The Lack of Attention to the Distinction between Situations and Cases in National Laws on Co-operation with the International Criminal Court with Particular Reference to the Spanish Case

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 193-205

  Olásolo, HÉctor ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

admissibility; International Criminal Court; national co operation with International Criminal Court; principle of complementarity; universal jurisdiction

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249146410     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156506003967     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. For a general discussion of victim's participation at the pre-trial stage, see C. Stahn, H. Olásolo, and K. Gibson, Participation of Victims in Pre-Trial Proceedings of the ICC, (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice, 219.
2. The lack of specific provisions dealing with the three areas which are the focus of this article in the cooperation laws of Australia and the United Kingdom has been highlighted by H. Brady, ‘Australia’, in C. Kress, B. Broomhall, F. Lattanzi, and V. Santori, The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Orders, Vol. II: Constitutional Issues, Co-operation and Enforcement (2005), at 11-12; and
3. P. Lewis, ‘The United Kingdom’, at 460.
4. See, inter alia, L. Bujosa Vadell, La Cooperación Procesal de los Estados con la Corte Penal Internacional (2006), Section 4.3, 183-4.
5. H. Olásolo, Corte Penal Internacional: Dónde Investigar?, (2003), 107 and 391-403.
6. During the parliamentary debate, some pointed out that this provision restricted the scope of the principle of universal jurisdiction as enshrined in Article 23.4 of the Spanish Organic Law 6/1985 of the Judicial Power in such a way as to make it no longer applicable by the Spanish judicial organs regarding crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. As a result, the creation of the ICC would entail a decline of the principle of universal jurisdiction in Spain (see Proposed Amendment 1 to the Draft OLCICC, presented in the Congress of Deputies by B. Lasagabáster, of the Mixed Parliamentarian Group). Others affirmed that this proposalwas not in line with the object and purpose behind the creation of a permanent international criminal court which operates on the basis of the principle of complementarity. In their view, the Court is not supposed to substitute any of themechanisms in place at the national or international level to fight against impunity in relation to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. On the contrary, the Court constitutes an additional mechanism aimed at providing States with the necessary incentives to make the existing mechanismsmore effective, and it only takes direct actionwhen national jurisdictions have shown themselves unwilling or unable to properly fight against impunity. Therefore, the creation of Court could not be interpreted as supporting the restriction of some of the mechanisms available under Spanish law to investigate and prosecute the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. Quite the opposite, the creation of the Court should promote their more effective exercise. This position was supported by important voices in doctrine, including Bujosa Vadell, note 8, Section 2.5, 97-102; M.P. Pozo Serrano, ‘Medidas Nacionales Medidas nacionales adoptadas para la ratificación y la aplicación del Estatuto de la Corte Penal Internacional: Un balance provisional’, in Anuario de Derecho Internacional (2003), 299–346 and 345;
7. J. Pueyo Losa, ‘Un nuevo modelo de cooperación internacional en materia penal: entre la justicia universal y la jurisdicción internacional, in Álvarez González and Remacha y Tejada (eds.), Cooperación jurýdica internacional (2001),
8. F. Lattanzi, ‘Compétence de la Cour pénale internationale et consentement des états’, (1999) 3 RGDIP, 425–44 and 430-1.
9. see H. Olásolo, The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court (2005), 72–89.
10. W. A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (2004), 125–6;
11. C. K. Hall, ‘Article 19: Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court and the Admissibility of the Case’, in O. Triffterer: Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999), at 407; and
12. M. El Zeidy, ‘The Ugandan Government Triggers the First Tests of the Complementarity Principle: An Assessment of the First State's Party Referral to the ICC’, (2005) 2 International Criminal Law Review, at 110.
13. 13 October 2005, para. 26. For a discussion, see M. El Zeidy, ‘Some Remarks on the Question of the Admissibility of a Case during Arrest Warrant Proceedings before the International Criminal Court’, (2006) 19 LJIL, 741–51.