In Search Of ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise’ In The International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973

2 Kai Ambos, “Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 159–183, 159.

3 Allison Marston Danner and Jenny S. Martinez, “Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law”, California Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue 2, 2005, pp. 75–169, 102.

4 Kai Ambos, “Amicus Curiae Brief in the Matter of the Co-Prosecutors’ Appeal of the Closing Order Against KAING Guek Eav "DUCH" dated 8 August 2008”, Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 20, No. 2–3, 2009, pp. 353–388, 353.

5 Id.

6 Ciara Damgaard, “The Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine: A Monster Theory of Liability or a Legitimate and Satisfactory Tool in the Prosecution of the Perpetrators of Core International Crimes?”, in Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes, Springer, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 127–358, 127.

7 Id.

8 Kai Ambos, 2009, 353, op. cit.

9 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

10 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadić, Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-94-1-I, Judgment, July 15, 1999. In: André Klip and Göran Sluiter (eds.), Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals, Volume VIII: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2001–2002, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2005, p. 368.

11 Allen O’Rourke, “Recent Development. Joint Criminal Enterprise and Brđanin: Misguided Over-correction”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 307–325, 307.

12 Id.

13 Kai Ambos, 2009, 355, op. cit.

14 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadić, July 15, 1999, para. 191, op. cit.

15 Giulia Bigi, “Joint Criminal Enterprise in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the Prosecution of Senior Political and Military Leaders: The Krajišnik case”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 14, 2010, pp. 51–83, 53.

16 JCE is not a crime but a form of criminal liability. See, Amicus Curiae Brief on Professor Antonio Cassese and Members of the Journal of International Criminal Justice on Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine, in Co-Prosecutors vs. KAING Guek Eav alias “DUCH”, Pre-Trial Chamber, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/OCIJ, October 27, 2008, para. 20.

17 Giulia Bigi, 2010, 53, op. cit.

18 Co-Prosecutors vs. KAING Guek Eav alias “DUCH”, October 27, 2008, para. 20, op. cit.

19 Antonio Cassese, “The Proper Limits of Individual Criminal Responsibility under the Doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 109–133, 110.

20 Id.

21 Ciara Damgaard, 2008, 127, op. cit.

22 Katrina Gustafson, “The Requirement of an ‘Expressed Agreement’ for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brdanin”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 134–158, 139.

23 Co-Prosecutors vs. KAING Guek Eav alias “DUCH”, October 27, 2008, para. 28, op. cit.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Michael A. Glazer, “Where an Ongoing Joint Criminal Enterprise exists, What is Necessary to Bring About Its Termination as a Matter of Law or to Terminate an Individual’s Membership in the Joint Criminal Enterprise?”, Case Western Reserve School of Law, International War Crimes Research Lab, Spring 2006, 25, available at: http://law.case.edu/war-crimes-researchportal/memoranda/glazer_michael.pdf

27 Jens Meierhenrich, “Conspiracy in International Law”, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 2, December 2006, pp. 341–357, pp. 350–351.

28 Preamble to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.

29 International Crimes Strategy Forum (ICSF), “Stephen Rapp: Of misconceptions, unrealistic expectations and double standards”, May 22, 2011, in Opinion page of bdnews24.com, available at: http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2011/05/22/stephen-rapp-of-misconceptions-unrealistic-expectations-and-double-standards/

30 Mr. Serajul Huq in Parliamentary Debates on International Crimes (Tribunals) Bill, 1973, Vol. 2, No. 37, 2356.

31 Marja Lehto, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorist Acts: Redefinition of the Concept of Terrorism Beyond Violent Acts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, 2010, 132.

32 Common criminal purpose, common criminal plan, common design or purpose, common criminal design, common purpose, common design or common concerted design.

33 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadić, July 15, 1999, para. 191, op. cit.

34 Prosecutor vs. Radoslav Brdanin & Momir Talic, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, Trial Chamber II, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-99-36/1, June 26, 2001, para. 36.

35 This word was taken from Article 7 (1) of the ICTY Statute.

36 Mohamed Elewa Badar, “Participation in Crimes in the Jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICTR”, in Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law, edited by William A. Schabas and Nadia Bernaz, Routledge, Oxon, 2011, pp. 245–267, 252.

37 It is a method of interpretation, which looks at the values and purpose of the legislation that are implicit in the text.

38 A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in Articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime.

