A Critique of the Concerns on the Proprio Motu Powers of the ICC Prosecutor
Şehmus KurtuluşDuring the Rome Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries where the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was drafted, the ICC Prosecutor’s powers were a matter of dispute. It was particularly the Prosecutor’s authority to investigate complaints without any referral from a State Party or the Security Council which led to serious debates among participating States. Though there was wide support for the empowerment of the Prosecutor to activate the trigger mechanism of the ICC proprio motu (on his/her own initiative), there was also strong opposition. Some States described the prosecutorial powers granted to the Prosecutor as ‘unacceptable’ due to fears such as facing politically motivated prosecutions. Though the previous two prosecutorial terms showed that fears of politicized prosecutions were far-fetched, the process of selecting the third Prosecutor of the ICC for a nine-year term commencing 16 June 2021 once again put a spotlight on the prosecutorial powers as well as on the challenges the new Prosecutor would face. The present study will first draw attention to the judicial scrutiny of the chambers of the ICC and the filtering mechanism of the Rome Statute in an attempt to allay fears that the Prosecutor’s powers may lead to politicized prosecutions. The study will then explain, in light of recent developments, why the ICC Prosecutor’s power to act proprio motu is crucial for the effective operation of the Court. In so doing, the study will mainly benefit from primary sources such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Official Records of the Rome Conference, Reports of the Office of the Prosecutor on Preliminary Examination Activities, Decisions of the Pre-Trial Chambers, as well as the comments made by scholars thereon.
Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısının Re’sen Kullandığı Yetkilere Dair İtirazların Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi
Şehmus KurtuluşUluslararası Ceza Divanını kuran Roma Statüsünün görüşülüp oylandığı Roma Diplomatik Konferansında, Divan Savcısının yetkileri, en önemli ihtilaf konularından birini teşkil etmişti. Özellikle de savcının re’sen (bir taraf devlet başvurusu ya da Güvenlik Konseyi kararı olmaksızın) soruşturma başlatabilme yetkisi konferansa katılan devletler arasında ciddi fikir ayrılıklarının doğmasına neden olmuştu. Bazı devletler, Uluslararası Ceza Divanı Savcısına tanınan yetkilerin politik motivasyonlu yargılamalara yol açabileceği gibi korkular dolayısıyla, bu yetkileri ‘kabul edilemez’ olarak nitelendirmişlerdi. Her ne kadar Uluslararası Ceza Divanının kuruluşundan bu yana geçen iki savcılık dönemi politik motivasyonlu yargılama gibi korkuların yersiz olduğunu göstermiş olsa da, 16 Haziran 2021’den başlayarak dokuz yıllık bir dönem için Divanın yeni (üçüncü) savcısının seçilmesi süreci, Divan Savcısının yetkileri konusunu tekrar gündeme getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Divan Savcısının yetkilerini sınırlandıran ve kararlarını denetlenebilir kılan Roma Statüsü tedbirlerine dikkat çekerek, devletlerin siyasi motivasyonlu suçlamalarla karşı karşıya kalmak gibi endişelerinin giderilmesine katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma aynı zamanda, Divan Savcısının re’sen soruşturma başlatabilme yetkisinin Divanın etkin ve verimli işleyişi için neden elzem olduğunu güncel gelişmeler ışığında açıklamayı hedeflemektedir. Çalışmada, ağırlıklı olarak Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesini Kuran Roma Statüsü, Roma Diplomatik Konferansı Resmi Kayıtları, Savcılık Bürosu tarafından yayımlanan Ön İnceleme Faaliyet Raporları, Ön İnceleme Daireleri Kararları gibi birincil kaynaklardan faydalanılmış olmakla beraber, başka yazarların görüş ve değerlendirmelerine de yer verilmiştir.
It is the task of the ICC Prosecutor to conduct an initial examination of the available information to determine whether a given situation meets the threshold to warrant a formal ICC investigation. This preliminary examination process may be initiated by a) State Party referral; b) United Nations Security Council referral; or c) the ICC Prosecutor acting proprio motu (without a referral from a State Party or the Security Council). The focus of this study is the Prosecutor’s authority to open a preliminary examination into a situation and to seek the initiation of an investigation based on information on crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
This study will first suggest that prosecutorial powers, including the authority to investigate crimes without a referral from a State Party or the Security Council, are not placed in the hands of the ICC Prosecutor without judicial checks. Article 15 of the Rome Statute provides some procedural safeguards such as the requirement to seek authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber. The judicial scrutiny of the chambers of the Court ensures that the decisions of the ICC Prosecutor are subject to the high threshold criteria set out in the Rome Statute. Safeguards set out in the Rome Statute make it nearly impossible for unfounded or politically motivated accusations to reach the trial stage.
The study will then draw attention to the political restraints placed on the ICC Prosecutor by the States whose cooperation is crucial in terms of gathering evidence, arrest of suspects, and accessing witnesses and defendants. As the effective functioning of the Court relies heavily on cooperation with the members of the international community, any reluctance on the part of the States to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor limits the ability of the Prosecutor to bring charges against the perpetrators. Consequently, the study will submit that the legal and political restraints placed on the Prosecutor should ally States’ fears about frivolous or political complaints. In this regard, the challenges the new ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan is facing (or is likely to face) will be studied accordingly.
This study will claim that the ICC Prosecutor’s ability to initiate investigations proprio motu is in fact a requisite to ensure that the Court is truly effective and free from political interference. The prosecution of the most serious crimes committed in six situations, into which a formal ICC investigation was initiated by the ICC Prosecutor without any referral from a State Party or the Security Council, was possible thanks to the Prosecutor’s authority to act proprio motu. Furthermore, the Prosecutor’s authority to investigate crimes on her own initiative has been instrumental in encouraging national prosecutions. The procedure of examination of national proceedings by a Prosecutor who has the power to investigate complaints proprio motu often serves as an incentive for national authorities to investigate crimes more carefully and competently.
Finally, this study will argue that the ICC Prosecutor’s authority to decide whether or not there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, in fact, serves as an early filtering mechanism against politically motivated referrals and against referrals that fail to meet the high threshold of the Rome Statute. The role given to the Prosecutor under the Rome Statute thus prevents any politically motivated State Party or Security Council referrals from turning into formal investigations.
