Seyed Mahdi Seidzadeh; Mohamadmehdi Sadeghi
Abstract
The decisions taken by the International Criminal Court in different steps of the proceedings may face the resistance who are mainly political, military or security officials or their suzerain states. Resistances can be divided into two types of severe (Backlash) and mild (Pushback) in essence. The first ...
Read More
The decisions taken by the International Criminal Court in different steps of the proceedings may face the resistance who are mainly political, military or security officials or their suzerain states. Resistances can be divided into two types of severe (Backlash) and mild (Pushback) in essence. The first type of resistances can cause the breaking up or invalidation of decision of this institution. In contrast, mild resistances not only do not seek to break up court, but can cause reduction or elimination of possible defects of the Court’s proceedings. However, instances of these resistances may overlap each other in practice. Terminating the membership in the court or lacking of cooperation of some African governments with this institution is considered mild resistances as long as it does not lead to the breaking up of the court or serious disruption in its work. The establishment a new courts and judicial parallelism, such as the African Criminal Court for the trial of Hissene Habre, sanction of the court officials, such as the cancellation of the visas of the court’s prosecutor in the case of American crimes in Afghanistan by the US government, withdrawing jurisdiction of the court that took places by Libyan government in the case of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and finally, obstructing along the goals of the court, which has been the policy adopted by various American governments as a non-member state of the court, based on the scope of their impact on the court proceeding and continuation of the activity of this institution or lack of it, can lead to either mild or severe resistances.
seyed mehdi seyyedzadeh sani; mohammad tahan toroqi
Abstract
US opposition to the Court culminated in the prosecution of Afghanistan situation. Many US soldiers were prosecuted by the ICC prosecutor, and the US therefore placed additional pressure on the Court. The pressure went so far that the Pre-Trial chamber did not consider continuing the prosecution of international ...
Read More
US opposition to the Court culminated in the prosecution of Afghanistan situation. Many US soldiers were prosecuted by the ICC prosecutor, and the US therefore placed additional pressure on the Court. The pressure went so far that the Pre-Trial chamber did not consider continuing the prosecution of international crimes in Afghanistan in the interests of justice and ordered the investigation to be suspended. The ICC Prosecutor appealed against this issue. On 5 March 2020, the Appeals chamber of the ICC decided unanimously to authorize the Prosecutor to commence an investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan. The present study, with a descriptive-analytical method, will first make a brief reference to the course of US actions against the ICC; Then, by reviewing and analyzing the verdict issued by the Preliminary chamber of the Court regarding the case of Afghanistan, the issue of whether the actions of the United State had an impact on the performance of the Court or not; Finally, the latest developments in Afghanistan situation will be reviewed in the ICC, and in particular in the Appeals chamber. eventually, according to recent rulings, the Court is currently in a high position in the confrontation between the Court and the United States, and the investigation into the alleged crimes has been authorized by US officials and forces, but this legal battle is still ongoing. Its fate is uncertain; Because, assuming that the investigation is completed by the prosecutor, the presence of US officials in the trial process is a matter of serious doubt, and on the other hand, a trial in absentia is not conceivable, and this will be another major challenge in this confrontation.
Meysam Gholami; Seyyed Mahdi Seyyedzadeh thani
Abstract
One of the most important issues in the international Criminal Tribunal was the issue of jurisdiction of the court. Because of the close relationship between national sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the courts, this is why to respond to the desire of most countries as well as respect for national ...
Read More
One of the most important issues in the international Criminal Tribunal was the issue of jurisdiction of the court. Because of the close relationship between national sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the courts, this is why to respond to the desire of most countries as well as respect for national sovereignty However, the Statute of the Tribunal explicitly admitted supplementary jurisdiction to domestic courts. Nevertheless, some governments refuse to cooperate with the Supreme Court for the sake of national sovereignty and complementary jurisdiction, and refuse to extradite the offenders to the Court. There were conflicts in the handling of cases and the conflict between completeness Li and the essence of the International Criminal Tribunal. An example of this confrontation can be found between the Libyan government and the International Criminal Court in the trial of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. In this article, while developing the inherent and complementary competence, such as the ineffectiveness of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to jurisdiction Inherent and impose political costs on the tribunal. Also, due to conflicts between the International Criminal Court and the Libyan government, the causes of the emergence of complementary and inherent competence in dealing with the case of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi will also be examined.
Seyyedeh Tahereh Khabbazi Khadar; Seyyed Mahdi Seyyedzadeh sani
Abstract
In the international criminal law, the prohibition of absentia trial is preferable and the defendant's presence at the court hearing, that based on principles of contradictoriness, equality of arms and equal defense right, has been recognized as part of his rights for fair trial. In association with ...
Read More
In the international criminal law, the prohibition of absentia trial is preferable and the defendant's presence at the court hearing, that based on principles of contradictoriness, equality of arms and equal defense right, has been recognized as part of his rights for fair trial. In association with the acceptance of this right in the international arena, one of the defendants of the ICC cases demanded that his right to be waived and requested an exemption from attending the hearing. The emergence of this demand led to controversial issues, even caused the rules of the presence of the accused during the ICC trial to be amended. This article, while reviewing the case of William Ruto and Joshua Sang, explains the provisions of the Rome Statute in this matter and describes the different point of views about this matter. So; the ICC's decisions on this case have been described critically. The effect of this case on the General Assembly of States Parties is another part of this article that resulted to enacting amendments to regulations about absentia trial under Rules 134bis, 134ter, 134quater of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. By enacting these rules, the possibility of absentia trial and exemption from presence of the accused, with some conditions, was provided.
Batol Daneshjo; seyed mehdi seyyedzadeh sani; Abdoreza Javanjafari
Abstract
In accordance with domestic and international law, torture is prohibited. However, there remains a question: whether torture is absolutely prohibited and is not permitted in any circumstances or it can be prescribed in necessity cases. According to this research, although emergency may be justified, ...
Read More
In accordance with domestic and international law, torture is prohibited. However, there remains a question: whether torture is absolutely prohibited and is not permitted in any circumstances or it can be prescribed in necessity cases. According to this research, although emergency may be justified, application of this institution in torture confronts with important challenges. The prohibition of torture is absolute in domestic and international law. Unnecessariness, invalidity and unreliability of information obtained under torture indicate the absolute prohibition of torture.