39 André Klip and Göran Sluiter, eds., 2005, 368, op. cit.

40 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

41 The Special Court of Sierra Leone.

42 Antonio Cassese, 2007, 111, op. cit.

43 Id.

44 Id.

45 Kai Ambos, 2009, 160, op. cit.

46 Id.

47 Catherine H. Gibson, “Testing the Legitimacy of the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine in the ICTY: A Comparison of Individual Liability for Group Conduct in International and Domestic Law”, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2008, pp. 521–547, 524.

48 Id., quoting Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-97-24-A, Judgment, March 22, 2006, para. 69.

49 Prosecutor vs. Duško Tadić, July 15, 1999, para. 227, op. cit.

50 Catherine H. Gibson, 2008, 524, op. cit.; quoting Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj, Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-03-66-A, September 27, 2007, paras. 113–115.

51 Prosecutor vs. Duško Tadić, July 15, 1999, para. 227, op. cit.

52 Prosecutor vs. Miroslav Kvocka et al., Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-98-30/1-T, Judgment, November 2, 2001, para. 309.

53 Prosecutor vs. Radoslav Brđanin & Momir Talić, Appeal Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-99-36-A, April 3, 2007, para. 427; quoting Trial of Feurstein and Others, Proceedings of a War Crimes Trial held at Hamburg, Germany (August 4–24, 1948), Judgment, August 24, 1948, at p. 7.

54 Prosecutor vs. Duško Tadić, July 15, 1999, para. 228, op. cit.

55 Id.

56 Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka et al., Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT-98-30/1-A, Judgment, February 28, 2005, para. 86.

57 Ibid., para. 8. Due to this extended nature of JCE III in terms of mens rea, it has been a target of critics from the very beginning. However, discussion on this criticism would be reserved for another paper.

58 Article 35(1), Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1972.

59 See Luke Marsh and Michael Ramsden, “Joint Criminal Enterprise: Cambodia’s Reply to Tadić”, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, pp. 137–154, 145.

60 Here the criminal jurisprudence of Bangladesh includes reported cases of Penal Code 1860. The year 1860 suggests that the criminal law of the Indian subcontinent was governed by the Penal Code. Therefore, whatever development JCE has undergone in this region came about through reported cases under this law.

61 Moh. Anacharauddina Sikder, Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act V of 1898 (as amended up to date), published by M. Tanveer Faysal, Dhaka, 2000, 11.

62 Ibid., 12; AIR 1965 SC 264.

63 Id.; AIR 1965 SC 257.

64 AIR 1945 PC 118.

65 Hethubha vs. State of Gujrat, (1971) 2 SCJ 635; AIR 1970 SC 1266.

66 M. Ansar Uddin Sikder, Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act V of 1898 (as amended up to date), published by M. Tanveer Faysal, Dhaka, 2000, 17.

67 Id.

68 49 CWEN (PC) 678

69 Id. See Kabul vs. The State, 40 DLR 216.

70 AIR 1956 All 245.

71 AIR 1949 All 211, 1954 CrLJ 752; 1966 CrLJ 727.

72 M. Ansar Uddin Sikder, 2000, 12, op. cit.

73 Bangladesh vs. Sk. Hasina Wazed, (2008) 60 DLR (AD) 90.

74 Id.

75 Michael. P. Scharf, “Joint Criminal Enterprise, the Nuremberg Precedent, and the Concept of ‘Grotian Moment’”, in Accountability for Collective Wrongdoing, edited by Isaacs T. and Vernon R., Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011, pp. 119-139, 137; quoting Ciara Damgaard, Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes, Springer, New York, 2008, pp. 132, 235.

76 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic, July 15, 1999, para. 220, op. cit.; see also The Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Appeals Chamber, ICTY, IT-95-11-A, October 8, 2008, para. 80-81; The Prosecutor v. Emmanuel Rukundo, Trial Chamber, ICTR, ICTR-2001-70-T, February 27, 2009, para. 23; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic, Sainovic and Ojdanic, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise, ICTY, IT-99-37-AR72, May 21, 2003, para. 26. Since then other ad-hoc tribunals, i.e. ICTR, SCSL, Special Panel for Serious Crimes of East Timor, Iraqi High Tribunal have adopted this observation without further examination. However, the ECCC, while partly affirmative of Tadic’s findings, did not find sufficient evidence of consistent state practice or opinio juris. See Decision on the Appeals against the Co-Investigative Judges Order on JCE, ECCC PTC, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ, May 20, 2010, para. 77.

77 Ieng Sary Case, Co-Prosecutors’ Supplementary Observations on JCE, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ, December 31, 2008, para. 9.

