REVISION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND HYBRID COURTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7492/wkeyb584Keywords:
international criminal law, International Criminal Court, international tribunals, revision proceedings, revision of judgment, new evidence, ICC Statute, rights of the convicted person, Appeals Chamber, judicial practiceAbstract
This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the institution of revision proceedings before international criminal
tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Employing a comparative legal method, the study examines the normative foundations
(charters, statutes, rules of procedure and evidence) and judicial practice concerning the revision of final judicial decisions. Significant
discrepancies are identified in the legislative formulation of grounds for reopening a case, particularly regarding the interpretation of the
concepts "new fact" and "new evidence," as well as differences in the procedural status of entities authorized to initiate revision. The article
substantiates the problematic nature of the absence of a mandatory obligation for the Prosecutor to disclose newly discovered exculpatory
evidence after a judgment has become final and to initiate revision in the interests of the convicted person. Issues pertaining to the realization
of participants' procedural rights at the revision stage are addressed, including the presence of the convicted person at hearings and the
participation of victims. Based on the research findings, measures are proposed to improve the regulation of revision proceedings, aimed at
ensuring the timely submission of evidence, introducing flexibility in the initial consideration of applications, and guaranteeing the publicity
and adversarial character of the procedure.
