International criminal procedure, including the principle of notice, has grown exponentially from the Nuremburg Trials conducted after WWII, but the tribunals of today still face many sticky procedural issues. This Article will focus on two problems that the ICTR and the International Criminal Court (ICC), respectively, have faced with regard to notice. Part I reviews the jurisprudence of the ICTR and ICC, focusing particularly on requirements of notice and the requirements of the charging instruments in each tribunal. Part II discusses in detail a problem that each tribunal is facing: vagueness in the indictment at the ICTR and informal changes to the charging instrument at the ICC. Part III explores the shortcomings of partial solutions the tribunals have adopted and possible future consequences of these solutions. I argue that the ICTR has a troubling jurisprudential gap regarding the sufficiency of the indictment and that this gap remains unaddressed by the Appeals Chamber, which means that there is no standard for a proper pre-trial indictment. I also argue that, while the ICC took a questionable procedural shortcut in allowing informal changes to the charging instrument, the practical effects of this shortcut may be less dire than some have claimed.
Recommended CitationClaire Knittel, Reading Between the Lines: Charging Instruments at the ICTR and the ICC, 32 Pace L. Rev. 513 (2012)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss2/10