Report of Proceedings - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Another challenge that may be perceived as relating to independence is the question of
non-appearance of the defence in the courtroom. There have been several different scenarios in
Arusha, either with an individual boycott or a group boycott by all the accused, or by a strike
on behalf of the defence counsel, some or all. It may be argued that this is a threat to the
independence of the institution. Judge Møse noted that much depends on how the Chamber
reacts to such challenges. In Arusha, the Chambers have been firm but reasonable in this regard
and the proceedings have continued. There has never been any acceptance of being held
hostage, which could in the long run be seen as an issue of lack of independence.
Judge Møse then spoke about management. In a normal national court everything flows
reasonably well. However, in international and ad hoc settings, there are many international
players and multiple States, all having to co-operate. There are thus many more possible
problems, both external and internal. This has implied that in order to speed up proceedings the
judges may have to be more proactive in terms of problem resolution than they would be at the
national level. When judges become a proactive administrative judge, for example, getting in
touch with administrative or foreign, authorities, can it be argued that independence is at stake?
Could it be argued that the ICTR gets too close to dependence on the executive organ, here
being represented by other States or by UN headquarters? His answer to this is that such
allegations carry limited weight.
The Registry has the main responsibility of the budget. It is a critical tool for any
institution, national or international. When judges are asked, they provide input on the budget.
Judges are uniquely qualified to assess the needs of the trials and to objectively weigh the
concerns of all parties in the courtroom. Some believe that this could that be seen as getting too
close to the executive branch. Judge Møse contends that this is not the case and he has never
experienced it as a problem.
Judge Møse concluded his discussion with a brief discussion on completion strategies
and the perception that such strategies may constrain the activities of a tribunal. Both ad hoc
tribunals have a completion strategy and the question arises whether the deadline set by the
Security Council poses a threat to the independence of an ad hoc Tribunal by constraining its
activities. Judge Møse contends that the Chambers will continue to perform their functions in
accordance with fair trial principles, irrespective of any deadlines. It is more a matter of a
reasonable division of work between international and national criminal justice than a matter of
independence.
“The Challenges of Administration of International Criminal Tribunals with
Specific Reference to ICTR,” presented by Mr. Adama Dieng
Mr. Dieng began his presentation with the assertion that there is a vast difference between
the work of the Registry in a national jurisdiction and in an international jurisdiction. Both are
vested with a mission to provide the court and the litigants with administrative services that are
necessary for the fair and prompt resolution of cases. However, the real difference lies in the
lack of a pre-existing administrative apparatus against which international jurisdiction may
lean back to ensure their efficiency.
27