The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports
8 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (2000), 89-118
Posted: 16 Jun 2016
Date Written: 2000
This paper intends to give a comparative overview of the status, role and accountability of the Prosecutor (General) based on 33 national reports. These reports have been prepared for the international workshop on 'The Independence and Accountability of the Prosecutor of a Permanent International Criminal Court' on the basis of a questionnaire which was later revised and reduced to eight questions. The paper is structured along these questions and finishes with eight conclusions. Pursuing a structural approach the paper distinguishes between three main criminal procedure systems. It is acknowledged that not all national systems fit clearly within one or the other of the proposed categories, but for comparative purposes they have been divided as follows (countries in alphabetical order):
- Common Law (this group includes common law countries and other countries with an adversarial procedure): Canada, England and Wales, Israel, Japan/South-Korea, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, United States of America. Civil Law (this group includes countries whose procedure historically evolved from the inquisitorial system and is based on the French Code d'Instruction Criminelle of 1808), distinguishing between
- Countries with an examining judge (juge d'instruction) based on the French model: Belgium, France, Egypt, Mali, the Netherlands, Rwanda, Senegal and Spain;
- Countries with a prosecutorial system: Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Russia.
- Sui Generis: People's Republic of China.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation