Category Archives: Courts

Amnesty International

The tortuous path to peace in the Central African Republic

Amnesty International’s Campaigner for Central Africa Tity Agbahey reflects on the importance of the Special Criminal Court in Central African Republic for victims. This opinion piece was originally posted on Medium.

Amnesty International’s key recommendations for ASP17

Amnesty International’s key recommendations for the seventeenth session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute (‘ASP’). The ASP will take place in The Hague from 5 to 12 December 2018.

Rohingya Muslims refugees Myanmar Bangladesh apartheid

ICC advances towards investigating crimes committed against the Rohingya

Legal Adviser Jonathan O’Donohue, with the important contributions of International Criminal Justice Clinic students Andy Kuoch and Stuart Dixon, examines the majority of the Pre-Trial Chamber’s ruling on jurisdiction, considers the Prosecutor’s decision to proceed with the preliminary examination and emphasises the need for further international justice efforts to address impunity in Myanmar.

ICC BEMBA VICTIMS CAR REPARATIVE JUSTICE

Bemba case highlights need for reparative justice

In this final piece in our series commenting on the Bemba Appeals Judgment. Amnesty’s International Justice Team reflects on victims’ experience of this and other cases and argues that the focus must change from defining justice for victims solely as outcomes of cases towards improving their experience of the justice process as a whole.

Bemba fair trials ICC Appeals Chamber that on 8 June acquitted Mr Bemba from charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity

Remoteness in itself cannot serve as a defence to command responsibility

In this fifth opinion piece reviewing the Bemba Appeal Judgment, Amnesty’s International Justice Team consider concerns that, following the decision, “remote commanders” may be able to evade criminal responsibility at the ICC in future cases. It argues that, although remoteness can be a relevant factor in applying the elements of Article 28, any conclusion that remote commanders should be held to a different standard is unsupported by the Statute.