Trial in Absentia: Evaluating Compatibility of the International Criminal Law with Islamic Law

Abstract

The notion of conducting trials in absentia has consistently been a subject of debate and contention in discussions regarding the operations of the International Criminal Justice System. Discussions have frequently centered on its legal standing and adherence to principles such as fair trial rights and self-representation. Generally, a trial in absentia is where the trial is held and evidence is adduced against the accused in his absence. Every individual is entitled to be present during trial: This principle is firmly established under both the regimes of Islamic law and International Criminal Law (ICL). Historically, the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg and Tokyo permitted implicitly the trials in absentia. Afterwards, except in one case Special Tribunal for Lebanon, practice got changed and strict approach was taken with regard to trial in absentia in international arena. Conversely, trial in absentia is permitted under Islamic law in limited and exceptional circumstances. Firstly, an effort was made to portray the understanding and concept of trial in absentia in this paper. The major push of this paper was to assess the position of trials in absentia in both regimes namely Islamic law and ICL, with a focus on analyzing the similarities between this set of laws. Generally, this paper demonstrated that contemporary ICL does not collide with Islamic law on the aspect of trials in absentia. The present paper adopted the doctrinal research methodology to complete this paper.