-
1
-
-
85022387578
-
-
(hereinafter Rome Statute), adopted and opened for signature on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9. and corrected by procè s-verbaux of 10 Nov. 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 Nov. 1999, 8May 2000, 17 Jan. 2001 and 16 Jan. 2002. The ICC Statute entered into force on 1 July (available through www.un.org/law/icc/ondex.htm).
-
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter Rome Statute), adopted and opened for signature on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9. and corrected by procè s-verbaux of 10 Nov. 1998, 12 July 1999, 30 Nov. 1999, 8May 2000, 17 Jan. 2001 and 16 Jan. 2002. The ICC Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 (available through www.un.org/law/icc/ondex.htm).
-
(2002)
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
-
-
-
2
-
-
85022362884
-
-
Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’ or ‘the ICTY'); and Art. 8(2), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December (hereinafter referred to as ‘the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’ or ‘the ICTR').
-
See Art. 9(2), Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’ or ‘the ICTY'); and Art. 8(2), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda’ or ‘the ICTR').
-
(1994)
Art
, vol.9
, Issue.2
-
-
-
3
-
-
85022424350
-
-
M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed.), ICC Ratification and National Implementing Legislation, Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Making the Right Choices, Part I, AI Index: IOR 40/01/97 (available at www.amnesty.org/icc).
-
Bruce Broomhall, ‘The International Criminal Court: A Checklist for National Implementation’, in M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed.), ICC Ratification and National Implementing Legislation (1999), 113-59; Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Making the Right Choices, Part I, AI Index: IOR 40/01/97 (available at www.amnesty.org/icc).
-
(1999)
The International Criminal Court: A Checklist for National Implementation
, pp. 113-159
-
-
Broomhall, B.1
-
4
-
-
85022356533
-
-
Rome Statute, Art. 1. See also Art. 17 and Preamble, para.
-
‘[The ICC] shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for themostserious crimesof international concern, as referred tointhis Statute,andshallbe complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. ’, Rome Statute, Art. 1. See also Art. 17 and Preamble, para. 10.
-
[The ICC] shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for themostserious crimesof international concern, as referred tointhis Statute,andshallbe complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.
, pp. 10
-
-
-
5
-
-
85022446069
-
-
Sweden has opted for the dualistic system as regards incorporation of international treaties into domestic law, and should therefore adopt appropriate legislation for the incorporation of the Convention against Torture. The Committee notes that Swedish domestic law does not contain a definition of torture in keepingwithArt.1oftheConvention.Aboveall,neithertorturenorcruel,inhumananddegradingtreatments are identified as specific crimes and offences in domestic criminal law’ (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Sweden, CAT/C/CR/28/6, 28May, para. 5).
-
For example, the Committee against Torture stated: ‘While the specific arrangements for giving effect to the Convention in the domestic legal system are left to the discretion of each state party, the means used must be appropriate, that is, they should produce results which indicate that the state party has fully discharged its obligations. Sweden has opted for the dualistic system as regards incorporation of international treaties into domestic law, and should therefore adopt appropriate legislation for the incorporation of the Convention against Torture. The Committee notes that Swedish domestic law does not contain a definition of torture in keepingwithArt.1oftheConvention.Aboveall,neithertorturenorcruel,inhumananddegradingtreatments are identified as specific crimes and offences in domestic criminal law’ (Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Sweden, CAT/C/CR/28/6, 28May 2002, para. 5).
-
(2002)
For example, the Committee against Torture stated: ‘While the specific arrangements for giving effect to the Convention in the domestic legal system are left to the discretion of each state party, the means used must be appropriate, that is, they should produce results which indicate that the state party has fully discharged its obligations
-
-
-
7
-
-
85022399638
-
-
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
-
Under this term the following 19 countries are included: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
-
Under this term the following 19 countries are included: Argentina
-
-
-
8
-
-
27644531444
-
-
On nullum crimen sine lege and the Rome Statute see Machteld Boot, Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the SubjectMatter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
-
On nullum crimen sine lege and the Rome Statute see Machteld Boot, Genocide, Crimes against Humanity,War Crimes. Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the SubjectMatter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (2002).
-
(2002)
Genocide, Crimes against Humanity,War Crimes
-
-
-
9
-
-
85022415466
-
-
Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgement of 30May, para. 121 (done in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic).
-
Inter-American Court ofHumanRights, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgement of 30May 1999, para. 121 (done in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic).
-
(1999)
Inter-American Court ofHumanRights
-
-
-
10
-
-
85022438268
-
-
in Hervé Ascencio, Emmanuel Decaux, and Alain Pellet (eds.), Droit International Pé nal
-
See Isabelle Fichet-Boyle and Marc Mosse, ‘L'Obligation de prende des mesures internes né cessaires a’ la prévention et a’ la repression des infractions’, in Hervé Ascencio, Emmanuel Decaux, and Alain Pellet (eds.), Droit International Pé nal (2000), 871-85.
-
(2000)
L'Obligation de prende des mesures internes né cessaires a’ la prévention et a’ la repression des infractions
, pp. 871-885
-
-
Fichet-Boyle, I.1
Mosse, M.2
-
11
-
-
85022353492
-
-
260 A (III) (9 Dec. 1948), 78 UNTS 277. Entry into force 12 Jan.
-
UN General Assembly res. 260 A (III) (9 Dec. 1948), 78 UNTS 277. Entry into force 12 Jan. 1951.
-
(1951)
UN General Assembly res
-
-
-
13
-
-
85022391085
-
-
12 Aug. 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and ShipwreckedMembers of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 Aug. 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners ofWar, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135; Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time ofWar, 12 Aug., 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS
-
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of theWounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 Aug. 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and ShipwreckedMembers of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 Aug. 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners ofWar, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135; Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time ofWar, 12 Aug. 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287.
-
(1949)
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of theWounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
, pp. 287
-
-
-
15
-
-
85022419424
-
-
Geneva Convention I. The commentary by the ICRC on this Article reads as follows: ‘Art. 49 lays the foundations of the system adopted for suppressing breaches of the Convention. The system is based on three fundamental obligations, which are laid on each Contracting Party-namely, the obligation to enact special legislation on the subject, the obligation to search for any person accused of violation of the Convention, and the obligation to try such persons or, if the Contracting Party prefers, to hand them over for trial to another state concerned. Paragraph 1 repeats the obligation laid on the Contracting states under Art. 29 of the Convention, to promulgate suitablemeasures in the event of their own penal legislation being inadequate. The obligation has, however, been made considerably more imperative. The Contracting Parties are more strictly bound to enact the necessary legislation than in the past’ (available atwww.icrc.org).
-
Art. 49 (1), Geneva Convention I. The commentary by the ICRC on this Article reads as follows: ‘Art. 49 lays the foundations of the system adopted for suppressing breaches of the Convention. The system is based on three fundamental obligations, which are laid on each Contracting Party-namely, the obligation to enact special legislation on the subject, the obligation to search for any person accused of violation of the Convention, and the obligation to try such persons or, if the Contracting Party prefers, to hand them over for trial to another state concerned. Paragraph 1 repeats the obligation laid on the Contracting states under Art. 29 of the 1929 Convention, to promulgate suitablemeasures in the event of their own penal legislation being inadequate. The obligation has, however, been made considerably more imperative. The Contracting Parties are more strictly bound to enact the necessary legislation than in the past’ (available atwww.icrc.org).
-
(1929)
Art
, vol.49
, Issue.1
-
-
-
16
-
-
85022408931
-
-
First Additional Protocol (Protocol I) (1125 UNTS 3).
-
Art. 86(1), First Additional Protocol (Protocol I) (1125 UNTS 3).
-
Art
, vol.86
, Issue.1
-
-
-
17
-
-
85022375291
-
-
IV(a). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification by General Assembly Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 Nov. 1973, 1015 UNTS 243; entry into force 18 July, in accordance with Art. XV.
-
Art. IV(a). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification by General Assembly Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 Nov. 1973, 1015 UNTS 243; entry into force 18 July 1976, in accordance with Art. XV.
