The Status, Role and Accountability of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: A Comparative Overview on the Basis of 33 National Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper intends to give a comparative overview of the status, role and accountability of the Prosecutor (General) based on 33 national reports. These reports have been prepared for the international workshop on 'The Independence and Accountability of the Prosecutor of a Permanent International Criminal Court' on the basis of a questionnaire which was later revised and reduced to eight questions. The paper is structured along these questions and finishes with eight conclusions. Pursuing a structural approach the paper distinguishes between three main criminal procedure systems. It is acknowledged that not all national systems fit clearly within one or the other of the proposed categories, but for comparative purposes they have been divided as follows (countries in alphabetical order):- Common Law (this group includes common law countries and other countries with an adversarial procedure): Canada, England and Wales, Israel, Japan/South-Korea, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, United States of America. Civil Law (this group includes countries whose procedure historically evolved from the inquisitorial system and is based on the French Code d'Instruction Criminelle of 1808), distinguishing between- Countries with an examining judge (juge d'instruction) based on the French model: Belgium, France, Egypt, Mali, the Netherlands, Rwanda, Senegal and Spain;- Countries with a prosecutorial system: Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Russia. - Sui Generis: People's Republic of China.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".