'Ne bis in idem - ICC' in document 'New Zealand - ICC Act'

Jump to:

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

PART 4 - ARREST AND SURRENDER OF PERSON TO ICC

Restrictions on surrender

57.
Previous proceedings against person sought—

(1)This section applies if the person whose surrender is sought alleges that—

(a)the case is one to which article 20(1) of the Statute applies (because it relates to conduct that formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the ICC); or

(b)the person has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7, or 8 of the Statute and the case is not one to which paragraphs (a) and (b) of article 20(3) of the Statute applies.

(2)If this section applies, the Minister must immediately consult with the ICC to determine if there has been a relevant ruling on admissibility under the Statute.

(3)If the ICC has ruled that the case is admissible, surrender cannot be refused on the ground there have been previous proceedings.

(4)If the ICC has ruled that the case is inadmissible under article 20 of the Statute, surrender must be refused on the ground that there have been previous proceedings.

(5)If an admissibility ruling is pending, the Minister may postpone the execution of a request until the ICC has made a determination on admissibility.

Cf Statute, articles 20(1) and (3), 89(2)

RELEVANT ROME STATUTE PROVISIONS

Article 20
Ne bis in idem
1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:
(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.