MMiicchhiiggaann JJoouurrnnaall ooff IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall LLaaww Volume 31 Issue 1 2009 TThhee PPaaccee ooff IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCrriimmiinnaall JJuussttiiccee Jean Galbraith Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, International Law Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Jean Galbraith, The Pace of International Criminal Justice, 31 MICH. J. INT'L L. 79 (2009). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol31/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PACE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE Jean Galbraith* IN TRODU CTION ........................................................................................ 80 I. THE AMBITIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE .......... 84 A. The Domestic CriminalL aw Aims ................................... 85 B. The HistoricalR ecord Aim ............................................... 88 C. The TransitionalJ ustice Aims .......................................... 90 D. The Aims in Context ....................................................... 93 II. EXPECTATIONS FOR THE PACE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ................................................................... 97 A. Domeshc CriminalL aw Timeframes ................ 97 B. HistoricalR ecord Timeframes ........................................... 102 C. TransitionalJ ustice Timeframes ........................................ 103 D. The Compatibility of These Timeframes ............................ 108 III. How LONG Do INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CASES TAKE?. ..... 112 A. The Da ta. ........................................................................... 113 B . The R esults. ........................................................................ 116 1. Re sults to D ate ............................................................ 116 2. The Impact of Ongoing Cases .................................... 121 3. G uilty Pleas ................................................................. 123 4. Multi-Defendant Trials ............................................... 125 IV. TAILORING THE PACE OF INTERNATIONAL C RIM INAL JUSTICE ................................................................... 127 A. The Aims and the Timeframes ............................................ 127 B. InternationalC riminalJ ustice and Abruptly Transitioned Societies. ........................................ 132 1. Op tions ........................................................................ 132 2. A nalysis ...................................................................... 136 C. The ICC, Its Pace, and TransitionalJ ustice Aims ............. 138 C ON CLU SION ......................................................................................... 142 A PPEN DIX .............................................................................................. 144 * Associate, Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin. J.D., 2004, Boalt Hall. I drafted this Article while I was an Academic Visitor with the Faculty of Law at Oxford University. I thank Dapo Akande and other members of the international law faculty for facilitating my visit there. I also thank the editors of the Michigan Journal of InternationalL aw, particularly Dave Fautsch, Alexis Grant, and Louisa Marion, for their invaluable assistance. In the interests of disclosure, I note that I was an Associate Legal Officer in the Appeals Chamber of the Interna- tional Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) from 2006 to 2007. All views here are of course personal ones, and all errors are my own. Michigan Journalo f InternationalL aw [Vol. 31:79 INTRODUCTION Over thirteen years after the massacre at Srebrenica, Ratko Mladid is still at large, despite all the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).' In Cambodia, the trial of Kaing Guek Eav (also known as Comrade Duch) for atrocities committed during the Khmer Rouge regime of the 1970s has only just begun, although Duch has been in Cambodian custody since 1999.2 At the International Crimi- nal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the trial of Colonel Alphonse Nteziryayo and his five co-defendants for their role in the 1994 genocide started in June 2001 and has continued into 2009.3 The slowness of such proceedings has taken the international com- munity by surprise. When the Security Council established the ICTY in 1993, it considered as a model the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg.4 The IMT had worked swiftly, with only fourteen months passing between its establishment and the completion of its single multi- defendant case.' While the Security Council surely did not expect the ICTY to match this record, particularly in the absence of comparable police power, it also may not have anticipated that the "ad hoc" tribunal would still be working away more than fifteen years later-and doing so to the tune of $174 million per year.6 The ICTR operates on a similar budget.7 With the surprise has come outrage. "[T]he personnel of the interna- tional tribunals seem never to have heard of th[e] adage" that "'[j]ustice 1. See Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor, ICTY, Address Before the United Nations Secu- rity Council (Dec. 12, 2008), available at http://www.icty.org/sid/10029 (last visited Oct. 2, 2009). 2. Seth Mydans, Efforts to Limit Khmer Rouge Trials Decried, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 1, 2009, at A8 (noting a trial start date of February 17, 2009); Seth Mydans, Khmer Rouge Fig- ure Is First Charged in Atrocities, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 1, 2007, at A6 (noting that Duch has been in Cambodian custody since 1999). 3. Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Case No. ICTR 98-42-T, Minutes of Proceedings on Trial Day 1 (June 12, 2001) (noting that opening arguments were held on this date); Prosecu- tor v. Kanyabashi, Case No. ICTR 98-42-T, Minutes of Proceedings on Trial Day 726 (Apr. 30, 2009) (demonstrating that the trial is still underway). 4. See Jennifer Martinez, Antislavery Courts and the Dawn of International Human Rights Law, 117 YALE L.J. 550, 632-33 (2008) (noting that ICTY trials are based on the Nur- emberg model). 5. See infra Part III. 6. See Press Release, UN News Centre, General Assembly Approves Nearly $4.2 Billion UN Budget Despite US Opposition (Dec. 23, 2007), available at http://www.un.org/ apps/news/story.asp?NewslD=25159&Cr=Assembly&Crl=budget (last visited Oct. 2, 2009) (describing two-year budget). 7. Id. (noting that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) budget for 2008-09 is $268 million, or $134 million per year). Fall 20091 The Pace of InternationalC riminal Justice delayed is justice denied,'" fumes one angry critic.8 He sees the "agoniz- ingly slow" and "glacial" pace of international criminal tribunals as powerful proof of their ineffectiveness.9 He is far from alone. Using barely diplomatic language, the U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs has described the ICTY and ICTR as "too inefficient," not- ing that the "delays in bringing detainees to trial-and the trials themselves-have generally been so lengthy that questions have been raised as to the violation by the tribunals of ... basic human rights guar- antees ... ."'0 The Security Council has shown its frustration in a variety of ways, including setting deadlines for when the ICTY and ICTR must conclude their work." Among those for whom the tribunals' work should perhaps hold the most relevance-the victims-there is anger and dis- may at how long the cases are taking.'2 Similar concerns exist with regard to more recently established international and hybrid tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Special Court for 8. Jeremy Rabkin, Global Criminal Justice: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, 38 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 753, 768 (2005). 9. See id. 10. Ralph Zacklin, The Failings of Ad Hoc International Tribunals, 2 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 541, 543, 545 (2004); see also Patricia McNerney, The International Criminal Court: Issues for Considerationb y the United States Senate, 64 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 181, 189 (2001) (expressing doubt about the efficacy of the ICTY and ICTR in light of their failure to deliver the "swift justice" of the Nuremberg Tribunal); Sean D. Murphy, State Department Views on the Futuref or War Crimes, 96 AM. J. INT'L L. 482, 483 (2002) (quoting the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues as stating that the process at the ICTY and ICTR "'at times has been costly, has lacked efficiency, has been too slow, and has been too removed from the everyday experience of the people and the victims' "); Zacklin, supra, at 543-44 ("Justice delayed is justice denied, which also raises the question of whether justice has been done to the victims"); Press Release, Int'l Crisis Group, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Time for Pragmatism (Sept. 26, 2003), available at http://www.crisisgroup.org/ home/index.cfmid=2303&l=l (last visited Oct. 2, 2009) (observing that the "cold reality is that the ICTR needs to be a good deal more efficient in handling trials"). 11. See Daryl A. Mundis, The Judicial Effects of the "Completion Strategies" on the Ad Hoc InternationalC riminal Tribunals, 99 AM. J. INT'L L. 142, 144-45 (2005) (discussing the Security Council's efforts to prod the ICTY and ICTR into setting and sticking to a "comple- tion strategy"). The completion strategy originally called for the ICTY and ICTR to finish all trials by 2008 and all appeals by 2010. S.C. Res. 1534, T 3, U.N. Doc. SJRES/1534 (Mar. 26, 2004). Both tribunals have already missed the trial deadline. See Patrick Robinson, President & Judge, ICTY, Statement to the U.N. Security Council (Dec. 12, 2008), http://www.icty.org/sid/10030 (last visited Oct. 5, 2009) (acknowledging that "a number of trials will continue into the first part of 2010"); Letter from Dennis Byron, President, ICTR, to Jorge Urbina, President, United Nations Sec. Council (Nov. 21, 2008), 65, U.N. Doc. S/2008/726 (stating that the ICTR is "strongly committed" to completing trials during 2009, but expressing some doubt as to "whether this goal can be ultimately achieved"). 12. See Sanja Kutnaj Ivkovi6, Justice by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 37 STAN. J. INT'L L. 255, 309-10 (2001) (surveying Bosnian Muslims and finding frustration with the ICTY's pace); Binaifer Nowrojee, "Your Justice Is Too Slow": Will the ICTR FailR wanda's Rape Victims?, U.N. RES. INST. Soc. DEv., at 5 (2005) (quoting a victim as saying "[w]e will be dead before we see any justice" from the ICTR). Michigan Journal of International Law [Vol. 31:79 Sierra Leone (SCSL), and the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).'3 For some, the slow pace of international criminal tribunals, along with related concerns about the small number of defen- dants tried and high per-defendant costs, has raised serious doubts about 4 the value of these tribunals.' Even firm supporters of international criminal tribunals become apo- logetic when the tribunals' pace is mentioned. They concede that international criminal cases are slow, or at the very least perceived as slow.'5 Among themselves, they debate the extent to which this slowness is inevitable or improvable,6 and collectively they assert that interna- tional criminal justice is worthwhile despite its pace.'7 For all the discussion, however, the pace of international criminal justice has not received careful consideration. Instead, there is uncritical acceptance that international criminal tribunals move slowly, and debate only over whether this slowness is inevitable and whether the tribunals 13. See Seth Mydans, Cambodia Tribunal Clears Procedural Hurdle, N.Y. TIMES, May 1, 2007, at Al (describing hang-ups in the "slow-moving preparations" of the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia's (ECCC)); Elizabeth Rubin, If Not Peace, then Justice, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Apr. 2, 2006, at 42, 45 (describing how the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor has been moving "[s]lowly, too slowly for some" on Darfur); Press Release, Security Council, President of Special Court for Sierra Leone Briefs Security Council; Ad- dresses Funding Shortfall, Security, Status of At-Large Detainees, U.N. Doc. SC/8391 (May 24, 2005) (describing target deadlines for finishing trials and appeals at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) that have since proven unrealistic). Hybrid tribunals differ from interna- tional tribunals by having a much tighter legal connection to a single country. Generally speaking, hybrid tribunals will apply some mix of international and domestic law and will employ a mixture of international and domestic judges and prosecutors. See Laura A. Dickin- son, The Promise of Hybrid Courts, 97 AM. J. INT'L L. 295, 295 (2003). 14. E.g., Zacklin, supra note 10. This Article focuses on the pace of international crim- inal cases and gives comparatively short shrift to the number of defendants tried and the costs per defendant. This is partly for the sake of simplicity, and partly because the other two issues have received more thorough scholarly consideration. See, e.g., David Wippman, The Costs of International Justice, 100 AM. J. INT'L L. 861 (2006). 15. E.g., Strphane Bourgon, Procedural Problems Hindering Expeditious and Fair Justice, 2 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 526, 527 (2004) ("uncontrollabl[y]" lengthy proceedings); 0- Gon Kwon, The Challenge of an International Criminal Trial as Seen from the Bench, 5 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 360, 362 (2007) ("notoriously lengthy" proceedings); Mundis, supra note I1, at 142 ("criticized ... as slow"); Patricia M. Wald, Reflections on Judging at Home and Abroad, 7 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 219, 226 n.28 (2004) ("criticized as too long"). But cf Alex Whiting, In International Criminal Prosecutions, Justice Delayed Can Be Justice Delivered, 50 HARV. INT'L L.J. 323 (2009) (arguing that the slow pace of international criminal justice has its advantages). 16. E.g., Nancy Amoury Combs, Copping a Plea to Genocide: The Plea Bargaining of International Crimes, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 94-102 (2002); Michael J. Dennis, Improving the Operation and Functioning of the International Criminal Tribunals, 94 AM. J. INT'L L. 759, 764 (2000) (discussing how the recommendations provided by a U.N.-appointed expert group would expedite operations at the ICTY and ICTR). 17. E.g., Murphy, supra note 10, at 484 (quoting the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as saying that despite concerns about costs and efficiency, international criminal tribunals should be used to try suspected war criminals). Fall 20091 The Pace of InternationalC riminalJ ustice are nonetheless worthwhile. But given how central the pace of interna- tional criminal justice is to considerations of its effectiveness-and indeed its legitimacy-it is crucial to understand both what pace should be reasonably expected and what pace actually occurs. This Article un- dertakes this project. In Part I, I discuss the overall aims of international criminal justice. International criminal justice self-consciously aspires to three quite dif- ferent types of goals: (1) bringing perpetrators to justice and providing retribution for victims-or domestic-criminal-law-styled aims, (2) creat- ing a historical record of mass atrocities, and (3) helping transitioning societies achieve peace and reconciliation. Part II discusses how these different aims affect the pace of interna- tional criminal justice. Each set of aims gives rise to a different kind of timetable. For example, domestic criminal law aims can be expected to be accomplished in a timeframe similar to complex domestic criminal cases. To assess the timeframe for building a historical record, however, a comparison with the timeframes for other types of factual investiga- tions into mass atrocities is appropriate. Helping transitioning societies achieve reconciliation requires careful consideration of the particular needs of each society. The different aims of international criminal justice also give rise to very different-and often directly contrary-suggestions on how to speed up international criminal justice. Thus, scholars and practitioners who emphasize the domestic criminal law strand call for speeding up international criminal justice by abandoning any conscious emphasis on historical record-building or helping transitioning societies achieve peace. At the other extreme, those who emphasize bringing reconcilia- tion to transitioning societies may seek to speed up the process by using abbreviated trial procedures in ways deemed dubious from a due process perspective. Part II concludes by proposing two techniques for speeding up international criminal justice that may be acceptable from all three perspectives: plea bargains and multi-defendant trials. Part III looks empirically at the pace of all cases to date in today's international tribunals (the ICTY, the ICTR, and the ICC), in two of to- day's hybrid tribunals (the SCSL and the ECCC), and in the IMT. As of August 31, 2009, 307 individuals had been publicly charged at these six tribunals and ultimate judgments had been entered with regard to 132 of these individuals.'8 I measure how long each phase of the proceedings 18. These numbers include only individuals charged with core crimes within the tribu- nals' jurisdiction and thus exclude contempt and perjury cases. I use the term "ultimate judgment" to mean a judgment on the merits that ends a case. If there is no appeal, then this is the trial judgment; otherwise, it is the appeal judgment. Michigan Journalo f InternationalL aw [Vol. 31:79 has taken on average for each tribunal, as well as for all tribunals collec- tively. For example, in cases where an ultimate judgment has been entered, an average of 10.7 years has passed between the alleged crime and the entry of ultimate judgment, with 4.4 of these years occuning after the defendant was taken into custody. Part III concludes by consid- ering the effect that plea bargains and multi-defendant trials have on the pace of international justice. Part IV relates the empirical results from Part II1 to the framework developed in Parts I and II. From a domestic criminal justice perspective, the ICTY and the SCSL have not been particularly slow. Rather, these tribunals process cases at a pace that is only slightly slower than that found in comparably complex domestic criminal cases. By contrast, the ICTR-which is the only other modem international criminal tribunal to have completed cases-has proved notably slow. Part IV then examines whether these paces are appropriate from a historical record or transi- tional justice perspective, concluding that they are appropriate from a historical record perspective and relative to most transitional justice needs, but with one important exception: for societies that have abruptly transitioned from oppressive regimes to entirely new ones, as was the case in Germany at the end of World War H and Rwanda in 1994, swifter proceedings are required. In such situations, swift international criminal justice is much more likely to prevent vengeance and influence transi- tioning societies. If swift international criminal justice is not possible in these societies, then the tribunals should abandon international criminal trials and act only as oversight mechanisms of local justice. I. THE AMBITIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE In a 2004 report, then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan described international criminal tribunals as seeking to advance a number of objec- tives, including bringing to justice those responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, putting an end to such violations and preventing their recurrence, securing justice and dignity for the victims, establishing a record of past events, promot- ing national reconciliation, re-establishing the rule of law, and contributing to the restoration of peace.'9 19. The Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and TransitionalJ ustice in Conflict and Post-ConflictS ocieties, J 38, U.N. Doc. S/2004/616 (Aug. 23, 2004) [hereinafter Secretary-General'sR eport]. Given the key role the United Nations plays in all existing international and hybrid tribunals except the ICC, I consider this list the most authoritative expression of the views of the international community regarding the pur- poses of international criminal tribunals. Fall 20091 The Pace of InternationalC riminalJ ustice This rather overwhelming list can be broken down into three distinct categories. First, there are the objectives that resemble those of classic domestic criminal law: bringing perpetrators to justice, interrupting crimes and deterring future ones, and providing retribution for the vic- tims. Second, there is the aim of "establishing a record of past events." Third, there are forward-looking goals of social transformation: recon- ciliation, promotion of the rule of law, and peacemaking. Part I discusses these three categories in more detail and briefly discusses how each shapes the practice of international criminal justice. A. The Domestic CriminalL aw Aims Perhaps the most commonly mentioned objectives of international criminal law are bringing perpetrators to justice, deterring future interna- tional crimes, and providing retribution for the victims. Collectively, I will refer to these objectives as "domestic criminal law" aims, for they also underlie domestic criminal justice systems. These objectives are so well known that they need little discussion. Domestic criminal law focuses on determining guilt and then, if guilt is determined, on punishing the perpetrators so as to deter future crimes and provide justice to the victims. The contours of domestic criminal law systems vary, with a particularly significant split between the civil law and common law systems, but all share these basic aims.20 International law has appropriated these same aims.2' Accordingly, in seeking to achieve these objectives-and to do so in a way that is legitimate and perceived as such-international criminal law has borrowed heavily from the processes and principles of domestic criminal law. Indeed, commentators on international criminal practice frequently treat it as differing from domestic criminal practice in developed Western countries only in that it tracks no single domestic legal system but rather blends the approaches of common and civil law jurisdictions.22 The borrowing begins with the "basic assumption.., that in international [criminal] law, as much as in national systems, the founda- tion of criminal responsibility is the principle of personal culpability.'23 20. See generally Lutz Eidam, Facilitating a Comparative Analysis of Criminal Law, 5 GERMAN L.J. 1171, 1174-85 (2004); Mark Dirk Dubber, Comparative Criminal Law, in Ox- FORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE LAW 1287 (Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmerman eds., 2006). 21. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Kordi6, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment, 1073 (Dec. 17, 2004) (discussing the aims of retribution and deterrence, among others). 22. E.g., Kenneth S. Gallant, The Role and Powers of Defense Counsel in the Rome Statute of the InternationalC riminal Court, 34 INT'L LAW. 21, 21 (2000). 23. Prosecutor v. Mpambara, Case No. ICTR 01-65-T, Judgment, 26 (Sept. 11, 2006) (quoting Prosecutor v. Tadi6, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 1 186 (July 15, 1999)); see also Prosecutor v. Brima, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, Judgment, 760-62 (June 20, 2007); Allison Michigan Journalo f InternationalL aw [Vol. 31:79 International criminal law seeks to treat guilt as individual rather than collective, in part to ensure that its determinations of guilt and innocence are deemed acceptable and to provide grounds for just retribution and deterrence. This emphasis has run true since the IMT, where the initial plan of holding individuals criminally responsible simply for member- ship in certain organizations was ultimately abandoned in favor of a greater emphasis on personal accountability.2 International criminal law has also borrowed from the processes of domestic criminal law. While there is some variation in domestic crimi- nal systems, all generally provide for a charge, a trial, an appeal, and punishment for the guilty.' The foundational statutes of the international criminal tribunals require this same process.26 (The only partial exception is the IMT, which did not provide for any appeal27 despite the fact that well before the 1940s, domestic criminal defendants had a well- established right to seek appeal from a criminal conviction in the United States and in Great Britain.") Moreover, in filling lacunae in their own Marston Danner & Jenny S. Martinez, Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Com- mand Responsibility, and the Development of InternationalC riminal Law, 93 CALIF. L. REV. 75, 82-86 (2005). 24. Compare Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis art. 10, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 [hereinafter Lon- don Charter] (stating that in "cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring indi- viduals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts"), with I TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NUREMBERG, 14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946, at 256 (1947) [hereinafter IMT JuDG- MENT] (holding that "[m]embership alone is not enough" and that only individuals who knew of the criminal purposes or acts of the organizations and joined these organizations voluntarily may be held criminally responsible for their membership in the organizations). 25. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 14, adopted Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]. The ICCPR has 164 states parties, although some have attached reservations and declarations. See United Nations Treaty Collection: Status of ICCPR, http://treaties.un.org/PagesViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg-no=IV- 4&chapter=4&lang=en (last visited Oct. 2, 2009). 26. See, e.g., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court arts. 58, 61, 67, 77, 81, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 [hereinafter Rome Statute]; Agreement Between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution Under Cambo- dian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, G.A. Res. 57/228 B, arts. 10, 12-13, U.N. GAOR, 57th Sess., Annex, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/228 B (May 22, 2003) [hereinafter ECCC Statute]; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, S.C. Res. 955, arts. 17-19, 22-24, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (Nov. 8, 1994) [hereinafter ICTR Statute]; Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugosla- via arts. 18-20, 23-25, S.C. Res. 827, Annex, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827/Annex (May 25, 1993), amended by S.C. Res. 9462, U.N. Doc. S/RES/9462 (Sept. 29, 2008) [hereinafter ICTY Stat- ute]; The Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Courtf or Sierra Leone, arts. 17-20, U.N. Doc. S/2000/915 (Oct. 4, 2000) [hereinafter SCSL Statute]. 27. London Charter, supra note 24, art. 26. 28. Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152, 159-60 (2000). Fall 2009] The Pace of InternationalC riminal Justice procedures, international criminal tribunals draw largely from the ap- proaches of domestic criminal courts2. Once again, the use of processes similar to those of domestic criminal courts confers legitimacy and an aura of fairness. International criminal law has further adopted the due process pro- tections available to domestic criminal defendants. Of course, not all domestic legal systems offer the same set of due process protections, with the split between common law and civil law traditions proving es- pecially material.30 But some protections are shared broadly across all legal systems (at least in theory) and are identified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Substantively, these include what Americans would call the prohibition on ex post facto laws and Europeans would call the principle of legality: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed"' Procedurally, these protections include defendants' rights to be "promptly informed of any charges against" them upon arrest; to be "entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release"; to be "presumed innocent until proved guilty"; "to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of [their] defence and to communicate with counsel of [their] own choosing"; to be "tried without undue delay"; to be "tried in [their own] presence and to defend [themselves] in person or through legal assistance of [their] own choosing" or in certain situations through free, assigned legal assistance; not "to be compelled to testify against [themselves] or to confess guilt"; and "to [have a] conviction and sentence ... reviewed by a higher tribunal.32 Although the IMT pro- vided only a limited set of due process protections to its defendants,33 modem international criminal tribunals have emphasized that domestic 29. See, e.g., Rome Statute, supra note 26, art. 21(1)(c) (providing that where the Rome Statute and international law are silent on a particular point, the ICC shall look to "general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world"); Prosecutor v. Erdemovid, Case No. IT-96-22, 1T[ 58-72 (Oct. 7, 1997) (joint separate opinion) (looking to legal systems worldwide in considering the scope of a duress defense). 30. For example, common law systems typically provide for a right of self- representation, while civil law systems do not. See Michael P. Scharf, Self-Representation Versus Assignment of Defence Counsel Before International Criminal Tribunals, 4 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 31, 35 (2006). 31. ICCPR, supra note 25, art. 15. 32. Id. arts. 9, 14. 33. See London Charter, supra note 24, art. 16 (failing to provide defendants, for exam- ple, with adequate time to prepare a defense). While these differences may relate to the fact that there were fewer broadly recognized due process rights in the 1940s (a time that predates the ICCPR), they may also reflect lessened interest on the part of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in providing defendants with the due process rights available in domestic criminal jurisdictions.