Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

This thesis examines whether the Čelebići test, the standard approach to cumulative convictions in international criminal law, is consistent with the principle of ne bis in idem. Through analysis of the test's application in both the ICTY and ICC, this study reveals that the test is fundamentally flawed and functions as a "procedural charade."

The research establishes that ne bis in idem should focus on the accused's criminal conduct, namely the actus reus and mens rea, rather than contextual elements. However, the Čelebići test's first prong contains an inherent contradiction: it acknowledges "same conduct" while permitting multiple convictions for that identical conduct based solely on different contextual elements between statutory provisions.

In the ICTY, the test occasionally prevented cumulative convictions between Articles 2 and 3 due to their overlapping relationship in the statutory structure. This limited success was merely incidental. When applied across different crime categories, the test systematically permitted multiple convictions for identical conduct.

The test's complete breakdown occurs in the ICC context. Unlike the ICTY's overlapping provisions, the Rome Statute creates a relationship of separation between provisions. Article 8 separates international and non-international armed conflicts into distinct subsections with no overlap. Consequently, the test cannot even claim success in preventing cumulative convictions within Article 8, as the statutory structure already prevents such overlap.

The ICC's "blind adoption" of the test, without considering these fundamental structural differences, ensures that the first prong systematically permits multiple convictions whenever identical conduct is charged across Articles 6, 7, and 8. Rather than protecting against double punishment, the test creates merely the illusion of such protection while systematically legitimising the very injustice that ne bis in idem is meant to prevent.