Conditions of detention

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Custodial Visit - 10.11.2011 POPOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-88-A)

p. 4: CONSIDERING that, while the Appeals Chamber has the authority to issue orders to States pursuant to Article 29 of the Statute of the Tribunal and Rules 54 and 107 of the Rules, an order by the Appeals Chamber on the Motion is not necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for the preparation of Pandurević’s appeal[1]

[1] The Appeals Chamber recalls that matters relating to the rights of detained persons and conditions of their detention are regulated by the Rules Governing the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal Before the Tribunal or Otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal, IT38/Rev.9, 21 July 2005 and fall primarily under the authority of the Registrar and the President of the Tribunal.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 54 ICTY Rule Rule 54
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Custodial Visit - 10.11.2011 POPOVIĆ et al.
(IT-05-88-A)

p. 4: CONSIDERING that Serbia should resolve any difficulties with respect to the issuance of a valid identification document for one of its citizens detained abroad

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Consummation of Marriage - 06.12.2005 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

Pp. 3-4: CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules of Detention, the Commanding Officer of the UNDF has primary responsibility for all aspects of the daily management of the Detention Unit and that, pursuant to Rules 82 and 83 of the Rules of Detention, where a detainee is not satisfied with the response of the Commanding Officer, he or she has the right to file a written complaint to the Registrar who shall forward it to the President of the Tribunal;

P. 4: FINDING that, in the present case, this procedure was followed;

Download full document
Other instruments Rules Covering the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal before the Tribunal or Otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal (ICTR): Rules 82-83.
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Psychological Examination - 06.12.2005 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

P. 4: FINDING also that, had the procedure of the Detention Rules been followed, the Appeals Chamber would only have jurisdiction to review a Registrar’s or President’s decision if the issues in question were closely related to the fairness of the proceedings on appeal;[1]

[1] Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Hassan Ngeze’s Motion to Set Aside President Møse’s Decision and Request to Consummate his Marriage, 6 December, p. 4; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, 3 May 2005, paras. 4 and 7; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to Permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him during Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, 25 April 2005, p. 3. See also, Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-99-37-AR.73.2, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Motion for Additional Funds, 13 November 2003, para. 19.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Psychological Examination - 06.12.2005 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

P. 3: CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Rules 28 and 31 of the Detention Rules, the medical officer is responsible for the physical and mental health of the detainees and the administration of any treatment or medication to them;

NOTING that Rule 32 of the Detention Rules provides for the procedure to be followed in cases where the medical officer “considers that the physical or mental health of a detainee has been or will be adversely affected by any condition of his detention”;

[1] Adopted on 5 June 1998.

Download full document
Other instruments Rules Covering the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal Before the Tribunal or otherwise detained on the Authority of the Tribunal (ICTR): Rules 28; 31-32.
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Psychological Examination - 06.12.2005 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

P. 3: NOTING that, according to Rules 82 and 83 of the Detention Rules, where a detainee is not satisfied with the conditions of his or her detention, he or she is entitled to “make a complaint to the Commanding Officer or his representative at any time” and, in case of an unsatisfactory response, to “make a written complaint, without censorship, to the Registrar, who shall forward it to the President”;

P. 4: FINDING that the complaint procedure for the detention conditions has not been duly followed by the Appellant and that he has not yet exhausted the remedies made available to him by the Detention Rules;

[1] Adopted on 5 June 1998.

Download full document
Other instruments Rules Covering the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal Before the Tribunal or Otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal (ICTR): Rules 82-83.
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 08.05.2012 NTABAKUZE Aloys
(ICTR-98-41A-A)

43. Turning to Ntabakuze’s submission regarding the opportunity to enroll in a work programme, the Appeals Chamber stresses that such a complaint must first be made to the Commanding Officer of the Tribunal’s Detention Unit, who has responsibility for all aspects of the daily management of the Detention Unit.[1] If the detainee is not satisfied with the response of the Commanding Officer, he may then make a written complaint to the Registrar of the Tribunal, who shall then forward it to the President of the Tribunal.[2] In the present case, Ntabakuze has failed to show that the matter is properly brought before the Appeals Chamber after the exhaustion of all available remedies. His complaint is accordingly dismissed.

[1] See Rules 3 and 82 of the [Rules of Detention Rules Covering the Detention of Persons Awaiting Trial or Appeal Before the Tribunal or Otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal, adopted on 5 June 1998 (“Rules of Detention”)].

[2] See Rule 83 of the Rules of Detention.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision on Consummation of Marriage - 06.12.2005 NAHIMANA et al. (Media case)
(ICTR-99-52-A)

P. 4: CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has the statutory duty to ensure the fairness of the proceedings on appeal[1] and, thus, has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Tribunal’s Registrar and President;

P. 4: CONSIDERING, however, that the exercise of such jurisdiction should be closely related to the fairness of proceedings on appeal and should not be used as a substitute for a general power of review which has not been expressly provided by the Rules of Detention;[2]

P. 4: CONSIDERING that the Appellant has not identified any impact by the issues raised in his Motion on his right to fair proceedings;

P. 4: FINDING that the detention conditions raised by the Appellant are not related to the fairness of proceedings on appeal and that, therefore, the Appellant’s right to fair proceedings has not been infringed by the outcome of the President’s Decision;

P. 4: FINDING, therefore, that the Appellant has exhausted all available remedies and that the Appeals Chamber has no jurisdiction in this matter

[1] Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, 3 May 2005, paras 4 and 7; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on “Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s Motion for Leave to Permit his Defence Counsel to Communicate with him during Afternoon Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays”, 25 April 2005, p. 3. See also, Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-99-37-AR.73.2, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Motion for Additional Funds, 13 November 2003, para. 19.

[2] See, by analogy, Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-99-37-AR.73.2, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Motion for Additional Funds, 13 November 2003, para. 20.

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Order to Government for Release of Judge - 31.01.2017 NGIRABATWARE Augustin
(MICT-12-29-R)

17.     In relation to Ngirabatware’s request for temporary provisional release,[1] I consider that as Pre-Review Judge, I lack competence to entertain this request.[2] […] Any request for modifications of the conditions of detention in accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules should be made before the President.

[1] See [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R] Oral Hearing, T. 17 January 2017 pp. 21, 22, 25, 26; Ngirabatware Further Submission [Further Submission on Motion for Order to Government of Turkey or for Temporary Provisional Release, 18 December 2016 ], paras. 1, 14, 15; Motion [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R,Motion for Order to Government of Turkey or for Temporary Provisional Release, 10 November 2016], paras. 2, 22.

[2] See Rule 135 of the [MICT] Rules. I find Ngirabatware’s reliance on the competence of a Duty Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) inapposite given the circumscribed nature of the corresponding competence of a Duty Judge at the Mechanism. See [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R] Oral Hearing, T. 17 January 2017 pp. 25, 26. Compare Rule 28 of the [MICT] Rules (indicating that a Duty Judge will serve as a Single Judge on matters “not assigned to a Single Judge or Trial Chamber”) with Rule 28(D) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence (authorizing a Duty Judge to deal with applications in a case already assigned to a Trial Chamber if, inter alia, “satisfied as to its urgency or that it is otherwise appropriate to do so in the absence of the Trial Chamber”). In addition, while Rule 68(I) of the [MICT] Rules applies, mutatis mutandis, to convicted persons who are in the custody of the Mechanism pending transfer to an enforcement state, the decision to authorize such provisional release principally rests with the Appeals Chamber, to the extent that it is already seised of the case. See Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. MICT-15-95-ES, Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on Motion for Provisional Release” Filed on 28 January 2016, 23 February 2016, paras. 7, 8.

Download full document
MICT Rule Rule 67;
Rule 135