-
(1976)
Art
-
-
-
18
-
-
85022360721
-
-
Art. and (2), UN GA Res.39/46 (10 Dec. 1984), 1465 UNTS 85; entered into force 26 June 1987. See also Art. 4, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 Dec.
-
Art. 4(1) and (2), UN GA Res.39/46 (10 Dec. 1984), 1465 UNTS 85; entered into force 26 June 1987. See also Art. 4, DeclarationontheProtection of All PersonsfromBeing Subjected toTortureandOtherCruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 Dec. 1975.
-
(1975)
DeclarationontheProtection of All PersonsfromBeing Subjected toTortureandOtherCruel
, vol.4
, Issue.1
-
-
-
19
-
-
84927108853
-
-
UN Doc. A/48/44 at 13 (48. Session, ) (Sessional/ Annual Report of Committee, paras. 86.87).
-
Report of the Committee against Torture: 24/06/93. UN Doc. A/48/44 at 13 (48. Session, 1993) (Sessional/ Annual Report of Committee, paras. 86.87).
-
(1993)
Report of the Committee against Torture: 24/06/93
-
-
-
20
-
-
85022446500
-
-
UNTS 171.
-
UNTS
, pp. 171
-
-
-
21
-
-
85022365592
-
-
HRI/GEN/1/Rev.5 (General Comments), 19th session (1998), General Comment No. 9. See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment 3, Art. 2, Implementation at the national level (13th session, 1981), Compilation of General Comments and General RecommendationsAdopted byHuman Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at
-
Compilation of GeneralCommentsand GeneralRecommendationsAdopted byHumanRightsTreatyBodies: 26/04/2001. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.5 (General Comments), 19th session (1998), General Comment No. 9. See also Human Rights Committee, General Comment 3, Art. 2, Implementation at the national level (13th session, 1981), Compilation of General Comments and General RecommendationsAdopted byHuman Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 4 (1994).
-
(1994)
Compilation of GeneralCommentsand GeneralRecommendationsAdopted byHumanRightsTreatyBodies: 26/04/2001
, pp. 4
-
-
-
22
-
-
85022417802
-
-
Inter-American Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Torture, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 9 Dec. 1985. OAS Treaty Ser. No. 67; it entered into force on 28 Feb., pursuant to its Art. 22 (available through www.oas.org).
-
Art. 6, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Torture, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 9 Dec. 1985. OAS Treaty Ser. No. 67; it entered into force on 28 Feb. 1987, pursuant to its Art. 22 (available through www.oas.org).
-
(1987)
Art
, pp. 6
-
-
-
23
-
-
85022441300
-
-
Art. III, Belm do Pará, Brazil, 9 June 1994, entered into force 28March, in accordance with its Art. XX (www.oas.org).
-
Art. III, Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, Belm do Pará, Brazil, 9 June 1994, entered into force 28March, 1996, in accordance with its Art. XX (www.oas.org).
-
(1996)
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons
-
-
-
25
-
-
84874921712
-
-
Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, Judgement of 27 Aug. 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; see also Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgement of 16 Aug., para.
-
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, Judgement of 27 Aug. 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; see also Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgement of 16 Aug. 2000, para. 136.
-
(2000)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
, pp. 136
-
-
-
26
-
-
85022422039
-
-
e.g., Machteld Boot, Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, (2002) 55-7; B. Broomhall, The International Criminal Court: Overview and Cooperation with States, Nouvelles Etudes Pé nales 45, at
-
But see for a more restrictive view of the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute, e.g., Machteld Boot, Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, (2002) 55-7; B. Broomhall, The International Criminal Court: Overview and Cooperation with States, Nouvelles Etudes Pé nales 45 (1999), at 82.
-
(1999)
But see for a more restrictive view of the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute
, pp. 82
-
-
-
27
-
-
0003686151
-
-
Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd edn
-
Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context. Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd edn (2000), 1132.
-
(2000)
International Human Rights in Context
, pp. 1132
-
-
Steiner, H.1
Alston, P.2
-
28
-
-
85022383151
-
-
Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute-Issues, Negotiations, Results
-
John T. Holmes, ‘The Principle of Complementarity’, in Roy S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute-Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999), 125.
-
(1999)
The Principle of Complementarity
, pp. 125
-
-
Holmes, J.T.1
-
29
-
-
85022382971
-
-
AI Index40/11/00 (available atwww.amnesty.org/icc);Human RightsWatch, International Criminal Court.Making the ICCWork: A Handbook for Implementing the Rome Statute (available through www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/ handbook e.pdf).
-
AmnestyInternational,TheInternationalCriminalCourt:Checklist for Effective Implementation,AI Index40/11/00 (available atwww.amnesty.org/icc);Human RightsWatch, International Criminal Court.Making the ICCWork: A Handbook for Implementing the Rome Statute (2001) (available through www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/ handbook e.pdf).
-
(2001)
AmnestyInternational,TheInternationalCriminalCourt:Checklist for Effective Implementation
-
-
-
30
-
-
85022382781
-
-
‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or inpart; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent birthswithin the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
-
For the purpose of the Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or inpart; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent birthswithin the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
-
For the purpose of the Statute
-
-
-
31
-
-
85022414260
-
-
Genocide Convention;Art. 4, Statute of the International CriminalTribunal for the FormerYugoslavia; Art. 2, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Art. 17, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security ofMankind of (which replaces ‘ethnical’ by ‘ethnic').
-
Art. II, Genocide Convention;Art. 4, Statute of the International CriminalTribunal for the FormerYugoslavia; Art. 2, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; Art. 17, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security ofMankind of 1996 (which replaces ‘ethnical’ by ‘ethnic').
-
(1996)
Art
, vol.II
-
-
-
32
-
-
85022383559
-
-
Penal Code. Bolivia is not a state party to the Genocide Convention (on penal codes see Andean Commission of Jurists (www.cajpe.org.pe/rij)).
-
Art. 138, Penal Code. Bolivia is not a state party to the Genocide Convention (on penal codes see Andean Commission of Jurists (www.cajpe.org.pe/rij)).
-
Art
, pp. 138
-
-
-
33
-
-
85022350499
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 376, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 376
-
-
-
34
-
-
85022374806
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 319, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 319
-
-
-
35
-
-
85022403397
-
-
Penal Code (as amended by Law 589 of 6 July ).
-
Art. 322-A, Penal Code (as amended by Law 589 of 6 July 2000).
-
(2000)
Art
, pp. 322-A
-
-
-
36
-
-
85022415006
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 375, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 375
-
-
-
37
-
-
85022429935
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 549, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 549
-
-
-
38
-
-
85022419708
-
-
149bis, Mexican Federal Penal Code.
-
Art. 149bis, Mexican Federal Penal Code.
-
Art
-
-
-
39
-
-
85022436531
-
-
Lei No. 2.889, de 1 de Outubro de
-
Art. 1, Lei No. 2.889, de 1 de Outubro de 1956.
-
(1956)
Art
, pp. 1
-
-
-
40
-
-
85022397333
-
-
crimes against humanity, and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts of 29 June, defines genocide as ‘an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, such that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission’ (available at www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-19/C-19 4/90091bE.html).
-
The Canadian Act in respect of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts of 29 June 2000, defines genocide as ‘an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, such that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission’ (available at www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-19/C-19 4/90091bE.html).
-
(2000)
The Canadian Act in respect of genocide
-
-
-
42
-
-
85022388609
-
-
Initsfindingsonthelawapplicable to the crimeof genocidesupra, the Chamber considered whether the protected groups should be limited to only the four groups specifically mentioned orwhether any group, similar to the four groups in terms of its stability and permanence, should also be included. The Chamber found that it was necessary, above all, to respect the intent of the drafters of the Genocide Convention which, according to the travaux pré paratoirs, was clearly to protect any stable and permanent group’ (Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement of 2 Sept., para. 701).
-
‘Art. 2(2) of the Statute, like the Genocide Convention, provides that genocide may be committed against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Initsfindingsonthelawapplicable to the crimeof genocidesupra, the Chamber considered whether the protected groups should be limited to only the four groups specifically mentioned orwhether any group, similar to the four groups in terms of its stability and permanence, should also be included. The Chamber found that it was necessary, above all, to respect the intent of the drafters of the Genocide Convention which, according to the travaux pré paratoirs, was clearly to protect any stable and permanent group’ (Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement of 2 Sept. 1998, para. 701).
-
(1998)
‘Art. 2(2) of the Statute, like the Genocide Convention, provides that genocide may be committed against a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
-
-
-
44
-
-
85022407732
-
-
Peruvian Penal Code; Art. 295, Bolivian Penal Code; apparently, Art. 205, Ecuadorian Penal Code; Art. 309, Paraguayan Penal Code; Art. 182, para. 2, Venezuelan Penal Code. Art. 160 of the Panamanian Penal Code and Art. 3 of theMexican Ley Federal para Prevenir y Castigar la Tortura only punish state agents.
-
Art. 321, Peruvian Penal Code; Art. 295, Bolivian Penal Code; apparently, Art. 205, Ecuadorian Penal Code; Art. 309, Paraguayan Penal Code; Art. 182, para. 2, Venezuelan Penal Code. Art. 160 of the Panamanian Penal Code and Art. 3 of theMexican Ley Federal para Prevenir y Castigar la Tortura only punish state agents.
-
Art
, pp. 321
-
-
-
45
-
-
85022383809
-
-
Art. 3, Inter-American Convention.
-
‘The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture: (a) A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so. (b) A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto’, Art. 3, Inter-American Convention.
-
The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture: (a) A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so. (b) A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto
-
-
-
47
-
-
85022400073
-
-
para. 3, 1, Argentine Penal Code; Art. 1, Brazilian Law No. 9.455 of 7 April Art. 178, Colombian Penal Code; Art. 209-A, third paragraph, Honduran Penal Code; Arts. 150-A and 150-B, Chilean Penal Code (as amended by Law 19.567).
-
Art. 144, para. 3, 1, Argentine Penal Code; Art. 1, Brazilian Law No. 9.455 of 7 April 1997; Art. 178, Colombian Penal Code; Art. 209-A, third paragraph, Honduran Penal Code; Arts. 150-A and 150-B, Chilean Penal Code (as amended by Law 19.567).
-
(1997)
Art
, pp. 144
-
-
-
49
-
-
85022374815
-
-
Crime do Desaparecimento Forçado de Pessoas Olivier de Frouville, in Ascencio et al., Impunidad y Derecho Penal Internacional note
-
Tarciso DalMaso Jardim, Crime do Desaparecimento Forçado de Pessoas (1999); Olivier de Frouville, ‘Les disparitions forcé es’, in Ascencio et al., Impunidad y Derecho Penal Internacional note 13, 382.
-
(1999)
Les disparitions forcé es
, vol.13
, pp. 382
-
-
DalMaso Jardim, T.1
-
50
-
-
85022421949
-
-
(Art. II, Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearances).
-
‘For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees’ (Art. II, Inter-American Convention on Enforced Disappearances).
-
For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees
-
-
-
51
-
-
85022395431
-
-
Peruvian Penal Code; Art. 236, Paraguayan Penal Code; Art. 215 A, Mexican Penal Code; contra, including non-state agents, Art. 165, Colombian Penal Code; Art. 201ter, Guatemalan Penal Code, which includes ‘members of terrorist, insurgent or subversive groups’.
-
Art. 320, Peruvian Penal Code; Art. 236, Paraguayan Penal Code; Art. 215 A, Mexican Penal Code; contra, including non-state agents, Art. 165, Colombian Penal Code; Art. 201ter, Guatemalan Penal Code, which includes ‘members of terrorist, insurgent or subversive groups’.
-
Art
, pp. 320
-
-
-
52
-
-
85022440690
-
-
(1999) 578-724; Michel Cottier, William J. Fenrick, Patricia Viseur Sellers, and Andreas Zimmermann in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute, Art. 8, margin Nos.1-334; Georges and Rosemary Abi-Saab, ‘Les crimes de guerre’, in Ascencio et al., Art note
-
Eric David, Principes de Droit des Conflits Armé s (1999) 578-724; Michel Cottier, William J. Fenrick, Patricia Viseur Sellers, and Andreas Zimmermann in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute (1999), Art. 8, margin Nos.1-334; Georges and Rosemary Abi-Saab, ‘Les crimes de guerre’, in Ascencio et al., Art note 13, 265-93.
-
(1999)
Principes de Droit des Conflits Armé s
, vol.13
, pp. 265-293
-
-
David, E.1
-
53
-
-
85022415502
-
-
with the exception of Costa Rica, are states parties to the Convention (II) withRespect to the Laws andCustoms ofWar on Land, and its annex:Regulations concerning the Laws andCustoms ofWar on Land, TheHague, 29 July 1899. In addition, they are all parties to theGeneva Conventions of 12 Aug. and its two Protocols, exceptMexico, which has not yet ratified the Additional Protocol II.
-
For example, all the states of Latin America, with the exception of Costa Rica, are states parties to the Convention (II) withRespect to the Laws andCustoms ofWar on Land, and its annex:Regulations concerning the Laws andCustoms ofWar on Land, TheHague, 29 July 1899. In addition, they are all parties to theGeneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and its two Protocols, exceptMexico, which has not yet ratified the Additional Protocol II.
-
(1949)
For example, all the states of Latin America
-
-
-
54
-
-
85022440453
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Arts. 135-164, Penal Code.
-
Arts
, pp. 135-164
-
-
-
55
-
-
85022407448
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 551, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 551
-
-
-
56
-
-
85022356270
-
-
Penal Code (Decreto No. 17/73).
-
Art. 378, Penal Code (Decreto No. 17/73).
-
Art
, pp. 378
-
-
-
57
-
-
85022414356
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 320, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 320
-
-
-
58
-
-
85022449747
-
-
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June, 1125
-
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609.
-
(1977)
UNTS
, pp. 609
-
-
-
60
-
-
85022349170
-
-
Annex I, 54UNGAOR Supp. (No. 49),UNDoc.A/54/49, entered into force 12 Feb. 2002
-
GARes. 54/263, Annex I, 54UNGAOR Supp. (No. 49),UNDoc.A/54/49 (2000), entered into force 12 Feb. 2002.
-
(2000)
GARes
, vol.54
, pp. 263
-
-
-
61
-
-
85022401263
-
-
Optional Protocol.
-
Arts. 1 and 2, Optional Protocol.
-
Arts
, pp. 1-2
-
-
-
62
-
-
85022418874
-
-
GA Res. 2391 (XXIII),Annex, 23UNGAOR Supp. (No. 18) at 40,UNDoc.A/7218. In LatinAmerica only Bolivia, Cuba,Mexico, Nicaragua, and Uruguay are states parties to it (Nov. 2002).
-
Convention on theNon-Applicability of Statutory Limitations toWar Crimes and Crimes againstHumanity, GA Res. 2391 (XXIII),Annex, 23UNGAOR Supp. (No. 18) at 40,UNDoc.A/7218 (1968). In LatinAmerica only Bolivia, Cuba,Mexico, Nicaragua, and Uruguay are states parties to it (Nov. 2002).
-
(1968)
Convention on theNon-Applicability of Statutory Limitations toWar Crimes and Crimes againstHumanity
-
-
-
63
-
-
85022369789
-
-
Control Council LawNo. 10, Art. 2 (5) A-G Israel v. Eichmann, (1968) 36 ILR 18 (District Court), para. 53 Fé dé ration National des Deporté s et Interné s et Resistants et Patriotes et al. v. Barbie, 78 ILR, 125 at 135 Schwamberger, Josef Franz Leo Case, Cá mara Federal de Apelaciones de La Plata, Argentina, Sala III, 30 Aug. 1989, paras. 33-40, in Revista El Derecho, 338 Barrios Altos Case (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. versus Peru), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 14March 2001, para.
-
Control Council LawNo. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty ofWar Crimes, Crimes against Peace and Against Humanity, Art. 2 (5) A-G Israel v. Eichmann, (1968) 36 ILR 18 (District Court), para. 53 Fé dé ration National des Deporté s et Interné s et Resistants et Patriotes et al. v. Barbie, (1984) 78 ILR, 125 at 135 Schwamberger, Josef Franz Leo Case, Cá mara Federal de Apelaciones de La Plata, Argentina, Sala III, 30 Aug. 1989, paras. 33-40, in Revista El Derecho, Vol. 135, 338 Barrios Altos Case (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. versus Peru), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 14March 2001, para. 41.
-
(1984)
Punishment of Persons Guilty ofWar Crimes, Crimes against Peace and Against Humanity
, vol.135
, pp. 41
-
-
-
65
-
-
85022422344
-
-
In Honduras all crimes included in the Penal Code are subject to statutes of limitations, except those crimes giving rise to life imprisonment (Art. 96, Penal Code).
-
Art. 5 of the Paraguayan Constitution states that the crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearances, kidnapping, and murders on political grounds are not subject to statutes of limitations. In Honduras all crimes included in the Penal Code are subject to statutes of limitations, except those crimes giving rise to life imprisonment (Art. 96, Penal Code).
-
Art. 5 of the Paraguayan Constitution states that the crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearances, kidnapping, and murders on political grounds are not subject to statutes of limitations
-
-
-
66
-
-
85022404032
-
-
‘The members of the Committee. observed thatmore information was necessary on the implementation of the Convention at the provincial level and, in this connection, they requested clarification as to the awareness existing throughout the country of the state party's obligations under theConvention. In addition, they wished to know of any specific legislation or jurisprudence which had established the precedence of provisionsof international instrumentsover thoseofdomestic law, especially inviewof information received that the Supreme Court had handed down certain judgements in which international conventions had not been given such precedence’ (Report of the Committee against Torture, Argentina, 24 June 1993, A/48/44, para. 95. See alsoHumanRightsWatch, TheCompatibility of the ICCStatute with CertainConstitutional Provisions around the Globe (www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/compatibility.htm); on federal states see Koren L. Bell, ‘From Laggard to Leader: Canadian Lessons on a Role for U.S. States in Making and Implementing Human Rights Treaties’, 5
-
‘The members of the Committee. observed thatmore information was necessary on the implementation of the Convention at the provincial level and, in this connection, they requested clarification as to the awareness existing throughout the country of the state party's obligations under theConvention. In addition, they wished to know of any specific legislation or jurisprudence which had established the precedence of provisionsof international instrumentsover thoseofdomestic law, especially inviewof information received that the Supreme Court had handed down certain judgements in which international conventions had not been given such precedence’ (Report of the Committee against Torture, Argentina, 24 June 1993, A/48/44, para. 95. See alsoHumanRightsWatch, TheCompatibility of the ICCStatute with CertainConstitutional Provisions around the Globe (www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/compatibility.htm); on federal states see Koren L. Bell, ‘From Laggard to Leader: Canadian Lessons on a Role for U.S. States in Making and Implementing Human Rights Treaties’, (2002) 5 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 255.
-
(2002)
Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal
, pp. 255
-
-
-
67
-
-
85022397798
-
-
(a) of the Argentine law on international penal co-operation (Ley 24.767 ‘Ley de Cooperació n Internacional en Materia Penal'); Art. IV(1)(b), Treaty on Extradition between Peru and the United states of America
-
See, for example, Art. 11(a) of the Argentine law on international penal co-operation (Ley 24.767 ‘Ley de Cooperació n Internacional en Materia Penal'); Art. IV(1)(b), Treaty on Extradition between Peru and the United states of America (2002).
-
(2002)
Art
, pp. 11
-
-
-
68
-
-
85022353797
-
-
77. SeeWilliam Schabas, in Triffterer, Art note 59, Art. 29, margin no.
-
Art. 83 of the Colombian Criminal Code states: ‘The term of limitation for punishable conduct of genocide, forced disappearance, torture and forced displacement will be thirty (30) years.’ 77. SeeWilliam Schabas, in Triffterer, Art note 59, Art. 29, margin no. 7.
-
Art. 83 of the Colombian Criminal Code states: ‘The term of limitation for punishable conduct of genocide, forced disappearance, torture and forced displacement will be thirty (30) years.’
, pp. 7
-
-
-
69
-
-
85022385325
-
-
(c), Rome Statute.
-
Art. 17(2)(c), Rome Statute.
-
Art
, vol.17
, Issue.2
-
-
-
70
-
-
85022425774
-
-
s/ Extradició n (causa 16.063/94), Judgement of 2 Nov. (available at www.csjn.gov.ar).
-
Priebke, Eric, s/ Extradició n (causa 16.063/94), Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nació n Argentina, Judgement of 2 Nov. 1995 (available at www.csjn.gov.ar).
-
(1995)
Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nació n Argentina
-
-
Eric, P.1
-
71
-
-
85022367846
-
-
However, if there shouldbe anormof a fundamental character preventing application of the stipulation contained in the previous paragraph, the period of limitation shall be equal to thatwhich applies to the gravest crime in the domestic laws of the corresponding state party’ (Art. VII).
-
‘Criminal prosecution for the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty judicially imposed on its perpetrator shall notbe subject to statutes of limitations.However, if there shouldbe anormof a fundamental character preventing application of the stipulation contained in the previous paragraph, the period of limitation shall be equal to thatwhich applies to the gravest crime in the domestic laws of the corresponding state party’ (Art. VII).
-
‘Criminal prosecution for the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty judicially imposed on its perpetrator shall notbe subject to statutes of limitations
-
-
-
72
-
-
85022446368
-
-
on 18 Oct., in Elena Quinteros case, states: ‘The crime of deprivation of freedom is not time-barred. Uruguay has signed and ratified the American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Treaty established that the criminal action arising from the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty imposed by the courts on the person responsible for that crime shallnot be barred by the statute of limitations (Art. VII). It is aninternational rule that forms part of our legal system and it is clearly self-executing. In the absence of a definition of the specific crime, as stated by Art. III of the Convention, the criminal offence to be applied is the above-mentioned one, that is, deprivation of freedom and, in some cases, it could be assassination, specially aggravated, jointlywith the above-mentioned crime’ (from Considerando 6) (unofficial translation).
-
The sentence issued by Judge Eduardo Cavalli, on 18 Oct. 2002, in Elena Quinteros case, states: ‘The crime of deprivation of freedom is not time-barred. Uruguay has signed and ratified the American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Treaty established that the criminal action arising from the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty imposed by the courts on the person responsible for that crime shallnot be barred by the statute of limitations (Art. VII). It is aninternational rule that forms part of our legal system and it is clearly self-executing. In the absence of a definition of the specific crime, as stated by Art. III of the Convention, the criminal offence to be applied is the above-mentioned one, that is, deprivation of freedom and, in some cases, it could be assassination, specially aggravated, jointlywith the above-mentioned crime’ (from Considerando 6) (unofficial translation).
-
(2002)
The sentence issued by Judge Eduardo Cavalli
-
-
-
75
-
-
85022367578
-
-
Nuremberg Charter ('The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires'); Control Council Law No. 10, Art. II, 4(b)(b); ('The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his Government or of a superior does not free him from responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitigation'); Statute of the ICTY, Art. 7(4) ('The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal responsibility, butmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Tribunal determines that justice so requires'); Statute of the ICTR, Art. 6(4) ('The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him or her of criminal responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda determines that justice so requires'); Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security ofMankind, Art. 5 ('The fact that an individual charged with a crime against the peace and security of mankind acted pursuant to an order of a Government or a superior does not relieve him of criminal responsibility, butmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires').
-
Art. 8, Nuremberg Charter ('The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires'); Control Council Law No. 10, Art. II, 4(b)(b); ('The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his Government or of a superior does not free him from responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitigation'); Statute of the ICTY, Art. 7(4) ('The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal responsibility, butmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Tribunal determines that justice so requires'); Statute of the ICTR, Art. 6(4) ('The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him or her of criminal responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda determines that justice so requires'); Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security ofMankind (1996), Art. 5 ('The fact that an individual charged with a crime against the peace and security of mankind acted pursuant to an order of a Government or a superior does not relieve him of criminal responsibility, butmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires').
-
(1996)
Art
, pp. 8
-
-
-
76
-
-
85022387713
-
-
(with the dissenting opinion of the Soviet Member), Nuremberg, 30 Sept. and 1 Oct. 1946 (HMSO, Cmd. 6964, )
-
Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (with the dissenting opinion of the Soviet Member), Nuremberg, 30 Sept. and 1 Oct. 1946 (HMSO, Cmd. 6964, 1946), 38.
-
(1946)
Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals
, pp. 38
-
-
-
77
-
-
84917224790
-
-
Case No. IT-96-22-T, Judgement, 29 Nov., para.
-
See Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Judgement, 29 Nov. 1996, para. 54.
-
(1996)
Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic
, pp. 54
-
-
-
78
-
-
85022393481
-
-
8, para.
-
Art. 8, para. 1
-
Art
, pp. 1
-
-
-
79
-
-
85022383059
-
-
(see former reservation of Chile to this Article). See also Art. II (3) UN Convention on Torture.
-
Art. 4 (see former reservation of Chile to this Article). See also Art. II (3) UN Convention on Torture.
-
Art
, pp. 4
-
-
-
80
-
-
85022374319
-
-
Art. 514 and the corresponding comments on IGOUNET (H)-IGOUNET, Có digo de JusticiaMilitar, Anotado, Comentado con Jurisprudencia y DoctrinaNacional y Extranjera, Librerý a del Jurista, Buenos Aires
-
See also its Military Code of Justice, Art. 514 and the corresponding comments on IGOUNET (H)-IGOUNET, Có digo de JusticiaMilitar, Anotado, Comentado con Jurisprudencia y DoctrinaNacional y Extranjera, Librerý a del Jurista, Buenos Aires, 1985, 158-67.
-
(1985)
also its Military Code of Justice
, pp. 158-167
-
-
-
84
-
-
84895672900
-
-
Duran and Ugarte case; see also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgement, para.
-
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Duran and Ugarte case; see also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgement, para. 130.
-
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights
, pp. 130
-
-
-
85
-
-
84940846853
-
-
Peru, A/55/44, para. 59 (d), 15 Nov. 1999. See also EXP. N. 218-02-HC/TC Jorge Alberto Cartagena Vargas Ica case, Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional, Lima, Peru, of 17 April
-
See Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Peru, A/55/44, para. 59 (d), 15 Nov. 1999. See also EXP. N. 218-02-HC/TC Jorge Alberto Cartagena Vargas Ica case, Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional, Lima, Peru, of 17 April 2002.
-
(2002)
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture
-
-
-
87
-
-
84874921712
-
-
Durand and Ugarte case, Judgement of Aug. 16, para.
-
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Durand and Ugarte case, Judgement of Aug. 16, 2000, para. 117.
-
(2000)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
, pp. 117
-
-
-
88
-
-
84874921712
-
-
Cantoral Benavides case, Judgement of Aug. 18, para.
-
Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Cantoral Benavides case, Judgement of Aug. 18, 2000, para. 75.
-
(2000)
Inter-American Court Of Human Rights
, pp. 75
-
-
-
89
-
-
85022404398
-
-
Art. 57 (I) and (II), (a), (b), (c) and (e). See alsoConclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Brazil, A/56/44, 16May, para. 119(e).
-
See MilitaryCode of Justice,Art. 57 (I) and (II), (a), (b), (c) and (e). See alsoConclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Brazil, A/56/44, 16May 2001, para. 119(e).
-
(2001)
See MilitaryCode of Justice
-
-
-
90
-
-
85022370091
-
-
See also theMexican reservation to this provision.
-
Art. IX. See also theMexican reservation to this provision.
-
Art
, vol.IX
-
-
-
91
-
-
84925168975
-
-
Judgement, of 29 January
-
Genie Lacayo Case, Judgement, of 29 January, 1997.
-
(1997)
Genie Lacayo Case
-
-
-
92
-
-
33847693181
-
-
Las Palmeras Case, Judgement of Dec. 6, para.
-
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Las Palmeras Case, Judgement of Dec. 6, 2001, para. 53.
-
(2001)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
, pp. 53
-
-
-
93
-
-
85022434483
-
-
in Lee, Inter-American Court of Human Rights note
-
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, ‘Jurisdiction of the Court’, in Lee, Inter-American Court of Human Rights note 32, 127.
-
Jurisdiction of the Court
, vol.32
, pp. 127
-
-
Wilmshurst, E.1
-
94
-
-
52549091627
-
-
Art.
-
Rome Statute, Art. 12.
-
Rome Statute
, pp. 12
-
-
-
95
-
-
3042610697
-
-
Universal Jurisdiction: The Duty of States to Enact and Implement Legislation AI index: IOR 53/002-018/2001 (available at www.amnesty.org/icc or as a CD ROMfrom ijp@amnesty.org); See also Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Universal Jurisdiction: Meeting the Challenge through NGO Cooperation (www.lchr.org/IJP/ijp meet challenge.htm).
-
Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The Duty of States to Enact and Implement Legislation (2001) AI index: IOR 53/002-018/2001 (available at www.amnesty.org/icc or as a CD ROMfrom ijp@amnesty.org); See also Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Universal Jurisdiction: Meeting the Challenge through NGO Cooperation (www.lchr.org/IJP/ijp meet challenge.htm).
-
(2001)
Amnesty International
-
-
-
96
-
-
85022392892
-
-
(Art. 1(3), Penal Code); Brazil (Art. 7 (I)(d) and 7(II)(b)); Colombia (Art. 16(4)); Ecuador (Art. 5(5)(a)); Guatemala (Art. 5(3)); Honduras (Art. 5(2)); Mexico (Art. 4, Federal Penal Code); Nicaragua (Art. 16(3)(e)); Panama (Art. 9(5)); Peru (Art. 2(4)); Uruguay (Art. Penal Code).
-
Bolivia (Art. 1(3), Penal Code); Brazil (Art. 7 (I)(d) and 7(II)(b)); Colombia (Art. 16(4)); Ecuador (Art. 5(5)(a)); Guatemala (Art. 5(3)); Honduras (Art. 5(2)); Mexico (Art. 4, Federal Penal Code); Nicaragua (Art. 16(3)(e)); Panama (Art. 9(5)); Peru (Art. 2(4)); Uruguay (Art. 10(5), Penal Code).
-
Bolivia
, vol.10
, Issue.5
-
-
-
97
-
-
85022434825
-
-
(Art. 7(II)(3)); Colombia (Art. 16(5)); Costa Rica (Art. 5(3)); Guatemala (Art. 5(4)); Honduras (Art. 5(4)); Mexico (Art. 4); Nicaragua (Art. 16(3)(e)); Panama (Art. 9(2)); Peru (Art. 2(4)); Uruguay (Art. 10(6)); Venezuela (Art. 4(2)).
-
Brazil (Art. 7(II)(3)); Colombia (Art. 16(5)); Costa Rica (Art. 5(3)); Guatemala (Art. 5(4)); Honduras (Art. 5(4)); Mexico (Art. 4); Nicaragua (Art. 16(3)(e)); Panama (Art. 9(2)); Peru (Art. 2(4)); Uruguay (Art. 10(6)); Venezuela (Art. 4(2)).
-
Brazil
-
-
-
98
-
-
85022393164
-
-
(Art. 16(6)) and Nicaragua (Arts. 16(3)(f) and 549-552); with broader scopeVenezuela (Art. 4(9)). Treaty on International Penal Law, Montevideo, Uruguay, 23 Jan. 1889. Art. 13 states: ‘Crimes considered as piracy by public international law fall within the jurisdiction of the state under whose power the criminals come.’ (reprinted in Alto Comissionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados, Compilació n de Instrumentos Jurý dicos Interamericanos Relativos al Asilo Diplomá tico, Asilo Territorial, Extradició n y Temas Conexos (1992)). It was signed by Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, although it is not known if it ever came into force. Bustamante Code, annexed to the Convention on Private International Law, adopted in the FinalAct of the Sixth International Conference of American States, Havana, 20 Feb. 1928, entered into force 1 Jan. 1935, Art. 308 (English translation of Code in 22 AJIL 273), provides for universal jurisdiction over piracy. Art. 308 provides: ‘Piracy, trade in Negroes and slave traffic, white slavery, the destruction of or injury to submarine cables, and all other offences of a similar nature against international law committed on the high sea, in the open air, and on the territory not yet organized into a state, shall be punished by the captor in accordance with the penal laws of the latter’. Art. 307 provides: ‘Moreover, those persons are subject to the penal laws of the foreign state in which they are apprehended and triedwho have committed outside its territory an offence, such as white slavery,which said contracting state has bound itself by an international agreement to repress.’ The following states are parties to the Bustamante Code: Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Treaty of International Penal Law of 1940 (English translation byAmnesty International), Art. 14 provides: ‘International piracy, drug trafficking, white slavery and the destruction or damaging of submarine cables, shall be subject to the jurisdiction and the law of the state where the suspects are apprehended, independently of where the crimes have been committed. This shall not preclude the jurisdictional preference, inherent to the state where the criminal acts have been committed, of demanding by means of extradition the handing over of the suspect.’ This treaty was signed by Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, and Uruguay, but only Uruguay appears to have ratified it (quoted in Amnesty International IOR 53/002-018/2001).
-
Restrictively, Colombia (Art. 16(6)) and Nicaragua (Arts. 16(3)(f) and 549-552); with broader scopeVenezuela (Art. 4(9)). Treaty on International Penal Law, Montevideo, Uruguay, 23 Jan. 1889. Art. 13 states: ‘Crimes considered as piracy by public international law fall within the jurisdiction of the state under whose power the criminals come.’ (reprinted in Alto Comissionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados, Compilació n de Instrumentos Jurý dicos Interamericanos Relativos al Asilo Diplomá tico, Asilo Territorial, Extradició n y Temas Conexos (1992)). It was signed by Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, although it is not known if it ever came into force. Bustamante Code, annexed to the Convention on Private International Law, adopted in the FinalAct of the Sixth International Conference of American States, Havana, 20 Feb. 1928, entered into force 1 Jan. 1935, Art. 308 (English translation of Code in (1928) 22 AJIL 273), provides for universal jurisdiction over piracy. Art. 308 provides: ‘Piracy, trade in Negroes and slave traffic, white slavery, the destruction of or injury to submarine cables, and all other offences of a similar nature against international law committed on the high sea, in the open air, and on the territory not yet organized into a state, shall be punished by the captor in accordance with the penal laws of the latter’. Art. 307 provides: ‘Moreover, those persons are subject to the penal laws of the foreign state in which they are apprehended and triedwho have committed outside its territory an offence, such as white slavery,which said contracting state has bound itself by an international agreement to repress.’ The following states are parties to the Bustamante Code: Brazil, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Treaty of International Penal Law of 1940 (English translation byAmnesty International), Art. 14 provides: ‘International piracy, drug trafficking, white slavery and the destruction or damaging of submarine cables, shall be subject to the jurisdiction and the law of the state where the suspects are apprehended, independently of where the crimes have been committed. This shall not preclude the jurisdictional preference, inherent to the state where the criminal acts have been committed, of demanding by means of extradition the handing over of the suspect.’ This treaty was signed by Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Paraguay, and Uruguay, but only Uruguay appears to have ratified it (quoted in Amnesty International IOR 53/002-018/2001).
-
(1928)
Restrictively, Colombia
-
-
-
99
-
-
85022401274
-
-
(Art. 1(7)); Brazil (Art. 7(II)(a)); implicitly (Chile (Art. 6); Costa Rica (Art. 7); Ecuador (Art. 5(6a)); Guatemala (Art. 5(5));Honduras (Art. 5(5)); Panama(Art. 10)); Paraguay (Art. 8(6)(7)); Peru (Art. 2(5));Uruguay (Art. 10(7)). (On Uruguay and universal jurisdiction, see José Marý a Gamio, ‘La Jurisdicció n Universal y el Principio de Territorialidad a la Luz de Los Principios de Derecho Constitucional del Uruguay’, El Derecho, Buenos Aires, 28 Nov., 6).
-
Bolivia (Art. 1(7)); Brazil (Art. 7(II)(a)); implicitly (Chile (Art. 6); Costa Rica (Art. 7); Ecuador (Art. 5(6a)); Guatemala (Art. 5(5));Honduras (Art. 5(5)); Panama(Art. 10)); Paraguay (Art. 8(6)(7)); Peru (Art. 2(5));Uruguay (Art. 10(7)). (On Uruguay and universal jurisdiction, see José Marý a Gamio, ‘La Jurisdicció n Universal y el Principio de Territorialidad a la Luz de Los Principios de Derecho Constitucional del Uruguay’, El Derecho, Buenos Aires, 28 Nov. 2001, 6).
-
(2001)
Bolivia
-
-
-
100
-
-
85022427378
-
-
49, Convention (I); Art. 50, Convention (II); Art. 129, Convention (III) and Art. 146, Convention (IV). ‘The system of mandatory universal jurisdiction over those offences described as “grave breaches” of the [Geneva] Conventions requires all states to prosecute or extradite alleged violators of the Conventions. ’, in Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 Nov. 1998, para. 200. See also Christophe Swinarski, Principales Nociones e Institutos del Derecho Internacional Humanitario como Sistema de Protecció n de la Persona Humana
-
Art. 49, Convention (I); Art. 50, Convention (II); Art. 129, Convention (III) and Art. 146, Convention (IV). ‘The system of mandatory universal jurisdiction over those offences described as “grave breaches” of the [Geneva] Conventions requires all states to prosecute or extradite alleged violators of the Conventions. ’, in Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 Nov. 1998, para. 200. See also Christophe Swinarski, Principales Nociones e Institutos del Derecho Internacional Humanitario como Sistema de Protecció n de la Persona Humana (1991), 60.
-
(1991)
Art
, pp. 60
-
-
-
101
-
-
85022410510
-
-
Additional Protocol I. See, e.g.,MaryGriffin, ‘Ending the Impunity of Perpetrators ofHumanRights Atrocities: A Major Challenge for International Law in the 21st Century’, 838 International Review of the Red Cross 369 ('It is now evident that all serious violations of international humanitarian law, including those committed in internal armed conflicts, are international crimes that attract universal jurisdiction').
-
Art. 86(1),Additional Protocol I. See, e.g.,MaryGriffin, ‘Ending the Impunity of Perpetrators ofHumanRights Atrocities: A Major Challenge for International Law in the 21st Century’, (2000) 838 International Review of the Red Cross 369 ('It is now evident that all serious violations of international humanitarian law, including those committed in internal armed conflicts, are international crimes that attract universal jurisdiction').
-
(2000)
Art
, vol.86
, Issue.1
-
-
-
102
-
-
85022385108
-
-
UN Convention on Torture, and Art. 12(5), Inter-American Convention on Torture.
-
Art. 5(2), UN Convention on Torture, and Art. 12(5), Inter-American Convention on Torture.
-
Art
, vol.5
, Issue.2
-
-
-
103
-
-
85022384160
-
-
IV(b) and V, Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
-
Arts. IV(b) and V, Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
-
Arts
-
-
-
104
-
-
85022380435
-
-
Art. IV, Art. 14, Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
-
Art. IV, Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; Art. 14, Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
-
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
-
-
-
105
-
-
85022446136
-
-
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; note, ('To conclude on the subject of universal jurisdiction, there can be no doubt that the Genocide Convention rejects the concept'). However, this author then adds: ‘State practice, opinio juris, international and domestic judicial decisions and academic writing all suggest an increasing willingness to accept universal jurisdiction and to go beyond the terms ofArt.VI of the Convention.’ Eric David, Principes de Droit des Conflicts Armé s, 666 ('La Convention se limiterait-elle donc a’ ne pré voir qu'une compé tence territoriale? Ce serait priver la Convention d'une grande partie de sa porté e et de son utilité. En ré alité, cette restriction ne signifie pas que d'autres Etats ne peuvent connaî tre de l'infraction: elle confè re simplement une compé tence prioritaire au tribunal de l'Etat ou’ le crime a é té comis,mais elle n'exclut pas la compé tence d'autres Etats').
-
Schabas, Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; note 15, 367 ('To conclude on the subject of universal jurisdiction, there can be no doubt that the Genocide Convention rejects the concept'). However, this author then adds: ‘State practice, opinio juris, international and domestic judicial decisions and academic writing all suggest an increasing willingness to accept universal jurisdiction and to go beyond the terms ofArt.VI of the Convention.’ Eric David, Principes de Droit des Conflicts Armé s (1999), 666 ('La Convention se limiterait-elle donc a’ ne pré voir qu'une compé tence territoriale? Ce serait priver la Convention d'une grande partie de sa porté e et de son utilité. En ré alité, cette restriction ne signifie pas que d'autres Etats ne peuvent connaî tre de l'infraction: elle confè re simplement une compé tence prioritaire au tribunal de l'Etat ou’ le crime a é té comis,mais elle n'exclut pas la compé tence d'autres Etats').
-
(1999)
Schabas
, Issue.15
, pp. 367
-
-
-
106
-
-
85022379934
-
-
Restatement (Third), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, at para. 404: ‘Universal Jurisdiction to Define and Punish Certain Offenses. A state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes and perhaps certain acts of terrorism. ’ ‘These offenses are subject to universal jurisdiction as a matter of customary law’. Lord Millet in Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for theMetropolis and Others (Appellants) ex parte Pinochet (Respondent) (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division): ‘In my opinion, crimes prohibited by international law attract universal jurisdiction under customary international law if two criteria are satisfied. First, they must be contrary to a peremptory norm of international law so as to infringe a jus cogens. Secondly, they must be so serious and on such a scale that they can justly be regarded as an attack on the international legal order. Isolated offences, even if committed by public officials, would not satisfy these criteria. The first criterion is well attested in the authorities and text books. ’
-
American Law Institute, Restatement (Third), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), at para. 404: ‘Universal Jurisdiction to Define and Punish Certain Offenses. A state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes and perhaps certain acts of terrorism. ’ ‘These offenses are subject to universal jurisdiction as a matter of customary law’. Lord Millet in Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for theMetropolis and Others (Appellants) ex parte Pinochet (Respondent) (On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division): ‘In my opinion, crimes prohibited by international law attract universal jurisdiction under customary international law if two criteria are satisfied. First, they must be contrary to a peremptory norm of international law so as to infringe a jus cogens. Secondly, they must be so serious and on such a scale that they can justly be regarded as an attack on the international legal order. Isolated offences, even if committed by public officials, would not satisfy these criteria. The first criterion is well attested in the authorities and text books. ’
-
(1987)
American Law Institute
-
-
-
107
-
-
85022397980
-
-
It is clear that the reference in Art. VI to territorial jurisdiction, apart from the jurisdiction of the non-existent international tribunal, is not exhaustive’, A-G Israel v. Eichmann 36 ILR 5 (District Court, Jerusalem), para. 25; quoted by Schabas, American Law Institute note 15, 361. See also Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgement, 11 July 1996, at para. 31: ‘It follows that the rights and obligations enshrined by the Convention are rights and obligations erga omnes. TheCourt notes that the obligation each state thus has to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide is not territorially limited by the Convention.’
-
‘It is the consensus of opinion that the absence from thisConvention of a provision establishing the principle of universality (together with the failure to constitute an international criminal tribunal) is a grave defect in the Convention, which is likely to weaken the joint effort for the prevention of the commission of this abhorrent crime and punishment therefore, but there is nothing in this defect to lead us to deduce any rule against the principle of universality of jurisdiction with respect to the crime in question. It is clear that the reference in Art. VI to territorial jurisdiction, apart from the jurisdiction of the non-existent international tribunal, is not exhaustive’, A-G Israel v. Eichmann (1968) 36 ILR 5 (District Court, Jerusalem), para. 25; quoted by Schabas, American Law Institute note 15, 361. See also Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgement, 11 July 1996, at para. 31: ‘It follows that the rights and obligations enshrined by the Convention are rights and obligations erga omnes. TheCourt notes that the obligation each state thus has to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide is not territorially limited by the Convention.’
-
(1968)
‘It is the consensus of opinion that the absence from thisConvention of a provision establishing the principle of universality (together with the failure to constitute an international criminal tribunal) is a grave defect in the Convention, which is likely to weaken the joint effort for the prevention of the commission of this abhorrent crime and punishment therefore, but there is nothing in this defect to lead us to deduce any rule against the principle of universality of jurisdiction with respect to the crime in question
-
-
-
108
-
-
85022389890
-
-
11 Revue Qué bé coise de Droit International 81; Alberto Luis Zuppi, Jurisdicció nUniversal para Crýmenes contra elDerecho Internacional (2001), 112; TomJ. Farer, ‘Restraining the Barbarians: Can International Criminal Law help?’, (2000) 22 Human Rights Quarterly
-
Rodolfo Mattarollo, ‘Impunity and International Law’, (1998) 11 Revue Qué bé coise de Droit International 81; Alberto Luis Zuppi, Jurisdicció nUniversal para Crýmenes contra elDerecho Internacional (2001), 112; TomJ. Farer, ‘Restraining the Barbarians: Can International Criminal Law help?’, (2000) 22 Human Rights Quarterly 99.
-
(1998)
Impunity and International Law
, pp. 99
-
-
Mattarollo, R.1
-
111
-
-
85022398684
-
-
Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, United Nations, S/1999/836, 30 July 1999. See also UN Commission ofHuman Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2000/24, of 18 April, para.
-
Seventh Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, United Nations, S/1999/836, 30 July 1999. See also UN Commission ofHuman Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2000/24, of 18 April 2000, para. 2.
-
(2000)
Seventh Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
, pp. 2
-
-
-
112
-
-
85022412614
-
-
3074 (XXVIII), 28 UN GAOR Supp. (30A) at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/Add.1, para.
-
GA Res.3074 (XXVIII), 28 UN GAOR Supp. (30A) at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/Add.1 (1973), para. 8.
-
(1973)
GA Res
, pp. 8
-
-
-
113
-
-
85022356355
-
-
47 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/47/49. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/133 of 18 Dec. 1992, Art.
-
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, 47 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/47/49 (1992). Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/133 of 18 Dec. 1992, Art. 18 (1).
-
(1992)
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances
, vol.18
, Issue.1
-
-
-
114
-
-
85022396936
-
-
157/24 (Part I), 13 Oct., para.
-
A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), 13 Oct. 1993, para. 60.
-
(1993)
A/CONF
, pp. 60
-
-
-
115
-
-
85022452312
-
-
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, Art. 7 (44th session, 1992), UNDoc.HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 30, para.
-
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, Art. 7 (44th session, 1992), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted byHuman Rights Treaty Bodies,UNDoc.HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 30 (1994), para. 15.
-
(1994)
Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted byHuman Rights Treaty Bodies
, pp. 15
-
-
-
116
-
-
85022375831
-
-
Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, France, 4 Aug., para. 13. Also: ‘The Committee expresses once again its deep concern about the Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensió n Punitiva del Estado (Expiry Law of the Punitive Powers of the state). The Committee notes with deep concern that in a number of cases the maintenance of the Expiry Law effectively excludes the possibility of investigation into past human rights abuses and thereby prevents the state party from discharging its responsibility to provide effective remedies to the victims of those abuses. The Committee also considers that the Expiry Law violates Art. 16 of the Covenant in respect of the disappeared persons and Art. 7 in respect of their family members.’
-
‘The Committee is obliged to observe that the Amnesty Acts of November 1988 and January 1990 for New Caledonia are incompatible with the obligation of France to investigate alleged violations of human rights’, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, France, 4 Aug. 1997, para. 13. Also: ‘The Committee expresses once again its deep concern about the Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensió n Punitiva del Estado (Expiry Law of the Punitive Powers of the state). The Committee notes with deep concern that in a number of cases the maintenance of the Expiry Law effectively excludes the possibility of investigation into past human rights abuses and thereby prevents the state party from discharging its responsibility to provide effective remedies to the victims of those abuses. The Committee also considers that the Expiry Law violates Art. 16 of the Covenant in respect of the disappeared persons and Art. 7 in respect of their family members.’
-
(1997)
The Committee is obliged to observe that the Amnesty Acts of November 1988 and January 1990 for New Caledonia are incompatible with the obligation of France to investigate alleged violations of human rights
-
-
-
117
-
-
85022449975
-
-
Case 10.843, informe 36/96, of 15 Oct. 1996 and Case 10.559, informe 1/96 of 1 March
-
Case 10.843, informe 36/96, p. 50, of 15 Oct. 1996 and Case 10.559, ‘Chumbivilcas’, informe 1/96 of 1 March 1996.
-
(1996)
Chumbivilcas
, pp. 50
-
-
-
118
-
-
85022388489
-
-
(Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. versus Peru), Judgement of 14March, paras.
-
Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights, Barrios Altos Case (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. versus Peru), Judgement of 14March 2001, paras. 41 and 44.
-
(2001)
Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights, Barrios Altos Case
, pp. 41-44
-
-
-
119
-
-
85022372863
-
-
217A (III), UN Doc. A/810 at
-
GA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948).
-
(1948)
GA Res
, pp. 71
-
-
-
121
-
-
85022408926
-
-
Rome Statute.
-
Art. 88, Rome Statute.
-
Art
, pp. 88
-
-
-
122
-
-
85022368223
-
-
Rome Statute.
-
Art. 89, Rome Statute.
-
Art
, pp. 89
-
-
-
123
-
-
85022444443
-
-
Bolivian Penal Code; Art. 147, Có digo Procesal Penal del Paraguay (Ley 1286); Art. 3, Argentine Law No. 24.767 (Ley de Cooperació n Internacional en Materia Penal); see also Decree 1.581 of 5 Dec. on extradition requests relating to past human rights violations.
-
Art. 3, Bolivian Penal Code; Art. 147, Có digo Procesal Penal del Paraguay (Ley 1286); Art. 3, Argentine Law No. 24.767 (Ley de Cooperació n Internacional en Materia Penal); see also Decree 1.581 of 5 Dec. 2001 on extradition requests relating to past human rights violations.
-
(2001)
Art
, pp. 3
-
-
-
124
-
-
85022398429
-
-
Art. 21(a), Nicaraguan Penal Code; Art. 6, Venezuelan Penal Code; Art. 6(I), Bolivian Penal Code; Art. 5, Argentine Law No. 24.767
-
Art. 21(a), Nicaraguan Penal Code; Art. 6, Venezuelan Penal Code; Art. 6(I),Mexican Ley de Extradició n; Art. 6(3), Bolivian Penal Code; Art. 5, Argentine Law No. 24.767.
-
Mexican Ley de Extradició n; Art
, vol.6
, Issue.3
-
-
-
125
-
-
0346421602
-
-
Art. 29(e), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; Art. 28(e)
-
See Art. 29(e), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; Art. 28(e), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
-
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
-
-
-
126
-
-
85022433763
-
-
Rome Statute.
-
Art. 102, Rome Statute.
-
Art
, pp. 102
-
-
-
127
-
-
84948761113
-
-
S/RES/827 (1993), 25 May1993 and S/RES/955, 8 Nov. 1994 see also Amnesty International, International Criminal Tribunals :Handbook for Government Cooperation, AI Index : IOR 40/07/96, Aug. 1996
-
Security Council, S/RES/827 (1993), 25 May1993 and S/RES/955 (1994), 8 Nov. 1994 see also Amnesty International, International Criminal Tribunals :Handbook for Government Cooperation, AI Index : IOR 40/07/96, Aug. 1996.
-
(1994)
Security Council
-
-
-
128
-
-
85022433150
-
-
Colombian Penal Code; Art. 8 Guatemalan Penal Code; Art. 10, Honduran Penal Code.
-
Art. 18, Colombian Penal Code; Art. 8 Guatemalan Penal Code; Art. 10, Honduran Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 18
-
-
-
129
-
-
85022447394
-
-
Art. Peruvian Law 24.710; Art. 9, (Ley de Extradició n Internacional); Art. 8(b), Argentine Law.
-
Art. 6(6), Peruvian Law 24.710; Art. 9,Mexican Extradition Law (Ley de Extradició n Internacional); Art. 8(b), Argentine Law.
-
Mexican Extradition Law
, vol.6
, Issue.6
-
-
-
130
-
-
85022394972
-
-
Peruvian Law 24.710
-
Art. 6 (8), Peruvian Law 24.710.
-
Art
, vol.6
, Issue.8
-
-
-
131
-
-
85022358939
-
-
Art. 21(b), Nicaraguan Penal Code Art. 7(III)
-
Art. 21(b), Nicaraguan Penal Code Art. 7(III),Mexican Extradition Law.
-
Mexican Extradition Law
-
-
-
132
-
-
85022358939
-
-
Art. 6 (2), Peruvian Law 24.710 Art. 7(I)
-
Art. 6 (2), Peruvian Law 24.710 Art. 7(I),Mexican Extradition Law.
-
Mexican Extradition Law
-
-
-
133
-
-
85022395723
-
-
Art. 136, Bolivian Penal Code, and Art.
-
See Art. 136, Bolivian Penal Code, and Art. 148, IMexican Penal Code.
-
IMexican Penal Code
, pp. 148
-
-
-
134
-
-
85022417264
-
-
Argentine Law No. 24.767
-
Art. 10, Argentine Law No. 24.767.
-
Art
, pp. 10
-
-
-
136
-
-
85022348768
-
-
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
-
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
-
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil
-
-
-
137
-
-
85008236270
-
-
El Salvador, Guatemala, andMexico.
-
Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, andMexico.
-
Dominican Republic
-
-
Chile1
-
138
-
-
85022428018
-
-
Resolució n Interministerial Conjunta No. 930/2002. On the work of the Argentine Committtee see José Luis Ferná ndez Valoni, Revista El Derecho, Buenos Aires, 28 Nov.
-
Resolució n Interministerial Conjunta No. 930/2002. On the work of the Argentine Committtee see José Luis Ferná ndez Valoni, ‘Hacia el Efectivo Establecimiento de la Corte Penal Internacional’, Revista El Derecho, Buenos Aires, 28 Nov. 2001, 20.
-
(2001)
Hacia el Efectivo Establecimiento de la Corte Penal Internacional
, pp. 20
-
-
-
140
-
-
85022429127
-
-
Geneva Convention No. III, and Art. 134, Geneva Convention No. IV.
-
Art. 118, Geneva Convention No. III, and Art. 134, Geneva Convention No. IV.
-
Art
, pp. 118
-
-
-
141
-
-
85022420701
-
-
(b)(xxvi), Rome Statute.
-
Art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi), Rome Statute.
-
Art
, vol.8
, Issue.2
-
-
-
143
-
-
85022438989
-
-
Judgement of 9 Sept., Cá mara Federal de Apelaciones, Sala Drs Vigliani and Riva Aramayo.
-
See Videla, Jorge Rafaels/ Excepciones, Expediente 30.011, Buenos Aires, Judgement of 9 Sept. 1999, Cá mara Federal de Apelaciones, Sala Drs Vigliani and Riva Aramayo.
-
(1999)
Excepciones, Expediente 30.011, Buenos Aires
-
-
Jorge Rafaels, V.1
-
146
-
-
11544314242
-
-
On immunities from criminal jurisdiction in other states and inviolability of an incumbent Minister of Foreign Affairs see Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 14 Feb. see alsoDissenting Opinion of JudgeVan DenWyngaert (www.icj-cij.org).
-
On immunities from criminal jurisdiction in other states and inviolability of an incumbent Minister of Foreign Affairs see Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), International Court of Justice, 14 Feb. 2002; see alsoDissenting Opinion of JudgeVan DenWyngaert (www.icj-cij.org).
-
(2002)
International Court of Justice
-
-
-
147
-
-
85022377997
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 182, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 182
-
-
-
148
-
-
85022355937
-
-
Penal Code.
-
Art. 181-A, Penal Code.
-
Art
, pp. 181-A
-
-
|