Arbitrary detention prior to initial appearance

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 23.05.2005 KAJELIJELI Juvénal
(ICTR-98-44A-A)

231. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber finds that [the Trial Chamber] erred in failing to find that his detention in Benin for a total of 85 days without charge and without being brought promptly before a Judge was clearly unlawful and was in violation of his rights under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules as well as international human rights law. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Prosecution is responsible for these violations because it failed to make a request within a reasonable time under Rules 40 and 40bis for the Appellant’s provisional arrest and transfer to the Tribunal. Moreover, its request would have included the provisional charges, which would then have been served on the Appellant.[1] Although Rules 40 and 40bis do not explicitly state how long a suspect may permissibly remain in the provisional custody of a cooperating State pursuant to a Rule 40 request, the Appellant’s prolonged detention in Benin was unreasonable. The evidence on the record indicates that the Appellant was never informed by a Judge of the charges against him, even provisionally, until sometime between 29 August 1998 and 7 September 1998, when he was formally served with an arrest warrant and a copy of the redacted indictment against him from the Tribunal.[2] The Appeals Chamber does not accept that 85-days’ delay after a suspect’s arrest may be considered “prompt” or “immediate” within the meaning of this Tribunal’s Statute or Rules.[3] Additionally, although 90 days may be permissible for the finalizing of a formal indictment, 85 days of provisional detention without even an informal indication of the charges to be brought against the suspect is not reasonable under international human rights law, given that nothing less than an individual’s fundamental right to liberty is at issue. While it is true that the Appellant was served with the arrest warrant and redacted indictment within days of their issuance by a Judge of this Tribunal on 29 August 1998, at a minimum, the Appellant should have been informed as soon as possible after his arrest on 5 June 1998 of any reliable information possessed by the Prosecution with regard to why he was considered a suspect and as to any provisional charges against him.[4] The Appeals Chamber considers that the Prosecution was able to directly request the Benin authorities to do so on its behalf, given that it stated that when it sent its request letter of 6 June 1998 to the Benin authorities, it had compelling and consistent evidence of the Appellant’s participation in the commission of crimes in Rwanda.[5]

232. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber finds that as a result of the Prosecution’s failure to make a Rule 40bis transfer and provisional detention request within a reasonable period of time, the Appellant was not promptly brought before a Judge, either of this Tribunal or in Benin during the first period of his detention of 95 days. The Appeals Chamber notes that there are important purposes underlying the right to be promptly brought before a Judge in the requested State, inter alia: to allow for the suspect to be informed of the provisional charges against him or her; to ascertain the identity of the detained suspect;[6] to ensure that the suspect’s rights are being respected while in detention; and to give the suspect an opportunity to voice any complaints. The Appeals Chamber considers that this violation of the Appellant’s right is not solely attributable to the Prosecution. The Appeals Chamber notes in this context that the Benin Constitutional Court found, in response to a motion filed by the Appellant before it on 24 August 1998, that his detention from 5 June 1998 to 7 September 1998 by the Benin Director of Police and the Benin General Public Prosecutor Office, was in violation of the Constitution of Benin.[7] Nevertheless, although the violation is not solely attributable to the Tribunal, it has to be recalled that it was the Prosecution, thus an organ of the Tribunal, which was the requesting institution responsible for triggering the Appellant’s apprehension, arrest and detention in Benin.

233. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that “it is important that Rule 40 and Rule 40bis be read together” and restrictively interpreted.[8] The purpose of Rule 40 and Rule 40bis is to place time limits on the provisional detention of a suspect prior to issuance of an indictment[9] and to ensure that certain rights of the suspect are respected during that time. The Appeals Chamber considers that it is not acceptable for the Prosecution, acting alone under Rule 40, to get around those time limits or the Tribunal’s responsibility to ensure the rights of the suspect in provisional detention upon transfer to the Tribunal’s custody under Rules 40 and 40bis, by using its power under Rule 40 to keep a suspect under detention in a cooperating State.[10] The Appeals Chamber notes the Prosecution’s submission, made at the Appeal Hearing, that the 95-days’ delay in the Appellant’s transfer to the custody of this Tribunal was due to the fact that the period in which the Appellant was arrested was an extremely busy one for the Prosecution with numerous ongoing investigations against dozens of suspects and numerous indictments being drafted simultaneously.[11] While the Appeals Chamber is sympathetic to the workload carried by the Prosecution at that time, in no way does this fact justify the Appellant’s arbitrary provisional detention in Benin without charge for 85 days, and detention in Benin without appearance before a Judge for a total of 95 days.

251. […] the Appeals Chamber concludes that […] the Appellant was arbitrarily detained in Benin for 85 days without an arrest warrant and a transfer order from the Tribunal being submitted to the Benin authorities by the Prosecution within a reasonable time and without being promptly informed of the charges against him in violation of Rule 40 of the Rules and Articles 9(2) and 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR. Finally, the Appellant was detained in Benin for a total of 95 days without being brought before a Judge or an official acting in a judicial capacity in clear violation of Article 9 of the ICCPR.

[1] Rule 40bis(A) and (E).

[2] The Appeals Chamber rejects the Prosecution’s argument that its duty to inform the suspect as soon as possible of the reasons why he or she is considered a suspect and of any provisional charges against him or her was fulfilled by its questioning of the Appellant on 12 June 1998. See Appeal Hearing, T. 7 March 2005 p. 51.

[3] Cf. Semanza, Decision, 31 May 2000, para. 87 (finding that 18 days’ delay between the time the Appellant was taken into custody and informed of the charges brought against him by the Prosecution constituted a violation of the Appellant’s right to be promptly informed of the nature of the charges against him).

[4] See Semanza, Decision, 31 May 2000, n. 104 (citing Barayagwiza, Decision, 3 November 1999).

[5] Appeal Hearing, T. 7 March 2005 p. 51.

[6] For example, Milan and Miroslav Vuckovic were transferred to the ICTY instead of Predrag and Nenad Banovic, see Sikirica et al. [Prosecutor v. Dusko Sikirica et al, Case No. IT-95-8-I], None [sic] Parties Milan and Miroslav Vuckovic’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery, 2 September 1999. See also Kolundzija [Prosecutor v. Dragan Kolundžija, Case No. IT-95-8-PT], Order on Non-Party Motion for Discovery, 29 September 1999. Similarly, Agim Murtezi was brought before the ICTY on the basis of an indictment in which the true identity of the perpetrator was uncertain, see [Prosecutor v.] Limaj et al., [Case No. IT-03-66-I], Order to Withdraw the Indictment against Agim Murtezi and Order for His Immediate Release, 28 February 2003.

[7] Decision DCC 00-064, The Constitutional Court, Republique du Benin, 24 October 2000. Article 18(4) of the Benin Constitution stipulates that “no one can be held for a period beyond 48 hours without a decision from a Magistrate to whom the person is presented, this timeframe can only be exceeded exceptionally as provided for by law and that cannot exceed a period of eight days.”

[8] Barayagwiza, Decision, 3 November 1999, paras. 46, 53.

[9] Barayagwiza, Decision, 3 November 1999, paras. 46, 53.

[10] Barayagwiza, Decision, 3 November 1999, paras. 46, 53.

[11] Appeal Hearing, T. 7 March 2005 p. 52.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 40;
Rule 40 bis
ICTY Rule Rule 40;
Rule 40 bis
Other instruments International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 9(2); Article 14(3)(a)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision - 03.11.1999 BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco
(ICTR-97-19-AR72)

See paragraphs 46-47, 53-54, 61-63 of the decision.

See also paragraphs 48-51, 55-57, 64, 67 of the decision.

[RULE 40 bis OF THE ICTR STATUTE WAS AMENDED ON 26 JUNE 2000 AND 30 MAY 2001]

Disclaimer: No Word version of the present decision is currently available. It has therefore not been possible to include the text of the decision. Instead, the reader is directed to the relevant paragraphs of the decision.

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 40;
Rule 40 bis
ICTY Rule Rule 40;
Rule 40 bis
Other instruments Article 9(2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Article 14(3)(a) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights