Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

A Comparative Study of Accusation Criteria in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and the Iranian Legal System

Document Type : scientific research paper

Author
Ali Afrasiabi
Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Amin University of Law Enforcement Sciences, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/law.2024.2041572.1460
Abstract
The formal attribution of a crime to a person is called accusation. In addition to depriving or restricting the rights and freedoms of a citizen, such an attribution stigmatizes the individual concerned. For this reason, it is necessary for the institution and the procedure that carries out this process to be subject to such specific criteria so that the action is limited to cases where typically acceptable accusatory evidence already exist. According to the research findings, lack of conflict of interest, separation of executive and judicial functions, distribution of legal powers based on the nature of the action and the expertise of the competent institutions are the criteria that determine the institution that possesses the legitimacy to make an accusation. The process of accusation is also subject to specific criteria so that this process does not deviate into violating the rights and freedoms of citizens.  The existence of reasonably sufficient accusatory evidence, a credible and impartial source and a proper and lawful method of obtaining accusatory evidence, are the criteria that govern the process of accusation. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Pre-Trial Chamber has the responsibility to levy an accusation and, after assessing evidence provided by the prosecution and the suspect’s defense, confirms the charge if there is evidence that is basically acceptable and tangible, and dismisses it in case such evidence is lacking. According to Articles 27 and 28 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the complaint is first referred to a judge and, if it is considered admissible, it is sent to a committee or to a chamber to examine the admissibility of the complaint more closely. According to the decisions rendered by the European Court of Human Rights, the right of the accused to appear before the court within a reasonable time, fair trial standards in sanctions that fall under the criminal jurisdiction, the lack of a previous work history of the judicial authority as a person that is beneficiary in pending proceeding, and the accusation based on typical and tangible criteria, are guaranteed. In the Iranian legal system, the terms suspect and accused are not used in their proper place and the legislator has used the latter from the moment the crime involving public display occurs, without an official institution having actually attributed this title to a person. From a structural perspective, the interrogator, prosecutor, and assistant prosecutor for investigation practically act accusers. These institutions face serious problems in terms of conflict of interest, accumulation of legal powers, and lack of institutional independence and it is necessary to reform the existing judicial structure and establish an independent and impartial institution of accusation.
Keywords
Accusation
Lack of Conflict of Interest
Institutional Independence
Impartiality
Accusatory Evidence
Rights and Freedoms of Citizenship

Subjects

- Ashouri, Mohammad (2023), Concepts of Justice and Fairness from the Perspective of the European Court of  Human Rights, in the book Human Rights and Concepts of Equality, Fairness  (in Persian).
Omranifar, A. , Sheydaeian, M. and Alipur, H. (2024). Establishment of the Step of Laying charges in Iranian Law with a Glance at English Law (from Requirements to Providing an Appropriate Model). Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 7(24), 39-73. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.2035683.1415 Justice, Khorsandi Publications, second edition (in Persian).
- Compliance Committee (2010), Summary of relevant case law on conflict of interest, CC/7/2010/2 16 June 2010.
- Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2022 Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Davis, Michael (2015), Conflict of Interest, Business and Professional Ethics, Journal 1(4):17-27.
- De Cubber v. Belgium, Judgment of 26 October 1984, Eur. Ct. H.R., Series A, No. 86, para. 26.
- Delmas Marti, Miri (2023), Great Systems of Criminal Policy, translated by Ali Hoseyn Najafi Abrandabadi, fifth edition, Mizan (in Persian).
-Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, series A no. 51
- Hauschildt v. Denmark, Judgment of 24 May 1989, Eur. Ct. H.R., Series A, No. 154.
- John Locke (2023), A Treatise on Government, translated by Hamid Azdanloo, second edition, Ney Publishing House, 13th edition, Tehran (in Persian).
-Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, 13 September 2016
- International Chamber of Commerce (2018), ICC Guidelines on Conflicts of interests in enterprises, Prepared by the ICC Commission on Corporate Responsibility and Anti-Corruption.
- Mahdavi Sabet, Mohammad Ali and Mohammad Mehrabi (2012), Evidence Acquisition in Iranian Criminal Law and International Documents, Monthly Journal of Judging, No. 77 (in Persian).
- Naji Zavareh, Morteza (2015), Impartial Trial in Criminal Matters, Second Edition, Shahr Danesh Publications (in Persian).
- Official document of International Criminal Court (2020), Understanding the International Criminal Court, ISBN No. 92-9227-365-5.
- OECD (2003), Managing Conflicts of Interest in the Public Service, OECD
Guidelines and Overview.
- Pavlich, George (2018), The violent rhetoric of accusation: Cicero and the Marcus Ameleus Scaurus case, In Joshua Nichols and Amy Swiffen (eds), Legal Violence and the Limits of the Law. Abingdon: Routledge.
- Piersack v. Belgium, Judgment of 1 October 1982, Eur. Ct. H.R., Series A, No. 53.
- Pradel , J (2001), Les personnes suspects ou poursuivies aores la loi du 15 juin 2000, Dalloz, No 14.
- Shariat Bagheri, Mohammad Javad (2022), Documents of the International Criminal Court, third edition, Jangal Publications (in Persian).
- Statute of the International Court of Justice.
- Stewart, James K. (2014), Fair Trial Rights under the Rome Statute from a Prosecution Perspective ICTR Symposium – Arusha, Tanzania – 7 November 2014.
- Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, 1 December 2020