Compensation to the Acquitted Person in International Criminal Law

INTRODUCTION. The practice of modern international criminal courts and tribunals raises serious questions about the proper enforcement of the rights of the accused. Among these rights, the accused's right to compensation is highlighted. Compensation is given to the accused (regardless of the verdict) for violation of his procedural rights and fundamental human rights and compensation to the acquitted person.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The analysis of ensuring the human right to compensation in the event of an unjust sentence is carried out on the basis of international human rights treaties, treaties on the creation of international courts, including appeal to the travaux preparatoires of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the practice of international criminal courts and tribunals, especially the ICC, as well as the International Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The study was conducted using general scientific methods of cognition (in particular, analysis and synthesis), as well as comparative legal, historical legal and formal dogmatic methods. To achieve the corresponding conclusions, various methods of interpretation of the rule of law are used, in particular, grammatical, systematic, teleological, harmonic, etc.

RESEARCH RESULTS. In the activities of international criminal courts and tribunals, a violation of the accused’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time is systemic, including due to the absence of any procedural deadlines on the one hand, and the absence of any rules (or their non-application) to restore the rights of the accused and punishment of the party who committed the violation of these rights. This situation poses serious problems of ensuring the rights of specific accused (including justified), but also the development of modern international criminal procedural law and international human rights law.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. National legislation and international human rights instruments provide for the right of an acquitted person to compensation. In international criminal courts, this issue, however, is addressed in different ways. The statutes of international criminal courts ad hoc created by the UN Security Council do not mention the right to compensation for an accused or acquitted person. At the same time, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda recognized that the absence of a reference to law in the Statute of the Tribunal does not mean that the persons concerned do not have the corresponding right. At the same time, this recognition did not have practical consequences. The Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes the right to compensation, however, does so to a limited extent. Thus, in international criminal courts and tribunals, the provision of the human right to compensation (primarily compensation to an acquitted person) is performed at a lower level than that established in international human rights treaties.

1. Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court. Ed. Klamberg M. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. Brussels. 2017. 775 p.

2. Devresse M., Scalia D. An Outsider’s View from Inside. The Experience of Acquittals before International Criminal Tribunals. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. 2019. Vol. 17. P. 179–198. DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqy038.

3. Entin M.L., Entina E.G. Vliyanie prava prav cheloveka na progressivnoe razvitie sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava. Chast' I [The Impact of Human Rights Law on the Progressive Development of Contemporary International Law. Part I]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2017. No. 2 (106). P. 29–44. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2017-2-106-29-44 (in Russ.)

4. International Criminal Procedure. Rules and Principles. Ed. By Sluiter G., others. Oxford University Press. 2013. 1680 P.

5. McDermott Y. Fairness in International Criminal Trials. Oxford University Press. 2016. 211 p.

6. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravosudie: sovremennye problemy. Pod red. Abashidze A.Kh., Bogush G.I., Trikoz E.N. [International Criminal Justice. Ed. by Abashidze A.Kh., Bogush G.I., Trikoz E.N]. M.: Institut Prava i Publichnoi Politiki Publ. 2009. 750 p. (in Russ.)

7. Mezуaev A.B 2017. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty reshenija Rossii ne stat' uchastnikom Statuta Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda [International Legal Aspects of Russia's Decision Not to Become a Party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizacii / International Law and International Organizations. No. 3. P. 84-93. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2017.3.23945

8. Mezуaev A.B. Naznachenie advokata na protsesse protiv Slobodana Miloshevicha v Gaagskom tribunale: nekotorye mezhdunarodno-pravovye voprosy [Appointment of a Lawyer in the Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague Tribunal: Some International Legal Issues]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2005. No. 2. P. 99–118. (in Russ.)

9. Vylegzhanin A.N., Ignatenko G.V., Skuratova A.Yu. Yuridicheskie itogi velikoi pobedy nad fashistskoi Germaniei i sovremennye popytki ee iskazheniya [Legal Results of the Great Victory over Nazi Germany and Modern Attempts to Distort It]. – Russian Yearbook of International Law, 2010. 2011. P. 9–27. (in Russ.)

10. Michels J.D. Compensating Acquitted Defendants for Detention before International Criminal Courts. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 8. 2010. P. 407–424. DOI: 10/1093/jicj/mqq015.

11. Noskova Yu.B. Opredelenie razmera kompensacii za narushenie prava na ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstva v razumnyj srok [Determination of the Amount of Compensation for Violation of the Right for Criminal Legal Proceedings in Reasonable Time]. – Eurasian Law Journal. 2016. No. 6. P. 163-164. (in Russ.)

12. Research Handbook on International Penal System. Ed. Mulgrew R., Abels D. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, Northampton. 2016. 517 p.

13. Schabas W. The International Criminal Court: A Commentary of the Rome Statute. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. 2016. 1688 p.

14. Shestak V.A. O nekotoryh voprosah, voznikajushhih pri rassmotrenii del o prisuzhdenii kompensacii za narushenie prava na sudoproizvodstvo v razumnyj srok ili prava na ispolnenie sudebnogo akta v razumnyj srok. Rossijskaja justicija. 2016. № 9. P. 2-4. (in Russ.)

15. Sheremet'ev A.P. Ob ogranichenii chrezmernoj dlitel'nosti ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva i sroka soderzhanija obvinjaemogo pod strazhej [On the Limitation of the Excessive Length of the Criminal Proceedings and Period of Accused Detention]. – Russian Law Journal. No. 6. 2012. P. 141–145. (in Russ.)

16. Shelbourn C. Compensation for Detention. – Criminal Law Review. 1978. No. 22. Р. 28.

17. Skuratova A.Yu. Rossija i Rimskij statut Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda [Russia and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 4. P. 125–137. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2016-4-125-137. (in Russ.)

18. Stahn C. A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press. 2019. 447 p.

19. Tochilovsky V. Jurisprudence of International Criminal Courts and European Court of Human Rights. Procedure and Evidence. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2008. 911 p.