Dictum of the day, or cut us some slack

Tužena je, također, prihvatila Rezoluciju Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a, broj 1373, i uključila se u borbu protiv svih oblika terorizma, sprečavanja potencijalnih izvršitelja ili saučesnika, pa je to obavezuje na aktivno djelovanje. Naravno, to ne znači da se u toj borbi trebaju kršiti ljudska prava, ali isto tako od tužene, kao mlade države u tranziciji, koja je pod posebnom vrstom protektorata, ne mogu se i ne trebaju tražiti tako visoki standari koje ne mogu ispuniti ni neke druge države s daleko većim stupnjem uređenja pravne države i vladavine prava.

Odluka o prihvatljivosti i meritumu, Dom za ljudska prava, br.  CH/02/8679 i dr., od 11.10.2002., Mišljenje o neslaganju gosp. Mate Tadića kome se pridružuje gosp. Miodrag Pajić    

Dictum of the day, or on the value of fairness

While it is not for me to speculate about the reasons why my colleagues take such a different view on so many issues, I do want to offer some of my own reflections. Trials like these are difficult and complex matters, both from a legal and evidentiary point of view. Moreover, they are challenging on the human level. Sympathy for the victims’ plight and an urgent awareness that this Court is called upon to “end impunity” are powerful stimuli. Yet, the Court’s success or failure cannot be measured just in terms of “bad guys” being convicted and innocent victims receiving reparation. Success or failure is determined first and foremost by whether or not the proceedings, as a whole, have been fair and just.

This raises the question by which standard fairness and justice should be evaluated. My view is that the trial must be first and foremost fair towards the accused. Considerations about procedural fairness for the Prosecutor and the victims and their Legal Representatives, while certainly relevant, cannot trump the rights of the accused. After all, when all is said and done, it is the accused – and only the accused – who stands trial and risks losing his freedom and property. In order for a court of law to have the legal and moral authority to pass legal and moral judgment on someone, especially when it relates to such serious allegations as international crimes, it is essential, in my view, to scrupulously observe the fairness of the proceedings and to apply the standard of proof consistently and rigorously. It is not good enough that most of the trial has been fair. All of it must be fair.

The Prosecutor v. Germain Catanga, International Criminal Court, No: ICC-01/04-01/07, dated 7 March 2014, Minority Opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert, para. 310-311.

Dictum of the day, or you may torture (if circumstances allow)

[U] demokratskim i pravnim državama gotovo nijedno ljudsko pravo i sloboda, ma koliko bili primarni ili značajni, nisu i ne mogu biti apsolutni i neograničeni [...] [A]psolutna sloboda i apsolutno pravo [su] contradictio in adjecto [...]

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of B&H, AP-758/09, para. 34

Dictum of the day, or on the arbitrariness of analogy

...where such manifestly conflicting rulings stem from the same jurisdiction, and no reasonable explanation is given for the divergence, such rulings smack of arbitrariness.

Saghinadze and others v. Georgia, Applicaton no. 18768/05, Judgment (Merits), 27 May 2010, para. 116.

Now - how would this apply to a country, the only such in the world, that does not even have the "same"/single/unifying jurisdiction? Systematic arbitrariness beyond all reason.