Rule of law e standards etici degli international prosecutors

Authors

  • Anna Oriolo Università di Salerno

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v13i2.368

Abstract

The normative and jurisprudential framework of the ethical guidelines for international prosecutors, affirms their central role in criminal proceedings, aimed at protecting society from a culture of impunity, and functioning “as gatekeepers to the judiciary”.
Since they are invested with the authority and responsibility to decide on issues fundamental to the administration of criminal justice, i.e., prosecution of the most serious crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, the task of international prosecutors carries great responsibility, requiring them to seek justice and respect certain deontological obligations. In this perspective, the judicial function of monitoring prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute ensures that the central role of international prosecutors in criminal justice is enacted in accordance with the highest ethical standards and
 in the best interests of justice.

Keywords:

Ethical Standards, Impartiality, International Criminal Justice, International Prosecutors, Rule of Law.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. (1) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Decision, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, 2002, par. 18; B. THOMPSON, The Role of the International Prosecutor as a Custodian of Global Morality in C.C. JALLOH, A.B.M. MARONG (eds.), Promoting Accountability under International Law for Gross Human Rights Violations in Africa: Essays in Honour of Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2015, pp. 47-57, spec. p. 54.

  2. (2) Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, Opinion No. 9 on “European Norms and Principles concerning Prosecutors” (“Carta di Roma”), del 17 dicembre 2014, Explanatory Note, parr. 9-10.

  3. (3) L. PACEWICZ, Introductory Note to International Criminal Court Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor, in International Legal Materials, Vol. 53, 2014, pp. 397-412, spec. p. 397.

  4. (4) F. MEGRÉT, Accountability and Ethics in L. REYDAMS, J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT (eds.), International Prosecutors, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 416-87, spec. p. 424.

  5. (5) A. ORIOLO, Code of Conduct for International Prosecutors, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (MPEiPro), 2020.

  6. (6) Come nel caso delle Camere straordinarie per la repressione dei crimini commessi dai Khmer rossi in Cambogia, del Tribunale del Bangladesh per i Crimini internazionali, delle Camere Straordinarie Africane, del Tribunale speciale per Timor Est, dei Panels istituiti dal Regolamento UNIMIK 2000/64

  7. (Regulation “64 Panels”) presso le Corti del Kosovo, del Tribunale Speciale iracheno e del nuovo Ufficio della Procura europea. Su tali organi giurisdizionali, v. M. SHAHABUDDIN (ed.), Bangladesh and International Law, London-New York, Routledge, p. 230 ss.; M.J. CHRISTENSEN, C. FOURNET, A. KJELDGAARD-PEDERSEN, A. MATWIJKIW, B. MATWIJKIW, The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Politics and Ethics in Victim Recognition and Rape Prosecution, in Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence, 2019, pp. 261-288; M. BERINGMEIER,

  8. The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. Critical Appraisal of Legal Framework and Jurisprudence, Berlin, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2018; S.M. MEISENBERG, I. STEGMILLER (eds.), The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Assessing their Contribution to International Criminal Law, The Hague-Berlin, Asser Press-Springer, 2016; G.M. MUSILA, The Role of the African Union in International Criminal Justice, in A.A. ANKUMAH (ed.), The International Criminal Court and Africa - One Decade On, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland, Intersentia, 2016, pp. 299-345; A. ORIOLO, The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO): A Revolutionary Step in Fighting Serious Transnational Crimes, in ASIL Insights, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2018; E. CIMIOTTA, The First Steps of the Extraordinary African Chambers. A New Mixed Criminal Tribunal?, in Journal of international criminal justice, Vol. 13, 2015, pp. 177-197; E. VAN HEUGTEN (ed.), The Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity, The Hague, Wolf Legal Publisher, 2011; P.A. VAN LAAR (ed.), The East Timor Special Panels. An Introduction, The Hague, ICA Press, 2011; C. DAMGAARD, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes, Belin-Heidelberg, Springer, 2008; I. BANTEKAS, The Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes against Humanity, in The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2005, pp. 237-253.

  9. (7) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 2 on “Standards of Professional Conduct for Prosecution Counsel”, 1999.

  10. (8) F. MEGRÉT, op. cit., p. 422.

  11. (9) Carta di Roma, cit.

  12. (10) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Appeals Decision, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, 2002, par. 18.

  13. (11) Judge André Potocki Declaration, Paris Conference, del 17 maggio 2018.

  14. (12) A. ORIOLO, Corruzione e diritti umani nella giurisprudenza di Strasburgo, in A. ORIOLO, T. RUSSO (a cura di), La lotta alla corruzione nella legalità reticolare: il sistema penale multilivello, Salerno, FrancoAngeli Editore, 2021, pp. 65-89, spec. p. 77 ss.

  15. (13) Carta di Roma, cit., par. IV.

  16. (14) European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”), Report on European Standards as regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II – The Prosecution Service, 2010, par. 18.

  17. (15) Carta di Roma, cit., par. XII.

  18. (16) Regolamento (UE) 2017/1939 del Consiglio, relativo all’attuazione di una cooperazione rafforzata sull’istituzione della Procura europea (“EPPO”), del 12 ottobre 2017, Preambolo, par. 111.

  19. (17) Carta di Roma, cit., par. XIV; International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor, del 5 settembre 2013, Capitolo 2, Sezione 2, par. 22.

  20. (18) Venice Commission, cit., par. 18.

  21. (19) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor’s Regulation No. 2, Standards of Professional Conduct for Prosecution Counsel, del 14 settembre 1999, par. 2(f).

  22. (20) M. MARKOVIC, The ICC Prosecutor’s Missing Code of Conduct, in Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 47, 2011, pp. 201-236, spec. p. 207; J. DE HEMPTINNE, The Creation of Investigating Chambers at the International Criminal Court: An Option Worth Pursuing?, in Journal of International

  23. Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, 2007, pp. 402-418, spec. p. 402, p. 404.

  24. (21) P. WEBB, Challenges and Difficulties of War Crimes Prosecution, Discussion Paper, ETHICS European Regional Workshop, Riga, Latvia, 7-8 June 2006.

  25. (22) O. TRIFFTERER (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, München, Beck, 2008, p. 1078.

  26. (23) International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Code of Conduct for the Office of the Prosecutor, cit., Capitolo 3, Sezione 1, par. 49.

Downloads

Published

2022-02-05

How to Cite

Oriolo, A. . (2022). Rule of law e standards etici degli international prosecutors. Optime, 13(2), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.55312/op.v13i2.368

Issue

No. 2 (2021): Optime

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Albanian University