Skip Navigation


Journal of International Criminal Justice Advance Access originally published online on December 22, 2005
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2006 4(1):188-195; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi093
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
4/1/188    most recent
mqi093v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miraglia, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press,2006, All rights reserved. For permissions please email journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber

International Criminal Procedure Under Construction

Michela Miraglia*

* Lecturer in Comparative and International Criminal Procedure, University of Genoa.

[CO529{at}unige.it]

By its decision of 17 February 2005 to convene a status conference on the situation in Democratic Republic of Congo, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I broadened its role by referring to and interpreting the general provision contained in Article 57(3)(c) of the ICC Statute. It resorted to the status conference in order to exercise general control over the work of the Prosecutor that is not related to a specific occasion, with a view to obtaining information about the investigations seven months after their initiation. During this time, the Prosecutor had not let the Chamber know anything about his progress and results. Arguably, the main reason behind the Chamber's decision was its intention to both speed up the investigations and to take care of the rights of the ‘prospective suspects’ — a special aspect of the ‘interest of justice’ — to whom the delay could, obviously, be prejudicial. Thus, the Chamber somewhat shifted the ‘equilibrium’ between legal traditions reached in Rome, arguably taking on a role more closely resembling an investigating judge than provided for in the Statute and ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.