-
1
-
-
33846639512
-
Ireland v. United Kingdom
-
To date, the debate has focused on Israeli and British attempts to allow for the use of violence in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. See, e.g. European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 18 January 1978, ECHR Series A No. 25
-
To date, the debate has focused on Israeli and British attempts to allow for the use of violence in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. See, e.g. European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Ireland v. United Kingdom, ECHR (1978) Series A No. 25;
-
(1978)
-
-
-
2
-
-
0038254024
-
-
Report of the Commission of Inquiry in the Matters of Investigation Methods of the General Security Service Regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity (the so-called Landau Commission)
-
Report of the Commission of Inquiry in the Matters of Investigation Methods of the General Security Service Regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity (the so-called Landau Commission), 23 Israel Law Review (1989) 146-188;
-
(1989)
Israel Law Review
, vol.23
, pp. 146-188
-
-
-
3
-
-
31044450806
-
Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel
-
Supreme Court of Israel, Judgment of 6 September 1999, HC 5100/94
-
Supreme Court of Israel, Judgment of 6 September 1999, Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel, 1999 HC 5100/94.
-
(1999)
-
-
-
4
-
-
27244442855
-
'May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?'
-
See, e.g
-
See, e.g. P. Gaeta, 'May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?', 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2004) 785-794;
-
(2004)
Journal of International Criminal Justice
, vol.2
, pp. 785-794
-
-
Gaeta, P.1
-
5
-
-
3042853801
-
'Are Torture Warrants Warranted?'
-
O. Gross 'Are Torture Warrants Warranted?', 88 Minnesota Law Review (2004) 1481-1555;
-
(2004)
Minnesota Law Review
, vol.88
, pp. 1481-1555
-
-
Gross, O.1
-
6
-
-
0041653418
-
'Interrogating Suspected Terrorists: Should Torture be an Option?'
-
J.T. Parry and W.S. White, 'Interrogating Suspected Terrorists: Should Torture be an Option?', 63 University of Pittsburgh Law Review (2002) 743-766.
-
(2002)
University of Pittsburgh Law Review
, vol.63
, pp. 743-766
-
-
Parry, J.T.1
White, W.S.2
-
8
-
-
26244465110
-
-
See the compilation of official documents in (eds), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
-
See the compilation of official documents in K.J. Greenberg and J.L. Dratel (eds), The Torture Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
-
(2005)
The Torture Papers
-
-
Greenberg, K.J.1
Dratel, J.L.2
-
9
-
-
27144528516
-
'Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?'
-
See 8 November
-
See A.M. Dershowitz, 'Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?', Los Angeles Times, 8 November 2001, at B19;
-
(2001)
Los Angeles Times
-
-
Dershowitz, A.M.1
-
11
-
-
31044437764
-
-
See Art. 1 (1) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS
-
See Art. 1 (1) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS (1987), 112.
-
(1987)
, pp. 112
-
-
-
12
-
-
27244442855
-
'May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?'
-
The term 'preventive torture' appears preferable to 'interrogational torture' as it is used, for example The key element of the situations discussed here is not that pain or suffering are inflicted during an interrogation - which will nevertheless typically be the case - but that torture is motivated by preventive ends, in particular to prevent a crime from being committed or completed. In the literature, extreme cases of 'preventive torture' are sometimes discussed under the heading of the 'ticking bomb scenario', which refers to the (mostly theoretical) case in which a deadly terror attack is looming and can only be prevented by obtaining information that a person in custody refuses to divulge
-
The term 'preventive torture' appears preferable to 'interrogational torture' as it is used, for example, by Gaeta, supra note 2, at 789. The key element of the situations discussed here is not that pain or suffering are inflicted during an interrogation - which will nevertheless typically be the case - but that torture is motivated by preventive ends, in particular to prevent a crime from being committed or completed. In the literature, extreme cases of 'preventive torture' are sometimes discussed under the heading of the 'ticking bomb scenario', which refers to the (mostly theoretical) case in which a deadly terror attack is looming and can only be prevented by obtaining information that a person in custody refuses to divulge.
-
(2004)
Journal of International Criminal Justice
, vol.2
, pp. 789
-
-
Gaeta, P.1
-
13
-
-
31044451613
-
-
note
-
Consequently, the scope of this article excludes situations in which the infliction of mental or physical pain or suffering occurs for non-preventive ends (such as production of confession or as punishment) or is caused by a person acting in private capacity (such as the parents of a hostage). For those cases, the solutions suggested in this paper do not necessarily apply. Also beyond the scope of this paper is the question of whether criminal responsibility for the use of physical or mental violence in the interrogation of detainees can be excluded for reasons other than a perpetrator's life-saving motives, such as diminished capacity.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
37949044096
-
-
The facts of the case presented in this paragraph are taken from the findings of the Court; see Judgment of 20 December 2004 available online at: (visited 22 May 2005)
-
The facts of the case presented in this paragraph are taken from the findings of the Court; see Landgericht Frankfurt a.M., Judgment of 20 December 2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, 692-696, available online at: http://www.lg-frankfurt.justiz.hessen.de/internet/lg-frankfurt.nsf/ vwContentByKey/W269PMLU645JUSZDE (visited 22 May 2005).
-
(2005)
Neue Juristische Wochenschrift
, pp. 692-696
-
-
Landgericht Frankfurt, A.M.1
-
15
-
-
31044437364
-
-
note. See decisions of 9 April 2003
-
The Court held that the threat to inflict pain was unlawful and violated Arts 1 and 104(1) of the German Constitution and Art. 3 ECHR. Consequently, the information provided by Gaefgen under the impression of the unlawful threat was not admitted as evidence. However, the Court found that the violation of the Constitution and the European Convention did not constitute a complete bar to criminal proceedings. See Landgericht Frankfurt a.M., decisions of 9 April 2003, Strafverteidiger (2003), 325-328.
-
(2003)
Strafverteidiger
, pp. 325-328
-
-
Landgericht Frankfurt, A.M.1
-
16
-
-
31044438158
-
-
The decisions of the Regional Court have been upheld on appeal; see decision of 21 May (2 StR 35/04)
-
The decisions of the Regional Court have been upheld on appeal; see Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 21 May 2004 (2 StR 35/04);
-
(2004)
Bundesgerichtshof
-
-
-
17
-
-
31044452850
-
-
decision of 14 December 2004 (2 BvR 1249/04), available online at: (visited 22 May)
-
Bundesverfassungsgericht, decision of 14 December 2004 (2 BvR 1249/04), available online at: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/frames/ rk200412142bvr124904 (visited 22 May 2005).
-
(2005)
Bundesverfassungsgericht
-
-
-
18
-
-
31044436744
-
'Germans wrestle with rights and wrongs of torture'
-
See, e.g. 27 February
-
See, e.g. J. Hooper, 'Germans wrestle with rights and wrongs of torture', The Guardian, 27 February 2003, at 18,
-
(2003)
The Guardian
, vol.18
-
-
Hooper, J.1
-
19
-
-
31044451343
-
'Police Torture Threat Sparks Painful Debate in Germany'
-
8 March
-
and P. Finn, 'Police Torture Threat Sparks Painful Debate in Germany', The Washington Post, 8 March 2003, at A19.
-
(2003)
The Washington Post
-
-
Finn, P.1
-
20
-
-
31044454607
-
-
note
-
Article 1(1), sentence 1 of the Constitution provides that the dignity of the human being is inviolable; Art. 104(1) provides that persons in custody may not be subjected to mental or physical mistreatment. The ECHR entered into force for Germany on 3 September 1953, and the Torture Convention on 31 October 1990.
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
31044434728
-
'Relativierung des Folterverbots in der BRD?'
-
See, e.g
-
See, e.g. W. Hecker, 'Relativierung des Folterverbots in der BRD?', Kritische Justiz (2003) 210-218;
-
(2003)
Kritische Justiz
, pp. 210-218
-
-
Hecker, W.1
-
22
-
-
31044450674
-
'Folter im Rechtsstaat'
-
E. Hilgendorf, 'Folter im Rechtsstaat', Juristenzeitung (2004) 331-339;
-
(2004)
Juristenzeitung
, pp. 331-339
-
-
Hilgendorf, E.1
-
23
-
-
31044432897
-
'Wenn Du nicht redest, füge ich Dir große Schmerzen zu'
-
F. Jessberger, 'Wenn Du nicht redest, füge ich Dir große Schmerzen zu', Juristische Ausbildung (2003) 711-715;
-
(2003)
Juristische Ausbildung
, pp. 711-715
-
-
Jessberger, F.1
-
24
-
-
31044446290
-
'Not kennt kein Gebot? Die strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen von Folterhandlungen an Tatverdächtigen durch Polizeibeamte mit präventiver Zielsetzung'
-
J. Kinzig, 'Not kennt kein Gebot? Die strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen von Folterhandlungen an Tatverdächtigen durch Polizeibeamte mit präventiver Zielsetzung', 115 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (2003) 791-814;
-
(2003)
Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft
, vol.115
, pp. 791-814
-
-
Kinzig, J.1
-
25
-
-
31044435262
-
'Folter in Deutschland: Rückkehr einer Ungeheuerlichkeit?'
-
B. Kretschmer, 'Folter in Deutschland: Rückkehr einer Ungeheuerlichkeit?', Recht und Politik (2003) 103-118;
-
(2003)
Recht Und Politik
, pp. 103-118
-
-
Kretschmer, B.1
-
26
-
-
31044432580
-
'Die Aussageerpressung zur Rettung des Entführten: Strafbar!'
-
R. Neuhaus, 'Die Aussageerpressung zur Rettung des Entführten: strafbar!', Goltdammer's Archiv (2004) 521-539;
-
(2004)
Goltdammer's Archiv
, pp. 521-539
-
-
Neuhaus, R.1
-
27
-
-
31044450536
-
'Foltern in Notwehr?'
-
B. Heinrich et al. (eds), (Bielefeld: Gieseking)
-
W. Perron, 'Foltern in Notwehr?', in B. Heinrich et al. (eds), Festschrift für Ulrich Weber (Bielefeld: Gieseking, 2004) 143-154;
-
(2004)
Festschrift Für Ulrich Weber
, pp. 143-154
-
-
Perron, W.1
-
28
-
-
31044447718
-
'Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefällen zulässig oder wenigstens straflos sein?'
-
J. Arnold et al. (eds), (München: C.H. Beck)
-
C. Roxin, 'Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefällen zulässig oder wenigstens straflos sein?', in J. Arnold et al. (eds), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift für Albin Eser (München: C.H. Beck, 2005) 461-471.
-
(2005)
Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift Für Albin Eser
, pp. 461-471
-
-
Roxin, C.1
-
29
-
-
31044440875
-
'Nothilfe durch Folter'
-
See, e.g
-
See, e.g. V. Erb, 'Nothilfe durch Folter', Juristische Ausbildung (2005) 24-30;
-
(2005)
Juristische Ausbildung
, pp. 24-30
-
-
Erb, V.1
-
30
-
-
31044443530
-
'Angewandte Rechtsphilosophie - Darf der Staat foltern?'
-
C. Fahl, 'Angewandte Rechtsphilosophie - Darf der Staat foltern?', Juristische Rundschau (2004) 182-191;
-
(2004)
Juristische Rundschau
, pp. 182-191
-
-
Fahl, C.1
-
32
-
-
31044448249
-
'Vom unbedingten Verbot der Folter zum bedingten Recht auf Folter?'
-
Some of the arguments have been elaborated on earlier by
-
Some of the arguments have been elaborated on earlier by W. Brugger, 'Vom unbedingten Verbot der Folter zum bedingten Recht auf Folter?', Juristenzeitung (2000) 165-173;
-
(2000)
Juristenzeitung
, pp. 165-173
-
-
Brugger, W.1
-
33
-
-
0347746693
-
'May Government Ever Use Torture? Two Responses From German Law'
-
see also at 661 et seq
-
see also idem, 'May Government Ever Use Torture? Two Responses From German Law', 48 American Journal of Comparative Law (2000) 661-678, at 661 et seq.
-
(2000)
American Journal of Comparative Law
, vol.48
, pp. 661-678
-
-
Brugger, W.1
-
35
-
-
31044438405
-
-
note
-
Section 343 of the Criminal Code, which makes coercion to give evidence (Aussageerpressung) a crime punishable with imprisonment of one to 10 years, was not to be applied because, in the opinion of the Court, the defendants were acting solely in order to save the life of the child and not to produce evidence against the suspect.
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
31044432581
-
-
See S. 12(4) of the Hessian Security and Order Law in connection with S. 136a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure
-
See S. 12(4) of the Hessian Security and Order Law in connection with S. 136a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
31044442081
-
-
note
-
Under S. 32 of the Criminal Code, acts required by self-defence are not unlawful but justified; subs. 2 defines self-defence as the defence necessary to avert an imminent and unlawful attack from oneself or another person. Proportionality is, unlike under in many other domestic statutes, not required by the wording of the provision. However, according to case law, extreme cases of disproportionality are not covered by self-defence.
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
31044447184
-
-
note
-
Under S. 34 of the German Criminal Code, an act is justified by necessity if the act is committed by a person faced with an imminent danger to a protected legal interest, such as life or limb, which cannot otherwise be averted, in order to avert the danger from himself or another, if, upon weighing the conflicting interests, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with; this shall apply, however, only to the extent that the act is an appropriate means to avert the danger.
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
31044454339
-
-
A literal translation would be 'demanded by self defence'
-
A literal translation would be 'demanded by self defence'.
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
31044440352
-
-
note
-
Since Ss 32 and 34 require that all elements of the defence must be present objectively at the time of the commission of the crime, justification by self-defence or necessity was clearly ruled out: At the time of the threat, the hostage was already dead. Yet, the police officers erroneously thought that the boy would still be alive. Therefore, only 'putative self-defence' (or 'putative necessity') could have applied anyway, which may - as a matter of controversy - exclude the guilt given the act would have been justified if the perceptions of the perpetrator would have been correct. The judgment then briefly discussed further excuses, especially necessity as an excuse under S. 35 of the Criminal Code (entschuldigender Notstand) and mistake of law under S. 17 of the Criminal Code (Verbotsirrtum), but it concluded that neither of these grounds for excluding criminal responsibility was available in the present case.
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
31044443153
-
-
note
-
Section 59(1) of the Criminal Code (Voraussetzungen der Verwarnung mit Strafvorbehalt) reads as follows: 'If someone has incurred a fine of not more than one hundred eighty daily rates, the court may, beside the establishment of guilt, warn him, indicate the punishment and reserve imposition of this punishment, if: 1. it can be expected that the perpetrator will commit no further crimes in the future even without imposition of punishment; 2. a comprehensive evaluation of the act and the personality of the perpetrator reveals special circumstances, which make it advisable to exempt him from the imposition of punishment; and 3. the defence of the legal order does not require the imposition of punishment.'
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
31044446174
-
-
note
-
The distinction between torture and inhuman treatment derives principally from a difference in the intensity and severity of the suffering inflicted; see Art. 16 of the Torture Convention ('inhuman ... treatment which [does] not amount to torture');
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
31044439349
-
Ireland v. United Kingdom
-
European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A
-
European Court of Human Rights, supra note 1, §167;
-
(1978)
ECHR
, Issue.25
, pp. 167
-
-
-
44
-
-
6144246035
-
-
2nd edition (Kehl, Straßburg, Arlington: Engel Verlag) Art. 3 at marg. no. 5
-
J. Abr. Frowein and W. Peukert, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Kommentar, 2nd edition (Kehl, Straßburg, Arlington: Engel Verlag, 1996), Art. 3 at marg. no. 5.
-
(1996)
Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Kommentar
-
-
Frowein, J.Abr.1
Peukert, W.2
-
45
-
-
31044455825
-
-
note
-
Personally, I would tend to classify the threat in the Daschner case ('pain you will never forget') not only as a threat of torture (which may be regarded as inhuman treatment) but as actual torture by inflicting severe mental suffering. As regards the non-derogability of the prohibition of inhuman treatment (and its status as compared to torture), international law is not clear. While Art. 2 of the Torture Convention does not apply to inhuman treatment (see Art. 16), under the ECHR and the AmCHR, the prohibition of inhuman treatment encompassed by the right to freedom from torture is, like the prohibition of torture itself, absolute and nonderogable;
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
31044442339
-
-
see Arts 15(2) ECHR and 27(2) AmCHR. See also (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) et seq
-
see Arts 15(2) ECHR and 27(2) AmCHR. See also N. Jayawickrama, The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), at 300 et seq.
-
(2002)
The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law
, pp. 300
-
-
Jayawickrama, N.1
-
47
-
-
31044447326
-
-
See Ss 7(1) No. 5 and 8(1) No. 3 of the German Code of Crimes Against International Law
-
See Ss 7(1) No. 5 and 8(1) No. 3 of the German Code of Crimes Against International Law.
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
31044444694
-
-
note
-
In the few cases in which international tribunals had to deal with torture, force was used not to prevent the commission or completion of a crime and save innocent life, but to intimidate or punish an individual victim or the population;
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
26844564318
-
-
see, e.g. ICTY, (IT-95-17/1-T), Trial Chamber 10 December
-
see, e.g. ICTY, Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-T), Trial Chamber, 10 December 1998, §160;
-
(1998)
Furundžija
, pp. 160
-
-
-
51
-
-
31044454212
-
-
ICTY, Judgment, (IT-96-23/-23/1-T), Trial Chamber 22 February
-
ICTY, Judgment, Kunarac (IT-96-23/-23/1-T), Trial Chamber, 22 February 2001, §482.
-
(2001)
Kunarac
, pp. 482
-
-
-
53
-
-
27244450223
-
-
As for the interconnections between international criminal law and international human rights law, see (The Hague: Asser Press) marg. nos 109 et seq
-
As for the interconnections between international criminal law and international human rights law, see G. Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law (The Hague: Asser Press, 2005), marg. nos 109 et seq.
-
(2005)
Principles of International Criminal Law
-
-
Werle, G.1
-
54
-
-
27244442855
-
'May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?'
-
See, note 4 with further references
-
See Gaeta, supra note 2, at 787, note 4 with further references.
-
(2004)
Journal of International Criminal Justice
, vol.2
, pp. 787
-
-
Gaeta, P.1
-
55
-
-
31044434994
-
-
note
-
See, e.g. CAT/C/CR/30/6, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Belgium (27/05/2003), where the Committee recommended that Belgium include a provision in the Penal Code expressly prohibiting the invocation of a state of necessity to justify the violation of the right not to be subjected to torture.
-
-
-
-
56
-
-
31044438659
-
-
See, e.g. Arts 7(1)(f), (2)(e) and 8(2)(a)(ii) and (c)(i) ICCSt., respectively. For departures of the definition of torture under international criminal law from the definition of the Torture Convention, see (The Hague: Asser Press) marg. nos 109 et seq. marg. no. 711
-
See, e.g. Arts 7(1)(f), (2)(e) and 8(2)(a)(ii) and (c)(i) ICCSt., respectively. For departures of the definition of torture under international criminal law from the definition of the Torture Convention, see Werle, supra note 29, marg. no. 711.
-
(2005)
Principles of International Criminal Law
-
-
Werle, G.1
-
57
-
-
4344658597
-
-
There is no practical distinction between justifications and excuses made in international criminal law; see (Oxford: Oxford University Press ) et seq
-
There is no practical distinction between justifications and excuses made in international criminal law; see A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), at 219 et seq;
-
(2003)
International Criminal Law
, pp. 219
-
-
Cassese, A.1
-
59
-
-
4344633220
-
-
Article 31(1)(d) ICCSt. combines elements of duress and necessity; see 2nd edition (London: Cavendish)
-
Article 31(1)(d) ICCSt. combines elements of duress and necessity; see I. Bantekas and M. Nash, International Criminal Law, 2nd edition (London: Cavendish, 2003), at 135;
-
(2003)
International Criminal Law
, pp. 135
-
-
Bantekas, I.1
Nash, M.2
-
60
-
-
71949129236
-
-
(Ardsley: Transnational Publishers) While the defence of necessity traditionally justifies the act based on a choice of evils, duress is an excuse based on the lack of freedom of will in the face of an imminent threat
-
G.-J. Knoops, Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001), at 92. While the defence of necessity traditionally justifies the act based on a choice of evils, duress is an excuse based on the lack of freedom of will in the face of an imminent threat.
-
(2001)
Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law
, pp. 92
-
-
Knoops, G.-J.1
-
61
-
-
31044443152
-
-
See Art. 31(1)(c) and (d) ICCSt., respectively. Article 31 largely mirrors customary international law and general principles of law
-
See Art. 31(1)(c) and (d) ICCSt., respectively. Article 31 largely mirrors customary international law and general principles of law;
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
31044440345
-
'Defenses before the International Criminal Court: Substantive Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility'
-
at 142
-
M. Scaliotti, 'Defenses before the International Criminal Court: Substantive Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility', 1 International Criminal Law Review (2001) 111-172, at 142;
-
(2001)
International Criminal Law Review
, vol.1
, pp. 111-172
-
-
Scaliotti, M.1
-
64
-
-
27244450223
-
-
supra note 28, at marg. no. 243. As for the interconnections between the international criminal law and international human rights law, (The Hague: Asser Press)
-
Werle, supra note 28, at marg. no. 243.
-
(2005)
Principles of International Criminal Law
-
-
Werle, G.1
-
65
-
-
31044450671
-
-
See also, for the customary status of Art. 31(1)(c) ICCSt., ICTY, (IT-95-14/2) Trial Chamber, 26 February
-
See also, for the customary status of Art. 31(1)(c) ICCSt., ICTY, Kordić and Cerkez (IT-95-14/2), Trial Chamber, 26 February 2001, § 451.
-
(2001)
Kordić and Cerkez
, pp. 451
-
-
-
66
-
-
27244442855
-
'May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?
-
See supra note 2, at et seq
-
See Gaeta, supra note 2, at 790 et seq.
-
(2004)
Journal of International Criminal Justice
, vol.2
, pp. 790
-
-
Gaeta, P.1
-
67
-
-
41849134328
-
'Applicable Law'
-
See A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J.R.W.D. Jones (eds), (Oxford: Oxford University Press) at 1079
-
See A. Pellet, 'Applicable Law', in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J.R.W.D. Jones (eds), The Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary Vol. II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 1051-1084, at 1079.
-
(2002)
The Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary
, vol.2
, pp. 1051-1084
-
-
Pellet, A.1
-
69
-
-
84856404903
-
-
In my view, the (possible) objection that a restrictive interpretation of the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility violate the principle nullum crimen sine lege as provided for in Art. 22 ICCSt. is not convincing. In particular, a rule against strict construction of defences cannot be inferred from subs. 2, according which the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed. This holds true at least if the restrictive interpretation is in line with the wording of the definition of the defence. See also 'Article 22', in O. Triffterer (ed.), (Baden-Baden: Nomos) at marg. no. 37
-
In my view, the (possible) objection that a restrictive interpretation of the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility violate the principle nullum crimen sine lege as provided for in Art. 22 ICCSt. is not convincing. In particular, a rule against strict construction of defences cannot be inferred from subs. 2, according which the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed. This holds true at least if the restrictive interpretation is in line with the wording of the definition of the defence. See also B. Broomhall, 'Article 22', in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1999), 447-462, at marg. no. 37.
-
(1999)
Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
, pp. 447-462
-
-
Broomhall, B.1
-
70
-
-
31044435706
-
-
See, e.g. Preamble of the ECHR ('fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world')
-
See, e.g. Preamble of the ECHR ('fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world');
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
31044442344
-
-
(München: C.H. Beck) at marg. no. 10
-
M. Herdegen, Völkerrecht (München: C.H. Beck, 2002), §47, at marg. no. 10;
-
(2002)
Völkerrecht
, pp. 47
-
-
Herdegen, M.1
-
72
-
-
0038709230
-
-
2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
-
A. Cassese, International Law, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), at 393-396.
-
(2005)
International Law
, pp. 393-396
-
-
Cassese, A.1
-
73
-
-
27244450223
-
-
For the impact of human rights law on international criminal law, see generally supra note 28, marg. nos 109 et seq. As for the interconnections between international criminal law and international human rights law (The Hague: Asser Press)
-
For the impact of human rights law on international criminal law, see generally Werle, supra note 28, marg. nos 109 et seq.
-
(2005)
Principles of International Criminal Law
-
-
Werle, G.1
-
74
-
-
31044444957
-
-
note
-
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world';
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
26844564318
-
-
see also ICTY, supra note 26 ('[I]ndeed in modern times [the general principle of respect for human dignity] has become of such paramount importance as to permeate the whole body of international law.'); (IT-95-17/1-T), Trial Chamber, 10 December
-
see also ICTY, supra note 26 (Furundžija), §183 ('[I]ndeed in modern times [the general principle of respect for human dignity] has become of such paramount importance as to permeate the whole body of international law.');
-
(1998)
Furundžija
, pp. 183
-
-
-
76
-
-
0004244075
-
-
5th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
-
M. Shaw, International Law, 5th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), at 116.
-
(2003)
International Law
, pp. 116
-
-
Shaw, M.1
-
77
-
-
0004244075
-
-
See supra note 40, at 5th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
-
See Shaw, supra note 40, at 117;
-
(2003)
International Law
, pp. 117
-
-
Shaw, M.1
-
78
-
-
0038709230
-
-
see also supra note 39, at 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
-
see also A. Cassese, International Law, supra note 39, at 204-205.
-
(2005)
International Law
, pp. 204-205
-
-
Cassese, A.1
-
79
-
-
31044451472
-
'Other Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility'
-
On reasonableness under Art. 31 ICCSt., see A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J.R.W.D. Jones (eds), (Oxford: Oxford University Press) at 1034
-
On reasonableness under Art. 31 ICCSt., see K. Ambos, 'Other Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility', in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J.R.W.D. Jones (eds), The Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary Vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 1003-1048, at 1034.
-
(2002)
The Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary
, vol.1
, pp. 1003-1048
-
-
Ambos, K.1
-
80
-
-
27244442855
-
'May Neccesity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?
-
See also supra note 2, at She makes the interesting additional suggestion that the state the torturer belongs to has to pay compensation
-
See also Gaeta, supra note 2, at 793. She makes the interesting additional suggestion that the state the torturer belongs to has to pay compensation.
-
(2004)
Journal of International Criminal Justice
, vol.2
, pp. 793
-
-
Gaeta, P.1
-
81
-
-
31044438959
-
-
note
-
It appears, however, that it would not be an option for the ICC to completely refrain from punishment, as the Daschner Court did. According to Art. 77(1)(a) ICCSt., the ICC may impose a penalty of 'imprisonment for a specified number of years'. This rule apparently establishes a minimum sentence of one year in case of conviction;
-
-
-
|