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.
The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber (International Criminal Procedure Under Construction)
MIRAGLIA, MICHELA
2006-01-01
Abstract
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.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
