国际刑事法院法官裁量权研究
|
摘要
运用不同的解释规则及采纳不同的解释方法公正独立地解释法律规范中的模糊语词、协调规范间的冲突以及填补规范漏洞的法官裁量权是法官履行司法职能所不可或缺的。国际刑事法院法官也不例外。但考虑到国际刑事法院所审理的案件严重危及世界和平与安全的性质使得法院的司法活动与安理会乃至国家基于政治考虑所作出的一系列决议和决定存在不可避免的联系的情况，基于澄清政治因素在法院审判中所发挥的作用、法院法官裁量权行使的特点、法院的司法实践对国际刑事审判的重要意义以及法院在国际社会中的角色定位，作者认为有必要对《国际刑事法院罗马规约》运作近十年的法院的审判实践予以系统的归纳分析。
全文共分五章，六个部分，约15.8万字，主要内容如下：
第一章是关于“国际刑事法院法官裁量权概述”。结合法官裁量权、法律适用和法律解释的基本理论，概括指出本文所研究的国际刑事法院法官裁量权的范围以及法院的审判实践在法律适用和法律解释问题上的总体情况。
第二章是关于“国际刑事法院自行发起决定可受理性问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别以“BN案”和北乌干达情势案件一为例综合研究和归纳了法院发布逮捕令时及之后自行发起决定案件可受理性的条件，并且分析指出分庭解释规约法规群时的规则和方法。
第三章是关于“国际刑事法院各方质疑案件可受理性问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别针对国家质疑和辩方质疑可受理性问题展开分析。其中，国家质疑部分主要通过对AU法官与预审分庭和上诉分庭的分歧意见的比较分析，对预审分庭和上诉分庭多数法官目前所掌握的“决定可受理性的程序裁量权”的“客观标准”下的程序裁量尺度予以评析。而针对辩方质疑部分则主要涉及到法院基于相同的解释目的而对不同解释方法的运用以及对“滥用程序理论”和法院对内国司法制度的裁量权这些问题所表现出来的裁量特点加以综合分析。
第四章是关于“国际刑事法院证据问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别对国际刑事法院证明标准、证据判断方法和询问证人这些问题的裁量权进行研究。初步结论是法院采取“重实质轻形式”的解释方法广泛认定证据的可采性，并且倾向于增强和巩固为实现审判职能而需的审判能力，其表现就是通过解释将审判权力予以“独占”而绝不轻易让渡给其他机关。
第五章是关于“国际刑事法院犯罪指控问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围及研究目的之后，文章分别从确认指控路径以及犯罪物质要素和责任模式具体概念两个方面研究法官裁量权的行使。该章的研究表明，法官运用裁量权对法院管辖犯罪的定义予以扩张解释，在裁量累积型指控时做法并不完全统一，对暂停听讯修正指控的裁量也体现出“帮助指控”的倾向，总体上体现了法院“积极”管辖和审理案件的态度和趋势。
第六部分是文章的结论。总结了法院法官对可受理性、证据和犯罪指控问题上的裁量权行使情况及其特点，即国际刑事法院法官运用裁量权的目的在于扩大法院对案件的管辖范围，增强指控犯罪和裁决犯罪的能力。“补充性管辖原则”的实施坚持的是严格的“客观标准”，法院有与国家抢夺管辖权的态势。并且法官以裁量权的行使保证规约作出的“政治性司法安排”的实施。在此基础上，提出法官如此裁量的原因在于法院对其自身在国际组织体系中的定位，其目前阶段的作用是“以惩罚和预防国际社会最严重的犯罪”为媒介对安理会或有权国家所作出的“政治”安排起到“协助”的作用，尤其是对安理会的协助。而这一协助作用的发挥所要求的审判实践对于“国际刑法”实体和程序法的发展客观上起到了至关重要的作用。
As for the judge in the process of performing judicial functions, it isindispensable to interpret ambit of norms, coordinate conflicts between differentnorms and make up holes of norms independently and justly by the application ofdifferent rules and methods for interpretation. Considering that the InternationalCriminal Court’s cases’ nature of heavily threatening the world’s peace and safetygave rise to unavoidable political connection between the Court, Security Council andrelated countries, the author thinks it is necessary to analyze and generalize the lastten years’ judicial practice of the Court systematically in order to clarify the functionof political element in judicial process, characters of exercise of discretion, theimmense meaning of the discretionary practice to international criminal litigation andthe role of the Court in international community.
The paper consists of five chapters, about158,000characters, its main contentsinclude as follows:
Chapter Ⅰ gives a brief discussion of the general theory of the judges’discretion. To be combined with the basic theories of the discretion, application andinterpretation of law, the thesis points out the categories of the Court’s discretion thatwill be investigated and the general situation of application and interpretation of thelaw during the Court’s past judicial practice.
Chapter Ⅱ analyzes the discretion issues in the process of the Court’sself-triggering decision on the admissibility. After introducing the research category generally, the thesis takes cases of ‘The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda’ and ‘TheProsecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen’ forexamples respectively to analyze systematically and summarize the conditions for theCourt’s self-triggering the decision of the admissibility to the case and points out therules and methods the Courts interpret Statutory norms.
Chapter Ⅲ analyzes the discretion issues of other parties (including thedefendent and related country within the jurisdiction over the case) challenging theadmissibility of the case. After introducing the research category generally, the thesisanalyzes the admissibility issues raised by the related country and defendentrespectively. As to the country’s challenge, it mainly comments on the objectivecriteria of the procedural discretion insisted on by the majority of pre-trial chamberand appeal chamber by comparing the dissenting opinions between Judge AnitaUSacka and other judges of the pre-trial chamber and appeal chamber. Referring tothe defendent’s challenge, it mainly puts emphasis on the Court’s interpretation’spractice of reaching the same destiny by using different interpreting methods andcomprehensively analyzes characters of the discretion on issues of “abuse proceduretheory” and the Court’s discretionary power to internal judicial mechanism.
Chapter Ⅳ mainly tracks the Court’s practice on evidence issues. Afterintroducing the research category generally, the thesis analyzes the Court’sdiscretionary practice to the proof of evidence, principle of evidence and questioningwitnesses. It is concluded from the above that the Court tends to widely admit theadmissibility of the evidence and strengthen and consolidate its ability to exercise itsjudicial function by means of interpreting the discretionary power only into on its ownand not to be transferred to other organs easily.
Chapter Ⅴ mainly discusses the Court’s discretionary practice on chargingissues. After introducing the research category generally, the thesis analyzes theexercise of the Court’s discretion on both the way of confirmation of charges andmaterial element of crime and model of responsibility. It generally indicates that theCourt ‘positively’ exercises its jurisdiction over the case by defining crimes widely,not conforming to the same way to deal with the cumulative charging and the trend to help to prosecute.
The sixth part is the conclusion of the thesis. It generalizes the characters ofexercise of the Court’s discretion. Specifically speaking, the purpose for the Court’sexercise of discretion is to widen the category of the Court’s jurisdiction over the caseand strengthen the ability to charge crimes. The principle of complimentarity isstrictly interpreted by the objective criteria, thus making the Court compete withrelated countries on jurisdiction. The Court also relies on its exercise of discretion toguarantee the practice of judicial arrangement of political nature. At last, the thesisputs forward that the reason for the Court’s discretionary character is its own locationin the international organization system. The function of the Court is to help SecurityCouncil and related countries with their political arrangement by punishing thedefendent and preventing crimes from committing, especially for the SecurityCouncil’s task. During this process, the substantive and procedural law ininternational criminal law area also achieved a big development by the practice of theCourt’s discretionary practice.
全文共分五章，六个部分，约15.8万字，主要内容如下：
第一章是关于“国际刑事法院法官裁量权概述”。结合法官裁量权、法律适用和法律解释的基本理论，概括指出本文所研究的国际刑事法院法官裁量权的范围以及法院的审判实践在法律适用和法律解释问题上的总体情况。
第二章是关于“国际刑事法院自行发起决定可受理性问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别以“BN案”和北乌干达情势案件一为例综合研究和归纳了法院发布逮捕令时及之后自行发起决定案件可受理性的条件，并且分析指出分庭解释规约法规群时的规则和方法。
第三章是关于“国际刑事法院各方质疑案件可受理性问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别针对国家质疑和辩方质疑可受理性问题展开分析。其中，国家质疑部分主要通过对AU法官与预审分庭和上诉分庭的分歧意见的比较分析，对预审分庭和上诉分庭多数法官目前所掌握的“决定可受理性的程序裁量权”的“客观标准”下的程序裁量尺度予以评析。而针对辩方质疑部分则主要涉及到法院基于相同的解释目的而对不同解释方法的运用以及对“滥用程序理论”和法院对内国司法制度的裁量权这些问题所表现出来的裁量特点加以综合分析。
第四章是关于“国际刑事法院证据问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围之后，分别对国际刑事法院证明标准、证据判断方法和询问证人这些问题的裁量权进行研究。初步结论是法院采取“重实质轻形式”的解释方法广泛认定证据的可采性，并且倾向于增强和巩固为实现审判职能而需的审判能力，其表现就是通过解释将审判权力予以“独占”而绝不轻易让渡给其他机关。
第五章是关于“国际刑事法院犯罪指控问题的裁量权研究”。在概括介绍该章研究范围及研究目的之后，文章分别从确认指控路径以及犯罪物质要素和责任模式具体概念两个方面研究法官裁量权的行使。该章的研究表明，法官运用裁量权对法院管辖犯罪的定义予以扩张解释，在裁量累积型指控时做法并不完全统一，对暂停听讯修正指控的裁量也体现出“帮助指控”的倾向，总体上体现了法院“积极”管辖和审理案件的态度和趋势。
第六部分是文章的结论。总结了法院法官对可受理性、证据和犯罪指控问题上的裁量权行使情况及其特点，即国际刑事法院法官运用裁量权的目的在于扩大法院对案件的管辖范围，增强指控犯罪和裁决犯罪的能力。“补充性管辖原则”的实施坚持的是严格的“客观标准”，法院有与国家抢夺管辖权的态势。并且法官以裁量权的行使保证规约作出的“政治性司法安排”的实施。在此基础上，提出法官如此裁量的原因在于法院对其自身在国际组织体系中的定位，其目前阶段的作用是“以惩罚和预防国际社会最严重的犯罪”为媒介对安理会或有权国家所作出的“政治”安排起到“协助”的作用，尤其是对安理会的协助。而这一协助作用的发挥所要求的审判实践对于“国际刑法”实体和程序法的发展客观上起到了至关重要的作用。
As for the judge in the process of performing judicial functions, it isindispensable to interpret ambit of norms, coordinate conflicts between differentnorms and make up holes of norms independently and justly by the application ofdifferent rules and methods for interpretation. Considering that the InternationalCriminal Court’s cases’ nature of heavily threatening the world’s peace and safetygave rise to unavoidable political connection between the Court, Security Council andrelated countries, the author thinks it is necessary to analyze and generalize the lastten years’ judicial practice of the Court systematically in order to clarify the functionof political element in judicial process, characters of exercise of discretion, theimmense meaning of the discretionary practice to international criminal litigation andthe role of the Court in international community.
The paper consists of five chapters, about158,000characters, its main contentsinclude as follows:
Chapter Ⅰ gives a brief discussion of the general theory of the judges’discretion. To be combined with the basic theories of the discretion, application andinterpretation of law, the thesis points out the categories of the Court’s discretion thatwill be investigated and the general situation of application and interpretation of thelaw during the Court’s past judicial practice.
Chapter Ⅱ analyzes the discretion issues in the process of the Court’sself-triggering decision on the admissibility. After introducing the research category generally, the thesis takes cases of ‘The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda’ and ‘TheProsecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen’ forexamples respectively to analyze systematically and summarize the conditions for theCourt’s self-triggering the decision of the admissibility to the case and points out therules and methods the Courts interpret Statutory norms.
Chapter Ⅲ analyzes the discretion issues of other parties (including thedefendent and related country within the jurisdiction over the case) challenging theadmissibility of the case. After introducing the research category generally, the thesisanalyzes the admissibility issues raised by the related country and defendentrespectively. As to the country’s challenge, it mainly comments on the objectivecriteria of the procedural discretion insisted on by the majority of pre-trial chamberand appeal chamber by comparing the dissenting opinions between Judge AnitaUSacka and other judges of the pre-trial chamber and appeal chamber. Referring tothe defendent’s challenge, it mainly puts emphasis on the Court’s interpretation’spractice of reaching the same destiny by using different interpreting methods andcomprehensively analyzes characters of the discretion on issues of “abuse proceduretheory” and the Court’s discretionary power to internal judicial mechanism.
Chapter Ⅳ mainly tracks the Court’s practice on evidence issues. Afterintroducing the research category generally, the thesis analyzes the Court’sdiscretionary practice to the proof of evidence, principle of evidence and questioningwitnesses. It is concluded from the above that the Court tends to widely admit theadmissibility of the evidence and strengthen and consolidate its ability to exercise itsjudicial function by means of interpreting the discretionary power only into on its ownand not to be transferred to other organs easily.
Chapter Ⅴ mainly discusses the Court’s discretionary practice on chargingissues. After introducing the research category generally, the thesis analyzes theexercise of the Court’s discretion on both the way of confirmation of charges andmaterial element of crime and model of responsibility. It generally indicates that theCourt ‘positively’ exercises its jurisdiction over the case by defining crimes widely,not conforming to the same way to deal with the cumulative charging and the trend to help to prosecute.
The sixth part is the conclusion of the thesis. It generalizes the characters ofexercise of the Court’s discretion. Specifically speaking, the purpose for the Court’sexercise of discretion is to widen the category of the Court’s jurisdiction over the caseand strengthen the ability to charge crimes. The principle of complimentarity isstrictly interpreted by the objective criteria, thus making the Court compete withrelated countries on jurisdiction. The Court also relies on its exercise of discretion toguarantee the practice of judicial arrangement of political nature. At last, the thesisputs forward that the reason for the Court’s discretionary character is its own locationin the international organization system. The function of the Court is to help SecurityCouncil and related countries with their political arrangement by punishing thedefendent and preventing crimes from committing, especially for the SecurityCouncil’s task. During this process, the substantive and procedural law ininternational criminal law area also achieved a big development by the practice of theCourt’s discretionary practice.
引文
1Judge Philippe Kirsch, Address to the United Nations General Assembly,1November2007.
1《牛津英汉双解词典》，香港牛津大学出版社1984年版，第338页。
2Nathan. Isaacs,“The Limits of Judicial Discretion”(1923)32Yale LJ339, p.340.
3[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版，第52页。
4[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版，第52页。
5Rosemary Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1990, pp.1-4.相关翻译参见庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文，第19-20页。
2也可参见[英]哈特：《法律的概念》（第二版），许家馨、李冠宜译，法律出版社2006年版，第123、145和233页。
3关于德沃金的“整体性法律”的理论基础可以参见[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，吴玉章、信春鹰译，中国大百科全书出版社1998年版，第42-62页。
4有学者指出，法律上的自由心证包括两层含义：其一为“自由”，即审判人员对于证据的真实性和证明力的评断，享有自由裁量权；其二为“心证”，即审判人员对于证据的真实性和证明力的评断，应该达到内心确信的程度，或者说，应该达到排除疑虑和疑念的程度。在“心证”的过程中，证据真伪之鉴别、证据相关性之认可、证据充分性之认定以及证据证明力之判断，法律在所不问，只期望于具有良心、有辨别能力与经验的法官（或者陪审团）加以认定。何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，载《比较法研究》2003年第4期。也可参见李岩峰：《法官自由裁量权论》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。而从自由心证制度的发源地——《法国刑事诉讼法》第353条关于自由心证的要求来看，法律规范对于法官的心证几乎是毫无规则可言的，只是集中于扣问法官的内心世界，要求其“平心静气、集中精神、自行思考、自行决定，本着诚实，本着良心，依其理智，寻找针对被告及其辩护理由所提出之证据产生的印象。”这显然是一个无法探知的内心世界。参见刘召：《刑事裁判的可接受性》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文，脚注176。
5参见庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文，第36-37页。
6井涛：《法律适用的和谐与归一：论法官的自由裁量权》，中国方正出版社2001年版，第1页。
1梁迎修：《法官自由裁量权》，中国法制出版社2005年版，第25页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.14.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.32.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.39.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.15,16.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.35.
1李奕：《法官自由裁量权论》，吉林大学2005年博士学位论文。
2沈宗灵主编：《法理学》，高等教育出版社1994年版，第420页。
3Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.136.
4Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.143.
5Waldock, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964) Vol. II,1965, p.54.
6参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第7页。
1Hersch Lauterpacht, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties,British Yearbook of International Law,1949, p.48.
2Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970, p.361.
3文中宪法性条约指的是国际组织的章程，而造法性条约指的是不包括国际组织章程的创立缔约国应予遵守的普遍性国际法律规则的条约。
4Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970, p.133.
5参见李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第339-345页。
6参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第8页。
2I. C. J. Reports1951[R], p.23.
3一般的，学者通常将二者等同而不加区分。在各国国内法的实践中，也少有将二者区分的实践，例外的可能是法国。但是，也有学者主张，既然使用的是两个词，那就意味着二者有差异，更何况《维也纳条约法公约》第60（3）（b）条也单独使用了“目的或宗旨”。Isabelle Buffard&Karl Zemanek, The “Object andPurpose” of a Treaty: An Enigma?, Australian Review of International&European Law,1998,3, pp.311-343.Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.150.
4参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第9页。
5参见万鄂湘等：《国际条约法》，武汉大学出版社1998年版，第249页。李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第351页。
1宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第10页。
2Constance Jean Schwindt, Interpreting the United Nations Charter: From Treaty to World Constitution, DavisJournal of International Law&Policy, Spring,2000, p.2.
3参见李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第351-352页。
4宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第10-12页。
5参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第12页。
6宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第12页。
1Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, pp.36-37.
2I. C. J. Reports1951[R], p.23.
1宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第235页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan
2Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.51.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Prosecutor's Application Pursuant to Article58as to Muammar
Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al-Islam GADDAFI and Abdullah ALSENUSSI, No.: ICC-01/11, Date:
27June2011, para.12.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte
Mbarushimana, No.: ICC-01/04-01/10,28September2010, para.9.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.:
ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.4.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27
August2009, para.4.
6Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei
Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, No.: ICC-01/09-01/11,8March2011, para.11.
7Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summons to Appear for Francis Kirimi
Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,8March2011, para.11.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.29-41.
2Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC‐01/05‐01/08,10June2008, para.21.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of aWarrant of Arrest for Germain Katanga, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07, Date:6July2007, para.20. Pre-Trial Chamber I,Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest forMathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07, Date:6July2007, para.20.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article58(7) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/05-01/07, Date:27April2007, paras.19-25.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.16.
ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.16.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.18.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.29.
4Decision on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS-1, VPRS-2, VPRS-3, VPRS-4,VPRS-5and VPRS-6, filed by PTC I on18January2006, para.65. Also see Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II,Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.31.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.31.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.32.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.35,38-39.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.43.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.44.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.45.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:
4ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.46.See inter alia "World Youth Report2005, Report of the Secretary-General, Economic and Social Council,General Assembly", United Nations A/60/61. E/2005/7, Annex, paras.26-33. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II,Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.47.
5《规约》序言第5段。
6《规约》序言第6段。
7《规约》序言第4段。
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.49.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.50,52-54.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.55.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.59.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.60-61.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.64.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.85-89.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.42.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.44.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.45.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.48.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.49.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.50.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.51.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.52.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.54.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, paras.69-70.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.71.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.72.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.73.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, paras.74-75.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.77.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.78.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.79.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled
“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.
80.
2Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session,2May to22July1994,
General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10(A/49/10), pages43-146, at page105.
3Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session,2May to22July1994,
4General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10(A/49/10), pages43-146, at page105.Report on the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,14April1998,
UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1, pages2-167, at pages40-41.
5Preparatory Committee on the Establishment on an International Criminal Court,25March-12April1996,
Annex Complementarity, A compilation of concrete proposals made in the course of the discussion for amendment
of the ILC draft statute,8April1996, UN Doc. A/AC/CRP.9/Add.1, p.7.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:
2ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.21.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.32.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the “Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.25-26.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the “Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.85.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.14.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.28.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.25-26.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.37.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.40.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.41.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.42.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.43.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.44.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:
2ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.45.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.46.
3International Court of Justice, Judgment of18November1953, Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala),ICJ Reports,1953, p.119. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of theStatute, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.46.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.47.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.48.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.49-50.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.51-52.
1Mohamed Samed M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principle Judicial Organ of theUnited Nations [M], Kluwer Law International,2003:129-130.
2Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hackworth, International Law Reports [R]. Vol.16:328.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of anInvestigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”, No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010, para.52.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, paras.45-46.22011年4月17日，肯尼亚政府根据规约93（10）条和规则194条申请法院的合作与协助， ICC-01/09-58,p.3.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.30.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.31.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of anInvestigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”, No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010, para.50.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
3the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.49.ICC-01/09-02/11-26, para.32, fn.20. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government ofKenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,
30May2011, para.51.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.50.
1Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91,13May2011,
2para.27.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.56.
3ICC-01/09-02/11-26, paras34,71,72and79. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by theGovernment of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.57.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.58.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
3the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.61.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.62.
4Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-91-Anx2.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.66.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, paras.34-39.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.43.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.44.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.45.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.47.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.55.
1Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91with7annexes,13May2011, para.61.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.61.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.62.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, paras.86-87.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.80.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.96.
2Prosecution’s response to the “Appeal of the Government of Kenya against the Decision on the Application bythe Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute”,No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-168,12July2011.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Conduct of the Proceedings Following the Application of the Governmentof Kenya Pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-40,4April2011, para.12.
4Application for an Oral Hearing Pursuant to Rule58(2), No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-92,18May2011, para.23.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, paras.35-36.
6Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.111.
7Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.121.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, paras.30-31.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.14.
2Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
320September2011, para.16.Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.18.
4S. A. Williams,"Issues of Admissibility, Article17", in O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute ofthe International Criminal Court, Observer's Notes, Article by Article,(NOMOS, Baden-Baden,1sted.,1999),p.
392, para.20(footnote omitted).
5See Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Report of the Ad HocCommittee,22August1995, A/AC.244/CRP.5, at p.l:"The concept of complementarity was described as anessential element in the establishment of an intemational criminal court."; see also United Nations DiplomaticConference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Summary Records of the1998Diplomatic Conference,11*meeting,22June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR11, para19; see also12*meeting,
23June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.12, para.49.
2See J. T. Hohnes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones
3(ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002), p.672.G. Simpson,"Politics, Sovereignty, Remembrance" in: D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). ThePermanent Intemational Criminal Court. Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford,2004), p.61.
4Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.19.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8, para78.
6F. Gioia,"Comments on chapter3of Jann Kleffiier", J. Kleffrier, G. Kor (eds) Complementary Views onComplementarity (Asser Press,2006), p.109; the author also found the characterization of a "procedural dialogue";see also J. T. Hohnes,"Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC", in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D.Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford,2002), p.
683.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.22.
2J. T. Holmes,“Jurisdiction and Admissibility” in: R. S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: Elements ofCrimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence,(Transnational Publishers,2001) p.348.
3See e.g. C. F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation,(Brill,2005) compiling and comparing mles ofevidence of several tribunals.
4See also J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute,
(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999), pp.74-75.
5See J. T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones
(ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002), p.684.Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.22.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.23.
2规约起草者承认规约17条存在很多法律上的不确定性。See J. T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courtsversus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt: A Commentary, Volume I (Oxford,2002), p.672. Also see Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle ofComplementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus NijhoffPublishers(Leiden. Boston,2008), pp.315-324.
3Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.25.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.26.
2See D. Tums,"National Implementation of the Rome Statute", in: D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds).The Permanent International Criminal Court Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford,2004), p.337, p.387. See also M.Benzing, The Complementarity Regime of the ICC, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, volume7,2003,p.591, p.602.
3See also J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute,
(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999), p.65.
4Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.27.
5Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.27.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.28.
2Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.29.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case(Article
19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009, para.5.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility
3of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.101.Transcript of hearing on8March2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-20-CONF-ENG CT2. Also see Trial Chamber III,Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.24.
4Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bembab Gombo against thedecision of Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled "Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges", No.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.71.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial ChamberI s31March2006Decision Denying Leave to Appeal,13July2006, ICC‐01/04‐168, para.33.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.39.
23CORNU, G.(ed), Vocabulaire juridique, PUF,1987, p.711.GARNER, B.A.(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson West Publishing,2004, p.1543.
4Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.41.
5Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.42.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.44.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
3(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.45.Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Volume I
(Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March‐April and August1996), General Assembly OfficialRecords, Fifty‐first Session, Supplement No.22(A/51/22), pp.57-58, para.249.
4Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.47.
1International Law Commission, Forty\sixth session, Working Group on a Draft Statute for an InternationalCriminal Court, Report of the Working Group,14July1994, A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
3(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.48.Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.49.
4Pre‐Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant to Article57(3)(b) of the Statute to SeekCooperation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐443‐Conf‐Exp,25April2008, pp.8-10.
12ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐T‐24‐CONF‐EXP ENG ET,17April2008, p.26, lines6to9.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant to Article57(3)(b) of the Statute to SeekCooperation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐443‐Conf‐Exp,25April2008, p.10.
3Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, paras.56,58.
1Trial Chamber I, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-TrialChamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shallbe submitted, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1084,13December2007, para.39.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.210.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.45.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.76.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.77.
3Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.78.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
2(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, paras.79-80.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.240.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,25September2009, para.83.
4ICC-01/05-01/08-T-22-ENG CT WT, page7, line16to page8, line9.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24
2June2010, para.244.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.245.
3ICC-01/05-01/08-739, paragraph62.
4Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.246.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07OA8,25September2009, paras.
274-78.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.145,148.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.8.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.24.
2上诉分庭援引的包括因滥用程序而停止诉讼的司法实践来自于新西兰、英格兰、加拿大、南非、澳大利亚等国。Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on theDefence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006,No.: ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, paras.26-29.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, paras.30-31,33.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.34.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.35.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.36.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.37.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.38.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.39.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.27.
4Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.29.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.148,213.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.214.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.215,216.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.5.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.6.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, pp.7-9.
3Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.233.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.8.
2Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decisionof Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled “Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”,NO.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.67.
1Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decisionof Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled “Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”,NO.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.66.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.31.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.42.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.43.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar HassanAhmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, paras.202-203.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.3.
1Ambos, K., Article25Individual Criminal Responsibility in Commentary on the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court,(Triffterer, O., ed.), Munich, Verlag C.H. Beck Ohg,2008, p.746.也正是基于这一原因，AU法官认为多数法官所主张的用对苏丹政府的灭种罪意图的评估来代替对巴希尔灭种罪意图的评估是必要的。Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of JudgeAnita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009,para.4, footnote4.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.5.
3The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and FamiliariseWitnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1049,30November2007, para.44. Separate andPartly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.6.
4ICTR, Prosecutor v Karera, Case No.1CTR-01-74-A, Appeals Judgment,2February2009, para.34. Separateand Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.31.
1Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.10.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, paras.32,34.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.52.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.44.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.31.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.33.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.39.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.29.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.37.
3Eupopean Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgement of7July1989, Application No.14038/88. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January42007, para.38.Eupopean Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Mamatkulov and Askarov vo Turkey, Judgement of4February2005, Applications Nos.46827/99and46951/99. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmationof charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.38.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.64.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.39.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.40.
3辩方提出停止诉讼程序的三个滥用程序的理由是：（1）检方未能披露有关其与中非民主共和国政府和司法人员接触的证据，事关补充性问题；（2）基于政治目的错误适用司法程序；（3）以非法的方式将被告移送给法院。Trial Chamber III, Decision on theAdmissibility andAbuse of Process Challenges, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.148.
4ICC-01/05-0l/08-704-Red3-tENG, paragraphs201and202. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibilityand Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.67.
5Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.70.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.69.
3ICC-01/05-01/08-739, paras.39,43-45. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse ofProcess Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.71,72.
4ICC-01/05-01/08-742-Corr, paras.36,73. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse ofProcess Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.73.该标准在普通法的司法实践中较为流行，这种类型的证明标准程度较低，仅仅要求举证人提供的证据与其诉讼主张相符即可，除非将来另一方再有证据把表面证据推翻外，法庭可接受其作为事实的证明。See James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standardsfor Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International&Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.58,2009,pp.166-168.
5Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.201.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8, paras.
85,111. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.202.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.203.
1Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.16-19.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.35.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.37.
2参见陈光中主编：《刑事诉讼法》，北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2002年版，第129-132页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.61-62.
1R. May, International Criminal Evidence,(Transnational Publishers,2002), p.102; ICTY, Prosecutor vMilutmovic et al, Case No. IT-05-87-T,"Judgment",26February2009, para.36; See also ICTY, Prosecutor vGahc, Case No. IT-98-29-AR73.2,"Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Rule92bis",7June2002, para.
35("evidence is admissible only if it is relevant and it is relevant only if it has probative value, generalpropositions which are implicit in Rule89(C)"); ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milutmovic et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T,"Order on Procedure and Evidence",11July2006(as modified by the "Decision on Joint Defence Motion forModification of Order on Procedure and Evidence,"16August1997). See Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuantto Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre BembaGombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.41.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.42.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.44.
4Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,9thed., Thomson West,2009, p.53.
5薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版，第37页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.45-46.
2“JPBG案”的分庭也承认一个或者相同的证据可以证明许多问题，或者也可能仅对一个问题的证明是相关的。Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant toArticle61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges ofthe Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.60.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.55-56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.57.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-129.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
154-160.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.73.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.75.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.72.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.74.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.77.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.78.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.59.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.70.
1表1中部分术语的翻译参考了宋健强在其《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》一书中的翻译。参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第
145-173页。
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.62-90.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.92-93.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
107-117.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
118-122.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
123-125.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
126-130.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
131-132.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
137-142.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.79-86,89-98.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
101.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-106.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
107-109.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
110-113.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
116-122.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
123.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
126-129.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
154-160.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
161-165.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
166-170.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
171-173.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
177-185.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
186-195.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
197-199.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
200-209.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
210-218.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
219-224.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
225-228.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
229-232.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.47-48.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.49-52.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.53-54.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.43-47.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.42.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the
4Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.44.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.45-46.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.1107-109.
Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.166-170.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.200-209.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.131-132.
4宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第152页。
5参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第152-153页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
161-165.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
186-195.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
126-129.
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
229-232.
9Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.53-54.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
210-218.
2见表1“GK和MNC案”辩方质疑的第8、9和12.1项。See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmationof charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.166-173,197-199.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.92-93.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
166-170.
2宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第166页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
123-125.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
2参见张宝生主编：《证据法学》，中国政法大学出版社2009年版，第266页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.62-90.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
107-117.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.79-86,89-98.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-106.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
177-185.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.79-82.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.84-86.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.87,
2footnote98.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.88.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.89-90.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN,27January2007.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.32.
2参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision ofTrial Chamber Ⅰ of14July2009entiled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legalcharacterization of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of the Regulations ofthe Court”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009.
4Decision on the Filing of a Summary of the Charges by the Prosecutor, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-1547-tENG,21
5October2009.Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges,15January2010(notified on18January2010), No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2252, paras.5-7,11, footnote5.
6No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2252, paragraph11; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al, Case No.17-96-2l-T, TrialChamber, Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused, Esad Landzo,1May1997, para.26.
1Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
2Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber Ⅰ of
14July2009entiled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterization of thefacts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009, para.94.
3Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
1No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-99-ENG-ET, page39, line11to page40, line4.
2Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.38.
3Decision on victims' participation, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1119,18January2008, paras.120-122.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.38.
2Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
3Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.41.
4No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-104-ENG-ET, page37, line25et seq.
5参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
6Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2252,15January2010(notified on18January2010), paras.14-18,22.
7Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.43.
1Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the Legal Representafives of Victims, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2127,16September2009, para.23.
2Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, paras.46-47.
3参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
4Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2252,15January2010(notified on18January2010), pp.3,8,28.
5Prosecution's Response to the Defence "Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables auxquestions posées aux témoins par les juges", No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2265,25January2010, para.3.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.48.
2No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-227-CONF-ENG-ET, page3, lines12-18.
3Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.50.
4Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.49.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.43.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.45.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.46.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.47.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.103,109-117.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest under Article58, No.:ICC-02/04,8July2005, p.6.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.121.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.122.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest under Article58, No.:ICC-02/04,8July2005, p.6.
1The Prosecution’s Application for a warrant of arrest pursuant to article58,13January2006, paras.103-106.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.81.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.92,94-96.
3“Document Containing the Charges, Article61(3)(a)”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-356-Conf-Anx2,28August2006,para.14.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
410.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of awarrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007, paras.37,55.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of awarrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007, paras.54,61.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.20-36.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
489,573-582.
5Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, para.71.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, pp.184-185.
1Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, paras.29-68,84.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.71,210,341.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.13.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.28.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.
21,24.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.
231.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.53-123,163.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,
27August2009, paras.16,27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,
27August2009, para.31.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.53-124.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Separate Opinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.7-9.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7
3March2011, para.53.Document Containing the Charges Submitted Pursuant to Article61(3) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/05-03/09-79-Red, paras.67-68. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on theConfirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.53.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.
169-232.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Separate Opinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.7.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.61.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
269-271.
2International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of8June1977to theGeneva Conventions of12August1949, Geneva, Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds),1986, paras.1664-1674.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
273.
4Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9July2004, I.C.J. Reports2004.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
274.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
275.
1The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadi, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15July1999, paras.164-166and alsoThe Prosecutor v. Tihomir Bla ki, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29July2004, paras.170-175. SeePre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.275,footnote369.
2The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadi, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15July1999, para.166. See Pre-TrialChamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.278, footnote
370.
3The Prosecutor v. Delali, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment,20February2001, para.98. See Pre-TrialChamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.279, footnote
371.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
280.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
281,282.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
283,284.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
289.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
290-291.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008,footnote398.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
292.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
291.
1See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007,paras.322-325.
2AMBOS K.,“Article25: Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court, Baden-Baden, Nomos,1999, p.479, margin No.8. See Pre-Trial Chamber I,Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.326.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
327-332.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.2333-337.ESER A.,“Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: ACommentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press,2002, Vol. I, p.795. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theconfirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.339.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.
155.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
491.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.492
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.225.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.226-231.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.235.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
232.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
233,236.
2例如在对巴希尔发布逮捕令时，分庭指出有合理理由相信在相关时间内，SLM/A和JEM控制了达尔富尔地区领土的某些区域，因此，分庭认为有合理理由相信，至少从2003年3月开始，正如规约8（2）（f）条所要求的那样，SLM/A和JEM有能力长期实施持续的军事行动。See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theProsecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.64.其他涉及非国际性武装冲突的案件也都有类似认定。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.60.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.353.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.356.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.362.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.363.
3Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN GAOR,50th Sess.,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/50/22(1995), Annex II, pp.58-59. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.365.
4Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1, p.92.
5Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1, pp.92-93. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant
to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre BembaGombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.365.
1Decisions Taken By the Preparatory Committee At Its Session Held in New York11to21February1997, UNDoc. A/AC.249/1997/L.5(1997), Annex II, Report of the Working Group on General Principles of Criminal Lawand Penalties, Article H, para.4, pp.27-28; Report of the Inter-Sessional Meeting From19to30January1998inZutphen, the Netherlands, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/L.13(1998), Article23[H], para.4, p.60; Report of thePreparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute&Draft Final Act,UN Doc. A/Conf.l83/2/Add.l (1998), Article29, para.4, p.66; Summary Records of the Meetings of theCommittee of the Whole,1st meeting, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1, para.24. Pre-Trial Chamber II, DecisionPursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.366.
2Report of the Working Group on General Principles of Criminal Law, UN Doc.A/CONF.183/C.1/WGGP/L.4, p.
255. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.366.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.367.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.368.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.369.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the
Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.485-489.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.197,199-200.
2Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, para.25.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.202.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.203.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.204-205.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.206-209.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.299-300,308-311.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.128,270.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.270-279.也有学者认为在这种情况下，属于对“同一行为”的指控。参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第298-299页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.33-35.
2As reiterated by the Presiding Judge during the oral sessions of the Hearing, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-9-ENG ET WT12-01-2009, p.6,lines8-12; and acknowledged by the Prosecutor, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-12-CONF-ENC ET15-01-2009, p.61, lines13-17. See Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.9, footnote12.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.10-11.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.12-15.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.16.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.17.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.18-20.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
203.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.23.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.38.
5Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.39.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.32.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.34.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.35.
2如国际常设法院、国际法院、美洲人权法院、欧洲人权法院等。See Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning theHearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.36.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.36.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.37.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
200,204.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
463-464.
1Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.35.
2Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.14.
3Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.29.
4参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第257页。
1ESER A.,“Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: ACommentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press,2002, Vol. I, p.795. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theconfirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.339.
1Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.35.
2Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.29.
1参见李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》（下册），北京大学出版社2006年版，第710页。
1[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版，第11页。
2如远东国际刑事法庭与卢旺达国际刑事法庭可以请求安理会在国家不遵行其裁决的情况下，行使制裁权。参见[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版，第17页。
3The Head of Delegation, Statement on Behalf of Uganda, delivered to the Fifth Session of the Assembly of StateParties of the International Criminal Court,23November2006.
4Christine H. Chung, The Punishment and Prevention of Genocide: The International Criminal Court as aBenchmark of Progress and Need, Case W. RES.J.INT’L L., Vol.40:227,2007-2008, p.233.
参见于南：《从Bashir案看国际刑事法院的政治性与法律性》，载《华东政法大学学报》2011年增刊（第113号）。
1参见于南：《<国际刑事法院罗马规约>第16条的适用及评析》，载《河南教育学院学报》2012年第2期。
1、王秀梅：《从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则》，载《现代法学》2005年第6期。
2、宋健强：《“国际刑法哲学”：形态、命题与立场》，载陈兴良主编：《刑事法评论》2007年第20卷。
3、[美]马努什·H.阿桑贾尼：《国际刑事法院之实际运作中的法律》，郑达轩、曾琍萍译，载万鄂湘、王贵国、冯华健主编：《国际法：领域与构建——W.迈克尔·赖斯曼文章集》，法律出版社2007年版。
4、刘大群：《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》，载《北大国际法与比较法评论》第6卷第1辑。
5、杨力军：《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》，载《环球法律评论》2006年第4期。
6、何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，载《比较法研究》2003年第4期。
7、于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
8、于南：《从Bashir案看国际刑事法院的政治性与法律性》，载《华东政法大学学报》2011年第113号。
9、于南：《<国际刑事法院罗马规约>第16条的适用及评析》，载《河南教育学院学报》2012年第3期。
1、宋健强著：《国际刑事法院诉讼详情实证研究》，哈尔滨工业大学出版社2008年版。
2、[英]安德鲁·瑞格比著：《暴力之后的正义与和解》，刘成译，译林出版社2003年版。
3、[美]约翰·罗尔斯著：《正义论》，何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译，中国社会科学出版社1988年版。
4、[美]E·博登海默著：《法理学——法律哲学与法律方法》，邓正来译，中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
5、罗国强著：《国际法本体论》，法律出版社2008年版。
6、[荷]格劳秀斯著：《战争与和平法》，[美]A.C.坎贝尔英译，何勤华等译，上海人民出版社2005年版。
7、[美]路易斯·亨金著：《国际法：政治与价值》，张乃根等译，中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
8、李浩培著：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版。
9、宋健强著：《国际刑事司法制度通论》，哈尔滨工业大学出版社2006年版。
10、[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版。
11、[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著：《国际刑法的渊源与内涵——理论体系》，王秀梅译，法律出版社2003年版。
12、邵沙平著：《国际刑法学》，武汉大学出版社2005年版。
13、梁西著：《国际组织法（总论）》，武汉大学出版社2002年版。
14、王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》，中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
15、朱文奇著：《国际刑法》，中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
16、李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》（上、下册），北京大学出版社2006年版。
17、朱文奇著：《国际刑事法院与中国》，中国人民大学出版社2009年版。
18、宋健强著：《国际刑事法院“三造诉讼”实证研究》，法律出版社2009年版。
19、高铭暄、赵秉志主编：《国际刑事法院：中国面临的抉择》，中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
20、张磊著：《中国与国际刑事法院：现状与展望》，中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
21、洪永红著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭研究》，中国社会科学出版社2009年版。
22、马呈元著：《国际刑法论》，中国政法大学出版社2008年版。
23、[美]德沃金著：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
24、[英]哈特著：《法律的概念》（第二版），许家馨、李冠宜译，法律出版社2006年版。
25、井涛著：《法律适用的和谐与归一：论法官的自由裁量权》，中国方正出版社2001年版。
26、梁迎修著：《法官自由裁量权》，中国法制出版社2005年版。
27、沈宗灵主编：《法理学》，高等教育出版社1994年版。
28、万鄂湘等著：《国际条约法》，武汉大学出版社1998年版。
29、宋杰著：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版。
30、齐树洁主编：《英国证据法》，厦门大学出版社2002年版。
31、何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年版。
32、陈光中主编：《刑事诉讼法》，北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2002年版。
33、宋健强著：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版。
34、张宝生主编：《证据法学》，中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
1、庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文。
2、李岩峰：《法官自由裁量权论》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
3、刘召：《刑事裁判的可接受性》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
4、王凯石：《刑法适用解释研究》，西南政法大学2006年博士学位论文。
5、李奕：《法官自由裁量权论》，吉林大学2005年博士学位论文。
6、李伟：《法官解释确定性研究》，山东大学2007年博士学位论文。
1、Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court:Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, Oxford Press2003.2、 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law,Transnational Publishers, Inc.2003.
3、Claus Kreb, The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Order[M], NomosVerlagsgesellschaft,2000.
4、Roy S. Lee (ed.), The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations,Results, The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1999.
5、Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970.
6、Mohamed Samed M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as thePrinciple Judicial Organ of the United Nations [M], Kluwer Law International,2003.
7、J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: TheMaking of the Rome Statute,(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999).
8、R. May, International Criminal Evidence, Transnational Publishers,2002.9、 Henckaerts, J.M. and Doswald-Beck, L. Customary InternationalHumanitarian Law, Volume1: Rules, Oxford University Press, Oxford2005.
1、Robert C. Johansen,“The Impact of US Policy towards the InternationalCriminal Court on the Prevention of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes AgainstHumanity”, in28Human Rights Quarterly (2006).
2、Robert Cryer,“International criminal law vs. state sovereignty: anotherround?”, European Journal of International Law,5(2005).
3、The Hon. David Hunt, AO,“The International Criminal Court: High Hopes,‘Creative Ambiguity’ and an Unfortunate Mistrust in International Judges”, in Journalof International Criminal Justice, Vol.2, Issue1(March2004).
4、Bartram S.Brown, Primacy or Complementarity's: Reconciling the Jurisdictionof National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals[J]. The Yale Journal ofInternational Law, Vol.23,(1988).
5、Morten Bergsmo,“Occasional Remarks on Certain State Concerns about theJurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and their possibleImplications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council”[J],Nordic Journal of International Law,2000,69(2).
6、Nathan. Isaacs,“The Limits of Judicial Discretion”(1923)32Yale LJ339.
7、Rosemary Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation, ClarendonPress, Oxford,1990.
8、Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, NetherlandInternational Law Review,1980, Vol. XXVII.9、 Hersch Lauterpacht, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle ofEffectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties, British Yearbook of International Law,1949.
10、Maarten Bos, The World Court and the Interpretation of Constitutive Treaties,American Journal of International Law,1965.
11、Constance Jean Schwindt. Interpreting the United Nations Charter: FromTreaty to World Constitution, Davis Journal of International Law&Policy, Spring,2000.
12、Isabelle Buffard&Karl Zemanek, The “Object and Purpose” of a Treaty: AnEnigma?, Australian Review of International&European Law,1998,3.
13、S. A. Williams,"Issues of Admissibility, Article17", in O. Triffterer (ed.)Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Observer'sNotes, Article by Article,(NOMOS, Baden-Baden,1sted.,1999).
14、J. T. Hohnes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A.Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002).
15、G. Simpson,"Politics, Sovereignty, Remembrance" in: D. McGoldrick, P.Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). The Permanent Intemational Criminal Court. Legal andPolicy Issues (Oxford,2004).
16、F. Gioia,"Comments on chapter3of Jann Kleffiier", J. Kleffrier, G. Kor (eds)Complementary Views on Complementarity (Asser Press,2006).
17、R. Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in: A. Zimmermann, C.Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm (eds). The Statute of the International Court of Justice,A Commentary,(Oxford,2006).
18、J. T. Holmes,“Jurisdiction and Admissibility” in: R. S. Lee (ed.), TheInternational Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure andEvidence,(Transnational Publishers,2001).
19、Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity in InternationalCriminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers(Leiden.Boston,2008).
20、D. Tums,"National Implementation of the Rome Statute", in: D. McGoldrick,P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). The Permanent International Criminal Court Legal andPolicy Issues (Oxford,2004).
21、M. Benzing, The Complementarity Regime of the ICC, Max PlanckYearbook of United Nations Law, volume7,2003.
22、Ambos, K., Article25Individual Criminal Responsibility in Commentary onthe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,(Triffterer, O., ed.), Munich,Verlag C.H. Beck Ohg,2008.
23、James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in theInternational Court of Justice, International&Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.58,2009.
1、Waldock, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the InternationalLaw Commission (1964) Vol. II,1965.
2、Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of theProsecutor, Defence, and OPCV to the Government's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91with7annexes,13May2011.
3、World Youth Report2005, Report of the Secretary-General, Economic andSocial Council, General Assembly, United Nations A/60/61. E/2005/7, Annex.
4、Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixthsession,2May to22July1994, General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninthSession, Supplement No.10(A/49/10).
5、Report on the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an InternationalCriminal Court,14April1998, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1.
6、Preparatory Committee on the Establishment on an International CriminalCourt,25March-12April1996, Annex Complementarity, A compilation of concreteproposals made in the course of the discussion for amendment of the ILC draft statute,8April1996, UN Doc. A/AC/CRP.9/Add.1.
7、Prosecution’s response to the “Appeal of the Government of Kenya against theDecision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging theAdmissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute”, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-168,12July2011.8、 Application for an Oral Hearing Pursuant to Rule58(2), No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-92,18May2011.
9、Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Committee,22August1995, A/AC.244/CRP.5.10、 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on theEstablishment of an International Criminal Court, Summary Records of the1998Diplomatic Conference,11*meeting,22June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR11.
11、Transcript of hearing on8March2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-20-CONF-ENGCT2.12、 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of anInternational Criminal Court, Volume I (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committeeduring March‐April and August1996), General Assembly Official Records,Fifty‐first Session, Supplement No.22(A/51/22).
13、International Law Commission, Forty-sixth session, Working Group on aDraft Statute for an International Criminal Court, Report of the Working Group,14July1994, A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2.14、“Document Containing the Charges, Article61(3)(a)”, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-356-Conf-Anx2,28August2006.
15、International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the AdditionalProtocols of8June1977to the Geneva Conventions of12August1949, Geneva,Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds),1986.
16、Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an InternationalCriminal Court, UN GAOR,50th Sess., Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/50/22(1995),Annex II.17、 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of anInternational Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2, Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1.
1、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009.
2、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation ofCharges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011.3、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
4、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant ofarrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006.
5、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrantof Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009.
6、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Prosecutor's Application Pursuant toArticle58as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al-IslamGADDAFI and Abdullah ALSENUSSI, No.: ICC-01/11,27June2011.
7、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Callixte Mbarushimana, No.: ICC-01/04-01/10,28September2010.
8、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Applicationunder Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009.
9、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27August2009.
10、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summonsto Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang,No.: ICC-01/09-01/11,8March2011.
11、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summonsto Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and MohammedHussein Ali, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,8March2011.
12、Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008.
13、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for Germain Katanga, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,6July2007.
14、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007.
15、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article58(7) of the Statute, No.: ICC-02/05-01/07,27April2007.
16、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application forWarrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006.
17、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application forWarrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006.
18、Decision on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS-1,VPRS-2, VPRS-3, VPRS-4, VPRS-5and VPRS-6, filed by PTC I on18January2006.
19、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decisionof Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrantsof Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006.
20、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the“Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009.
21、Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statuteon the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”,No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010.
22、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government ofKenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of theStatute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011.
23、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya againstthe decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of30May2011entitled “Decision on theApplication by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011.
24、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Conduct of the Proceedings Followingthe Application of the Government of Kenya Pursuant to Article19of the RomeStatute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-40,4April2011.
25、Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision ofPre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by theGovernment of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11OA,20September2011.
26、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga againstthe Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of12June2009on the Admissibility of theCase,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8.
27、Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challengingthe Admissibility of the Case(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009.
28、Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010.
29、Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-PierreBembab Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled"Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges", No.:ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010.30、 Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor s Application forExtraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I s31March2006Decision DenyingLeave to Appeal,13July2006, ICC-01/04-168.
31、Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challengingthe Admissibility of the Case (Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009.
32、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant toArticle57(3)(b) of the Statute to Seek Cooperation of the Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-443-Conf-Exp,25April2008.
33、Trial Chamber I, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of theevidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamberin trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shall be submitted, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-1084,13December2007.
34、Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010.
35、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyiloagainst the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Courtpursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006.
36、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdictionof the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006.
37、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of theRome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009.
38、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
39、Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision onthe Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad AlBashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009.
40、Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnessesfor Giving Testimony at Trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1049,30November2007.
41、Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the“Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against OmarHassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010.42、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007.43、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008.
44、Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08.
45、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Prosecutior’s Application for Leave toAppeal in Part Pre-Trial Chamber2’s Decision on the Prosecutor’s Applications ForWarrants of Arrest under Article58, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,19August2005.
46、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation ofCharges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011.
47、Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010.
48、Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and theProsecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber Ⅰ of14July2009entiled“Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterizationof the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of theRegulations of the Court”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009.
49、Decision on the Filing of a Summary of the Charges by the Prosecutor, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1547-tENG,21October2009.
50、Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008.
51、Decision on victims' participation, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1119,18January2008.
52、Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010.53、 Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the LegalRepresentafives of Victims, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2127,16September2009.
54、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrantsof Arrest under Article58, No.: ICC-02/04,8July2005.
55、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.:ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007.
56、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009.
57、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application underArticle58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27August2009.
58、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, SeparateOpinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
1、国际刑事法院判决及第一手资料主要来自于国际刑事法院官方网站：http://www.icc-cpi.int。下载的判决及报告主要涉及如下情势中之案件：
（1）situation in UgandaThe Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and DominicOngwen.
（2） situation in the Democratic Republic of the CongoThe Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo（“卢班加案”）;The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda（“BN案”）;The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui（“GK和MNC案”）;The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana（“CM案”）.
（3）situation in Darfur, SudanThe Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and AliMuhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”)（“AH和AK案”）;The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir（“巴希尔案”）;The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda（“BIAG案”）;The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed JerboJamus（“ABAN和SMJJ”案）.
（4） situation in the CentralAfrican RepublicThe Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo（“JPBG案”）.
（5） situation in the Republic of KenyaOn6November,2009, the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC)issued a decision assigning the situation in the Republic of Kenya to Pre-TrialChamber II. Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecutor, on31March2010,authorisation to open an investigation in the situation of Kenya.
（6）situation in the Libya
（7）situation in the Republic of Cote d'ivoire2、联合国官方网站：http://www.un.org.
1、《国际刑事法院罗马规约》
2、《国际刑事法院和联合国间关系协定谈判草案》（ICC-ASP/3/Res.1）
3、《程序和证据规则》
4、《犯罪要件》
5、《法院规则》
1、《牛津英汉双解词典》，香港牛津大学出版社1984年版。
2、薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版。
3、Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,9thed., Thomson West,2009.
1《牛津英汉双解词典》，香港牛津大学出版社1984年版，第338页。
2Nathan. Isaacs,“The Limits of Judicial Discretion”(1923)32Yale LJ339, p.340.
3[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版，第52页。
4[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版，第52页。
5Rosemary Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1990, pp.1-4.相关翻译参见庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文，第19-20页。
2也可参见[英]哈特：《法律的概念》（第二版），许家馨、李冠宜译，法律出版社2006年版，第123、145和233页。
3关于德沃金的“整体性法律”的理论基础可以参见[美]德沃金：《认真对待权利》，吴玉章、信春鹰译，中国大百科全书出版社1998年版，第42-62页。
4有学者指出，法律上的自由心证包括两层含义：其一为“自由”，即审判人员对于证据的真实性和证明力的评断，享有自由裁量权；其二为“心证”，即审判人员对于证据的真实性和证明力的评断，应该达到内心确信的程度，或者说，应该达到排除疑虑和疑念的程度。在“心证”的过程中，证据真伪之鉴别、证据相关性之认可、证据充分性之认定以及证据证明力之判断，法律在所不问，只期望于具有良心、有辨别能力与经验的法官（或者陪审团）加以认定。何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，载《比较法研究》2003年第4期。也可参见李岩峰：《法官自由裁量权论》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。而从自由心证制度的发源地——《法国刑事诉讼法》第353条关于自由心证的要求来看，法律规范对于法官的心证几乎是毫无规则可言的，只是集中于扣问法官的内心世界，要求其“平心静气、集中精神、自行思考、自行决定，本着诚实，本着良心，依其理智，寻找针对被告及其辩护理由所提出之证据产生的印象。”这显然是一个无法探知的内心世界。参见刘召：《刑事裁判的可接受性》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文，脚注176。
5参见庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文，第36-37页。
6井涛：《法律适用的和谐与归一：论法官的自由裁量权》，中国方正出版社2001年版，第1页。
1梁迎修：《法官自由裁量权》，中国法制出版社2005年版，第25页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.14.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.32.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.39.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.15,16.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.35.
1李奕：《法官自由裁量权论》，吉林大学2005年博士学位论文。
2沈宗灵主编：《法理学》，高等教育出版社1994年版，第420页。
3Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.136.
4Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.143.
5Waldock, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964) Vol. II,1965, p.54.
6参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第7页。
1Hersch Lauterpacht, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties,British Yearbook of International Law,1949, p.48.
2Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970, p.361.
3文中宪法性条约指的是国际组织的章程，而造法性条约指的是不包括国际组织章程的创立缔约国应予遵守的普遍性国际法律规则的条约。
4Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970, p.133.
5参见李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第339-345页。
6参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第8页。
2I. C. J. Reports1951[R], p.23.
3一般的，学者通常将二者等同而不加区分。在各国国内法的实践中，也少有将二者区分的实践，例外的可能是法国。但是，也有学者主张，既然使用的是两个词，那就意味着二者有差异，更何况《维也纳条约法公约》第60（3）（b）条也单独使用了“目的或宗旨”。Isabelle Buffard&Karl Zemanek, The “Object andPurpose” of a Treaty: An Enigma?, Australian Review of International&European Law,1998,3, pp.311-343.Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, p.150.
4参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第9页。
5参见万鄂湘等：《国际条约法》，武汉大学出版社1998年版，第249页。李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第351页。
1宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第10页。
2Constance Jean Schwindt, Interpreting the United Nations Charter: From Treaty to World Constitution, DavisJournal of International Law&Policy, Spring,2000, p.2.
3参见李浩培：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版，第351-352页。
4宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第10-12页。
5参见宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第12页。
6宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第12页。
1Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, Netherland International Law Review,1980, Vol.XXVII, pp.36-37.
2I. C. J. Reports1951[R], p.23.
1宋杰：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版，第235页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan
2Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.51.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Prosecutor's Application Pursuant to Article58as to Muammar
Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al-Islam GADDAFI and Abdullah ALSENUSSI, No.: ICC-01/11, Date:
27June2011, para.12.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Callixte
Mbarushimana, No.: ICC-01/04-01/10,28September2010, para.9.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.:
ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.4.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27
August2009, para.4.
6Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei
Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, No.: ICC-01/09-01/11,8March2011, para.11.
7Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summons to Appear for Francis Kirimi
Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,8March2011, para.11.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.29-41.
2Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC‐01/05‐01/08,10June2008, para.21.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of aWarrant of Arrest for Germain Katanga, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07, Date:6July2007, para.20. Pre-Trial Chamber I,Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest forMathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07, Date:6July2007, para.20.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article58(7) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/05-01/07, Date:27April2007, paras.19-25.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.16.
ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.16.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.18.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.29.
4Decision on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS-1, VPRS-2, VPRS-3, VPRS-4,VPRS-5and VPRS-6, filed by PTC I on18January2006, para.65. Also see Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II,Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.31.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.31.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.32.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.35,38-39.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.43.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.44.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.45.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:
4ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.46.See inter alia "World Youth Report2005, Report of the Secretary-General, Economic and Social Council,General Assembly", United Nations A/60/61. E/2005/7, Annex, paras.26-33. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II,Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.47.
5《规约》序言第5段。
6《规约》序言第6段。
7《规约》序言第4段。
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.49.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.50,52-54.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.55.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.59.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.60-61.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, para.64.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006, paras.85-89.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.42.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.44.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.45.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.48.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.49.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.50.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.51.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.52.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.54.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, paras.69-70.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.71.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.72.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.73.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, paras.74-75.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.77.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.78.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.79.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled
“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.
80.
2Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session,2May to22July1994,
General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10(A/49/10), pages43-146, at page105.
3Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session,2May to22July1994,
4General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10(A/49/10), pages43-146, at page105.Report on the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,14April1998,
UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1, pages2-167, at pages40-41.
5Preparatory Committee on the Establishment on an International Criminal Court,25March-12April1996,
Annex Complementarity, A compilation of concrete proposals made in the course of the discussion for amendment
of the ILC draft statute,8April1996, UN Doc. A/AC/CRP.9/Add.1, p.7.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:
2ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.21.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.32.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the “Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.25-26.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the “Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.85.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.14.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.28.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.25-26.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.37.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.40.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.41.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.42.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.43.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.44.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:
2ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.45.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.46.
3International Court of Justice, Judgment of18November1953, Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala),ICJ Reports,1953, p.119. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of theStatute, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.46.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.47.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, para.48.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.49-50.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009, paras.51-52.
1Mohamed Samed M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principle Judicial Organ of theUnited Nations [M], Kluwer Law International,2003:129-130.
2Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hackworth, International Law Reports [R]. Vol.16:328.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of anInvestigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”, No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010, para.52.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, paras.45-46.22011年4月17日，肯尼亚政府根据规约93（10）条和规则194条申请法院的合作与协助， ICC-01/09-58,p.3.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.30.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.31.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of anInvestigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”, No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010, para.50.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
3the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.49.ICC-01/09-02/11-26, para.32, fn.20. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government ofKenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,
30May2011, para.51.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.50.
1Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91,13May2011,
2para.27.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.56.
3ICC-01/09-02/11-26, paras34,71,72and79. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by theGovernment of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.57.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.58.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
3the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.61.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.62.
4Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-91-Anx2.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, para.66.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, paras.34-39.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.43.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.44.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.45.
4Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.47.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.55.
1Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of the Prosecutor, Defence, and OPCV to theGovernment's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91with7annexes,13May2011, para.61.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.61.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.62.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, paras.86-87.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.80.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.96.
2Prosecution’s response to the “Appeal of the Government of Kenya against the Decision on the Application bythe Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute”,No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-168,12July2011.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Conduct of the Proceedings Following the Application of the Governmentof Kenya Pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-40,4April2011, para.12.
