Trial in All but Name: Continuing Proceedings in Contravention of the Right to Be Present at Trial

Abstract The right to be present at trial is under threat following the decision of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals’ Trial Chamber to continue proceedings against Félicien Kabuga after finding him mentally unfit to stand trial. The Trial Chamber opted instead to hold an “alternative finding procedure”, resembling a trial as closely as possible, albeit without the possibility of concluding with a verdict. This article engages with that decision through the lens of whether this approach complies with the accused’s right to be present at trial. It concludes that the proceedings would be little more than a de facto trial that does not adequately respect the accused’s right to be present. It also finds that should other international criminal courts and tribunals follow a similar approach the right to be present would be deprived of any real meaning. This could also, in turn, threaten overall fairness of the proceedings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10116
Primary Topic
International Law and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trial in All but Name: Continuing Proceedings in Contravention of the Right to Be Present at Trial

Caleb H. Wheeler
The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
International Law and Human Rights
article

Trial in All but Name: Continuing Proceedings in Contravention of the Right to Be Present at Trial

Caleb H. Wheeler
article en

Abstract

Abstract The right to be present at trial is under threat following the decision of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals’ Trial Chamber to continue proceedings against Félicien Kabuga after finding him mentally unfit to stand trial. The Trial Chamber opted instead to hold an “alternative finding procedure”, resembling a trial as closely as possible, albeit without the possibility of concluding with a verdict. This article engages with that decision through the lens of whether this approach complies with the accused’s right to be present at trial. It concludes that the proceedings would be little more than a de facto trial that does not adequately respect the accused’s right to be present. It also finds that should other international criminal courts and tribunals follow a similar approach the right to be present would be deprived of any real meaning. This could also, in turn, threaten overall fairness of the proceedings.

The Law and Practice of International Courts and TribunalsVol. 23(2)
Cardiff University (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
International Law and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.