In accordance with articles 17, 19, 21, 90 and 95 of the Statute and rules 58 and 59 of  the Rules and guided by the jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber, Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that, in considering an admissibility challenge, two questions must be  addressed:

(i)                 whether, at the time of the proceedings in respect of an admissibility  challenge, there is an ongoing investigation or prosecution of the case at the national  level; and

(ii)              whether the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out such investigation or prosecution.

The Pre-Trial Chamber decided that taken as a whole, the evidence presented by Libya did not allow it to discern the actual contours of the national case against Mr Gaddafi such that Libya could be said to  have substantiated, by means of evidence of a sufficient degree of specificity and  probative value, the submission that the domestic investigation covers the same case  that is before the Court. It is interesting to note here that the Prosecutor suggested that Libya be provided more time to submit additional evidence.

With respect to the question of “inability”, Pre-Trial Chamber I found that the  ability of a State genuinely to carry out an investigation or prosecution must be  assessed in light of the relevant national system and procedures, meaning the  substantive and procedural law applicable in Libya. While noting Libya’s efforts and progress, Pre-Trial Chamber I found that  multiple challenges remained and that Libya continued to face substantial difficulties in exercising its judicial powers fully across the entire territory or in respects relevant to the case, being thus “unavailable” within the terms of article 17(3) of the Statute. The Chamber found that this unavailability impacted on Libya’s ability to carry out the proceedings against Mr Gaddafi in three material ways:

First, Libya had not been able to secure the transfer of Mr Gaddafi into State custody  from his place of detention in Zintan. The Chamber did not doubt that the central  Government was engaging in every effort to obtain Mr Gaddafi’s transfer, but found  that no concrete progress to this effect had been shown since the date of his  apprehension on 19 November 2011 and was not persuaded that the problem would  be resolved in the near future.

Second, the Chamber was concerned about the lack of capacity to obtain the  necessary testimony and the inability of judicial and governmental authorities to  exercise full control over certain detention facilities and to provide adequate witness  protection.

Third, the Chamber found that significant practical impediments exist to securing  legal representation for Mr Gaddafi in view of the security situation in Libya and the  risk faced by lawyers who act for associates of the former regime, constituting an  impediment to the progress of proceedings against Mr Gaddafi in accordance with  Libyan law.

As Libya was found to be unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or  prosecution of Mr Gaddafi, the Chamber did not address the question of Libya’s  willingness genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. While noting that Libya could bring an admissibility challenge subsequently, provided the requirements of article 19(4), third sentence, of the Statute were met, Pre-Trial Chamber I found that the case against Mr Gaddafi was admissible and reminded Libya of its obligation to surrender the suspect to the Court.

The decision of 11 June is about the Prosecutor’s request to  submit additional observations in the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi in relation to: (i) the extent to which the  interpretation of “case” and “conduct” advanced in her response is  compatible with the Chamber’s decision on the admissibility of the case  against Saif Gaddafi; and (ii) Libya’s ability genuinely to carry out  the investigation or prosecution of the case against Mr Al-Senussi in light of  the factors considered by the Chamber in that decision. Pre-Trial Chamber I considered that it would be beneficial, for the purpose of the  resolution of the Admissibility Challenge, to receive the Prosecutor’s  observations and authorized it to submit its observations no later than 14 June 2013.

The decision of 14 June concerns Libya’s postponement of the execution of the request for arrest and surrender of Abdullah Al-Senussi pursuant to article 95 of the Rome Statute and related Defence request to refer Libya to the UN Security Council. On 19 March 2013, the Defence of Mr Al-Senussi filed an application to refer Libya and Mauritania to the UN Security Council for their failure to comply with their obligations vis-à-vis the Court. The Admissibility Challenge was filed by Libya on 2 April 2013, almost seven months after Mr Al-Senussi’s transfer to Libya from Mauritania. Given that the request by the ICC to Libya for the arrest and surrender of  Mr Al-Senussi  was made on 4 July 2011 and that Mr. Al-Senussi  was transferred from Mauritania to Libya on 5 September 2012 it is difficult to see how the filing of an admissibility challenge on 2 April 2013 is not tardy? How can a seven months delay be compatible with the requirement that a State shall seize the Chamber of an admissibility challenge as soon as there are grounds on the basis of which the case would be inadmissible before the Court? The Appeals Chamber decision in The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang of 30 August 2011, cited in the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I, is wrong in holding that a State “cannot expect to be allowed” to amend or complement a challenge made prematurely. What does this mean? That a State is allowed to submit late an admissibility challenge, but it cannot expect to amend or complement that challenge once made?

In my view, the correct position is that a State should seize the Chamber of an admissibility challenge as soon as there are grounds on the basis of which the case would be inadmissible before the Court. Once that step is taken, the Court should allow the State to amend or complement the admissibility challenge within a reasonable time. Such proceedings require striking a balance between the rights of the accused and the lawful interests of the State, as secured within the legal framework of the ICC.

The Defence’s arguments fell within three  main categories related to: (i) the timing of the Admissibility Challenge; (ii) the violation on the part of Libya of its international obligations with respect to the transfer of Mr Al-Senussi to the Court; and (iii) the need to ensure Mr Al-Senussi’s presence at the seat of the Court in order to advance the admissibility proceedings and give effect to his rights under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the “Rules”).

In clarifying the application of Article 95 of the ICC Statute the Pre-Trial Chamber I concluded that the postponement of the execution of a surrender request while an admissibility challenge is pending falls within the prerogatives of the requested State and does not require a Chamber’s prior authorization. However, it falls within the Chamber’s powers and duties to verify that the pre-requisites for the exercise by a State of this prerogative are met, namely that a proper admissibility challenge pursuant to article 19 of the Statute is under consideration by the Court.

The Chamber emphasized that the postponement by Libya is only temporary and that, in accordance with article 19(9) of the Statute, the arrest warrant issued by the Chamber against Mr Al-Senussi remains valid. Accordingly, during the postponement, Libya must refrain from taking any action which could frustrate or hinder a prompt execution of the Surrender Request should the case be found admissible, and must take all the positive measures that are necessary to this effect. In the same vein, as emphasized above, the Chamber recalled that the postponement of the Surrender Request in no way affects Libya’s continuing obligation to cooperate with the Court and to provide the assistance required by the Court with a view to ensuring, in particular, Mr Al-Senussi’s exercise of his statutory rights, including to receive a visit of the appointed counsel, and a timely and effective disposal of the Admissibility Challenge.

The Defence had also submitted that Libya should be referred to the Security Council for: (i) its involvement in Mr Al-Senussi’s extradition to Libya by Mauritania in September 2012; (ii) its non-compliance with the request for surrender of Mr Al-Senussi between September 2012 and the filing of the Admissibility Challenge (i.e. 2 April 2013) in which Libya invoked its right under article 95 of the Statute; and (iii) its failure to date to arrange a privileged visit to Mr Al-Senussi by his Defence, as requested by the Chamber. In relation to the privileged visit to Mr Al-Senussi, the Chamber noted the Memorandum of Understanding between the Court and Libya which indicated, inter alia, that “the Libyan Government invite[s] the defense team for Mr. Al-Senussi to visit Libya forthwith at any time convenient for them”. The Chamber found that should the circumstances ultimately evolve into indicating that Libya will fail to cooperate with the Court in the arrangement of the privileged legal visit to Mr Al-Senussi, it would determine what measures would be necessary to ensure compliance on the part of Libya with the Chamber’s order to that effect.

The Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that Libya, pursuant to article 95 of the Statute, may postpone the execution of the Surrender Request pending determination of the Admissibility Challenge; and rejected the request of the Defence of Mr Al-Senussi to make a finding of non-cooperation by Libya and to refer the matter to the Security Council.

I am quite pleased with the first decision, since the Libyan government is still struggling to establish control over the country and a trial according to ‘Zintan law’ would not serve the interests of justice. However, the recent decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I with regard to Al-Senussi seems to be on precarious ground. For a criticism of this decision see also a post by Kevin Jon Heller here. Libya should surrender both Saif Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi to the ICC and cooperate fully with the Court so as to ensure that both these individuals are held to account.

Compartelo:

The professor will be affiliated with iCourts – The Danish National Research Foundation´s Centre of Excellence for International Courts, which is a research centre at the Faculty of Law.

For further details concerning terms of employment and application process, please, visit the following link.

Compartelo:

The World Trade Institute (WTI) of the University of Bern invites the submission of papers and abstracts for its conference entitled “The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration”. The conference will examine the development of the concept of the “State” in a field that currently presents an increasing number of controversial disputes: Investor-State Arbitration.

Please submit papers proposals on substantial, original, and unpublished research related to all aspects of the role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration. In addition, we encourage submissions of interdisciplinary research including research in economics and political science.

Abstract submissions must be between 300-500 words in length and should be accompanied by a short resume. Please submit your documents to Shaheeza Lalani or Rodrigo Polanco. Papers that are selected for the conference are expected to be published as part of an edited volume on the subject.

This conference will be the first WTI Doctoral Programme Conference, and it will be jointly organised with the International Investment Initiative (I3) of the WTI.

Important dates

Abstract Submission Deadline: July 15, 2013
Notification of Acceptance of a Paper: August 15, 2013
Final Submission of an Accepted Paper: October 15, 2013
Conference Date: November 8, 2013

For more information, visit WTI’s website.

Compartelo:

1. Assistant Professor in International Law (with a specialisation In Environmental Law) starting on 1 September 2014 or on a mutually agreed upon date.

Candidates must have a strong grounding in general international law and a specialisation in environmental law. Applicants must have a doctoral degree prior to the start of their contract. The capacity to work with colleagues from other disciplines is an asset.

2. Professor / Associate Professor in International Law starting on 1 September 2014 or on a mutually agreed upon date.

Candidates must hold a PhD (or, for candidates without a PhD, an outstanding academic record is required). They must have a strong grounding in general international law and a specialisation in international organisations law such as United Nations law. An excellent publication record is essential. The capacity to work with colleagues from other disciplines is an asset.

The successful candidate for both positions will teach postgraduate courses in the Department of International Law and provide courses for the interdisciplinary programmes of the Institute. She or he will supervise Master’s and PhD theses.

The teaching language is either English or French. Prior knowledge of French is not required, but the successful candidate is expected to acquire at least a passive knowledge of it.

Applications, including a detailed curriculum vitae and a list of publications – but excluding letters of recommendation and samples of publications – must reach the Director, preferably by email (director@graduateinstitute.ch) or by post (the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, P.O. Box 136, 1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland), by 30 September 2013.

For more information, candidates are encouraged to consult the Institute’s website: http://graduateinstitute.ch/open_positions

Compartelo:

The Human Rights, Migration and Globalization Summer School 2013

8 to 12 July 2013, NUI Galway, Ireland.

The Summer School will familiarise participants with the sources of migrants’ rights and the available protection mechanisms. It will provide participants with an understanding of the major tensions underlying the issue of the protection of migrants’ rights and of how globalization shapes these tensions. During the five days of intensive sessions provided by leading experts in the area, participants will be provided with a detailed working knowledge of the issues through presentations, readings and group discussions, which will include components on research and advocacy skills.

The programme will include a variety of social activities that will allow participants to network with each other and the panel of specialists in a relaxed and friendly environment. The Summer School is open to anyone interested in the contemporary challenges of migration and human rights protection, including practitioners, journalists, NGO representatives, government officials and students. Participants are invited, but not obliged, to submit an abstract proposing their research ideas for discussion. The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 20 June 2013.

Confirmed speakers for this inaugural year’s summer school include:

· Professor Francois Crépeau, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants
· Professor Tomoya Obokata, Professor of International Law and Human Rights, Keele University, School of Law
· Professor Michael O’Flaherty, Co-director of theIrish Centre for Human Rights and Chief Commissioner at the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
· Ms. Mariette Grange, Senior Researcher at the Global Detention Project of the Program for the Study of Global Migration at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
· Ms. Siobhán O’Donoghue, Director of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland
· Ms. Maria Stavropoulou, Director of the Greek Asylum Service
· Dr. Ekaterina Yahyaoui, Lecturer and LLM Director, The Irish Centre for Human Rights
· Dr. Noelle Higgins, Lecturer in Human Rights, The Irish Centre for Human Rights

The closing date for registrations is 30 June 2013. For more information, including details on how to register and how to submit an abstract, please visit the website at: http://www.conference.ie/Conferences/index.asp?Conference=222, or email: hrandmigrationsummerschool@gmail.com.

Compartelo:

The government of the Canadian province of Quebec introduced a bill Wednesday that would permit doctors to provide patients with medical aid to die. Quebec Social Services Minister Veronique Hivon introduced the bill before the National Assembly. The proposed law  provides special rules on the administration and consent requirements regarding medical aid to die for doctors, hospitals, hospice centers and other institutions that offer end of-life care. Medical aid to die as proposed by the bill differs from assisted suicide legal in four US states, where doctors are allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs which the patient may take on there own. The proposed legislation would allow a doctor to administer medication causing death after receiving the repeated consent of a patient. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal  in Canada at the federal level.

