[scribd id=207660998 key=key-1esinhh36zgdswmkk7aw mode=scroll]

[scribd id=207267122 key=key-27qn07ncrb2wu715s0x7 mode=scroll]

[scribd id=203767501 key=key-1q84seh2pmroavqcute mode=scroll]

Washington, DC January 27, 2014 —The War Crimes Research Office (WCRO) launches a new report on the International Criminal Court (ICC), entitled Obtaining Victim Status for Purposes of Participating in Proceedings at the International Criminal Court.

One of the most lauded features of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) is its victim participation scheme, which allows individuals harmed by the crimes being prosecuted by the Court to share their views and concerns in proceedings against the persons allegedly responsible.  To date, more than 12,000 individuals have applied to participate in proceedings before the ICC, and well over 5,000 have successfully obtained victim status.  However, the process established under the documents governing the ICC by which individuals apply for and receive permission to participate – which involves each individual victim submitting a detailed form with supporting documentation to the Court, observations on each application by the parties, and an individualized decision on the application by a Chamber of the Court – has proved inefficient for the applicants, the parties, and the Court.  At the same time, the process has been frustrating for victims, as it can take more than two years for applicants to receive a decision on their status, meaning victims are often unable to share their views and concerns with the Court during key proceedings in the case.  This frustration is compounded by the fact that, for the vast majority of victims, participation takes place through a common legal representative, appointed by the Court to represent significant numbers of victims together, raising the question as to why individual victims were required to endure such a lengthy and detailed application process.

Recognizing that the current system is both unsustainable and undesirable, various Chambers of the Court have been exploring alternative means by which individuals may obtain victim status in the cases before them, and the Court’s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) is considering reforming the system courtwide.  This report examines the different options that have been tried and/or that are under consideration by the ASP and ultimately recommends changes to the victim application system aimed at saving valuable time and resources for applicants, the Registry, the parties, and the Chambers.  Importantly, the recommended changes are unlikely to undermine the meaningfulness of victim participation, and in fact will allow victims to gain recognition and the right to representation much more quickly than under the current system, meaning the recommended approach is likely to make participation more meaningful for a large number of victims.

The report is the eighteenth in the WCRO’s ICC Legal Analysis and Education Project, an initiative aimed at producing public, impartial, legal analyses of critical issues raised by decisions and practice of the ICC. The ICC Legal Analysis and Education Project benefits from the insights of an Advisory Committee comprised of the following experts in international criminal law:

–        Judge Mary McGowan Davis, former Acting New York State Supreme Court Judge and Board Member of the International Judicial Academy and the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists;

–        Justice Unity Dow, Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists, member of the ICJ’s Executive Committee and former judge of the Botswana High Court;

–        Siri Frigaard, Chief Public Prosecutor for the Norwegian National Authority for Prosecution of Organized and Other Serious Crimes and former Deputy General Prosecutor for Serious Crimes in East Timor;

–        Justice Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda;

–        Chief Justice Phillip Rapoza of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and former Chief International Judge serving as Coordinator of the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in East Timor; and

–        Juan Mendez, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and former Special Advisor on Prevention to the Prosecutor of the ICC.

For a hard copy of the report or more information, contact the War Crimes Research Office at warcrimes@wcl.american.edu, or +1 (202) 274-4067. The reports are also available online at http://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/icc_reports.cfm.

You can view a webcast of our recent event on victim participation here.

Press Release
For Immediate Distribution

 

23 January 2014 – A draft resolution entitled, “Refusing Impunity for theKillers of Sergei Magnitsky,” will be voted on next week by the ParliamentaryAssembly of the Council of Europe. The resolution calls on Russian authorities to stop the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky, cease pressure on his family, and stop the persecution of other Hermitage lawyers, including barrister Eduard Khairetdinov, who represented the Hermitage Fund in Russia to defend against the $230 million fraud uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky.

The draft Magnitsky resolution says:

“The Assembly urges the competent Russian authorities…to close the posthumous trial against Mr Magnitsky and cease putting pressure on his mother and his widow to participate in these proceedings; to cease the persecution of other lawyers acting for the true owners of the fraudulently re-registered companies [of the Hermitage Fund].”(http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-DocDetails-EN.asp?fileid=20084&wrqid=0&wrqref=&ref=1&lang=EN)

Sergei Magnitsky was arrested shortly after he testified about the involvement of Russian officials in the theft of Hermitage Fund’s companies and of $230 million they had paid in taxes to the Russian government. The Russian officials also targeted all other lawyers who defended Hermitage against this fraud with criminal cases, searches and summonses. These actions by Russian authoritieshave been denounced in an earlier resolution adopted by the Council of Europe on 30 September 2009, a month and a half before Magnitsky’s killing in custody.

One of the persecuted lawyers is Eduard Khairetdinov, an independent barrister and former judge, who was responsible for filing the first complaint with Russian law enforcement bodies on behalf of the Hermitage Fund, three weeks before $230 million was stolen from the budget. The complaint sought to initiate an investigation and named Interior Ministry officers Karpov and Kuznetsov. Several months after the complaint was filed, Kuznetzov sought toopen a criminal case against barrister Khairetdinov himself.

The criminal case against barrister Khairetdinov in Russia claims that he acted on a false power of attorney because, according to the Russian Investigative Committee, the only people who could have given him a legitimate power of attorney were the people who stole the Hermitage companies. The case hasremained open for five years despite numerous appeals from associations of lawyers from around the world and the absurdity of the charges.

“The lawyers who acted on behalf of the true owners of the fraudulently re-registered companies [of the Hermitage Fund], in order to help them regain control, are now being prosecuted for acting on false power of attorney, as they had not obtained their powers from the false owners of the companies,” says the draft PACE Resolution on the plight of lawyers whose only misfortune was to represent the “wrong” client.

Sergei Magnitsky spoke in defence of his colleagues from custody. In his last written statement prepared for the court, he said:

“Investigator [of the Interior Ministry] Silchenko does not wish to identify other persons who made this [$230 million] fraud possible [other than a sawmill employee Victor Markelov]; he wishes instead that the lawyers for the Hermitage Fund who strived and continue to strive for the investigation of this case are forced to leave the country, or like me, are kept in custody.”(http://russian-untouchables.com/docs/D85-zayavlenie-magnitskogo-o-politmotivirovannosti-12-11-2009.pdf)

Earlier this month, barrister Khairetdinov filed several complaints against his unlawful prosecution, seeking the case to be closed because it is unlawful and based on false grounds. Information on the outcome of his complaints is not yet available.

For further information, please see:

Law and Order in Russia