International Justice

CJ354 Endicott College

Effectiveness of Proceedings

Effectiveness of Proceedings

In the case against Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, there have been continual talks that the prosecution may eventually be forced to withdraw from lack of evidence.

Kenya’s government is considered to be obstructing the crimes against humanity case against its president by withholding access to crucial documents. 

Under Article 17, what kind of jurisdiction can ICC exercise when no action is taken by the state or when the state is unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation in the prosecution?

The terms “unwilling” and “genuine” both seem to have complex political ties based on both normative and empirical factors.

Even if the Kenyan government were to comply and provide evidence, how would we know if the evidence presented will suffice? Is there a reward system set in place in order to get evidence on a more timely manner? If the ICC acts, in certain respects, as a human rights court, and they do not reflect the intentions of due process, wouldn’t this be inconsistent with the intention of bringing people to justice?

As with so many cases, I understand that delay may be necessary (but not a sufficient requirement), but how does the Court assess delay and reasonable time? Is this simply determined on a case-by-case basis? Is sickness and death of indicted individuals the ultimate delay in justice? 


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: