Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement 3.10 The right to a reasoned judgement Although not expressly mentioned in the four main human rights treaties, the right to a reasoned judgement is inherent in the provisions regarding a “fair trial”, including the right to a public judgement. Article 22(2) and article 23(2) of the respective Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia both stipulate that the judgements of these Tribunals “shall be accompanied by a reasoned opinion in writing, to which separate or dissenting opinions may be appended”. According to article 74(5) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the decisions of the Trial Chamber “shall be in writing and shall contain a full and reasoned statement of the Trial Chamber’s finding on the evidence and conclusions”. ***** The Human Rights Committee has examined numerous complaints concerning the failure of courts to issue a reasoned judgement. These complaints have been examined under article 14(3)(c) and (5) of the Covenant, which “are to be read together, so that the right to review of conviction and sentence must be made available without delay”. According to the Committee’s case-law under article 14(5), “a convicted person is entitled to have, within reasonable time, access to written judgements, duly reasoned, for all instances of appeal in order to enjoy the effective exercise of the right to have conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law”.180 In the case of Francis, for instance, where the author had received a death sentence, the Court of Appeal had failed to issue a written judgement more than nine years after it dismissed his appeal, a delay that quite evidently was not reasonable and violated article 14(3)(c) and (5) of the Covenant.181 The delay in the submission of written judgements has in many cases implied that prisoners in Jamaica have not been able to pursue their right to appeal to the Privy Council. ***** According to the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which reflects “a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based”. However, the “extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case”.182 Furthermore, although article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights “obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument”.183 180 Communication No. 320/1988, V. Francis v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 24 March 1993), in UN doc. GAOR, A/48/40 (vol. II), p. 66, para. 12.2; emphasis added. 181 Ibid., loc. cit. See also e.g. Communication No. 282/1988, L. Smith v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 31 March 1993), ibid., p. 35, para. 10.5. 182 Eur. Court HR, Case of García Ruiz v. Spain, judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-I, p. 97, para. 26. 183 Ibid., para. 26 at p. 98. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 293