78 Prosecutor vs. Milomir Stakić, Appeals Chamber, ICTY, IT-97-24-A, Judgment, March 22, 2006, para. 62.

79 Article 5, Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1946.

80 Co-Prosecutors vs. KAING Guek Eav alias “DUCH”, October 27, 2008, para. 37, op. cit.

81 Prosecutor vs. Zoran Kupreškic et al., Trial Chamber, ICTY, IT-95-16-A, January 14, 2000.

82 Luke Marsh and Micheal Ramsden, 2011, 146, op. cit.

83 Trial of Otto Sandrock and three others, British Military Court, November 24, 1945, UNWCC, Vol. 1.

84 Ibid., pp. 35, 43.

85 Ibid., 43.

86 Hoelzer et al., Canadian Military Court, Aurich, Germany, March 25 – April 6, 1946, Record of Proceedings, Vol. I.

87 Ibid., pp. 341, 347, 349.

88 Id.

89 Trial of Gustav Alred Jepsen and others, British Military Court, Luneberg, August 13-24, 1946.

90 Trial of Franz Schonfeld and others, British Military Court, June 26, 1946, UNWCC, Vol. XI.

91 Feurstein and Others (Ponzano Case), British Military Court, Hamburg, August 24, 1948 (Public Record Office, Kew Gardens, London, file WO 235/525), reprinted in Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 238-240, 239.

92 Ibid., pp. 239, 240.

93 Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic, July 15, 1999, para. 199, op. cit.

94 The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf, et al. (The Einsatzgruppen Case), Military Tribunal II, Case No. 9, Judgment, April 10, 1948, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. IV.

95 Ibid., pp. 369, 372.

96 Ibid., pp. 411, 578, 584.

97 Trial of Josef Kramer and 44 Others (The Belsen Trial), British Military Court, Luneberg, Case No. 10, September 17 – November 17, 1945, in UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. II, 1947, 1.

98 Ibid., pp. 120-121.

99 The Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and thirty-nine others (The Dachau Concentration Camp Trial), U.S. Military Government Court, December 13, 1945, UNWCC, Vol. XI.

100 Mauthausen Concentration Camp case, U.S. Military Government Court, Dachau, Germany, March 29 – May 13, 1946, in UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XI, 15.

101 Trial of Erich Heyer and Six Others, British Military Court, Essen, Case No. 8, December 18-22, 1945, in UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. I, 1947, 88.

102 Ibid., pp. 88-89.

103 Id.

104 Borkum Island case, see Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic, July 15, 1999, para. 210-213, op. cit.

105 Luke Marsh and Micheal Ramsden, 2011, 149, op. cit.

106 Co-Prosecutors vs. KAING Guek Eav alias “DUCH”, 2008, para. 53, op. cit.

107 D’Ottavio and Others Case, Italian Court of Cassation, Criminal Section I, Case No. 270, March 12, 1947, reprinted in Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2007, pp. 232-234.

108 Ibid., 232-233; similar approach seen in Aratano and Others, Berardi, and Mannelli and Others cases in the Italian Court of Cassation.

109 Id.

110 Luke Marsh and Micheal Ramsden, 2011, 149, op. cit.

111 Katrina Gustafson, “The Requirement of an ‘Express Agreement’ for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, 2007, pp. 134-158, 140.

112 Harmen van der Wilt, “Joint Criminal Enterprise: Possibilities and Limitations”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 5, 2007, pp. 91-108, 92.

113 Mr. Serajul Huq in Parliamentary Debates, op. cit.

114 Id.

115 Preamble to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.

116 Section 3(1), International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.

117 This is because systematic JCE liability applies when the accused was part of a system of ill treatment such as a concentration or detention camp, typically under a military or auxiliary group.

118 Section 3(2)(b), International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973.

119 Ibid., Section 3(2)(g).

120 Mr. Serajul Huq in Parliamentary Debates, op. cit.

121 Ibid., 2357.

122 The Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs during 1973.

123 Sri Monoronjon Dhor in Parliamentary Debates on International Crimes (Tribunals) Bill, 1973, Vol. 2, No. 37, 2359; translated by the Author.

124 Mr. Serajul Huq in Parliamentary Debates, 2356, op. cit.

125 Mr. Serajul Huq in Parliamentary Debates, op. cit.

126 These detention camps existed during the 1971 war and held injured armed forces, women, and suspects captured by enemy forces.

127 Which is a prerequisite to establish the principle of legality.

N/A