Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

This piece challenges the sentencing practice of international criminal tribunals. It argues that the sentencing phases of their proceedings reveal a victors' justice permeating international criminal justice - a victors' justice which utilizes tribunals to not to judge but primarily to punish and convict losers. Specifically, this article uses the example of mitigating circumstances, which do not actually mitigate sentences: either because the tribunals reject their mitigating value, or because the way they commute the resulting sentences does little to actually mitigate the punishment imposed. I highlight cases of defendants whose personal circumstances before and during the atrocities committed might warrant some mercy at the sentencing stage - mercy often denied. The article begins with a seminal case of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, arguing it used mitigation as a fagade behind which victors' justice and drive to convict are hidden; and juxtaposes the approaches of ICTR, ICTY, ICC. Therefore, I ask: Why is mitigation so often an empty statement? More attention needs to be paid to the sentencing stage to identify variables at work and see if recent positive decisions will with time prevail over the questionable, thereby fostering consistent fairness in international justice.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS