Oxford Global Justice Internship Report - Stergios Aidinlis

71 years ago, some of the major World War II criminals were tried before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Today, one must surely expect that international criminal trials have progressed to be exceptional-if not flawless-from a fair trial rights perspective. Is this indeed the case?

I purported to figure out the answer while working at the International Criminal Court, generously supported by the Oxford Global Justice Internship Programme. My task was to provide legal assistance to the Bemba defence team led by Ms Melinda Taylor in the so-called ‘Article 70 case’. Originally accused before the Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in 2008, Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, a former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of Congo, had another case against him opened in 2013. The Prosecutor accuses him and four other individuals for committing offences against the administration of justice ‘through witness interference (…) to thwart the ends of justice in Mr Bemba's main trial’.   

Being a member of the Article 70 team reshaped my critical thinking on contemporary international criminal justice. On the one hand, it motivated me to hone my research skills through working on a plethora of international and comparative law questions. On the other hand, it made me question how much of a priority protecting the rights of the accused actually is. Specifically, our team’s work was challenged by a very strict legal aid Court policy; we were provided with very limited means compared to other defence teams, whereas financial assistance was completely cut after the end of the hearings, in spite of ongoing litigation demands. Having to work with very limited or no sources for months, we inevitably had to make strategic choices with respect to how to defend Mr Bemba.

While it is not press or social-media friendly to plea for the rights of the accused when atrocious crimes are alleged to have been committed, my time at The Hague convinced me that the Court’s important mission cannot be achieved by adopting double standards.