CYIL 2014

ONDŘEJ SVAČEK CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ v oblasti odpovědnosti mezinárodních organizací za mezinárodně protiprávní chová ní a institutem náležité bdělosti v mezinárodním právu. Key words: International Criminal Court, human rights, Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute, non-refoulement, family visits, responsibility of international organizations, due diligence. On the Author: JUDr. Ondřej Svaček, Ph.D., LLM. Senior lecturer at the Department of Constitutional Law and Public International Law, Faculty of Law, Palacký University, Olomouc. At the time of writing visiting professional at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague. Introduction That International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) is obliged to consider internationally recognized human rights in its interpretation and application of applicable law is very well known. 2 The exact boundaries of the principal interpretative guideline contained in Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute nevertheless remains subject to considerable debate both in the doctrine and practice of the ICC. The aim of the article presented here is to analyze achievements (consensus) reached with respect to the interpretation and application of human rights before the ICC and at the same time point to challenges which remain and should be settled in upcoming years. The article reveals a close inter-relation existing between international criminal law and human rights law and highlights the importance of human rights jurisprudence before the ICC. The ICC’s jurisprudence rendered since 2005 has clarified some contentious aspects of Article 21(3) which have been steadily presented in scholarly literature. 3 2 Article 21(3) of the ICC Statute provides: The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status. 3 GALLANT, Kenneth S. Individual Human Rights in a New International Organization: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: BASSIOUNI, Cherif (ed.). International Criminal Law . Vol. III. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 1999, pp. 693-723. PELLET, Alain, Applicable Law. In: CASSESE, Antonio et al. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary . Vol. II. Oxford: OUP, 2002, pp. 1079-1082. HAFNER, Gerhard, BINDER, Christina. The Interpretation of Article 21(3) ICC Statute. Opinion Reviewed. Austrian Review of International and European Law . 2004, vol. 9, pp. 163-190. MCAULIFFE DE GUZMAN, Margaret. Article 21. Applicable Law. In: TRIFFTERER, Otto. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article . München: Beck, 2008, pp. 711-712. SCHABAS, William. The International Criminal Court: a commentary of the Rome Statute . Oxford: OUP, 2010, pp. 397-400. SHEPPARD, Daniel. The International Criminal Court and “Internationally Recognized Human Rights”: Understanding Article 21(3) of the Rome Statute. International Criminal Law Review . 2010, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 43-71. PAULUSSEN, Christophe. Male captus bene detentus? Surrendering suspects to the International Criminal Court . Antwerp: Intersentia, 2010, pp. 820-837. CROQUET, A. J. Nicholas. The International Criminal Court and the Treatment of Defence Rights: A Mirror of the

328