Dealing With Crimes of a Past Regime. Is Amnesty Still an Option?

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 1001-1015

  Dugard, John ^a,b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

amnesty; international criminal law; International Criminal Tribunal; truth commissions

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010551148     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156599000515     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Art. 4 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277 (1951).
2. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 29/92 (Uruguay) 82'* session OEA/LV/11.82.Doc. 25 (2 Oct. 1992); id. Report No. 24/92 (Argentina), Doc. 24.
3. 1988 lACHR (Ser. C), No. 4, para. 165
4. General Comment No. 20 (44), (Art. 7), UN Doc. CCPR7C21/Rev. 1/Add 3., para 15 (1992).
5. Art. 6 Draft Code of Crimes gainst the Peace and Security of Mankind, Report of the International Law Commission of the Work of its Forty-eighth Session, 51'’ Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1966).
6. Part II, para. 60, UN Doc. A/Conf/57/24 (1993); 32 ILM 166 (1992).
7. ILM 68 (1969).
8. Security Council Resolution 827 (1993); 32 ILM 1192 (1993)
9. Security Council Resolution 955; 33 ILM 1598(1994).
10. See, for example. Arts. 146 and 147 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civiiian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287 (1950).
11. See, for example, M Cherif Bassiouni, Searching for Peace and Achieving Justice: The Need for Accountability, 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 9 (1996); D. Orendicher, Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime, 100 Yale Law Journal 2537, 2568 (1991); C. Edelenbos, Human Rights Violations; A Duty to Prosecute? 1 Leiden Journal of International Law 5, 15 (1994).
12. CaseNo.IT-9517/l-T (10 December 1998); (1999)39 ILM, at paras. 151-157(1999).
13. See M. Scharf, The Letter of the Law: the Scope of the International Legal Obligation to Prosecute Human Rights Crimes, 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 41, 47 (1996).
14. Azanian Peoples Organization (AZAPO) v. President of Uie Republic of South Africa, 1996 (4) SA 671 (CC), at 691, para. 32
15. Proceedings No. io-93 (May 20, 1993); reprinted in N.J. Krltz (Ed.), Transitional Justice, Vol, 3, 549, 555 (1995).
16. See D. Cassel, Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrocities, 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 196, 212 (1996).
17. R, V. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate. Ex Parte Pinochet [1998] 4 All ER 897 (HL), at 929 h-i.
18. The Rome Statute of the Internationa! Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9 (1998), reprinted in 37ILM 999(1998).
19. Preamble, para. 10, Art. 17.
20. P. Hayner, Fifteen Truth Commissions-1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study, 16 Human Rights Quarterly 600 (1994).
21. UN Doc. E/CN, 4/sub.2/1997/20/Rev I (1997).
22. UN Doc. E/CN note 20, at n. 4.
23. 1996 (4) SA 671, at 683-685.
24. R. V. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, [1998] 4 All ER 897 (HL) and R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), [1993] 2 All ER97 (HL). The rehearing was occasioned by the fact that the first judgment was set aside on the ground of irregularity because one of the members of the House of Lords (Lord Hoffmann) was found to have close ties with Amnesty International, an intervening party in the proceedings: reported in R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), [1999] 1 All ER 577 (HL).
25. See N.J. Kritz (Ed.), Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Deal With Former Regimes, Vol. 2, at 500 (1995).
26. Lord Lloyd in the first judgment, [1998] 4 All ER, at 929, hi. Lord Goff in the second judgment, [1999] 2 All ER, at 127-128.
27. [1999] 2 AUER, at 178 b-c.
28. See the decisions of the Hoge Raad of 16 Januari 1973 (NJ, 1973, no. 281) and 28 June 1977 (NJ, 1978, no. 438). This is also the position in Germany, see W. Schomberg & O. Lagodny, Internationale RechtshlUe in Strafsachen 52 (1998).
29. See the speech of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, [1999] 2 All ER, at 104-107.
30. Art. 2 European Convention on Extradition 1957, (ETS No. 24), opened for signature 13 December 1957, entered into force 18 April I960 (ECEx).
31. [1999] 2 All ER, at 105.
32. Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, Vol. 5, at 349 (1998).
33. Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, translated by P.E. Berryman (1993); excerpts in N.J. Kritz (Ed.), Transitional Justice, Vol. 3, at 105 (1995).
34. SK/7ra note 32.
35. SK/7ra note note 32, Vol. 5, at 225
36. M, at 235.
37. 7rf.,at243.
38. Act 200 of 1993.
39. Act 108 of 1996.
40. Act 34 of 1995.
41. Sections 10(1), 19(3Xb)(iii) of Act 34 of 1995.
42. Section 20 ofAct 34 of 1995.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id
46. Id.
47. See the Report by Louis Joinet on the Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political) for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev 1 (1997); N.J. Kritz, Coming to Terms with Atrocities: A Review of Accountability Mechanisms for Mass Violations of Human Rights, 59 Law and Contemporary Problems 127 (1996); P. Hayner, International Guidelines for the Location and Operation of Truth Commissions: A Preliminary Proposal, id., at 173; S. Landsman, id., at 8L
48. Both amnesty and pardon were considered and rejected in the context of the defence of ne bis in idem’, see Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Vol. 1, at 40 (para. 174) (Proceedings of the Preparatory Committee during March-April and August 1996) GAOR, 51” Session, Supplement Ko 22 (UN Doc. A/51/22); UN Doc, A/CONF./283/2/Add. 1 (1998), Art. 19. Ruth Wedgwood reports that in August 1997 the United States circulated a ‘non paper’ to the Preparatory Committee suggesting that a responsible decision by a democratic regime to allow an amnesty should be taken into account in judging the admissibility of a case, see R. Wedgwood, The International Criminal Court: An American View, 10 European Journal of International Law 93, at 96 (1999).
49. See G. Hafner, K. Boon, A. Rubesame & J. Huston, A Response to the American View as Presented by Ruth Wedgwood, 10 European Journal of International Law 108, at 109-113 (1999).
50. Paras, 4 and 5.
51. 5'pranote44.
52. Art. 102.
53. The 1990 UN Model Treaty on Extradition lists amnesty granted by either requesting or requested state as a mandatory ground for the refusal of extradition: General Assembly Resolution 45/116 of 14 December; 30 ILM 1407 (1991). Art. 3(e). The 1996 European Union Extradition Agreement allows the requested state to refuse extradition where it has granted amnesty and was competent to prosecute the offence under its own criminal law, see OJEC, No. 313/12 of 23 October 1996.
54. M. Scharf, The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of (he International Criminal Court, 32 Cornell International Law Journal (1999) (not yet published).
55. S'M/jranote 12.