메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 331-366

The Implementation of the Rome Statute in Latin American States

Author keywords

amnesty; complementarity; International Criminal Court; Latin America; superior orders

Indexed keywords


EID: 34547109063     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156503001171     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (14)

References (148)
  • 1
    • 85022387578 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 5
    • 85022446069 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 11
    • 85022353492 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • UNTS 171.
    • UNTS , pp. 171
  • 21
    • 85022365592 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 28
    • 85022383151 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • ‘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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 376, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 376
  • 34
    • 85022374806 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 319, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 319
  • 35
    • 85022403397 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 375, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 375
  • 37
    • 85022429935 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 549, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 549
  • 38
    • 85022419708 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 149bis, Mexican Federal Penal Code.
    • Art. 149bis, Mexican Federal Penal Code.
    • Art
  • 39
    • 85022436531 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 47
    • 85022400073 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 51
    • 85022395431 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Arts. 135-164, Penal Code.
    • Arts , pp. 135-164
  • 55
    • 85022407448 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 551, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 551
  • 56
    • 85022356270 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code (Decreto No. 17/73).
    • Art. 378, Penal Code (Decreto No. 17/73).
    • Art , pp. 378
  • 57
    • 85022414356 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 320, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 320
  • 58
    • 85022449747 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Optional Protocol.
    • Arts. 1 and 2, Optional Protocol.
    • Arts , pp. 1-2
  • 62
    • 85022418874 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 66
    • 85022404032 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • ‘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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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
  • 69
    • 85022385325 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (c), Rome Statute.
    • Art. 17(2)(c), Rome Statute.
    • Art , vol.17 , Issue.2
  • 70
    • 85022425774 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 77
    • 84917224790 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 8, para.
    • Art. 8, para. 1
    • Art , pp. 1
  • 79
    • 85022383059 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • See also theMexican reservation to this provision.
    • Art. IX. See also theMexican reservation to this provision.
    • Art , vol.IX
  • 91
    • 84925168975 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Judgement, of 29 January
    • Genie Lacayo Case, Judgement, of 29 January, 1997.
    • (1997) Genie Lacayo Case
  • 92
    • 33847693181 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 95
    • 3042610697 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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
  • 108
    • 85022389890 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고
    • 157/24 (Part I), 13 Oct., para.
    • A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), 13 Oct. 1993, para. 60.
    • (1993) A/CONF , pp. 60
  • 116
    • 85022375831 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (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 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rome Statute.
    • Art. 88, Rome Statute.
    • Art , pp. 88
  • 122
    • 85022368223 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rome Statute.
    • Art. 89, Rome Statute.
    • Art , pp. 89
  • 123
    • 85022444443 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Rome Statute.
    • Art. 102, Rome Statute.
    • Art , pp. 102
  • 127
    • 84948761113 scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Peruvian Law 24.710
    • Art. 6 (8), Peruvian Law 24.710.
    • Art , vol.6 , Issue.8
  • 131
    • 85022358939 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Argentine Law No. 24.767
    • Art. 10, Argentine Law No. 24.767.
    • Art , pp. 10
  • 136
    • 85022348768 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • El Salvador, Guatemala, andMexico.
    • Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, andMexico.
    • Dominican Republic
    • Chile1
  • 138
    • 85022428018 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • (b)(xxvi), Rome Statute.
    • Art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi), Rome Statute.
    • Art , vol.8 , Issue.2
  • 143
    • 85022438989 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • 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 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 182, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 182
  • 148
    • 85022355937 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • Penal Code.
    • Art. 181-A, Penal Code.
    • Art , pp. 181-A


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.