|Compensation Decision - 13.09.2007||
10. The Appeals Chamber can identify no error on the part of the Trial Chamber in finding that it lacked authority to award compensation to Mr. Rwamakuba for having been prosecuted and acquitted. As the Trial Chamber observed, the Statute and Rules of the Tribunal do not provide a basis for compensation in such circumstances. Nor is any found in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal or of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”). In the past, the Presidents of this Tribunal and the ICTY requested the Security Council to amend the Statutes of the two Tribunals to provide for such authority. These efforts were unsuccessful and underscore the inability of the Tribunal to provide such a remedy in either its express or implied powers. As the Trial Chamber observed, the practice of providing compensation for an acquittal varies at both national and international levels. In this respect, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) refers to a right of compensation only where an individual already convicted by a final decision has been exonerated by newly discovered facts. A person in such circumstances who has been convicted and has suffered punishment as a result of the conviction may receive compensation. Mr. Rwamakuba, however, was not convicted and punished; he was acquitted in the first instance.
 Impugned Decision, para. 21.
 See Letter dated 28 September 2000 from the Secretary General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2000/925* (6 October 2000)(annexing letter from President Pillay of the Tribunal)(“ICTR Submission”). See also Letter dated 26 September 2000 from the Secretary General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2000/904 (26 September 2000)(annexing letter from President Jorda of the ICTY)(“ICTY Submission”); Letter dated 18 March 2002 from the Secretary General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2002/304 (18 March 2002)(annexing letter from President Jorda of the ICTY). These letters specifically annexed a copy of Article 85 of the ICC Statute.
 Cf. The Prosecutor v. Radovan Stanković, Case No. IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.1, Decision on Rule 11bis Appeal, 1 September 2005, paras. 14-17 (holding that the Security Council’s endorsement of the ICTY’s Completion Strategy, which included the referral of cases to national jurisdictions, reflected that the Tribunal was authorized to do so under the Statute)(“Stanković Appeal Decision”).
 Impugned Decision, paras. 25, 27.
 Article 14(6) of the ICCPR provides: “When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.”