International crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are manifestation... more International crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are manifestations of large-scale and serious violations of human rights that have been defined as the most serious crimes of international concern. As noted by Mettraux it would be hard to identify crimes more difficult to sentence than international crimes (Mettraux, 2005). This is not only due to the atrocious nature of international crimes but also due to their collective, systematic character, often involving state authorities and a huge number of perpetrators. In the last decade a number of international institutions have been established to prosecute and sentence perpetrators of international crimes. Compared to national criminal law systems there is no ‘international criminal code’ to govern the functioning of these courts. Each tribunal has its own Statute outlining in general terms its jurisdiction and the various tribunals exercise their mandates rather independently with no formal and institutional links to each other. With respect to sentencing, provisions of the statutes and rules of procedure and evidence, the written law establishing the tribunals and governing their functioning, are usually very sketchy providing judges with only very loosely defined limits to their sentencing discretion. The positive law does not pronounce any sentencing rationales or general principles of sentence determination. It does not contain any penalty structure in the sense of minimum or maximum penalties for individual offences. Usually, no list of relevant aggravating and mitigating factors is provided. As opposed to many domestic jurisdictions, legislation thus plays only a very marginal role at the international level and one has to examine judicial decisions in order to disentangle the phenomenon of international sentencing. This contribution will provide an overview of the current practice of sentencing of international crimes. First, it will briefly discuss sentencing practices at various international courts and tribunals that have been set up to prosecute international crimes. Then, the most controversial issues, such as sentencing goals at the international level, hierarchy of different categories of international crimes and sentencing consistency, will be discussed. The final section will provide suggestions for further research. It will be demonstrated that in the past few decades sentencing of international crimes at international courts and tribunals has developed rapidly and inspired scholarly discussions and controversies. This attention, however, is still rather marginal. Compared to other aspects of international criminal law, sentencing has been relatively neglected by academics and commentators. There are, therefore, many unexplored areas of sentencing of international crimes that call for further research and inquiry.
One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike.... more One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike. Consistency of sentencing can be approached on several levels – the two fundamental ones being consistency in approach and consistency in outcome. The former refers to a principled way of sentence determination while the latter concerns the actual sentencing outcomes in a sense of numerical comparisons of sentence length across individual cases. This article analyses ‘consistency in approach’ of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). The conclusions demonstrate that on a general level, a set of sentencing principles is consistently emphasised in the ICTY and ICTR cases. The inconsistencies and disparities across cases are, however, identified with respect to particularities, such as what factors are relevant for the gravity assessment and whether a particular mitigating/aggravating factor indeed aggravates/mitigates the sentence in a particular case. The main problem of the ICTY and ICTR judges’ sentencing reasoning seems to be a lack of transparency and clarity. On the basis of a critical examination of the ICTY and ICTR case law the article offers suggestions on how to develop more transparent and understandable sentencing practices.
As of July 2013, the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL have together convicted and sentenced over 120 perpetrat... more As of July 2013, the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL have together convicted and sentenced over 120 perpetrators of international crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, respectively. Only 13% of these convicts serve life imprisonment. The vast majority has been sentenced to determinate sentences. According to the tribunals’ Statutes convicted persons serve their sentences in a country designated by a tribunal. The enforcement of sentences, including any commutation of sentences, is governed by the laws of the countries of imprisonment. ‘International prisoners’ have been scattered around Europe and Africa and almost half of the convicts have already been (early) released. So far not much has been written about conditions under which international prisoners serve their sentences; factors that justify their (early) release; and what they do after their release. In this article we provide an initial overview of this empirical reality of the post-conviction stage at the international criminal tribunals. Since the ICC has adopted a largely similar approach to sentence enforcement, the findings might serve as a starting point for discussion and possible re-assessment of future enforcement of international sentences.
nternational criminal tribunals (ICTs) constitute one of the primary examples of international in... more nternational criminal tribunals (ICTs) constitute one of the primary examples of international institutions vested with undisputable international authority. The decisions of ICTs are final, binding on the parties to the proceedings and cannot be overturned politically. Given the proliferation of ICTs and their increased significance in current international politics, it is important to examine how international criminal judges exercise this authority. Is the exercise of such authority biased toward their homeland's political interests? This question is yet to be answered in both international criminal legal research and international relations research. Using non-hierarchical multi-level modelling, we examine the sentencing decision-making of judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Our analysis indicates that judges act as independent actors, and are not biased in the exercise of their authority.
