Abstract

In the admissibility framework of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor’s discretion as to whether to initiate an investigation into a situation includes the application of the open-textured requirement of ‘sufficient gravity’ specified in Article 17(1)(d). Pre-Trial Chamber oversight is designed to discipline the exercise of this discretion, but, in the absence of statutory guidance, the Pre-Trial Chambers are left themselves to articulate the standards of review of the Prosecutor’s admissibility assessments under relevant provisions, namely Articles 53(3)(a) and 15(4) of the Statute. The confused body of Pre-Trial Chamber practice to date poses the question as to what ought to be the standard of review of the Prosecutor’s admissibility assessment under each provision. This article teases apart and scrutinizes the standards of review that the Pre-Trial Chambers have applied in practice. By disaggregating the procedural contexts in which the Prosecutor’s admissibility assessments are made and analysing in each context the underlying interests at stake, it seeks to arrive at the appropriate standard of judicial review of the Prosecutor’s gravity assessment under each provision.

中文翻译：

---

开展“充分引力”情况调查中的检察权自由裁量权的司法审查

摘要

在《罗马规约》的可采性框架内，检察官对于是否对情况进行调查的自由裁量权包括适用第十七条第（1）款（d）项中规定的“足够引力”的开放式要求。预审分庭的监督旨在约束行使这种酌处权，但是，在没有法定指导的情况下，预审分庭只能根据相关规定，明确规定检察官可否受理评估的审查标准，即第53条。规约（3）（a）和15（4）。迄今为止，预审分庭的做法很混乱，这就提出了一个问题，即在每项规定下，检察官可否接受评估的审查标准应该是什么。本文将梳理和审查预审分庭在实践中所采用的审查标准。通过对进行检察官可否接受评估的程序环境进行分类，并在每种情况下分析潜在的利益，它力求为每项规定找到对检察官的严重性评估进行司法审查的适当标准。