Home › Tribunals › International Expedited Tribunal

The Hague was built for another century.

We brought international justice into this one. Hearings by teleconference. Decisions in minutes, not decades. No lawyers required. The same streamlined procedure your province already trusts to take a family's home — now available for crimes against humanity.

Schedule a hearing Read our founding precedent

Urgent matters scheduled within one day of a complete application; average wait to hearing, 16 days. The respondent's attendance is welcome but not required.

Service standard · hearing length

5:00

All matters, up to and including genocide. Hearings by telephone. Decisions final, subject to appeal.

Tribunal pledge. See disclosure, footer.

Application to urgent hearing

16 days

Average achieved by our source procedure in 2020, for evictions. Scheduled within one day of a complete application. We meet or beat it.

Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan, 2021

Hearing to issued decision

3.40 days

Business days, 2020 average. Hearings are scheduled in the morning so the decision can be written that afternoon.

Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan, 2021

Applications granted

>90%

Of eviction applications heard in 2020. A success rate our applicants can plan around.

Buhler, J. Law & Social Policy 35 (2021)

Respondents absent at their own hearing

62%

The hearing proceeds as scheduled. Our auditor has confirmed this is in line with good practice.

Buhler (2021) · Provincial Auditor (2021)

The docket

Concluded matters, re-heard at the modern standard

This tribunal retries no one. The disposition field below reproduces each original record, verbatim, including the acquittal and the case that ended without a verdict. The expedited format contributes only the time saved. What it removes is everything else.

Affirmed in 5:00

RE-HEARING RECORD · FORM IET-1File No. IET-2026-0001

MatterThe Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06). War crimes: enlisting, conscripting and using children under 15.

Original proceedingTransferred to The Hague 16 March 2006. Verdict 14 March 2012. Appeals concluded 1 December 2014.

Original dispositionConvicted. Sentenced to 14 years. The International Criminal Court's first verdict, six years after it took custody.

This tribunal's procedureAt the scheduled time, the hearing officer called the number on file for the respondent. The hearing proceeded with the evidence presented. The record was affirmed.

Original: 2,190 days in custody before verdictThis tribunal: 5 minutesTime saved: 99.9998%

Acquitted · Year 10

RE-HEARING RECORD · FORM IET-1File No. IET-2026-0002

MatterThe Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (ICC-01/05-01/08). War crimes and crimes against humanity (command responsibility).

Original proceedingArrested 24 May 2008. Convicted 21 March 2016, sentenced to 18 years. Acquitted by the Appeals Chamber 8 June 2018.

Original dispositionAcquitted, after 3,667 days in custody. The trial verdict, reached in year eight, was wrong by the court's own final account.

This tribunal's noteA five-minute hearing in 2008 would have been wrong for ten years. The original proceeding was also wrong for ten years. The difference is that its decade of disclosure, counsel and appeal is what found the error. This file is retained on the docket as the complete argument against the tribunal that issued it.

Original: 3,667 days, arrest to acquittalThis tribunal: 5 minutes, no appealErrors caught by the fast version: 0

No verdict

RE-HEARING RECORD · FORM IET-1File No. IET-2026-0003

MatterThe Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević (ICTY IT-02-54). Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. The first sitting head of state indicted by an international tribunal.

Original proceedingTransferred to ICTY custody 29 June 2001. Trial opened 12 February 2002. Died in detention 11 March 2006, in the fifth year of proceedings.

Original dispositionNone. The respondent outlived the process. 1,716 days in custody, no verdict ever entered.

This tribunal's noteA five-minute hearing would have produced an outcome 1,715 days before the respondent's death. Which outcome, on five minutes of evidence, is precisely the question this tribunal is designed not to ask.

Original: 1,716 days, custody to death, no verdictThis tribunal: 5 minutes, verdict guaranteed

Judgment · 315 days

RE-HEARING RECORD · FORM IET-1File No. IET-2026-0004

MatterInternational Military Tribunal, Nuremberg. Twenty-two defendants, the surviving leadership of the Third Reich.

Original proceedingIndictment lodged 18 October 1945. Trial opened 20 November 1945, 403 open sessions. Judgment 30 September to 1 October 1946.