4Application for an Oral Hearing Pursuant to Rule58(2), No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-92,18May2011, para.23.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility ofthe Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011, paras.35-36.
6Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.111.
7Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibilityof the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.121.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, paras.30-31.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.14.
2Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
320September2011, para.16.Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.18.
4S. A. Williams,"Issues of Admissibility, Article17", in O. Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute ofthe International Criminal Court, Observer's Notes, Article by Article,(NOMOS, Baden-Baden,1sted.,1999),p.
392, para.20(footnote omitted).
5See Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Report of the Ad HocCommittee,22August1995, A/AC.244/CRP.5, at p.l:"The concept of complementarity was described as anessential element in the establishment of an intemational criminal court."; see also United Nations DiplomaticConference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Summary Records of the1998Diplomatic Conference,11*meeting,22June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR11, para19; see also12*meeting,
23June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.12, para.49.
2See J. T. Hohnes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones
3(ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002), p.672.G. Simpson,"Politics, Sovereignty, Remembrance" in: D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). ThePermanent Intemational Criminal Court. Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford,2004), p.61.
4Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.19.
5Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8, para78.
6F. Gioia,"Comments on chapter3of Jann Kleffiier", J. Kleffrier, G. Kor (eds) Complementary Views onComplementarity (Asser Press,2006), p.109; the author also found the characterization of a "procedural dialogue";see also J. T. Hohnes,"Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC", in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D.Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford,2002), p.
683.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.22.
2J. T. Holmes,“Jurisdiction and Admissibility” in: R. S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: Elements ofCrimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence,(Transnational Publishers,2001) p.348.
3See e.g. C. F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation,(Brill,2005) compiling and comparing mles ofevidence of several tribunals.
4See also J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute,
(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999), pp.74-75.
5See J. T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones
(ed.) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002), p.684.Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.22.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.23.
2规约起草者承认规约17条存在很多法律上的不确定性。See J. T. Holmes, Complementarity: National Courtsversus the ICC, in: A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt: A Commentary, Volume I (Oxford,2002), p.672. Also see Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle ofComplementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus NijhoffPublishers(Leiden. Boston,2008), pp.315-324.
3Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.25.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.26.
2See D. Tums,"National Implementation of the Rome Statute", in: D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds).The Permanent International Criminal Court Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford,2004), p.337, p.387. See also M.Benzing, The Complementarity Regime of the ICC, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, volume7,2003,p.591, p.602.
3See also J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute,
(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999), p.65.
4Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.27.
5Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.27.
1Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.28.
2Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,
20September2011, para.29.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case(Article
19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009, para.5.
2Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber IIof30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility
3of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011, para.101.Transcript of hearing on8March2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-20-CONF-ENG CT2. Also see Trial Chamber III,Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.24.
4Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bembab Gombo against thedecision of Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled "Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges", No.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.71.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial ChamberI s31March2006Decision Denying Leave to Appeal,13July2006, ICC‐01/04‐168, para.33.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.39.
23CORNU, G.(ed), Vocabulaire juridique, PUF,1987, p.711.GARNER, B.A.(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson West Publishing,2004, p.1543.
4Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.41.
5Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.42.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.44.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
3(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.45.Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Volume I
(Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March‐April and August1996), General Assembly OfficialRecords, Fifty‐first Session, Supplement No.22(A/51/22), pp.57-58, para.249.
4Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.47.
1International Law Commission, Forty\sixth session, Working Group on a Draft Statute for an InternationalCriminal Court, Report of the Working Group,14July1994, A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
3(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.48.Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.49.
4Pre‐Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant to Article57(3)(b) of the Statute to SeekCooperation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐443‐Conf‐Exp,25April2008, pp.8-10.
12ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐T‐24‐CONF‐EXP ENG ET,17April2008, p.26, lines6to9.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant to Article57(3)(b) of the Statute to SeekCooperation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07‐443‐Conf‐Exp,25April2008, p.10.
3Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, paras.56,58.
1Trial Chamber I, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of the evidence heard by the Pre-TrialChamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamber in trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shallbe submitted, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1084,13December2007, para.39.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.210.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.45.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.76.
2Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.77.
3Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, para.78.
1Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challenging the Admissibility of the Case
2(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC‐01/04‐01/07,16June2009, paras.79-80.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.240.
3Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,25September2009, para.83.
4ICC-01/05-01/08-T-22-ENG CT WT, page7, line16to page8, line9.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24
2June2010, para.244.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.245.
3ICC-01/05-01/08-739, paragraph62.
4Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.246.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07OA8,25September2009, paras.
274-78.Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.145,148.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.8.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.24.
2上诉分庭援引的包括因滥用程序而停止诉讼的司法实践来自于新西兰、英格兰、加拿大、南非、澳大利亚等国。Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on theDefence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006,No.: ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, paras.26-29.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, paras.30-31,33.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.34.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the DefenceChallenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006, para.35.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.36.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.37.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.38.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.39.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.27.
4Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the "Decision on the admissibility of the caseunder article19(1) of the Statute" of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009, para.29.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.148,213.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.214.
1Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.215,216.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.5.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.6.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, pp.7-9.
3Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.233.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006, p.8.
2Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decisionof Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled “Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”,NO.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.67.
1Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decisionof Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled “Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges”,NO.: ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010, para.66.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.31.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.42.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.43.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar HassanAhmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, paras.202-203.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.3.
1Ambos, K., Article25Individual Criminal Responsibility in Commentary on the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court,(Triffterer, O., ed.), Munich, Verlag C.H. Beck Ohg,2008, p.746.也正是基于这一原因，AU法官认为多数法官所主张的用对苏丹政府的灭种罪意图的评估来代替对巴希尔灭种罪意图的评估是必要的。Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of JudgeAnita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009,para.4, footnote4.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.5.
3The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and FamiliariseWitnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1049,30November2007, para.44. Separate andPartly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.6.
4ICTR, Prosecutor v Karera, Case No.1CTR-01-74-A, Appeals Judgment,2February2009, para.34. Separateand Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.31.
1Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.10.
2Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, paras.32,34.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.52.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled“Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrants of Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006, para.44.
1Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.31.
2Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.33.
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the “Decision on the Prosecution’sApplication for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010, para.39.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.29.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.37.
3Eupopean Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Judgement of7July1989, Application No.14038/88. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January42007, para.38.Eupopean Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Mamatkulov and Askarov vo Turkey, Judgement of4February2005, Applications Nos.46827/99and46951/99. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmationof charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.38.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.64.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.39.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.40.
3辩方提出停止诉讼程序的三个滥用程序的理由是：（1）检方未能披露有关其与中非民主共和国政府和司法人员接触的证据，事关补充性问题；（2）基于政治目的错误适用司法程序；（3）以非法的方式将被告移送给法院。Trial Chamber III, Decision on theAdmissibility andAbuse of Process Challenges, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.148.
4ICC-01/05-0l/08-704-Red3-tENG, paragraphs201and202. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibilityand Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.67.
5Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.70.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.69.
3ICC-01/05-01/08-739, paras.39,43-45. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse ofProcess Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, paras.71,72.
4ICC-01/05-01/08-742-Corr, paras.36,73. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse ofProcess Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.73.该标准在普通法的司法实践中较为流行，这种类型的证明标准程度较低，仅仅要求举证人提供的证据与其诉讼主张相符即可，除非将来另一方再有证据把表面证据推翻外，法庭可接受其作为事实的证明。See James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standardsfor Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International&Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.58,2009,pp.166-168.
5Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.201.
1Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial ChamberII of12June2009on the Admissibility of the Case,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8, paras.
85,111. See Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.202.
2Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010, para.203.
1Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.16-19.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.35.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.37.
2参见陈光中主编：《刑事诉讼法》，北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2002年版，第129-132页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.61-62.
1R. May, International Criminal Evidence,(Transnational Publishers,2002), p.102; ICTY, Prosecutor vMilutmovic et al, Case No. IT-05-87-T,"Judgment",26February2009, para.36; See also ICTY, Prosecutor vGahc, Case No. IT-98-29-AR73.2,"Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Rule92bis",7June2002, para.
35("evidence is admissible only if it is relevant and it is relevant only if it has probative value, generalpropositions which are implicit in Rule89(C)"); ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milutmovic et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T,"Order on Procedure and Evidence",11July2006(as modified by the "Decision on Joint Defence Motion forModification of Order on Procedure and Evidence,"16August1997). See Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuantto Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre BembaGombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.41.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.42.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.44.
4Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,9thed., Thomson West,2009, p.53.
5薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版，第37页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.45-46.
2“JPBG案”的分庭也承认一个或者相同的证据可以证明许多问题，或者也可能仅对一个问题的证明是相关的。Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant toArticle61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges ofthe Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.60.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.55-56.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.57.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-129.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
154-160.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.73.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.75.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.72.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.74.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.77.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.78.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.59.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.70.
1表1中部分术语的翻译参考了宋健强在其《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》一书中的翻译。参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第
145-173页。
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.62-90.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.92-93.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
107-117.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
118-122.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
123-125.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
126-130.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
131-132.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
137-142.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.79-86,89-98.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
101.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-106.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
107-109.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
110-113.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
116-122.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
123.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
126-129.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
154-160.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
161-165.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
166-170.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
171-173.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
177-185.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
186-195.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
197-199.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
200-209.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
210-218.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
219-224.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
225-228.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
229-232.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.47-48.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.49-52.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.53-54.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.43-47.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.42.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the
4Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.44.Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.45-46.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.99-106.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.1107-109.
Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.166-170.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.200-209.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.131-132.
4宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第152页。
5参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第152-153页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.95-98.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
161-165.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
186-195.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
126-129.
8Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
229-232.
9Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.53-54.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
210-218.
2见表1“GK和MNC案”辩方质疑的第8、9和12.1项。See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmationof charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.166-173,197-199.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.92-93.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
166-170.
2宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第166页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
123-125.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
134-136.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
132-141.
2参见张宝生主编：《证据法学》，中国政法大学出版社2009年版，第266页。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.62-90.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
107-117.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.79-86,89-98.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
102-106.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
142-153.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
177-185.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.79-82.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.84-86.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.87,
2footnote98.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.88.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.89-90.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN,27January2007.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.32.
2参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
3Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision ofTrial Chamber Ⅰ of14July2009entiled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legalcharacterization of the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of the Regulations ofthe Court”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009.
4Decision on the Filing of a Summary of the Charges by the Prosecutor, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-1547-tENG,21
5October2009.Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges,15January2010(notified on18January2010), No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2252, paras.5-7,11, footnote5.
6No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2252, paragraph11; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al, Case No.17-96-2l-T, TrialChamber, Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused, Esad Landzo,1May1997, para.26.
1Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
2Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber Ⅰ of
14July2009entiled “Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterization of thefacts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of the Regulations of the Court”, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009, para.94.
3Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
1No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-99-ENG-ET, page39, line11to page40, line4.
2Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.38.
3Decision on victims' participation, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1119,18January2008, paras.120-122.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.38.
2Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008, para.32.
3Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.41.
4No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-104-ENG-ET, page37, line25et seq.
5参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
6Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2252,15January2010(notified on18January2010), paras.14-18,22.
7Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.43.
1Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the Legal Representafives of Victims, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2127,16September2009, para.23.
2Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, paras.46-47.
3参见于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
4Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables aux questions posées aux témoins par les juges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-2252,15January2010(notified on18January2010), pp.3,8,28.
5Prosecution's Response to the Defence "Requête aux fins de détermination des principes applicables auxquestions posées aux témoins par les juges", No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2265,25January2010, para.3.
1Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.48.
2No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-T-227-CONF-ENG-ET, page3, lines12-18.
3Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.50.
4Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010, para.49.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.43.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.45.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.46.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.47.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.103,109-117.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest under Article58, No.:ICC-02/04,8July2005, p.6.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.121.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.122.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest under Article58, No.:ICC-02/04,8July2005, p.6.
1The Prosecution’s Application for a warrant of arrest pursuant to article58,13January2006, paras.103-106.Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.81.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, paras.92,94-96.
3“Document Containing the Charges, Article61(3)(a)”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-356-Conf-Anx2,28August2006,para.14.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
410.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of awarrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007, paras.37,55.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided by the Prosecution for the issuance of awarrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007, paras.54,61.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.20-36.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
489,573-582.
5Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, para.71.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, pp.184-185.
1Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, paras.29-68,84.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.71,210,341.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.13.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009, para.28.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.
21,24.
7Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.
231.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.53-123,163.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,
27August2009, paras.16,27.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,
27August2009, para.31.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.53-124.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Separate Opinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.7-9.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7
3March2011, para.53.Document Containing the Charges Submitted Pursuant to Article61(3) of the Statute, No.:ICC-02/05-03/09-79-Red, paras.67-68. See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on theConfirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.53.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, paras.
169-232.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Separate Opinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.7.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, para.61.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
269-271.
2International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of8June1977to theGeneva Conventions of12August1949, Geneva, Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds),1986, paras.1664-1674.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
273.
4Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,9July2004, I.C.J. Reports2004.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
274.
6Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
275.
1The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadi, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15July1999, paras.164-166and alsoThe Prosecutor v. Tihomir Bla ki, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment,29July2004, paras.170-175. SeePre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.275,footnote369.
2The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadi, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeal Judgment,15July1999, para.166. See Pre-TrialChamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.278, footnote
370.
3The Prosecutor v. Delali, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment,20February2001, para.98. See Pre-TrialChamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.279, footnote
371.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
280.
5Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
281,282.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
283,284.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
289.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
290-291.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008,footnote398.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
292.
4Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
291.
1See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007,paras.322-325.
2AMBOS K.,“Article25: Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court, Baden-Baden, Nomos,1999, p.479, margin No.8. See Pre-Trial Chamber I,Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.326.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
327-332.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.2333-337.ESER A.,“Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: ACommentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press,2002, Vol. I, p.795. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theconfirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.339.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010, para.
155.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.
491.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.492
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.225.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.226-231.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.235.
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
232.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
233,236.
2例如在对巴希尔发布逮捕令时，分庭指出有合理理由相信在相关时间内，SLM/A和JEM控制了达尔富尔地区领土的某些区域，因此，分庭认为有合理理由相信，至少从2003年3月开始，正如规约8（2）（f）条所要求的那样，SLM/A和JEM有能力长期实施持续的军事行动。See Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theProsecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009, para.64.其他涉及非国际性武装冲突的案件也都有类似认定。
3Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest, Article58, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006, para.60.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.353.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.356.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.362.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.363.
3Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN GAOR,50th Sess.,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/50/22(1995), Annex II, pp.58-59. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.365.
4Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1, p.92.
5Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2,Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1, pp.92-93. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant
to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre BembaGombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.365.
1Decisions Taken By the Preparatory Committee At Its Session Held in New York11to21February1997, UNDoc. A/AC.249/1997/L.5(1997), Annex II, Report of the Working Group on General Principles of Criminal Lawand Penalties, Article H, para.4, pp.27-28; Report of the Inter-Sessional Meeting From19to30January1998inZutphen, the Netherlands, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/L.13(1998), Article23[H], para.4, p.60; Report of thePreparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Draft Statute&Draft Final Act,UN Doc. A/Conf.l83/2/Add.l (1998), Article29, para.4, p.66; Summary Records of the Meetings of theCommittee of the Whole,1st meeting, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.1, para.24. Pre-Trial Chamber II, DecisionPursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.366.
2Report of the Working Group on General Principles of Criminal Law, UN Doc.A/CONF.183/C.1/WGGP/L.4, p.
255. Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.366.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.367.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.368.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.369.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the
Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.485-489.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.197,199-200.
2Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-PierreBemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008, para.25.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.202.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, para.203.
5Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.204-205.
1Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.206-209.
2Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.299-300,308-311.
3Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.128,270.
4Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of theProsecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009, paras.270-279.也有学者认为在这种情况下，属于对“同一行为”的指控。参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第298-299页。
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011, paras.33-35.
2As reiterated by the Presiding Judge during the oral sessions of the Hearing, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-9-ENG ET WT12-01-2009, p.6,lines8-12; and acknowledged by the Prosecutor, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-12-CONF-ENC ET15-01-2009, p.61, lines13-17. See Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.9, footnote12.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.10-11.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.12-15.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.16.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.17.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, paras.18-20.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.
203.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.23.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.38.
5Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.39.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.32.
2Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.34.
1Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.35.
2如国际常设法院、国际法院、美洲人权法院、欧洲人权法院等。See Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning theHearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.36.
3Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.36.
4Pre-Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute,No.:ICC-01/05-01/08,3March2009, para.37.
1Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, paras.
200,204.
2Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, paras.
463-464.
1Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.35.
2Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.14.
3Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.29.
4参见宋健强：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版，第257页。
1ESER A.,“Individual Criminal Responsibility”, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: ACommentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press,2002, Vol. I, p.795. Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on theconfirmation of charges, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007, para.339.
1Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.35.
2Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges,No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008, para.29.
1参见李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》（下册），北京大学出版社2006年版，第710页。
1[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版，第11页。
2如远东国际刑事法庭与卢旺达国际刑事法庭可以请求安理会在国家不遵行其裁决的情况下，行使制裁权。参见[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版，第17页。
3The Head of Delegation, Statement on Behalf of Uganda, delivered to the Fifth Session of the Assembly of StateParties of the International Criminal Court,23November2006.
4Christine H. Chung, The Punishment and Prevention of Genocide: The International Criminal Court as aBenchmark of Progress and Need, Case W. RES.J.INT’L L., Vol.40:227,2007-2008, p.233.
参见于南：《从Bashir案看国际刑事法院的政治性与法律性》，载《华东政法大学学报》2011年增刊（第113号）。
1参见于南：《<国际刑事法院罗马规约>第16条的适用及评析》，载《河南教育学院学报》2012年第2期。
1、王秀梅：《从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则》，载《现代法学》2005年第6期。
2、宋健强：《“国际刑法哲学”：形态、命题与立场》，载陈兴良主编：《刑事法评论》2007年第20卷。
3、[美]马努什·H.阿桑贾尼：《国际刑事法院之实际运作中的法律》，郑达轩、曾琍萍译，载万鄂湘、王贵国、冯华健主编：《国际法：领域与构建——W.迈克尔·赖斯曼文章集》，法律出版社2007年版。
4、刘大群：《论国际刑法中的普遍管辖权》，载《北大国际法与比较法评论》第6卷第1辑。
5、杨力军：《安理会向国际刑事法院移交达尔富尔情势的法律问题》，载《环球法律评论》2006年第4期。
6、何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，载《比较法研究》2003年第4期。
7、于南：《国际刑事法院法官询问证人裁量权问题研究——以卢班加案为例展开分析》，载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2011年第4期。
8、于南：《从Bashir案看国际刑事法院的政治性与法律性》，载《华东政法大学学报》2011年第113号。
9、于南：《<国际刑事法院罗马规约>第16条的适用及评析》，载《河南教育学院学报》2012年第3期。
1、宋健强著：《国际刑事法院诉讼详情实证研究》，哈尔滨工业大学出版社2008年版。
2、[英]安德鲁·瑞格比著：《暴力之后的正义与和解》，刘成译，译林出版社2003年版。
3、[美]约翰·罗尔斯著：《正义论》，何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译，中国社会科学出版社1988年版。
4、[美]E·博登海默著：《法理学——法律哲学与法律方法》，邓正来译，中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
5、罗国强著：《国际法本体论》，法律出版社2008年版。
6、[荷]格劳秀斯著：《战争与和平法》，[美]A.C.坎贝尔英译，何勤华等译，上海人民出版社2005年版。
7、[美]路易斯·亨金著：《国际法：政治与价值》，张乃根等译，中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
8、李浩培著：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年版。
9、宋健强著：《国际刑事司法制度通论》，哈尔滨工业大学出版社2006年版。
10、[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著：《国际刑法导论》，赵秉志、王文华等译，法律出版社2006年版。
11、[美]M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼著：《国际刑法的渊源与内涵——理论体系》，王秀梅译，法律出版社2003年版。
12、邵沙平著：《国际刑法学》，武汉大学出版社2005年版。
13、梁西著：《国际组织法（总论）》，武汉大学出版社2002年版。
14、王秀梅著：《国际刑事法院研究》，中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
15、朱文奇著：《国际刑法》，中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
16、李世光、刘大群、凌岩主编：《国际刑事法院罗马规约评释》（上、下册），北京大学出版社2006年版。
17、朱文奇著：《国际刑事法院与中国》，中国人民大学出版社2009年版。
18、宋健强著：《国际刑事法院“三造诉讼”实证研究》，法律出版社2009年版。
19、高铭暄、赵秉志主编：《国际刑事法院：中国面临的抉择》，中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
20、张磊著：《中国与国际刑事法院：现状与展望》，中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
21、洪永红著：《卢旺达国际刑事法庭研究》，中国社会科学出版社2009年版。
22、马呈元著：《国际刑法论》，中国政法大学出版社2008年版。
23、[美]德沃金著：《认真对待权利》，信春鹰、吴玉章译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
24、[英]哈特著：《法律的概念》（第二版），许家馨、李冠宜译，法律出版社2006年版。
25、井涛著：《法律适用的和谐与归一：论法官的自由裁量权》，中国方正出版社2001年版。
26、梁迎修著：《法官自由裁量权》，中国法制出版社2005年版。
27、沈宗灵主编：《法理学》，高等教育出版社1994年版。
28、万鄂湘等著：《国际条约法》，武汉大学出版社1998年版。
29、宋杰著：《国际法院司法实践中的解释问题研究》，武汉大学出版社2008年版。
30、齐树洁主编：《英国证据法》，厦门大学出版社2002年版。
31、何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年版。
32、陈光中主编：《刑事诉讼法》，北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2002年版。
33、宋健强著：《司法说理的国际境界兼及“国际犯罪论体系”新证》，法律出版社2010年版。
34、张宝生主编：《证据法学》，中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
1、庄晓华：《法官自由裁量权及其限制——基于法律方法视角的分析》，西南政法大学2009年博士学位论文。
2、李岩峰：《法官自由裁量权论》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
3、刘召：《刑事裁判的可接受性》，中国政法大学2007年博士学位论文。
4、王凯石：《刑法适用解释研究》，西南政法大学2006年博士学位论文。
5、李奕：《法官自由裁量权论》，吉林大学2005年博士学位论文。
6、李伟：《法官解释确定性研究》，山东大学2007年博士学位论文。
1、Bruce Broomhall, International Justice and the International Criminal Court:Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law, Oxford Press2003.2、 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law,Transnational Publishers, Inc.2003.
3、Claus Kreb, The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Order[M], NomosVerlagsgesellschaft,2000.
4、Roy S. Lee (ed.), The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations,Results, The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1999.
5、Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law: Colleted Papers, Cambridge,1970.
6、Mohamed Samed M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as thePrinciple Judicial Organ of the United Nations [M], Kluwer Law International,2003.
7、J. T. Holmes in: R. S. Lee (ed.). The International Criminal Court: TheMaking of the Rome Statute,(Kluwer Law Intemational,1999).
8、R. May, International Criminal Evidence, Transnational Publishers,2002.9、 Henckaerts, J.M. and Doswald-Beck, L. Customary InternationalHumanitarian Law, Volume1: Rules, Oxford University Press, Oxford2005.
1、Robert C. Johansen,“The Impact of US Policy towards the InternationalCriminal Court on the Prevention of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes AgainstHumanity”, in28Human Rights Quarterly (2006).
2、Robert Cryer,“International criminal law vs. state sovereignty: anotherround?”, European Journal of International Law,5(2005).
3、The Hon. David Hunt, AO,“The International Criminal Court: High Hopes,‘Creative Ambiguity’ and an Unfortunate Mistrust in International Judges”, in Journalof International Criminal Justice, Vol.2, Issue1(March2004).
4、Bartram S.Brown, Primacy or Complementarity's: Reconciling the Jurisdictionof National Courts and International Criminal Tribunals[J]. The Yale Journal ofInternational Law, Vol.23,(1988).
