Defining the Practice of International Criminal Defense
An Interview with Peter Haynes KC
Edited by Emma Bakkum & Paul Williams
A Note on Defending Justice
This blog is part of the Defending Justice series, an initiative of the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) to promote an eclectic array of voices within the field of international criminal law.
As part of our broader efforts to strengthen institutions of justice, this series seeks to create space for dialogue around the varied perspectives and concerns that shape these institutions. With that aim in mind, we interviewed a series of defense practitioners working in international criminal law and distilled their experiences and insights into a series of first-person monographs, preserving the spirit and voice of those interviews.
Editor’s Note
This blog introduces the topic of defense of the accused before international criminal courts and tribunals. By drawing upon Peter Haynes KC’s extensive experience at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), it introduces several key themes to defense, including the structure of international defense teams, how to effectively defend the accused before international criminal tribunals, differences between domestic and international defense practices, and the future outlook for international criminal defense lawyers. Through the striking first-hand achievements of Peter Haynes in defending accused and managing defense teams at international criminal courts, this blog realistically positions international defense work within the international criminal law project and articulates standards that need to be met in order to effectively defend accused before international criminal courts and tribunals.
Introduction
A strong defense is not just a procedural safeguard. It is the foundation of a fair trial and a vital part of the international justice process. Over the years, I have come to see the defense as the quiet force that holds the system accountable. It is the defense that ensures the rights of the accused are not only recognized but actively upheld.
I have spent most of the last 17 years appearing before various courts and tribunals in The Hague, The Netherlands, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). The first time I worked in defense in The Hague was at the turn of the century. I was ready for a change from my domestic career in the United Kingdom, so I took the step to move to The Hague and work at the ICTY. My primary motivations to work in the difficult field of defense back then were the disenchantment I felt with domestic criminal practice, especially the inability to concentrate on my own cases because of the volume of work and the “returns” system (I was known for my ability to be able to pick things up at short notice),* as well as the desire to do something new and cutting-edge.
I returned to the Hague and the ICTY in 2006, where I appeared for the defense of General Vinko Pandurević in relation to the Srebrenica massacre.** From then on, I worked continuously as an international defense lawyer, appearing in cases involving charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and international terrorism. At the STL, from 2012 to 2023, I represented the victims of the terrorist bombing in Beirut which resulted in the assassination of then Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. At the ICC, I appeared for Jean-Pierre Bemba, the former Minister of Defense and Senator of the Democratic Republic of Congo, starting in 2013 and securing his acquittal of all charges on appeal in 2018. In June 2024, I was assigned to represent the interests of Lord Resistance Army’s leader Joseph Kony before the ICC. Between 2019 and 2021, I furthermore held the office of President of the International Criminal Court Bar Association, becoming the first and only person to be re-elected to the post.
Domestically in the United Kingdom, I have appeared for both the prosecution and the defense inter alia in cases of murder, serious fraud, sexual offenses, human trafficking, and complex conspiracies. Away from crime, I have acted as lead counsel in a class action against the British government concerning the torture of prisoners in Cyprus; initiated proceedings against the ICC seeking $75 million in damages for the losses arising from the freezing of Bemba’s assets; and represented the Tamil community in an appeal to the UK Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission relating to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeelam.
These experiences, across different courts and contexts, have shaped how I understand the role of the defense within international criminal justice. What began as a professional challenge evolved into a deeper understanding of what it means to defend accused in a system built to prosecute those responsible for the gravest crimes.
Defense as the Measure of International Justice
At the ICC, the Rome Statute provides a detailed framework for the rights of the accused. Article 67 guarantees the right of the accused, including to be informed of the charges, to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, to be tried without undue delay, and to choose legal counsel freely. It also affirms the right to examine witnesses, present evidence, remain silent, and receive any material from the Prosecutor that may suggest innocence or mitigate guilt.