Original dispositionNineteen convicted, three acquitted. Trial to judgment in 315 days, with full evidence, counsel for every defendant, and three acquittals to show the outcome was not prewritten.

This tribunal's noteEntered on the docket as the control specimen: proof that speed and process were never actually the trade the modernizers describe. Nuremberg was fast because the world put resources behind process, not instead of it.

Original: 315 days, 22 defendantsThe ICC median, one defendant: ~6 years to first verdict

Performance

Days in custody before a verdict

Every duration below is computed from the tribunal's own published case record. Our service standard appears on the same axis, at true scale.

Custody to first verdict, international criminal proceedings

Days. Bars at linear scale, common axis. Source: ICC and ICTY case records; IMT judgment.

This tribunalservice standard

5 min

Nuremberg IMT22 defendants, 1945–46

315

Al MahdiICC's fastest case (guilty plea)

367

MiloševićICTY, died before verdict

1,716†

LubangaICC's first conviction

2,190

OngwenICC, convicted on 61 counts

2,207

NtagandaICC's longest sentence

2,299

KatangaICC

2,333

BembaICC, later acquitted on appeal

2,858‡

The red bar is drawn at true scale and does not render. Five minutes is 0.0001% of the longest bar: at this resolution it is narrower than a wavelength of visible light. † Died in detention; no verdict was ever reached. ‡ Custody to trial verdict; the appeal acquitted him on day 3,667.

Sources: ICC, Lubanga · Bemba · Al Mahdi · Ongwen · Ntaganda · Katanga · ICTY, Milošević · IMT Judgment, 1946

630,720

Five-minute hearings fit inside the 2,190 days Thomas Lubanga spent in custody awaiting the ICC's first-ever verdict. In those same six years, Saskatchewan's Office of Residential Tenancies, hearing roughly 6,000 applications annually, processed on the order of 36,000 of them.

Core-crime convictions, ICC, since 2002

Lubanga, Katanga, Al Mahdi, Ntaganda, Ongwen, Al Hassan, Abd-Al-Rahman (appeal pending). Two convictions were overturned; two defendants acquitted at trial.

ICC case records

ICC approved budget, 2025 alone

€195.5M

984 staff. The office running our source procedure spent $1.74M in 2019–20, including the mediation board, on ~6,000 applications a year.

ICC ASP, Dec 2024 · Provincial Auditor

ICC defendants at large

Unexecuted arrest warrants. The longest-standing fugitive, Joseph Kony, has been at large since his 2005 warrant: twenty-one years. Our respondents, by design, do not need to attend.

ICC, defendants at large

Average length, all ICTR proceedings

7.7 yrs

Arrest to final decision. The ICTY averaged 6.6 years. Both tribunals are closed; the average is final.

Int'l Nuremberg Principles Academy, 2022

Our founding precedent

We wrote no new language. We only changed the respondent.

Every sentence of this tribunal's design is lifted, verbatim and cited, from the modernization of real tribunals that decide whether real families keep their homes, their benefits, and their children. If the procedure is good enough for them, it is good enough for a head of state.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Low value cases or those of modest social significance should be dealt with quickly. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, "Transforming Our Justice System", UK, September 2016. A £700m programme to "modernise and upgrade our justice system," with some cases "handled entirely online" and criminal courts "digital by default."

Accessible, speedy, economical, informal and flexible. The statutory mandate of Canada's first online tribunal. Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, SBC 2012, c 25, s. 2(2)(a). Section 20(1) of the same Act: "the parties are to represent themselves in a tribunal proceeding."

A hearing officer may admit as evidence, whether or not it would be admissible under the laws of evidence, any oral or written testimony or any record or thing that the hearing officer considers to be credible and trustworthy, and relevant to the dispute. The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SS 2006, c R-22.0001, s. 75, marginal note: "Rules of evidence do not apply."

If claimant does not attend the hearing, the hearing officer dismisses the claim. Whereas if the respondent does not attend, the hearing proceeds as scheduled with the evidence presented, and the hearing officer issuing a decision. We found proceeding without the respondent present to be in line with good practice. Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan, 2021 Report, Vol. 1, Ch. 9, on the Office of Residential Tenancies.

The new system will allow ORT staff to respond to claims faster and better manage claims from beginning to end, improving access to justice and reducing paper usage. Gordon Wyant, Justice Minister and Attorney General of Saskatchewan, news release, March 3, 2022. The office: eight hearing officers and four deputy directors hearing approximately 6,000 applications annually.

Digital-first but not digital-only… ensuring that hearings are accessible, user friendly and state of the art. Tribunals Ontario Business Plan 2022–25 — the body whose fourteen tribunals hear Ontario's evictions, disability claims, and child and family services disputes.

The cost, speed and complexity should be proportionate to the scale and substance of the case. "Transforming Our Justice System," 2016. This tribunal's only original contribution is to apply the principle upward. Nobody had thought to.

User research

What users say about our source procedure

Every modernization programme conducts user research. Ours is published, peer-reviewed, and quoted verbatim below. It concerns the procedure exactly as we adopted it, applied to its original respondents: tenants.

A significant majority of tenants were not present at their eviction hearings in 2020, and in almost every case, an eviction order was made in their absence. Sarah Buhler, "Pandemic Evictions: An Analysis of the 2020 Eviction Decisions of Saskatchewan's Office of Residential Tenancies" (2021) 35 J. Law & Social Policy 68.

Typical of most ORT eviction decisions in 2020, the Hearing Officer's total analysis in his written decision was incredibly brief: here it was contained in just a few brief sentences. Buhler (2021), at 69, on a decision granting possession of a family's home.

People are being shown no mercy. The Canadian Press, December 26, 2020, on Ontario's move to online eviction hearings.

We know that technology can be an impediment to people getting justice if they don't have a computer or the bandwidth to use it. Beverley McLachlin, former Chief Justice of Canada, quoted in Tribunal Watch Ontario (2021). The same paper: over 24% of the lowest-income households have no internet access except through smartphones.

Our response to this feedback: we thank users for their engagement. The programme is performing to standard, and the standard is the programme. No changes are planned. This is, we are advised, also the source procedure's response.

Required reading

What this tribunal is not

It is not real. No tribunal exists at this address. No hearing can be scheduled. No verdict is issued here, and no person is accused of anything the cited record has not already adjudicated. The docket above re-hears only concluded cases, and reports their real outcomes, including the acquittal.

It is not an argument for five-minute hearings. For anyone. If the format has made the opposite seem thinkable for a moment, that is the format working.

It is not mockery of tenants. Tenants are the wronged party in the source procedure. Every satirical line on this site points at the procedure and the language that sold it, never at the people processed through it.

It is not anti-modernization, and not nostalgia for paper. Phone hearings, online filing, and fast decisions are genuinely useful. The audit is of where thin process is deemed safe to deploy, and the answer, everywhere, is: on the people least equipped to contest it.

It is not a claim that Saskatchewan's hearing officers act in bad faith, nor that the Office of Residential Tenancies breaks its own rules. The scandal documented here is a procedure followed correctly. Every number is the Provincial Auditor's, the legislature's, or peer-reviewed scholarship's, and every quote is verbatim.

It is not a claim that the Hague is fine. Decade-long proceedings that outlive their defendants are their own failure of justice. The point is narrower and sharper: when we decided speed mattered more than process, we started at the bottom.

Stated plainly: a tenant in Saskatchewan can lose their home through a telephone hearing they were not present for, decided in an afternoon, with the rules of evidence disapplied by statute, and the province's auditor calls it good practice. A head of state accused of atrocity gets a decade of disclosure, counsel, and appeals, and often outruns the verdict. Both are called justice. Only one was ever offered "modernization." Nobody modernizes the process of the powerful.

Public notice

Distribution of this notice

The tribunal is required to publicize its procedures. Eight notices are provided below; each is a different door into the same file, sized for X with the link attached. The counter keeps score in this browser only. Nothing is tracked.

0 of 8 distributed

Link attached: https://thehearing.felineunion.org/

The record

Sources

The sentencing ration · The Sentence The exception reading · The Laundering: One-Time Event The court layer · The Docket All instruments · felineunion directory