22. […] The Trial Chamber thus applied the so-called “ripeness doctrine” upheld by United States courts. Under this doctrine, a court should refrain from determining issues that are only hypothetical or speculative, or at any rate devoid of sufficient immediacy and reality as to warrant adjudication. It is well known that in the United States this doctrine is derived from the “case or controversy” clause of Article III of the United States Constitution and is intended to prevent courts from hearing complaints about agency action that has not yet injured the plaintiff[1]. The Appeals Chamber, with respect, determines that it is inappropriate to resort to this doctrine in these proceedings.

23. This conclusion rests on two grounds. First, whatever the merits of this doctrine, it appears to the Appeals Chamber to be inapposite to transpose it into international criminal proceedings. The Appeals Chamber holds that domestic judicial views or approaches should be handled with the greatest caution at the international level, lest one should fail to make due allowance for the unique characteristics of international criminal proceedings.