Ne Bis In Idem Principle: Current Problems of Implementation in International Criminal Law

Introduction. The individual criminal liability is characterized by several principles that clarify its international legal content. In this article, the author focuses on the principle of prohibiting the repeated prosecution of a person for the same crime (ne bis in idem principle). It seems appropriate to consider not only the history of fixing this principle in the international law, but also the features of its content, legal nature, as well as to identify the problems arising along the enforcement practice. The issue of the risk of repeated prosecution of the individual for the same crime gets a great importance considering the international criminal justice institutions operating alongside national judicial systems.

Materials and methods. The study is relied on the following general scientific and special methods of knowledge: historical, legal, comparative legal, the method of logical and structural analysis, systemic approach.

Research results. The analysis of the international law, academic research and enforcement practice made possible to identify some differences in the ne bis in idem principle as formulated in the acts of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The problems of applying of the ne bis in idem principle in the practice of the ICC in Katanga were identified, specifically in the Court’s interpretation of Art. 108 of the Rome Statute, which allows us to conclude that this principle has been violated.

Discussion and conclusion. An analysis of the ne bis in idem principle leads us to conclusion that its sine qua non character is applicable only to the national jurisdiction, but not to the jurisdiction of another state as well as it doesn’t automatically cover the decisions made by foreign judicial authorities. As for international criminal justice, here the principle of ne bis in idem plays a greater role as a regulator (pointsman), determining the choice of the jurisdiction rather than as a guarantee of the rights of the accused.

1. Ignatenko G.V., 2005. Zapret povtornogo privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti (non bis in idem) kak obshchii printsip prava [The prohibition of re-prosecution (non bis in idem) as a general principle of law]. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal [Russian law journal]. No. 45. S. 75-87.

2. Ignatenko G.V., 2012. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i vnutrigosudarstvennoe pravo: problemy sopryazhennosti i vzaimodeistviya. Sbornik nauchnykh publikatsii za sorok let (1972–2011 gody) [International Law and national law: problems of conjugation and interaction. Collection of scientific publications over 40 years (1972–2011)]. Moscow.

3. Kibal'nik A.G., 2002. Prestuplenie i otvetstvennost' v mezhdunarodnom ugolovnom prave [Crime and responsibility in international criminal law]. Stavropol'.

4. Kopylova E.A., 2012. Kumulyativnoe obvinenie v praktike organov mezhdunarodnoi ugolovnoi yustitsii [Practice of cumulative charging in international criminal justice institutions]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya [International criminal law and international justice]. No. 3. S. 25–28.

5. Mikhailov N.G., 2006. Mezhdunarodnyi ugolovnyi tribunal po byvshei Yugoslavii kak institut mezhdunarodnoi ugolovnoi yustitsii: avtoref. dis. d-ra yurid. nauk: 12.00.10. [International criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as an institution of international criminal justice]. Moscow.

6. Ponomareva V.V., 2019. Printsip ne bis in idem: osobennosti proiskhozhdeniya i sovremennogo tolkovaniya [Ne bis in idem principle: features of origin and modern interpretation] in Current problems in the fight against crime: issues of theory and practice: Proceedings of the XXII International Scientific and Practical Conference. Krasnoyarsk, S. 78–82. DOI: 10.51980/2019_1_78.

7. Rabtsevich O.I., 2010. Printsip odnokratnosti privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti za odno pravonarushenie (ne bis in idem): mezhdunarodnye i vnutrigosudarstvennye aspekty [The principle of one-time prosecution for the same offense (Ne bis in idem): international and national aspects]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya [International criminal law and international justice]. No. 4. S. 17–23.

8. Rundkvist A.N., 2020. Vzaimosvyaz' printsipa spravedlivosti s pravovymi aksiomami [The relationship between the principle of justice and legal axioms]. Yuridicheskie issledovaniya [Legal studies]. No. 10. S. 64–78. DOI: 10.25136/24097136.2020.10.33504.

9. Ambos, K., 1999. General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute. Criminal Law Forum. Volume 10. No. 1. P. 1-32.

10. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure / Ed. by R. Cryer, H. Friman, D. Robinson, E. Wilmshurst. Cambridge University Press. 2007.

11. Anderson, K., Sinclair-Blakemore, A., 2021. Ne bis in idem, nulla poena sine lege and Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Aftermath of a Trial at the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Law Review. Volume 21 (1). P. 35-66. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-21010001.

12. Bernard, D., 2011. Ne bis in idem — Protector of Defendants’ Rights or Jurisdictional Pointsman? Journal of International Criminal Justice. Volume 9. No. 4. P. 863–880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqr018

13. Bernard, D., 2014. Juger et juger encore les crimes internationaux. Etude du principe Ne bis in idem. Bruxelles.

14. Cassese, A., 2008. International Criminal Law. Oxford.

15. Commentary on the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court: Observers' Notes, Article by Article. Ed. By O. Triffterer. 2nd edition. Beck/Hart. München, 2008.

16. Conway, G., 2003. Ne bis in idem and the International Criminal Tribunals. Criminal Law Forum. Volume 14. No 4. P. 351–383.

17. De Than, C., Shorts, E., 2000. Double Jeopardy – Double Trouble. The Journal of Criminal Law. Volume 64. No. 6. P. 624-641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002201830006400610

18. Jacobs, D., 2010. The Importance of Being Earnest: The Timeliness of the Challenge to Admissibility in Katanga. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 23. No. 2. P. 331-342. DOI: 10.1017/S0922156510000063.

19. Klip, A., Sluiter, G., 1999. Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals. Volume I: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1993–1998. Antwerp/Groningen/Oxford/Vienna.

20. Labuda, P, 2016. Complementarity Compromised? The ICC Gives Congo the Green Light to Re-Try Katanga. Opinio Juris. URL: http://opiniojuris.org.

21. Labuda, P., 2019. The Flipside of Complementarity: Double Jeopardy at the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Volume 17. No. 2. P. 369–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqz019.

22. Mégret, F., 2002. Le tribunal penal international pour le Rwanda [The international criminal tribunal for Rwanda]. Paris.

23. Nsereko, D., 2013. The ICC and Complementarity in Practice. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 26. No. 2. P. 427-447. DOI: 10.1017/S0922156513000101

24. Olusanya, O., 2004. Double Jeopardy Without Parameters: Re-characterization in International Criminal Law. Oxford.

25. Raimondo, F.O., 2008. General Principles of Law in Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals. Amsterdam.

26. Rastan, R., 2017. What is «Substantially the Same Conduct»? Unpacking the ICC’s «First Limb» Complementarity Jurisprudence. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Volume 15. No. 1. P. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqx004.

27. Solera, O., 2000. Complementary jurisdiction and international criminal justice. International Revue of the Red Cross. Volume 84. No. 845. P. 145-171.

28. Theofanis, R., 2003. The doctrine of Res Judicata in International Criminal Law. International Criminal Law Review. Volume 3. No. 3. P. 195-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181203322599101.

29. Wyngaert, C., Stessens, G., 1999. The International Non Bis In Idem Principle Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Volume 48. No. 4. P. 779-804. DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063685.