Prosecutor
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal Judgement - 28.11.2007 |
NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52-A) |
|
|
40. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecutor’s duty to act independently is distinct from that of the Judges, given the particular role played by the Prosecutor within the Tribunal. The Prosecutor is effectively a party to the proceedings like the accused.[1] The duty of the Prosecutor to act independently is laid down in Article 15(2) of the Statute […]. [1] See Rule 2 of the Rules, which defines the term “Party” to mean the Prosecutor or the Accused. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 09.07.2004 |
NIYITEGEKA Eliézer (ICTR-96-14-A) |
|
|
14. The Tribunal’s instruments do not prescribe qualification requirements for members of the staff of the Office of the Prosecutor appearing before it. While Rule 44(A) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) stipulates that a counsel engaged by a suspect or an accused “shall be considered qualified to represent a suspect or accused, provided that he is admitted to the practice of law in a State, or is a University professor of law,” the Rules and other instruments of the Tribunal contain no corresponding qualification provision for Prosecution counsel. In consequence, the integrity of the trial process before the Tribunal cannot be undermined, per se, by the status a Prosecution counsel may or may not have as a member of the bar in any State. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Appeal Judgement - 09.07.2004 |
NIYITEGEKA Eliézer (ICTR-96-14-A) |
|
|
16. […] [Counsel Pollard] was entitled to exercise such powers of the Prosecutor as have been entrusted to her under Rule 37(B) of the Rules. In the exercise of such powers, Counsel Pollard was required to adhere to the standards of professional conduct set out in Regulation No. 2 [Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 2, Standards of Professional Conduct for Prosecution Counsel (1999)]. In addition, as a staff member of the United Nations, she also had a duty to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, its Staff Rules and its Staff Regulations, which include a duty to act with integrity and honesty.[1] Similar standards are imposed upon defence counsel appearing before the Tribunal who have a duty to “act honestly, fairly, skilfully, diligently and courageously”.[2] However, the Appeals Chamber stresses that the integrity of the judicial process demands that these ethical standards be applicable to all counsel appearing before the Tribunal. All counsel have a duty to adhere, as a minimum, to these ethical standards. This is independent of formal provisions or counsel’s membership of a national bar. […] 20. […] Counsel Pollard, like all Prosecution counsel, was required to follow the standards of professional conduct expected of all counsel appearing before the Tribunal in addition to those prescribed in Regulation No. 2, which include the duty to demonstrate candour before the Tribunal and not knowingly to make incorrect statements of material facts to the Tribunal.[3] It is, of course, essential that the Chambers of the Tribunal be able to rely on the integrity of counsel on both sides and that counsel be able to rely on each other’s statements.[4] Dereliction in the duty of honesty may, in appropriate cases, be cause for sanctions or for contempt proceedings. Such dereliction by Prosecution counsel may also be contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and a breach of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. […] [1] For example, article 101 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that “The paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.” The United Nations Staff Regulations (ST/SGB/2003/5) 7/2/03, regulation 1.2 provides that “staff members shall uphold the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. The concept of integrity includes, but is not limited to, probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness in all matters affecting their work and status.” [2] ICTR Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel, 8/6/98, Introduction, point 2. [3] See Regulation No. 2, para. 2(e). [4] See R. v. Early, [2002] EWCA Crim 1904, [2003] 1 Cr App R 288 at para. 10 (“Judges can only make decisions and counsel can only act and advise on the basis of the information with which they are provided. The integrity of our system of criminal trial depends on judges being able to rely on what they are told by counsel and on counsel being able to rely on what they are told by each other. This is particularly crucial in relation to disclosure ….”). |
||