Nature and Modes of Accessory Liability in the International Criminal Courts

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal and Criminology Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Statute of the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Statute of the International Criminal Court did not refer to the “accessory”, but merely pointed out examples of assistance in the commission of international crimes such as, planning, instigation, aiding and abetting. There is an important question that if those modes of assistance in the commission of international crimes can be regarded as accessory liability to commit an international crime. Does accessory liability can give rise to less severe criminal liability and then lighter punishment? So, this paper examining various criteria to distinguish between principals and accessories concludes that despite the lack of reference to accessory liability in the statutes of international criminal courts, in practice, they confirm the existence of some modes of accessory liability by reference to the test of control of crime. In fact, those who have "control over the commission of the offence" are perpetrators. As a result, those do not have control over the commission of the crime are accessories. Each mode of Accessory Liability has distinct definitions and requirements, and there is a hierarchical relationship between them. This distinction is intended to provide a true picture of the role of perpetrators of international crimes. However, this does not necessarily lead to less severe punishments for accessories.

Keywords

Main Subjects


 
Ambos, Kai (2008) Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Second Edition, O. Triffterer, ed. München, pp. 743-770.
Cryer, Robert & et al (2010) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, second Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Amenge Okoth, Juliet R. (2014) The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law, Asser Press, Springer, Hague.
Jain, Neha (2013) "Individual Responsibility for Mass Atrocity: In Search of a Concept of Perpetration", The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 61, pp. 830-872.
Stahn, Carsten (2019) "Modes of Liability, International Law in Action: Investigation and Prosecuting International Crimes", University Leiden, Online Coursera, available at: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/international-law-in-action-2/modes-of-liability-o3nPk (last visited: 4/28/2019)
Stewart, James. G. (2016) "The Strangely Familiar History of the Unitary Theory of Perpetration", The Peter A. Allard School of Law, Allard Research Commons, forthcoming, Essays in Honor of Mirjan Damaška.
Timmermann, Wibke Kristin (2006) "Incitement in International Criminal Law", International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No. 864, pp. 823-852.
Vajda, Maja Munivrana (2014) "Distinguishing between Principals and Accessories at the ICC", Zbornik PFZ, 64, (5-6), pp. 1039-1060.
Zgaga, Sabina (2011) "Participation in International Criminal Law", Law & Justice Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 99-132.
 
Cases
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on Confirmation of Charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 29 January 2007.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Vasiljevic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-32-A, 25 February 2004.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Momcilo Perisic, Appeal Chamber, Case No. IT-04-81-A, 28 February 2013.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on confirmation of charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, P-T. Ch. I, 30 September 2008.
ICC (A), Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against His Conviction, No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5, 1 December 2014.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bizimungu, Mugenzi, Bicamumpaka, Mugiraneza, Trial Chamber II, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, 30 September, 2011.
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Art. 74 of the Statute Separate opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T. Ch. I, 14 March 2012.
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 24 February 2006.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelc, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No.: IT-97-25-A, 17 September 2003.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-9-A, 28 November 2006.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, 5 May 2009.
ICC (B), Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Trial Chamber II, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, 7 March 2014.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Trial Chamber VIII, Judgment and Sentence, ICC-01/12-01/15, 27 September 2016.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Trial Chamber, Opinion and Judgment, IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-T, 26 February 2001.
SCSL, Prosecutor v.Moinina Fofana & Allieu Kondewa, Trial Chamber I, Judgment on the sentence of Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa, SCSL 04-14- T, 9 October 2007.
SCSL, Prosecutor v. Charles Chankay Taylor, Trial Chamber II, Judgment, 03-01-T, 18 May 2012.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Vasiljevic, Trial Chamber II, Judgment, IT, 98-32- T, 29 Novamber 2002.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-03-68-T, 30 June 2006.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Jean- Paul Akayesu, Chamber I, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Krstic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 2 August 2001.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tihomor Blaskic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak, Miladen Markac, Trial Chamber I, Judgment, Volume II of II, IT-06-90-T, 15 April 2011.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Appeal Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-A, 17 December 2004.