But rights on paper are not enough. In practice, defending someone before an international tribunal requires a well-resourced and experienced team. I have worked with investigators, case managers, and legal assistants who bring deep expertise and commitment to the work. The volume of disclosure, the complexity of legal issues, and the cross-border nature of our investigations demand a level of coordination and strategic planning that goes far beyond what is typically required in domestic criminal practice. My experience at the ICC, and earlier at the ICTY and STL, has taught me that institutional knowledge and adaptability are just as important as legal skill.
International defense work is fundamentally different from domestic criminal litigation. We operate in multilingual courtrooms, across diverse legal traditions, and often in politically sensitive environments. The crimes under scrutiny are not only serious but also deeply embedded in historical and social contexts. As defense counsel, I have had to navigate bureaucratic obstacles, limited access to witnesses, and political resistance that can make even the most basic investigative steps a challenge. Unlike domestic systems, where lawyers may benefit from established norms and local familiarity, international defense requires flexibility, cultural sensitivity, and a willingness to challenge dominant narratives.
In this blog, I reflect on what it takes to effectively defend an accused before international criminal tribunals. I focus primarily on the law and practice of the ICC, but I also draw on my experience at the ICTY and STL to highlight broader institutional dynamics. I explore how international defense teams are structured, what they require, how international defense differs from domestic criminal practice, and how I see the future of international defense. Ultimately, I argue that the strength of the defense is a litmus test for the legitimacy of international criminal justice.
International Criminal Defense Lawyers and Teams
Defense at international criminal courts and tribunals differs in many ways from defense at the domestic level, as described in further detail later in this blog. Years of experience as an international criminal defense lawyer and leading defense teams have led me to identify several key requirements for lawyers seeking to defend accused before international courts, as well as best practices for the structure and management of a defense team.
Defense Qualifications for International Criminal Courts
Defense counsel appearing before international criminal courts, including the ICC, are independent legal professionals. Unlike prosecutors, who are employed by the Court, defense counsel are not staff members. However, to appear before the ICC, counsel and their assistants must meet specific eligibility criteria and be admitted to the Court’s official lists.
To qualify as defense counsel, applicants must satisfy the baseline requirements set out in Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Regulation 67 of the Regulations of the Court. These include demonstrating established competence in international or criminal law and procedure, and having at least ten years of relevant experience in criminal proceedings. Candidates must also be fluent in one of the Court’s working languages, English or French, and have no convictions for serious criminal or disciplinary offenses. Associate counsel and assistants to counsel must meet similar standards, though with a minimum of eight years’ and five years’ experience respectively. All applicants must submit documentation verifying their qualifications, including proof of legal training, professional references, and evidence of language proficiency. Once admitted, those on the List of Counsel may practice before the Court as defense counsel, legal representatives for victims, duty counsel, or ad hoc counsel.
Professional investigators are another critical component of defense teams. The ICC maintains a separate List of Professional Investigators, governed by Regulation 137 of the Regulations of the Registry. Investigators must have at least ten years of experience in criminal investigations, either at the national or international level. They must demonstrate competence in international or criminal law and procedure, and be fluent in one of the Court’s working languages. In most cases, investigators are also expected to speak at least one language relevant to the country or region under investigation. Defense and prosecution teams propose their own case-specific investigators for inclusion on the list, subject to approval by the Registry.
Beyond counsel and investigators, defense teams typically include assistants, case managers, and administrative staff. Legal assistants are expected to hold advanced degrees in law, with specialization in international criminal law, human rights law, or related fields. They assist with legal research, drafting, and analysis, and often play a key role in preparing filings and coordinating with the Court. Case managers oversee logistical aspects of the case, including disclosure, scheduling, and document management. Administrative staff support the day-to-day functioning of the team, ensuring that records are maintained, deadlines are met, and internal communication is efficient. Hiring practices for support staff vary depending on the complexity of the case and available resources. However, professionalism, adaptability, and familiarity with international criminal procedure are essential across all roles.
Structure of Defense Teams
The composition of a defense team at the ICC depends on whether the accused is indigent, receiving legal aid, or is paying for his own representation. The latter of which means far more flexibility in choosing a defense team. Where the accused is indigent, the structure and funding of the team are governed by the ICC’s Legal Aid Policy. This policy outlines the permissible size and composition of defense teams, calibrated to the phase and complexity of the case. In general, a defense team includes two counsel, two assistants to counsel or legal officers, two case managers, and, where necessary, a language assistant. The Policy also provides an investigative budget, which may be used to assign either a professional investigator or a resource person to the team.
Each role within the defense team carries distinct responsibilities. Lead counsel, supported by co-counsel, sets the strategic direction of the case, represents the accused in court, and oversees all legal decisions. Assistants to counsel support this work through legal research, drafting, and analysis, often taking the lead on specific motions or evidentiary issues. Case managers handle procedural logistics, including disclosure, filings, and coordination with the Court. Investigators are responsible for identifying and interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, and verifying factual claims. If required, language assistants facilitate communication between the accused and the team and ensure that all materials are accurately translated. Resource persons may provide contextual expertise, such as knowledge of local customs, political dynamics, or historical events relevant to the case.
Defense teams also often rely on interns and visiting professionals. They contribute to research, drafting, and administrative tasks, and their involvement can be key to the success of the team when properly integrated.
Forming a Successful Defense Team
In practice, defense teams are often assembled through professional networks and prior working relationships. However, there is increasing recognition of the need to ensure diversity and representation, particularly of individuals from the situation country. This enhances cultural competence and facilitates engagement with local witnesses and communities.
Essential to the effectiveness of a defense team are the structure, synergy, and internal dynamics. A team that is divided, dysfunctional, or unclear in its strategic direction will struggle to prepare a credible defense. It is critical that all members share the Lead Counsel’s strategic vision and understand their roles within that framework. Clear communication, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the case are indispensable. It is important to give all team members, including interns, ownership over their work and opportunities for professional development. This fosters a collaborative environment and strengthens the overall quality of the defense.
Challenges within defense teams are not uncommon. In the Bemba case, for instance, two Congolese defense lawyers were later investigated themselves, and found guilty of various offenses against the administration of justice related to the false testimonies of defense witnesses. This situation brought to light key issues regarding team cohesion, professional conduct, and the pressures faced by defense teams operating in politically sensitive contexts.
Ultimately, the defense team is not simply a collection of professionals. It is a strategic unit tasked with upholding the rights of the accused and the fairness of international proceedings. Its composition, management, and internal cohesion can shape not only the outcome of a case but also the broader perception of justice at the international level.
Essential Skills and Attributes
Effective international defense requires more than legal expertise. It demands a distinct set of personal and professional qualities that are often not fostered in domestic practice. The transition from national to international defense work involves adapting to different legal cultures, institutional expectations, and team dynamics. Over time, I have found that several attributes have proven essential to navigating this shift successfully.
Confidence is particularly important. Defense counsel must be prepared to assert the rights of the accused in environments where they are often viewed with suspicion. Public opinion may be hostile, and the presumption of guilt can be strong. In such settings, counsel must advocate with clarity and conviction, maintain composure under pressure, and defend strategic decisions even when they are unpopular. Confidence also plays a role in courtroom advocacy, where counsel must challenge assumptions, cross-examine witnesses, and engage with judges who may be unfamiliar with common law techniques or adversarial reasoning.
Adaptability and flexibility are equally critical. International defense work varies not only from domestic practice but also from one tribunal to another. Differences in judicial background, procedural culture, and legal tradition can shape the tone and substance of proceedings. In the Popović case, for example, the Presiding Judge was Maltese and came from a common law background. In Bemba, the Presiding Judge was Brazilian, with a civil law orientation. This shift required an adjustment of strategy. The civil law judge was less receptive to common law practices, and the defense had to adjust its approach to align with the expectations of the bench. The ability to read the courtroom, anticipate procedural preferences, and tailor advocacy accordingly is essential.
A useful analogy comes from football. David Beckham, known for his success across multiple European teams, was able to perform consistently because he adapted to different playing styles, coaching philosophies, and team cultures. International defense lawyers must do the same. Each tribunal has its own particularities, and success depends on the ability to integrate, adjust, and perform under varying conditions.
Diplomacy and interpersonal skills also matter. Defense lawyers are rarely the most popular figures in international criminal proceedings. They represent individuals accused of serious crimes, and their role is often misunderstood. Building relationships with Registry staff, opposing counsel, and even judges requires tact, professionalism, and a willingness to engage constructively. Being friendly and respectful, even in adversarial settings, can help defuse tension and facilitate cooperation. It is important to make allies where possible, even among those who may not be inclined to support the defense.
Leadership is another key attribute, especially as Lead Counsel. Unlike domestic practice, where defense counsel may work alone or with minimal support, international defense teams are often composed of six to seven individuals from diverse backgrounds. As lead counsel, managing this team requires clarity of vision, delegation of tasks, and the ability to foster cohesion. Everyone must understand the strategic direction of the case and their role within it.
Other, additional, qualities of a lawyer that contribute to effective international defense include sound judgment, strong writing skills, and courtroom presence. Counsel must obviously be able to communicate arguments persuasively, both in writing and in the courtroom. Good IT skills are also increasingly essential, given the use of electronic case management systems, the volume of digital disclosure, and the need for secure communication.
These attributes, in my view, are foundational to the practice of international defense. The most effective lawyers in this field combine technical knowledge with strategic insight, interpersonal skills, and a commitment to fairness in the face of complexity and resistance.
Resource Constraints
Resource constraints are a defining reality in international defense practice. While the ICC provides some institutional support to defense teams, including access to the Office of Public Counsel for the Defense, logistical support to investigative activities, and basic IT infrastructure, the disparity between defense and prosecution is significant. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) routinely operates with far greater resources. In most cases, their teams outnumber ours by a ratio of eight to one. Prosecutorial staff benefit from permanent contracts, stable working conditions, and access to advanced document management systems. At the ICTY, for example, the OTP’s internal platform was far more sophisticated than anything available to defense teams.
Defense teams, by contrast, are composed of external contractors. We do not receive sick leave, vacation days, or parental leave. Our cybersecurity and travel security are minimal compared to the protections afforded to OTP staff. The imbalance is structural and persistent. But fairness in resources is not the measure of success, you do what you can with the resources you have, and what matters is the quality of the work: what is filed and how it is argued in court. Despite the limitations my defense teams have faced, I have never felt prouder of the written submissions produced by my teams. The appeal brief in Bemba remains one of the clearest examples of what can be achieved with a focused strategy, despite limited resources.
A successful written brief is defined by clarity, consistency, and presentation. It must be readable, well-indexed, and free of unnecessary repetition. Style matters in a brief: font choices should be coherent, text should be justified, and a logical, indexed, structure should help guide the reader through complex legal arguments. A good brief does not just require an excellent understanding of the law and persuasive arguments; it also requires clarity and a strong presentation. This takes time and careful review.
Courtroom advocacy requires the same level of preparation. A strong appearance in court is built on calm delivery, mastery of the evidence, and proficiency with the technology used. It is important to remain composed, even when challenged by the bench or provoked by opposing counsel. If an objection is necessary, it must be strategic and grounded in fairness, particularly fairness to the witness. These moments are rare, and they must be used wisely.
Working within resource constraints demands dedication, resilience, and teamwork. The defense may not have the same institutional backing as the prosecution, but it has the capacity to produce work of equal quality, both in written briefs and courtroom appearance.
International vs. Domestic Criminal Law Practice
Key differences between international and domestic criminal trials are not limited to legal frameworks or procedural rules. They extend to the length and scale of the cases, structure, and type of work throughout the proceedings. These differences shape the role of defense counsel and the demands placed on the defense team throughout the life of a case.
