An Introduction To The International Criminal Court - Institute for ...

trial and appeal 147
The trial may proceed in the absence of the accused where he or she
disrupts the proceedings. The Statute indicates that the accused must ‘continue’
to disrupt the trial, indicating that the trouble must be repetitive and
persistent. 18 It is, of course, difficult to codify in any detail how judges are to
administer such a power. The problem is a familiar one in domestic justice
systems, and the Court will surely rely on national practices in developing
its own jurisprudence on this point. It must bear in mind, however, that its
case load will be, by its very nature, quite politicised, and that this will
increase the likelihood that defendants mount vigorous, energetic and original
challenges to the charges. The Court’s definition of ‘disruption’ should
not become a tool to muzzle defendants in such circumstances. This is why
the Statute also specifies that such measures shall be taken only in exceptional
circumstances, after other reasonable alternatives have proved inadequate.
Also,exclusionfromthehearingisonlyallowedforsuchdurationasisstrictly
required. The Court must review periodically whether the accused may be
permitted to return to the hearing. Where the accused has been excluded
from the hearing, the Statute requires the Trial Chamber to make provision
for the accused to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the
courtroom, through the use of communications technology, if required.
The Statute recognises a right to an interpreter. An accused who does
not understand the proceedings is not ‘present’ at trial. Thus, the right to
an interpreter seems axiomatic. Although the requirement that documents
be translated may be cumbersome, time-consuming and costly, it has been
recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as a corollary of the
right to an interpreter. 19 The provision does not require interpretation into
the accused’s mother tongue, or into a language of the accused’s choice. 20 In
an interlocutory ruling, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia denied an accused’s request for a ‘Croatian’ interpreter, given
that there was regular translation of Serbo-Croatian, a sufficiently similar
language. 21
The accused is entitled to defend himself or herself in person. There is at
least two precedents, the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu before the International
18 Rome Statute, Art. 63(2); Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 170.
19 Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc v. Germany, Series A, No. 29, 28 November 1978, para. 48; Kamasinski
v. Federal Republic of Germany, Series A, No. 168, 19 December 1989, para. 74.
20 Guesdon v. France (No. 219/1986), UN Doc. A/44/40, p. 222, paras. 10.2 and 10.3.
21 Prosecutor v. Delalic et al. (Case No. IT-96-21-T), Order on Zdravko Mucic’s Oral Request for
Croatian Interpretation, 23 June 1997.