Examens préliminaires: fondements juridiques, pratique du Bureau de la Procureure et développements judiciaires.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary examinations are an important part of the criminal procedure of the International Criminal Court, as they allow for the determination of the situations that will be investigated and prosecuted. They are conducted discreetly by the Office of the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor may initiate preliminary examinations on her own initiative or on the basis of a referral from a State party or the United Nations Security Council. Preliminary examinations deal with a situation and lead, after the test of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of Justice, on a decision of the Prosecutor on whether or not to open an investigation. Depending on the type of referral and the nature of its decision, the Prosecutor will be compelled or not to seek the pre-trial Chamber's authorization before proceeding with the investigation. The Pre-Trial Chamber exercises two types of control over the Prosecutor's decision: absolute control when the Prosecutor decides to proceed to the investigative stage on her own initiative or refuses to investigate because the interests of justice would not be served, and flexible control when the Prosecutor decides not to investigate after a referral. The Office of the Prosecutor is faced with difficult choices and criticism in the way it conducts preliminary examinations, particularly in relation to their duration, their publicization, their role, their control and their treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".