|Appeal Judgement - 09.07.2004||
Download full document
14. The Tribunal’s instruments do not prescribe qualification requirements for members of the staff of the Office of the Prosecutor appearing before it. While Rule 44(A) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) stipulates that a counsel engaged by a suspect or an accused “shall be considered qualified to represent a suspect or accused, provided that he is admitted to the practice of law in a State, or is a University professor of law,” the Rules and other instruments of the Tribunal contain no corresponding qualification provision for Prosecution counsel. In consequence, the integrity of the trial process before the Tribunal cannot be undermined, per se, by the status a Prosecution counsel may or may not have as a member of the bar in any State.
|Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001||
DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići)
655. The qualifications for judges of the Tribunal are stated in Article 13 of the Tribunal’s Statute:
Qualifications and election of judges
The judges shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices. In the overall composition of the Chambers due account shall be taken of the experience of the judges in criminal law, international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law.
This provision is not stated in terms of qualification for election as judges, but rather in terms of continuous application (“The judges shall be […]”). If, for example, a judge of the Tribunal were to be found guilty of some offence committed during his or her term of office which demonstrated a lack of high moral character or integrity, it could hardly be suggested that such a judge remained qualified within the terms of Article 13 simply because he or she was qualified at the time of election. The Appeals Chamber accepts that a judge must remain qualified within the meaning of Article 13 throughout his or her term of office.
659. In the opinion of the Appeals Chamber, any interpretation of Article 13 must take into account the restriction imposed by Article 12 of the Statute, that no two judges may be nationals of the same State. The Statute envisages that judges from a wide variety of legal systems would be elected to the Tribunal, and that the qualifications for appointment to the highest judicial offices in those systems would similarly be widely varied. The intention of Article 13 must therefore be to ensure, so far as possible, that the essential qualifications do not differ from judge to judge. Those essential qualifications are character (encompassing impartiality and integrity), legal qualifications (as required for appointment to the highest judicial office) and experience (in criminal law, international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law). Article 13 was not intended to include every local qualification for the highest judicial office such as nationality by birth or religion, or disqualification for such high judicial office such as age. Nor was Article 13 intended to include constitutional disqualifications peculiar to any particular country for reasons unrelated to those essential qualifications.
 This was the form of Article 13(1) of the Statute at the relevant time. It has since been amended by Security Council Resolution 1329, 30 Nov 2000, so that the opening sentence commences: “The permanent and ad litem judges shall be persons of high moral character […]”.
|ICTR Statute Article 12 ICTY Statute Article 13|