5、Morten Bergsmo,“Occasional Remarks on Certain State Concerns about theJurisdictional Reach of the International Criminal Court, and their possibleImplications for the Relationship between the Court and the Security Council”[J],Nordic Journal of International Law,2000,69(2).
6、Nathan. Isaacs,“The Limits of Judicial Discretion”(1923)32Yale LJ339.
7、Rosemary Pattenden, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Litigation, ClarendonPress, Oxford,1990.
8、Maarten Bos, Theory and Practice of Treaty Interpretation, NetherlandInternational Law Review,1980, Vol. XXVII.9、 Hersch Lauterpacht, Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle ofEffectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties, British Yearbook of International Law,1949.
10、Maarten Bos, The World Court and the Interpretation of Constitutive Treaties,American Journal of International Law,1965.
11、Constance Jean Schwindt. Interpreting the United Nations Charter: FromTreaty to World Constitution, Davis Journal of International Law&Policy, Spring,2000.
12、Isabelle Buffard&Karl Zemanek, The “Object and Purpose” of a Treaty: AnEnigma?, Australian Review of International&European Law,1998,3.
13、S. A. Williams,"Issues of Admissibility, Article17", in O. Triffterer (ed.)Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Observer'sNotes, Article by Article,(NOMOS, Baden-Baden,1sted.,1999).
14、J. T. Hohnes, Complementarity: National Courts versus the ICC, in: A.Cassese, P. Gaeta, J. R.W.D. Jones (ed.) The Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court: A Commentary, Volume1(Oxford2002).
15、G. Simpson,"Politics, Sovereignty, Remembrance" in: D. McGoldrick, P.Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). The Permanent Intemational Criminal Court. Legal andPolicy Issues (Oxford,2004).
16、F. Gioia,"Comments on chapter3of Jann Kleffiier", J. Kleffrier, G. Kor (eds)Complementary Views on Complementarity (Asser Press,2006).
17、R. Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in: A. Zimmermann, C.Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm (eds). The Statute of the International Court of Justice,A Commentary,(Oxford,2006).
18、J. T. Holmes,“Jurisdiction and Admissibility” in: R. S. Lee (ed.), TheInternational Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure andEvidence,(Transnational Publishers,2001).
19、Mohamed M. El Zeidy, The Principle of Complementarity in InternationalCriminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers(Leiden.Boston,2008).
20、D. Tums,"National Implementation of the Rome Statute", in: D. McGoldrick,P. Rowe, E. Donnelly (eds). The Permanent International Criminal Court Legal andPolicy Issues (Oxford,2004).
21、M. Benzing, The Complementarity Regime of the ICC, Max PlanckYearbook of United Nations Law, volume7,2003.
22、Ambos, K., Article25Individual Criminal Responsibility in Commentary onthe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,(Triffterer, O., ed.), Munich,Verlag C.H. Beck Ohg,2008.
23、James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in theInternational Court of Justice, International&Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.58,2009.
1、Waldock, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the InternationalLaw Commission (1964) Vol. II,1965.
2、Reply on behalf of the Govemment of Kenya to the Responses of theProsecutor, Defence, and OPCV to the Government's Application pursuant to Article19of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-91with7annexes,13May2011.
3、World Youth Report2005, Report of the Secretary-General, Economic andSocial Council, General Assembly, United Nations A/60/61. E/2005/7, Annex.
4、Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixthsession,2May to22July1994, General Assembly Official Records, Forty-ninthSession, Supplement No.10(A/49/10).
5、Report on the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an InternationalCriminal Court,14April1998, UN Doc. A/Conf.183/2/Add.1.
6、Preparatory Committee on the Establishment on an International CriminalCourt,25March-12April1996, Annex Complementarity, A compilation of concreteproposals made in the course of the discussion for amendment of the ILC draft statute,8April1996, UN Doc. A/AC/CRP.9/Add.1.
7、Prosecution’s response to the “Appeal of the Government of Kenya against theDecision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging theAdmissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute”, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-168,12July2011.8、 Application for an Oral Hearing Pursuant to Rule58(2), No.:ICC-01/09-02/11-92,18May2011.
9、Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Committee,22August1995, A/AC.244/CRP.5.10、 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on theEstablishment of an International Criminal Court, Summary Records of the1998Diplomatic Conference,11*meeting,22June1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR11.
11、Transcript of hearing on8March2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-20-CONF-ENGCT2.12、 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of anInternational Criminal Court, Volume I (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committeeduring March‐April and August1996), General Assembly Official Records,Fifty‐first Session, Supplement No.22(A/51/22).
13、International Law Commission, Forty-sixth session, Working Group on aDraft Statute for an International Criminal Court, Report of the Working Group,14July1994, A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2.14、“Document Containing the Charges, Article61(3)(a)”, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-356-Conf-Anx2,28August2006.
15、International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the AdditionalProtocols of8June1977to the Geneva Conventions of12August1949, Geneva,Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmermann (eds),1986.
16、Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an InternationalCriminal Court, UN GAOR,50th Sess., Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/50/22(1995),Annex II.17、 Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of anInternational Criminal Court,51st Sess., Vol.2, Supp. No.22, UN Doc. A/51/22(1996), Article H, Proposal1.
1、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,10March2009.
2、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation ofCharges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011.3、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
4、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant ofarrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,10February2006.
5、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrantof Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009.
6、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the "Prosecutor's Application Pursuant toArticle58as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al-IslamGADDAFI and Abdullah ALSENUSSI, No.: ICC-01/11,27June2011.
7、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant ofArrest against Callixte Mbarushimana, No.: ICC-01/04-01/10,28September2010.
8、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex A, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Applicationunder Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009.
9、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27August2009.
10、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summonsto Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang,No.: ICC-01/09-01/11,8March2011.
11、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Summonsto Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and MohammedHussein Ali, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,8March2011.
12、Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for aWarrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,10June2008.
13、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for Germain Katanga, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,6July2007.
14、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,No.: ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007.
15、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution Application under Article58(7) of the Statute, No.: ICC-02/05-01/07,27April2007.
16、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application forWarrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006.
17、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Annex I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application forWarrants of Arrest, Article58, No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,10February2006.
18、Decision on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS-1,VPRS-2, VPRS-3, VPRS-4, VPRS-5and VPRS-6, filed by PTC I on18January2006.
19、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decisionof Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled “Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Warrantsof Arrest, Article58”, No.: ICC-01/04,13July2006.
20、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Defence against the“Decision on the admissibility of the case under article19(1) of the Statute” of10March2009, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05OA3,16September2009.
21、Pre-Trial Chamber II,“Decision Pursuant to Article15of the Rome Statuteon the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya”,No.: ICC-01/09-19-Corr,31March2010.
22、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Application by the Government ofKenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of theStatute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11,30May2011.
23、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya againstthe decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of30May2011entitled “Decision on theApplication by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the CasePursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute", No.: ICC-01/09-02/11OA,30August2011.
24、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Conduct of the Proceedings Followingthe Application of the Government of Kenya Pursuant to Article19of the RomeStatute, No.: ICC-01/09-02/11-40,4April2011.
25、Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision ofPre-Trial Chamber H of30May2011entitled “Decision on the Application by theGovernment of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article19(2)(b) of the Statute” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita USacka, No.:ICC-01/09-02/11OA,20September2011.
26、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga againstthe Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of12June2009on the Admissibility of theCase,25September2009, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1497,0A8.
27、Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challengingthe Admissibility of the Case(Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009.
28、Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010.
29、Appeal Chamber, Corrigendum to Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-PierreBembab Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of24June2010entitled"Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of Process Challenges", No.:ICC-01/05-01/08OA3,19October2010.30、 Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor s Application forExtraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I s31March2006Decision DenyingLeave to Appeal,13July2006, ICC-01/04-168.
31、Trial Chamber II, Reasons for the Oral Decision on the Motion Challengingthe Admissibility of the Case (Article19of the Statute), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07,16June2009.
32、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Defence Application pursuant toArticle57(3)(b) of the Statute to Seek Cooperation of the Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC), No.: ICC-01/04-01/07-443-Conf-Exp,25April2008.
33、Trial Chamber I, Decision on the status before the Trial Chamber of theevidence heard by the Pre-Trial Chamber and the decisions of the Pre-Trial Chamberin trial proceedings, and the manner in which evidence shall be submitted, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-1084,13December2007.
34、Trial Chamber III, Decision on the Admissibility and Abuse of ProcessChallenges, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,24June2010.
35、Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyiloagainst the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Courtpursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute of3October2006, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06(OA4),14December2006.
36、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdictionof the Court pursuant to article19(2)(a) of the Statute, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06,3October2006.
37、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Pursuant to Article61(7)(a) and (b) of theRome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,No.: ICC-01/05-01/08,15June2009.
38、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, No.:ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
39、Separate and Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Usacka, Decision onthe Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad AlBashir, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09,4March2009.
40、Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnessesfor Giving Testimony at Trial, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1049,30November2007.
41、Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against the“Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against OmarHassan Ahmad Al Bashir”, No.: ICC-02/05-01/09-OA,3February2010.42、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06,29January2007.43、 Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the confirmation of charges, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07,30September2008.
44、Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Ajourning the Hearing pursuant to Article61(7)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute, No.:ICC-01/05-01/08.
45、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Prosecutior’s Application for Leave toAppeal in Part Pre-Trial Chamber2’s Decision on the Prosecutor’s Applications ForWarrants of Arrest under Article58, No.: ICC-02/04-01/05,19August2005.
46、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation ofCharges”, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,7March2011.
47、Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010.
48、Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and theProsecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber Ⅰ of14July2009entiled“Decision giving notice to the parties and participants that the legal characterizationof the facts may be subject to change in accordance with Regulation55(2) of theRegulations of the Court”, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2205,8December2009.
49、Decision on the Filing of a Summary of the Charges by the Prosecutor, No.:ICC-01/04-01/07-1547-tENG,21October2009.
50、Decision on various issues related to witnesses' testimony during trial, No.:ICC-01/04-01/06-1140,29January2008.
51、Decision on victims' participation, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-1119,18January2008.
52、Decision on judicial questioning, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2360,18March2010.53、 Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the LegalRepresentafives of Victims, No.: ICC-01/04-01/06-2127,16September2009.
54、Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrantsof Arrest under Article58, No.: ICC-02/04,8July2005.
55、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the evidence and information provided bythe Prosecution for the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, No.:ICC-01/04-02/07,6July2007.
56、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article58, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,7May2009.
57、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application underArticle58, No.: ICC-02/05-03/09,27August2009.
58、Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, SeparateOpinion of Judge Cuno Tarfusser, No.: ICC-02/05-02/09,8February2010.
1、国际刑事法院判决及第一手资料主要来自于国际刑事法院官方网站：http://www.icc-cpi.int。下载的判决及报告主要涉及如下情势中之案件：
（1）situation in UgandaThe Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and DominicOngwen.
（2） situation in the Democratic Republic of the CongoThe Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo（“卢班加案”）;The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda（“BN案”）;The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui（“GK和MNC案”）;The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana（“CM案”）.
（3）situation in Darfur, SudanThe Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and AliMuhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”)（“AH和AK案”）;The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir（“巴希尔案”）;The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda（“BIAG案”）;The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed JerboJamus（“ABAN和SMJJ”案）.
（4） situation in the CentralAfrican RepublicThe Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo（“JPBG案”）.
（5） situation in the Republic of KenyaOn6November,2009, the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC)issued a decision assigning the situation in the Republic of Kenya to Pre-TrialChamber II. Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecutor, on31March2010,authorisation to open an investigation in the situation of Kenya.
（6）situation in the Libya
（7）situation in the Republic of Cote d'ivoire2、联合国官方网站：http://www.un.org.
1、《国际刑事法院罗马规约》
2、《国际刑事法院和联合国间关系协定谈判草案》（ICC-ASP/3/Res.1）
3、《程序和证据规则》
4、《犯罪要件》
5、《法院规则》
1、《牛津英汉双解词典》，香港牛津大学出版社1984年版。
2、薛波主编：《元照英美法词典》，法律出版社2003年版。
3、Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,9thed., Thomson West,2009.