Evaluating International Criminal Procedures: Inquisitorial, Adversarial, or Hybrid - Lessons for the Pakistani Legal System

Abstract

This Article examines two key aspects of international criminal procedure (ICP): the normative frameworks that govern ICP and procedures being utilized by International Criminal Tribunals (ICT) and Courts. It examines the established norms and practices of international tribunals. The discussion encompasses the formulation of standards, guidelines, and guarantees aimed at preventing judicial errors. It evaluates that whether ICP can be characterized as "adversarial," "inquisitorial," or “a blend of both”. It examines the case law and legal framework of international courts and tribunals. Employing a comparative and analytical research methodology, this article demonstrates that a genuinely hybrid procedure has emerged through successive amendments to the ICT for the former Yugoslavia and its rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) and the formulation of the Rome Statute. This procedure effectively synthesizes elements from both traditions; common law (adversarial) and civil law (inquisitorial) into a cohesive international legal framework. The article emphasizes the convergence of legal positions across jurisdictions. The observed similarities in legal frameworks arise from the universal recognition of the importance of justice in shaping human coexistence. However, the article acknowledges that the diversity in human minds leads to variations in devising solutions and creating means, explaining the inherent disparities in legal approaches across different contexts. It will be beneficial for Pakistan to adopt Islamic Criminal Procedure having hybrid criminal procedure that will improve the efficiency of our judicial system, ensuring swift resolution of criminal cases with effective outcomes.