The right to die has been a contentious issue around the world. The only European countries that allow assisted suicide are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Last month the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)  ruled  that Swiss law does not provide sufficient guidelines on the extent of the right to die, in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In April the Supreme Court of Ireland rejected an appeal by a paralyzed woman seeking to allow her partner to help her commit suicide. Although Ireland decriminalized suicide in 1993, it is still a crime to assist another to commit suicide. In December a report released by the French government recommended that the country permit doctors to “accelerate death” for terminally ill patients seeking doctor-assisted euthanasia. In August the High Court of England and Wales denied the plea of a paralyzed man challenging the legitimacy of the Suicide Act 1961 and other laws barring his ability to commit suicide.

Compartelo:

“Six years of Israel’s calculated strangulation of the Gaza Strip has stunted the economy and has kept most Gazans in a state of perpetual poverty and aid dependency,” said the UN expert. “Whether it is fishermen unable to go beyond six nautical miles from the shore, farmers unable to access their land near the Israeli fence, businessmen suffering from severe restrictions on the export of goods, students denied access to education in the West Bank, or patients in need of urgent medical attention refused access to Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank, the destructive designs of blockade have been felt by every single household in Gaza. It is especially felt by Palestinian families separated by the blockade,” he added.

“The people of Gaza have endured the unendurable and suffered what is insufferable for six years. Israel’s collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza must end today,” said the Special Rapporteur.

“Israel has the responsibility as the Occupying Power to protect the civilian population. But instead of allowing a healthy people and economy to flourish, Israeli authorities have sealed off the Gaza Strip. According to statistics released by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, last month’s exports out of Gaza consisted of 49 truckloads of empty boxes, three truckloads of spices, one truckload of cut flowers, and one truckload of furniture,” he said. In 2012, the total number of truckloads of exports leaving Gaza was 254, compared to 9,787 in 2005 before the tightening of the blockade.

“It does not take an economist to figure out that such a trickle of goods out of Gaza is not the basis of a viable economy,” noted the UN expert. “The easing of the blockade announced by Israel in June 2010 after its deadly assault on the flotilla of ships carrying aid to the besieged population resulted only in an increase in consumer goods entering Gaza, and has not improved living conditions for most Gazans. Since 2007, the productive capacity of Gaza has dwindled with 80 percent of factories in Gaza now closed or operating at half capacity or less due to the loss of export markets and prohibitively high operating costs as a result of the blockade. 34 percent of Gaza’s workforce is unemployed including up to half the youth population, 44 percent of Gazans are food insecure, 80 percent of Gazans are aid recipients,” he said.

“To make matters worse, 90 percent of the water from the Gaza aquifer is unsafe for human consumption without treatment, and severe fuel and electricity shortage results in outages of up to 12 hours a day. Only a small proportion of Gazans who can afford to obtain supplies through the tunnel economy are buffered from the full blow of the blockade, but tunnels alone cannot meet the daily needs of the population in Gaza.”

“Last year, the United Nations forecast that under existing conditions, Gaza would be uninhabitable by 2020. Less optimistic forecasts presented to me were that the Gaza Strip may no longer be viable only three years from now,” said the Special Rapporteur. “It’s clear that the Israeli authorities set out six years ago to devitalize the Gazan population and economy,” he said, referring to a study undertaken by the Israeli Ministry of Defense in early 2008 detailing the minimum number of calories Palestinians in Gaza need to consume on a daily basis to avoid malnutrition. The myriad of restrictions imposed by Israel do not permit civilians in Gaza to develop to their full potential, and enjoy and exercise fully their human rights.

Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13455&LangID=E

Compartelo:

Further details as well as the provisional text of the Venice Commission Opinion are available at the Council of Europe website.

Compartelo:

The Chamber concluded that, in the absence of any tangible proof showing that active steps have been taken at the national level in the alleged prosecution of Mr Gbagbo since August 2011, it has not been demonstrated that Mr Gbagbo “is being prosecuted” in Côte d’Ivoire, either for the same case or for any other; Therefore, according to the Pre-Trial Chamber, the case The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo is still admissible before the ICC.
The challenge to the admissibility of the case against Mr. Gbagbo was submitted by the Mr Gbagbo’s Defence of on 15 February 2013. A challenge to the admissibility of the case is granted if the case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. According to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, the parties have the possibility to appeal a decision on admissibility.

Further details and the decision itself can be found at the ICC’s website: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr917.aspx

Compartelo:

President Intelmann recalled that Germany had played a pivotal role during the negotiations that had secured the inclusion of the crime of aggression at the 1998 Rome Diplomatic Conference as one of the crimes over which the Court would have jurisdiction. This key role had continued in the negotiation process which culminated with the adoption of the amendments at the 2010 Review Conference of the Statute in Kampala.

President Intelmann also noted that Botswana had become the first African State to ratify the amendments to the Rome Statute. She expressed the hope that other States would emulate Germany and Botswana, whose ratifications on 3 and 4 June, respectively, had increased to seven the number of ratifications of the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression. President Intelmann noted that the ratifications constituted another manifestation of the trust and support for the ICC in different regions of the world as a fundamental institution of the international community.

The amendments define the crime of aggression and provide for the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime. The ICC may exercise such jurisdiction once thirty States have ratified the amendments, and subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the States Parties.

Source: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/pr916.aspx

Compartelo:

The conference has now launched a call for paper proposals related to the themes of the conference. For more information, please, visit the website of the conference: http://www.conferencebusinesshr.com/call-for-papers.html

Compartelo:

The handbook is the result of co-operation between the ECtHR and the FRA. The full text of the book is available for free download from the Court’s website in English, French, German and Italian.

Compartelo:

The Summer Law School will bring together students, professors and researchers from around the world who are engaged in French and comparative human rights Law. For three weeks, participants will study Fundamental Freedoms Law with internationally respected faculty from all over Europe.

The program of the Summer Law School is taught in English and composed by 9 modules of 4 hours of courses each. Furthermore, this summer program proposes an introductory course in French of duration of 10 hours.

Students who pass the exam will be awarded an achievement certificate from Bordeaux IV University.

The details about the programme of the summer school as well as conditions for participation in the course can be found at the website: http://summerlawschool.univ-bordeaux.fr/en/

Compartelo:

For more information and updates: http://armstradetreaty.blogspot.ch/ and  http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/?p=1878

Compartelo:

This is an opportunity for interdisciplinary academic debate among legal scholars and scientists from various disciplines addressing issues of environmental protection. The topics covered by the
conference include, but are not limited to:

-Climate Change
-Air Pollution
-Protection of Oceans
-Access to Water
-Forests
-Biodiversity
-Sustainable Development
-Human Rights and Environment
-Protection of Environment in Armed Conflicts
-Environment and Indigenous Peoples
-Green Energy
-Waste Management
-International Trade and Environmental Protection

Abstracts for papers and posters must be no longer that 350 words in length and should be submitted by Thursday, September 5, 2013 through email to CCIEL@pf.uni-lj.si. The submission must
include the name and title of the author, position, name and address of the current institution of employment, and a short biography.

Successful applicants will be informed by October 5, 2012. The authors selected for paper presentation at the conference will be expected to submit completed papers with maximum 8,000
words in length (including footnotes and bibliography) by Saturday, March 1, 2014. The papers presented at the conference will be published in a conference book.

Travel and accommodation costs will have to be carried by the authors of the selected papers

See more on www.environmentlawconference.com

Compartelo:

This event will focus on four different aspects of the proposed office. Firstly, it will touch upon the issues of the principles of subsidiarity, conferral of competences and proportionality. Secondly, the division of rules of substance and procedure governing the EPPO operations between the Union and the Member States will be discussed. Thirdly, the relationship between Article 85 and Article 86 TFEU as the legal basis for EPPO will be addressed, and lastly, the enhanced cooperation, as a framework for the EPPO to function in, will be analysed.

Primary objective of the conference is to assess the Commission’s proposal, especially, but not exclusively, from an academic legal perspective. Policy issues will also be addressed. This event will gather a wide range of participants, including prominent legal experts active in the academic field, representatives of the EU institutions, as well as delegates of the EU Member States and their public prosecution offices.

Venue:                                          T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague

Full fee:                                        € 175- per person

Early Bird fee:                          €145,-

The early bird applies to registrations before the 26^th of July 2013

(PHD) Student fee:                € 75,-

Registration:                             Please register before the 23^rd of August 2013 at www.asser.nl/EPPO

Please review the online          Registration Information & Conditions before registration

More information:                http://www.asser.nl/events.aspx?id=368

Contact:                                        conferencemanager@asser.nl

Compartelo: