Rule-making powers

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001 DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići)
(IT-96-21-A)

583. [T]here is no reference to any defence of diminished mental responsibility in the Tribunal’s Statute.  The description of diminished mental responsibility as a “special defence” in Rule 67(A)(ii) is insufficient to constitute it as such.  The rule-making powers of the judges are defined by Article 15 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which gives power to the judges to adopt only –

[…] rules of procedure and evidence for the conduct of the pre-trial phase of the proceedings, trials and appeals, the admission of evidence, the protection of victims and witnesses and other appropriate matters.[1]

The Appeals Chamber has held that this power does not permit rules to be adopted which constitute new offences, but only rules of procedure and evidence for the conduct of matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[2]  It follows that there is, therefore, no power to adopt rules which constitute new defences.  If there is a “special defence” of diminished responsibility known to international law, it must be found in the usual sources of international law – in this case, in the absence of reference to such a defence in established customary or conventional law, in the general principles of law recognised by all nations.[3]

 

[1]    The emphasis has been added.

[2]    Prosecutor v Tadić, Case IT-94-1-A-R77, Judgment on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 Jan 2000, para 24.

[3]    [Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc S/25704, 3 May 1993 (“Secretary-General’s Report”)], para 58.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 14 ICTY Statute Article 15
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision - 08.04.2003 BLAGOJEVIĆ et al.
(IT-02-60-AR73, IT-02-60-AR73.2, IT-02-60-AR73.3)

15.     The Appeals Chamber observes that the Rules are not exhaustive as to the detailed steps or measures that Chambers may take in fulfilling the mandate of the Tribunal, but they are devised and amended in accordance with certain recognised fundamental principles that govern proceedings before the Tribunal […] The judges of the International Tribunal are given the power by Article 15 of the Statute to adopt (which includes the power to amend) the rules of procedure and evidence subject to the fundamental principles of justice set out in the Statute and international law.  These principles set the parameters for the interpretation and application of the Rules.  On the other hand, as stated by the Appeals Chamber in Aleksovski, “the purpose of the Rules is to promote a fair and expeditious trial, and Trial Chambers must have the flexibility to achieve this goal.”[1] It is plain from the successive amendments of the Rules that the Rules have been refined over the years through the practice of the Chambers in applying them.  New practice, which serves the mandate of the Tribunal and conforms to internationally recognised standards, may eventually be reflected in an amendment to the Rules. […] A decision which is in conformity with the principles of justice, even though not based on a written rule, does not prejudice the interests of the party. […]

[1] Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-AR73, Decision of Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 Feb. 1999, Appeals Chamber, par 19.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 14 ICTY Statute Article 15
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Whether to Continue or Restart Trial - 24.09.2003 NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare)
(ICTR-98-42-A15bis)

9. The Appeals Chamber will address two preliminary arguments. First, the Appellants contend that the two remaining judges in the Butare trial sat in the plenary which amended Rule 15bis on 27 May 2003 and that this impaired their impartiality.  The argument overlooks the fact that judges can in a legislative capacity make rules without prejudice to their right to pronounce in a judicial capacity on the vires or operation of the rules so made. In this case, article 14 of the Statute, which gives a rule-making competence to the judges of the Tribunal, does not prevent them from later deciding in their judicial capacity on the vires or operation of the rules adopted.

[1] The Appellants also argue that the amendment was designed to prevent them from benefiting from their previous refusal to consent. See, for example, the submissions of Nyiramasuhuko in her notice of appeal, paras.12-14, and Nteziryayo’s notice of appeal, paras. 15-17.

[2] Smokovitis v. Greece, ECHR, 11 April 2002, concerned a legislative judgment relating to specific claims, and not the laying down of a legislative norm; it is distinguishable.

Download full document
ICTR Statute Article 14 ICTY Statute Article 15