP-should-resign-Part-1. html
ب- لاتین
ج- پرونده‌ها و گزارش‌ها
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله