Formal measures (courts Clause Samples

Formal measures (courts. Given the centrality of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Kony’s concerns for the future of the criminal charges against him, and given the necessity for a complementarity challenge before the ICC in order to “lift” the arrest warrants, the formal measures have been at the forefront of the talks. According to Clause 7 of the Annexure, a special division of the High Court of Uganda shall be established. Clause (9) (a) – (d) provide that legislation is needed on the constitution of the court, the substantive law, appeals and the rules of procedure. The accords clearly foresee a temporary special division with a mandate to try those responsible for serious crimes in the conflict involving the LRA, but there is nothing in the accords that prevents the Government of Uganda from making the division permanent and to give it wider jurisdiction. In fact, that seems to be the case, at least as far as the plans of the leadership of the High Court are concerned.25 When it comes to the constitution of the court, one notes that the War Cimes Division (WCD) has already been established through an administrative decision by the Principal Judge. It is, however, evidently foreseen that a legislative intervention might be appropriate, and there have been suggestions to include the provisions on the Court in the pending ICC ▇▇▇▇.26 In this context, one further notes that Clause 8 stipulates that there should be a separate registry for the special division with special added tasks (protection of witnesses, victims, women and children). The special tasks will be further commented upon below, sections VI and IX. The division is given the mandate in Clause 7 “to try individuals who are alleged to have committed serious crimes during the conflict.” This deceptively clear clause contains at least a couple of cans of worms, namely the jurisdiction rationae materiae (substantive jurisdiction) and the jurisdiction rationae personae (personal jurisdiction), and I will deal with them in that order, and also touch a bit upon the substantive law. In addition, a number of procedural issues, such as the position of victims, the right to counsel, etc, will have to be dealt with.
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Formal measures (courts

  • Transparency of Arbitral Proceedings 1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the disputing Member State may make publicly available all awards, and decisions produced by the tribunal. 2. Any of the disputing parties that intend to use information designated as confidential information in a hearing shall so advise the tribunal. The tribunal shall make appropriate arrangements to protect the information from disclosure. 3. Any information specifically designated as confidential that is submitted to the tribunal or the disputing parties shall be protected from disclosure to the public. 4. A disputing party may disclose to persons directly connected with the arbitral proceedings such confidential information as it considers necessary for the preparation of its case, but it shall require that such confidential information is protected. 5. The tribunal shall not require a Member State to furnish or allow access to information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement or would be contrary to the Member States law protecting Cabinet confidences, personal privacy or the financial affairs and accounts of individual customers of financial institutions, or which it determines to be contrary to its essential security. 6. The non-disputing Member State shall be entitled, at its cost, to receive from the disputing Member State a copy of the notice of arbitration, no later than 30 days after the date that such document has been delivered to the disputing Member State. The disputing Member State shall notify all other Member States of the receipt of the notice of arbitration within 30 days thereof.

  • Courts If a Dispute is still unresolved following ten (10) Business Days after the Disputing Members attempted in good faith to resolve the Dispute in accordance with Section 11.02, then any of such Disputing Members may submit such Dispute to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, in the event that such Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of such dispute, to another court of the State of Delaware or a U.S. federal court located in the State of Delaware (collectively, “Delaware Courts”). Each of the Members irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of, and agrees not to commence any action, suit, or proceeding relating to a Dispute except in, the Delaware Courts and hereby consents to service of process in any such Dispute by the delivery of such process to such party at the address and in the manner provided in Section 13.01. Each of the Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives any objection to the laying of venue in any Dispute in the Delaware Courts and hereby further irrevocably and unconditionally waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any such court that any action, suit, or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. EACH MEMBER IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any right it may have to a TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, suit, OR PROCEEDING arising out of, relating to or otherwise WITH RESPECT TO THIS AGREEMENT or any transaction contemplated hereby.

  • English courts The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute (a "Dispute"), arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including a dispute relating to the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement or any non-contractual obligation arising out of or in connection with this Agreement) or the consequences of its nullity.

  • Jurisdiction of Courts Québec hereby appoints the person from time to time who holds the position of Delegate General of Québec in New York, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, as its authorized agent (the “Authorized Agent”) upon whom process may be served in any action by any Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement which may be instituted in any State or Federal court in The City of New York, and expressly accepts the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any such court in respect of such action. Québec hereby irrevocably waives any immunity to service of process in respect of any such action to which the Authorized Agent might otherwise be entitled. Such appointment shall be irrevocable as long as any of the Securities remain outstanding, except that, if for any reason the Authorized Agent ceases to be able to act as agent or no longer has an address in The City of New York, Québec will appoint another person or persons in The City of New York, selected in its discretion, as Authorized Agent(s). Québec will take any and all action, including the filing of any and all documents and instruments that may be necessary to continue such appointment or appointments in full force and effect as aforesaid. Service of process upon the Authorized Agent together with written notice of such service mailed or delivered to Québec at its address set forth in Section 11, shall be deemed in every respect effective service of process upon Québec. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any action by an Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement may be instituted in any competent court in Québec. Québec hereby waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any immunity to jurisdiction to which it might otherwise be entitled in any action based on this Agreement which may be instituted as provided in this Section in any State or Federal court in The City of New York or in any competent court in Québec.

  • Jurisdiction of English courts (a) The courts of England, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement). (b) The Parties agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary.