Sentencing Offences against the Administration of Justice in the ICC Judgments

On 27th November 2019 the first sentencing decision regarding offences against the administration of justice was confirmed and finalized by the ICC’s Appeal Chamber judgment. Appropriate sentencing was very controversial; Trial Chamber suspended the imprisonment and determined that the principal perpetrator’s punishment would be higher than the accessory to the crime. Appeal Chamber reversed the decision and returned to Trial Chamber VII to resentence. In this Descriptive-Analytical research it is found that remanding sentences to the same Trial Chamber for a new substantive determination is in contradiction to legal principles and the provisions of the Rome Statute. Furthermore, it is found that the Appeal Chamber is strictly bound by the explicit wording of the Statute's provisions and does not agree with its expansion even if it is in the interests of the convicted person and of justice. The Appeals Chamber pays due attention to individualization of sentences and it deems the solvency as a relevant factor in determining appropriate sentence. In the ICC, the trial chamber may on its own motion or at the request of the Prosecutor or the accused hold a further hearing to hear any evidence or submissions relevant to the sentence. Then it accepts or rejects the submissions of the parties one by one by its detailed reasoning. This procedure is advisable for our domestic law.