Key Differences in the Trial Process
One of the most significant distinctions is the length of proceedings. International trials often span several years, if not a decade. The Bemba case at the ICC lasted ten years from pre-trial to appeal. In Popović at the ICTY, which extended over nine years, the Presiding Judge remarked early in the proceedings that counsel should prepare for the long haul, noting that many changes in our private lives would likely occur before the case concluded. This observation reflects a broader truth: international defense work requires sustained commitment over long periods, often becoming the central focus of a lawyer’s professional and personal life.
The intensity of client contact is another defining feature of international criminal cases. Unlike many domestic systems, where communication with clients may be limited to court appearances or scheduled meetings, international defense work involves regular, often daily, interaction with the accused. Visits to detention facilities are frequent, and the relationship between counsel and client becomes deeply personal. Clients and their families may become part of the lawyer’s daily life, creating a dynamic that is both humanizing and pressurized. In The Hague, where the court building(s), detention center, and legal offices are located within a small geographic area, the proximity reinforces this intensity and can blur the boundaries between professional and personal space.
The scale of international cases also sets them apart from domestic criminal cases. The crimes under investigation typically involve multiple incidents, geographic regions, and hundreds of witnesses. Defense teams must manage vast quantities of evidence and coordinate complex legal strategies. Unlike domestic practice, where a lawyer may work independently or with minimal support, international defense requires the management of a multidisciplinary team. These teams are often composed of individuals from diverse legal traditions and cultural backgrounds. Effective leadership in this context demands intercultural sensitivity and inclusive team management.
The nature of the legal work itself in international crimes cases is also distinct from domestic cases. In domestic systems, legal arguments are often raised in court. In international criminal law, however, most procedural and substantive issues must be submitted in writing through the filing of a motion. In addition, international defense teams are responsible for conducting their own investigations. This includes identifying and interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, and verifying facts, tasks that are typically handled by police or investigative authorities in domestic systems.
Key Differences in the Defense Strategy and Procedure
These structural and procedural differences between domestic and international criminal cases require a shift in the approach to defense work. International defense counsel must be prepared for long-term engagement, sustained client interaction, and the management of legally complex cases and multilingual teams.
This also means a shift in defense strategy and procedure, as proceedings differ markedly from domestic practice, particularly in common law jurisdictions. International defense teams must be prepared to litigate complex legal issues, respond to evolving jurisprudence, and advocate effectively within a system that blends multiple legal traditions.
First, international trials tend to be more legalistic, with a greater emphasis on the interpretation of law and precedent. In domestic proceedings, the focus is often on the presentation and review of evidence. By contrast, international trials frequently center on the scope and application of legal provisions, many of which remain open to interpretation due to the relatively limited number of cases involving international crimes.
This legal focus is especially pronounced in relation to the concept of modes of liability. Concepts such as command responsibility, joint criminal enterprise, and indirect co-perpetration are still evolving. Defense teams must engage in detailed litigation to challenge the scope, elements, and evidentiary thresholds of these doctrines. The strategic emphasis shifts from factual rebuttal to legal interpretation, requiring sustained engagement with jurisprudence from multiple tribunals and careful framing of arguments that may influence future case law.
Second, the process of judicial decision-making at international tribunals differs. In international tribunals, judges deliberate on whether the prosecution has proven each element of the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. They draft the judgment based on these deliberations and determine the sentence. There is no jury. This model places significant weight on the written record, particularly the trial transcript. Judges and legal officers often rely on transcripts when drafting judgments, which means that non-verbal cues of witness examination, such as tone, hesitation, or facial expression, are excluded. Defense counsel must therefore ensure that key points are clearly articulated and captured in the transcript. This requires deliberate planning for and during witness examination and a strategy to direct your defense in a much more purposeful way into law and precedent.
Third, procedural particularities at international courts shape defense strategy. International criminal law reflects a combination of common and civil law traditions. Pre-trial litigation is extensive, with prolonged debates over the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Hearsay is more readily admitted than in many domestic systems, and the prosecution may call rebuttal witnesses after the defense case has concluded. The procedural framework is also highly codified, with detailed regulations governing filings, disclosure, and courtroom conduct. Defense teams must navigate these rules and regulations with precision and adapt their strategies to the procedural realities of each tribunal.
Another distinctive feature in international criminal proceedings is the participation of victims in proceedings. At the ICC, STL, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), victims may be represented by counsel and may submit observations on legal and factual matters. This introduces an additional layer of complexity, as defense teams must respond not only to the prosecution but also to victim representatives. In the Bemba case at the ICC, for example, victim participation influenced the structure and content of the proceedings, requiring the defense to engage with multiple parties simultaneously.
Effectiveness of Modern International Criminal Tribunals
Despite its foundational commitment to accountability and fairness, the ICC has faced persistent challenges in delivering on its mandate. Two structural issues in particular have in my view undermined its effectiveness and raised concerns about the integrity of its proceedings.
The first relates to enforcement. Unlike the ICTY, which operated based on a UN Security Council Resolution grounded in Chapter VII of the UN Charter and benefited from the cooperation of all UN member states, the ICC lacks a comparable enforcement mechanism. The ICTY was able to secure the arrest and surrender of suspects with relative consistency, contributing to its reputation as a successful international tribunal. In contrast, the ICC has struggled to bring high-level suspects into custody. While the Kenya cases and the Bemba case involved prominent figures, many of the individuals who have faced trial before the ICC have been relatively low-level actors. This has led to criticism that the Court is failing to pursue the most responsible perpetrators and is instead focusing on those who are politically or logistically easier to apprehend.
This dynamic has prompted me to call for a more strategic use of the complementarity principle. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, states bear the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes within their jurisdiction. The ICC should consider referring cases involving lower-level perpetrators to domestic systems, where feasible, and focus its resources on those most responsible for serious international crimes. Such an approach would not only reinforce the principle of complementarity but also help the Court concentrate its efforts on cases with the greatest potential impact.
The second issue concerns the process by which suspects are brought into custody at the ICC. I have witnessed a tendency to issue arrest warrants based on preliminary suspicion, with limited scrutiny of the strength of the underlying case. This practice places the accused at a disadvantage and undermines the fairness of the proceedings. Although the Rome Statute provides for a confirmation of charges hearing within a reasonable time, this timetable is frequently extended. There is no provision for custody limits, and the evidentiary threshold for confirmation is not consistently applied. The result is prolonged pre-trial detention and uncertainty for the accused. I believe there should be a more structural and thorough review of arrest warrants before they are issued, as well as a structural review of whether people in custody should remain in custody or should be released.
These two systemic shortcomings have implications for the overall fairness of trials at the ICC. While the Court has demonstrated its commitment to due process, evidenced by the acquittal of several defendants, the pre-trial phase remains a point of concern. A more rigorous review of arrest warrants, clearer standards for confirmation, and greater respect for procedural timelines would strengthen the Court’s credibility.
The Future Outlook for Defense Counsel
The role of defense counsel in international criminal law remains underappreciated, despite its centrality to fair trial guarantees and the legitimacy of international justice. A functioning criminal system requires not only effective prosecution but also robust and independent defense. Acquittals, when they occur, should not be viewed as institutional failures, instead they are indicators that the system is capable of applying legal standards impartially. The rhetoric surrounding acquittals must shift to reflect this reality.
There is a persistent failure within the broader international community to recognize the value of the defense function. Legal aid decisions are often framed in terms of cost rather than necessity. Defense budgets are scrutinized more heavily than prosecutorial ones, and support for defense teams is frequently treated as discretionary. This approach undermines the principle of equality of arms and risks reducing the defense to a procedural formality rather than a substantive counterweight to the prosecution.
Looking ahead, I believe defense counsel face a number of challenges that extend beyond legal argumentation. Physical safety is a growing concern for me and my colleagues. In high-profile cases, such as the Bemba case, defense lawyers have encountered perilous situations due to public visibility and political sensitivities. The association with controversial figures or contested narratives can expose counsel to threats, surveillance, and personal security risks. These risks are compounded by the increasing vulnerability of legal professionals to cybercrime. Online exposure, data breaches, and targeted digital harassment pose serious threats to the confidentiality and integrity of defense work.
Resource constraints are also likely to intensify. The ICC and other international tribunals face mounting financial pressures, and defense teams are often the first to experience reductions in support. Cuts to legal aid, investigative budgets, and staffing levels compromise the ability of counsel to prepare and present a full defense. Without adequate resources to the defense, the fairness of proceedings is placed at risk.
To address these challenges, a cultural shift is needed. States, institutions, and civil society actors must recognize that defense is not an auxiliary component of justice but a foundational one. Adequate resources for defense, protection for legal professionals, and respect for the role of counsel are essential to the future of international criminal law.
Conclusion
The practice of international criminal defense is shaped by a unique set of legal, procedural, and institutional frameworks. A successful defense case requires counsel with a specific set of core qualifications and attributes, including confidence, adaptability, diplomacy, leadership, sound judgment, courtroom presence, strong writing skills, and technological proficiency. Together, these attributes enable defense counsel to navigate the complexities of international proceedings and uphold the rights of the accused in some of the most challenging legal environments. Additionally, essential to the effectiveness of a defense team is a shared strategic vision and a clear division of roles within that framework.
International trials are generally longer, more procedurally complex, and more heavily reliant on written litigation. Furthermore, the relationship between counsel and client is more intensive, and the scale of the cases requires the management of diverse, multidisciplinary teams. Defense teams must be able to operate within a hybrid legal system that blends common and civil law traditions. The defense team’s legal strategy is shaped by the evolving nature of international jurisprudence, with a strong emphasis on precedent and legal interpretation. The participation of victims adds another layer of complexity, requiring defense teams to engage with multiple parties throughout the proceedings.
Looking ahead, I think that several areas require attention. Much has changed since the early days of international criminal tribunals. The ICC has established the Office of Public Counsel for the Defense and developed legal aid frameworks that support our work. But the defense function remains under-resourced and under-recognized. Investigative support remains uneven and cooperation from states is still frequently limited. These structural imbalances undermine the principle of equality of arms and thus threaten the credibility of the proceedings.
The wider international community must acknowledge that an effective defense is not a procedural formality but a cornerstone of a fair and credible justice system. Acquittals should be understood as evidence that the system is functioning as it should, not as institutional failure. The rhetoric around defense outcomes must change accordingly.
The ICC faces its own set of challenges, including the need for stronger state cooperation, a more coherent and equitable legal aid policy, and improved security protocols for defense teams. The Court must also take seriously its obligation under the complementarity principle to focus on prosecuting those most responsible for international crimes, while encouraging domestic systems to address lower-level perpetrators. Finally, arrest warrants should be issued only after careful review, and the rights of the accused must be protected through timely confirmation proceedings and meaningful custody safeguards.
The future of international defense counsel will depend on the system’s ability to address these structural issues. Acquittals demonstrate that fair trials are possible, but the path to that outcome is often fraught with procedural delays, resource constraints, and personal risk. The security and protection of defense counsel must be prioritized, alongside sustained investment in the institutional capacity of the defense function with a view to strengthening the role of the defense in international criminal justice and ensuring that the principles of fairness, equality, and due process remain at the heart of the international criminal justice system.
* In the UK criminal bar, the “returns system” refers to the practice of reassigning cases at short notice to another barrister when the original advocate is unavailable, often due to scheduling conflicts. The barrister taking the “return” must prepare and appear in court with minimal time to review the case.
** The Srebrenica massacre refers to the July 1995 killing of more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. It has been recognized by international courts, including the ICTY and the ICJ, as an act of genocide.