The Office of the Prosecutor’s preliminary examination into the Situation in Afghanistan came to an end with the Appeals Chamber approving its request for authorization of an investigation. In doing so it overturned the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber, which for the first time in the International Criminal Court’s history had invoked the criterion of ‘interests of justice’ to deny the request. Both decisions raised questions as to the scope of review of the Pre-Trial Chamber under Article 15 and its relationship with Article 53 of the Rome Statute. This article delves into some of these questions. First, it looks into whether the Appeals Chamber was correct to hold that the Pre-Trial Chamber is not supposed to review the factors under Article 53(1). It answers this question in the negative, arguing that the Appeals Chamber’s decision goes against the text of the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court’s past practice. Secondly, it analyses whether the Pre-Trial Chamber can assess whether or not an investigation serves the ‘interests of justice’, even if the Prosecutor has not made an explicit finding in this regard. It argues that the context and purpose of Article 15 envisages a genuine and meaningful examination of the Prosecutor’s request, which includes the ability to evaluate, suo motu, the applicability of the ‘interests of justice’ criterion. Lastly, the article addresses whether the factors that were considered by the Pre-Trial Chamber in its Afghanistan Article 15 Decision were suited to its judicial role. It proposes a methodology for the Pre-Trial Chambers to adopt while exercising their powers under Article 15, which allows for both prosecutorial discretion and a meaningful judicial review. The article attempts to put forth a renewed understanding of the Rome Statute and argues that the Pre-Trial Chamber has a wider power of review under Article 15 than has been hitherto exercised, which, if exercised reasonably, can further the cause of international criminal justice.

中文翻译：

---

根据《罗马规约》第 15 条和“司法利益”进行司法审查

检察官办公室对阿富汗局势的初步审查结束，上诉分庭批准了其授权调查的请求。在这样做的过程中，它推翻了预审分庭的裁决，这是国际刑事法院历史上第一次援引“正义利益”的标准来拒绝该请求。这两项决定都对预审分庭根据第 15 条进行审查的范围及其与《罗马规约》第 53 条的关系提出了质疑。本文深入探讨了其中一些问题。首先，它调查上诉分庭认为预审分庭不应该审查第 53 条第 1 款规定的因素是否正确。它对这个问题的回答是否定的，辩称上诉分庭的裁决违反了《罗马规约》的文本，以及国际刑事法院过去的惯例。其次，它分析了预审分庭是否可以评估调查是否符合“正义利益”，即使检察官在这方面没有做出明确的认定。它辩称，第 15 条的背景和目的设想对检察官的请求进行真正和有意义的审查，其中包括评估“正义利益”标准的适用性的能力。最后，文章探讨了预审分庭在其阿富汗第 15 条裁决中考虑的因素是否适合其司法角色。它提出了预审分庭在行使第 15 条规定的权力时采用的方法，这允许起诉自由裁量权和有意义的司法审查。文章试图对《罗马规约》提出新的理解，并认为预审分庭根据第 15 条拥有比迄今为止行使的更广泛的审查权力，如果合理行使，可以促进国际刑事司法事业.