The international criminal justice system comprises nine international criminal courts and tribun... more The international criminal justice system comprises nine international criminal courts and tribunals; six are still operational and three have closed down. On average, they operated for almost nine years apiece and concluded 172 cases in which over 250 judges and 23 chief prosecutors were involved. All in all 745 suspects were indicted, 356 were actually tried and, of these, some 281 defendants were convicted. Currently 34 suspects are on trial and 22 are still at large. The ‘average’ convicted perpetrator is male, aged 40 and a member of a military or paramilitary organisation from Europe, Asia or Africa who is acting on behalf of his government. These are just some of the facts and figures which we present in this article: an overview of the empirical reality of the international criminal justice system which has currently been functioning for just over 65 years.
The sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a relatively ... more The sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a relatively neglected topic in academic discussions. The few empirical studies on sentencing of international crimes have focused primarily on the sentencing practice of its 'sister court', the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Unlike ICTY defendants, almost all ICTR defendants have been convicted of and sentenced for genocide – arguably the most serious international crime. This empirical study examines the sentencing practice of the ICTR and analyses the relationship between sentence severity and the primary consideration in sentencing – crime gravity. The relevant principles stemming from ICTR case law are reviewed, followed by an examination of the interrelationship between sentence severity and factors relating to crime gravity, such as category of crime, scale of crime and the form and degree of a defendant's involvement in the crime. The ICTR judges appear in most cases to follow the main principles emphasized in their case law, with sentences gradated in line with the increasing seriousness of defendants' crimes and their culpability.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Trib... more The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda are the first, post Cold War international criminal tribunals convicting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Their sentencing practice has been largely criticized as inconsistent. This quantitative study addresses the criticism and empirically investigates the consistency of international sentencing. The extent to which the selected factors predict sentence length is tested in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis suggests that similar, legally relevant patterns have emerged in the sentencing practice of both tribunals. Sentencing in international criminal practice does not appear to be less consistent than sentencing under domestic jurisdictions.
This comparative, empirical study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal ... more This comparative, empirical study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It would appear that there are large differences in ICTY and ICTR sentencing practice. This apparent divergence is examined in greater detail by describing the sentencing behaviour of the courts in relation to different categories of crime, types of offence, scale of crime, modes of individual liability, ‘ranking’ of defendants and finally, aggravating and mitigating factors. Sentencing practice in light of the above factors is then juxtaposed to reveal the differences between the Tribunals and between different categories of cases.
This quantitative study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal f... more This quantitative study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The sentencing process is only loosely regulated by the ICTY Statute, and consequently it is not clear how judges exercise their broad discretionary sentencing powers in practice. By analysing the existing case law, legal factors influencing the sentencing decisions are examined. The extent to which the selected factors predict sentence length is tested in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis suggests that the sentence can be to a large extent predicted by legal criteria. The number of offences and the rank of the offender are the strongest predictors of sentence length in the model.
International crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are manifestation... more International crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are manifestations of large-scale and serious violations of human rights that have been defined as the most serious crimes of international concern. As noted by Mettraux it would be hard to identify crimes more difficult to sentence than international crimes (Mettraux, 2005). This is not only due to the atrocious nature of international crimes but also due to their collective, systematic character, often involving state authorities and a huge number of perpetrators. In the last decade a number of international institutions have been established to prosecute and sentence perpetrators of international crimes. Compared to national criminal law systems there is no ‘international criminal code’ to govern the functioning of these courts. Each tribunal has its own Statute outlining in general terms its jurisdiction and the various tribunals exercise their mandates rather independently with no formal and institutional links to each other. With respect to sentencing, provisions of the statutes and rules of procedure and evidence, the written law establishing the tribunals and governing their functioning, are usually very sketchy providing judges with only very loosely defined limits to their sentencing discretion. The positive law does not pronounce any sentencing rationales or general principles of sentence determination. It does not contain any penalty structure in the sense of minimum or maximum penalties for individual offences. Usually, no list of relevant aggravating and mitigating factors is provided. As opposed to many domestic jurisdictions, legislation thus plays only a very marginal role at the international level and one has to examine judicial decisions in order to disentangle the phenomenon of international sentencing. This contribution will provide an overview of the current practice of sentencing of international crimes. First, it will briefly discuss sentencing practices at various international courts and tribunals that have been set up to prosecute international crimes. Then, the most controversial issues, such as sentencing goals at the international level, hierarchy of different categories of international crimes and sentencing consistency, will be discussed. The final section will provide suggestions for further research. It will be demonstrated that in the past few decades sentencing of international crimes at international courts and tribunals has developed rapidly and inspired scholarly discussions and controversies. This attention, however, is still rather marginal. Compared to other aspects of international criminal law, sentencing has been relatively neglected by academics and commentators. There are, therefore, many unexplored areas of sentencing of international crimes that call for further research and inquiry.
One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike.... more One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike. Consistency of sentencing can be approached on several levels – the two fundamental ones being consistency in approach and consistency in outcome. The former refers to a principled way of sentence determination while the latter concerns the actual sentencing outcomes in a sense of numerical comparisons of sentence length across individual cases. This article analyses ‘consistency in approach’ of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). The conclusions demonstrate that on a general level, a set of sentencing principles is consistently emphasised in the ICTY and ICTR cases. The inconsistencies and disparities across cases are, however, identified with respect to particularities, such as what factors are relevant for the gravity assessment and whether a particular mitigating/aggravating factor indeed aggravates/mitigates the sentence in a particular case. The main problem of the ICTY and ICTR judges’ sentencing reasoning seems to be a lack of transparency and clarity. On the basis of a critical examination of the ICTY and ICTR case law the article offers suggestions on how to develop more transparent and understandable sentencing practices.
As of July 2013, the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL have together convicted and sentenced over 120 perpetrat... more As of July 2013, the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL have together convicted and sentenced over 120 perpetrators of international crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, respectively. Only 13% of these convicts serve life imprisonment. The vast majority has been sentenced to determinate sentences. According to the tribunals’ Statutes convicted persons serve their sentences in a country designated by a tribunal. The enforcement of sentences, including any commutation of sentences, is governed by the laws of the countries of imprisonment. ‘International prisoners’ have been scattered around Europe and Africa and almost half of the convicts have already been (early) released. So far not much has been written about conditions under which international prisoners serve their sentences; factors that justify their (early) release; and what they do after their release. In this article we provide an initial overview of this empirical reality of the post-conviction stage at the international criminal tribunals. Since the ICC has adopted a largely similar approach to sentence enforcement, the findings might serve as a starting point for discussion and possible re-assessment of future enforcement of international sentences.
nternational criminal tribunals (ICTs) constitute one of the primary examples of international in... more nternational criminal tribunals (ICTs) constitute one of the primary examples of international institutions vested with undisputable international authority. The decisions of ICTs are final, binding on the parties to the proceedings and cannot be overturned politically. Given the proliferation of ICTs and their increased significance in current international politics, it is important to examine how international criminal judges exercise this authority. Is the exercise of such authority biased toward their homeland's political interests? This question is yet to be answered in both international criminal legal research and international relations research. Using non-hierarchical multi-level modelling, we examine the sentencing decision-making of judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Our analysis indicates that judges act as independent actors, and are not biased in the exercise of their authority.
The international criminal justice system comprises nine international criminal courts and tribun... more The international criminal justice system comprises nine international criminal courts and tribunals; six are still operational and three have closed down. On average, they operated for almost nine years apiece and concluded 172 cases in which over 250 judges and 23 chief prosecutors were involved. All in all 745 suspects were indicted, 356 were actually tried and, of these, some 281 defendants were convicted. Currently 34 suspects are on trial and 22 are still at large. The ‘average’ convicted perpetrator is male, aged 40 and a member of a military or paramilitary organisation from Europe, Asia or Africa who is acting on behalf of his government. These are just some of the facts and figures which we present in this article: an overview of the empirical reality of the international criminal justice system which has currently been functioning for just over 65 years.
The sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a relatively ... more The sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a relatively neglected topic in academic discussions. The few empirical studies on sentencing of international crimes have focused primarily on the sentencing practice of its 'sister court', the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Unlike ICTY defendants, almost all ICTR defendants have been convicted of and sentenced for genocide – arguably the most serious international crime. This empirical study examines the sentencing practice of the ICTR and analyses the relationship between sentence severity and the primary consideration in sentencing – crime gravity. The relevant principles stemming from ICTR case law are reviewed, followed by an examination of the interrelationship between sentence severity and factors relating to crime gravity, such as category of crime, scale of crime and the form and degree of a defendant's involvement in the crime. The ICTR judges appear in most cases to follow the main principles emphasized in their case law, with sentences gradated in line with the increasing seriousness of defendants' crimes and their culpability.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Trib... more The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda are the first, post Cold War international criminal tribunals convicting perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Their sentencing practice has been largely criticized as inconsistent. This quantitative study addresses the criticism and empirically investigates the consistency of international sentencing. The extent to which the selected factors predict sentence length is tested in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis suggests that similar, legally relevant patterns have emerged in the sentencing practice of both tribunals. Sentencing in international criminal practice does not appear to be less consistent than sentencing under domestic jurisdictions.
This comparative, empirical study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal ... more This comparative, empirical study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It would appear that there are large differences in ICTY and ICTR sentencing practice. This apparent divergence is examined in greater detail by describing the sentencing behaviour of the courts in relation to different categories of crime, types of offence, scale of crime, modes of individual liability, ‘ranking’ of defendants and finally, aggravating and mitigating factors. Sentencing practice in light of the above factors is then juxtaposed to reveal the differences between the Tribunals and between different categories of cases.
This quantitative study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal f... more This quantitative study analyses the sentencing practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The sentencing process is only loosely regulated by the ICTY Statute, and consequently it is not clear how judges exercise their broad discretionary sentencing powers in practice. By analysing the existing case law, legal factors influencing the sentencing decisions are examined. The extent to which the selected factors predict sentence length is tested in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis suggests that the sentence can be to a large extent predicted by legal criteria. The number of offences and the rank of the offender are the strongest predictors of sentence length in the model.
Uploads
Papers by Barbora Hola
This contribution will provide an overview of the current practice of sentencing of international crimes. First, it will briefly discuss sentencing practices at various international courts and tribunals that have been set up to prosecute international crimes. Then, the most controversial issues, such as sentencing goals at the international level, hierarchy of different categories of international crimes and sentencing consistency, will be discussed. The final section will provide suggestions for further research. It will be demonstrated that in the past few decades sentencing of international crimes at international courts and tribunals has developed rapidly and inspired scholarly discussions and controversies. This attention, however, is still rather marginal. Compared to other aspects of international criminal law, sentencing has been relatively neglected by academics and commentators. There are, therefore, many unexplored areas of sentencing of international crimes that call for further research and inquiry.
The ‘average’ convicted perpetrator is male, aged 40 and a member of a military or paramilitary organisation from Europe, Asia or Africa who is acting on behalf of his government. These are
just some of the facts and figures which we present in this article: an overview of the empirical reality of the international criminal justice system which has currently been functioning for just over 65 years.
This contribution will provide an overview of the current practice of sentencing of international crimes. First, it will briefly discuss sentencing practices at various international courts and tribunals that have been set up to prosecute international crimes. Then, the most controversial issues, such as sentencing goals at the international level, hierarchy of different categories of international crimes and sentencing consistency, will be discussed. The final section will provide suggestions for further research. It will be demonstrated that in the past few decades sentencing of international crimes at international courts and tribunals has developed rapidly and inspired scholarly discussions and controversies. This attention, however, is still rather marginal. Compared to other aspects of international criminal law, sentencing has been relatively neglected by academics and commentators. There are, therefore, many unexplored areas of sentencing of international crimes that call for further research and inquiry.
The ‘average’ convicted perpetrator is male, aged 40 and a member of a military or paramilitary organisation from Europe, Asia or Africa who is acting on behalf of his government. These are
just some of the facts and figures which we present in this article: an overview of the empirical reality of the international criminal justice system which has currently been functioning for just over 65 years.