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

trial and appeal 149
right ‘to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the
accused’s choosing’.
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right
to funded counsel for indigent defendants is subject to the requirement
that this be in cases ‘where the interests of justice so require’, 30 a provision
that is echoed in Article 67 of the Rome Statute. Arguably, this will be the
situation in all cases before the International Criminal Court. Probably for
this reason, the International Law Commission removed the ‘interests of
justice’ condition in its draft statute, 31 only to have it introduced again by
the Preparatory Committee. 32 Administration of the system of legal aid to
indigent defendants is the responsibility of the Registrar. 33
The trial is to begin with the accused being read all charges previously
confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber is to satisfy itself
that the accused understands the nature of the charges. The accused will be
asked to plead guilty or not guilty. 34 The practice of the ad hoc tribunals has
shown that it is not at all unusual for an accused to offer to plead guilty. 35
This may be motivated by a number of factors, including a genuine feeling of
remorse and contrition in the more sincere cases, and a hope that admission
of guilt when conviction seems certain may result in a reduced sentence and
better treatment in the more cynical cases. There were difficulties in circumscribing
the rules applicable to guilty pleas because of differing philosophical
approaches to the matter in the main judicial systems of national law. Under
common law, a guilty plea is often the norm, obtained from an accused in
exchange for commitments from the prosecutor as to the severity of the
sentence and the nature of the charges. Under continental law, confession
of guilt is viewed with deep suspicion and courts are expected to rule on
guilt and innocence based on the evidence, irrespective of such a plea. But,
on a practical level, the differences may not be so great, although there are
30 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966) 999 UNTS 171, Art. 14(3)(d).
31 ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session, 2 May–22
July 1994’, UN Doc. A/49/10, p. 116. See also ‘Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of
Mankind’, UN Doc. A/51/332, Art. 11(e).
32 ‘Decisions Taken by the Preparatory Committee at Its Session Held 4 to 15 August 1997’, UN
Doc. A/AC.249/1997/L.8/Rev.1.
33 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 21. 34 Rome Statute, Art. 64(8)(a).
35 Prosecutor v. Erdemovic (Case No. IT-96-22-S), Sentencing Judgment, 5 March 1998, (1998)
37 ILM 1182; Prosecutor v. Kambanda (Case No. ICTR-97-23-S), Judgment and Sentence, 4
September1998,(1998)37ILM1411;Prosecutorv. Serushago(CaseNo.ICTR-98-39-S),Sentence,
2 February 1999; Prosecutor v. Jelesic (Case No. IT-95-10-T), Judgment, 14 December 1999;
Prosecutor v. Ruggiu (Case No. ICTR-97-32-I), Judgment and Sentence, 1 June 2000.