05 Amnesty International has published six papers so far in its No safe haven series on universal jurisdiction in each of the 192 UN Member states (as well as links). The International Justice Project of Amnesty International is now engaged in a multi-year project to update, expand and revise its 722-page global study of state practice in 125 countries, Universal jurisdiction: The duty of states to enact and implement jurisdiction, AI Index: IOR 53/002 - 018/2001, September 2001, available at http://web.amnesty.org/pages/legal_memorandum.
Each paper includes information about:
- territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction;
- whether the state has incorporated into national law crimes under international law (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and aggression) and other crimes of international concern (such as hostage-taking, transnational organized crime);
- whether national courts can exercise universal criminal jurisdiction over crimes under international law, crimes under national law of international concern and ordinary crimes;
- whether victims can obtain civil reparations in civil suits or in civil claims made in criminal cases, such as the action civile in civil law countries;
- what obstacles exist to exercising universal criminal and civil jurisdiction, including statutes of limitation, ne bis in idem, bars on retrospective criminal law and immunities;
- what obstacles (such as dual criminality and political offence exceptions) and human rights safeguards (risk of unfair trial, death penalty, torture or other ill-treatment) exist with respect to extradition and mutual legal assistance;
- whether there is a specialized immigration unit to screen those seeking to enter the country with a view to identifying persons who should be investigated on suspicion of responsibility for crimes under international law and specialized police and prosecution units to investigate and prosecute such crimes; and
- whether there is any relevant jurisprudence.
Each paper then concludes with several pages of detailed recommendations for reform of law and practice.
The papers are all researched and drafted by volunteers from around the world, primarily in law firms, institutes of international criminal law and international law clinics in law schools, under the direct supervision of the International Justice Project, then checked by independent experts on the law of the state concerned and finally sent to police, prosecutors and ministries of justice, foreign affairs and defence for comment before publication.
Anyone interested in assisting Amnesty International in this exciting project should contact the International Justice Project at: ijp@amnesty.org.
Links to papers issued so far in the No safe haven series
Bulgaria (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR15/001/2009/en)
Germany (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR23/003/2008/en)
Solomon Islands (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA43/002/2009/en)
Spain (http://www.amnesty.org/es/library/info/EUR41/017/2008/es) (Spanish only)
Sweden (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR42/001/2009/en)
Venezuela (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR53/006/2009/en)
Please find below the link to a recent report posted by the Council on
Foreign Relations* entitled "Africa and the International Criminal
Court," written by Stephanie Hanson. The report features background
information on the ICC, current situations before the Court, the U.S.
relationship with the ICC, and challenges and criticisms that are facing
the Court.
A section on the future U.S. relationship with the ICC notes "Many
experts think the best way for the United States to protect its military
is to engage with the ICC." It highlights a Stimson Center report
(http://www.stimson.org/fopo/pdf/US_Military_and_the_ICC_FINAL_website.pdf), which is based on extensive interviews with military personnel,
that argues "the U.S. government needs to inform the military about the
ICC to reduce military anxiety, address U.S. interests directly by
participating in the Court's proceedings, and close any gaps between
U.S. law and the crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction."
The link to the Council on Foreign Relations full report is
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12048/
"Del dolor a la verdad y a la reconciliación es el nombre de este especial de Hechos del Callejón que hoy les presentamos. Presidentes y miembros de ocho Comisiones de la Verdad, la Reconciliación y la Reparación de América y Centroamérica, África y Asia, así como expertos en el tema, escribieron sobre los principales retos y problemas que enfrentaron comisiones en diferentes partes del mundo.
Cada una de ellas intentó, con mayor o menor éxito, descubrir la verdad en pasados que avergüenzan; impulsar la reconciliación así se hablara de rencores de más de 30 años; promover un nuevo orden moral, político y militar y generar los mecanismos, desde pedagógicos hasta políticos, para evitar que la historia de violencia volviera a repetirse.
Algunas lograron su objetivo, mientras que otras siguen siendo cuestionadas porque no tuvieron la independencia que se esperaba, porque generaron más expectativas que resultados o porque excluyeron de sus investigaciones a responsables de numerosas violaciones. Pero más allá de sus éxitos o fracasos, todas, de distinta manera, llegaron a una misma conclusión: “Nunca más”.
Esperamos que este especial de Hechos del Callejón aporte al conocimiento y a la reflexión en Colombia sobre las posibles salidas en busca de la verdad y la reconciliación."
http://indh.pnud.org.co/index_.plx?f=1164903304
University of Pittsburgh School of Law Working Paper Series
University of Pittsburgh School of Law Working Paper Series
Vivian Grosswald Curran, University of Pittsburgh
ABSTRACT:
The post-Second World War trial for the crime against humanity from the start assumed pedagogical proportions, with the tribunals involved conscious that their legal verdicts would represent historical pronouncement and national values. The newly defined crime has been asked to institutionalize far more than the traditional task of adjudicating the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The trials themselves are meant to define the past, create and crystallize national memory, and illuminate the foundations of the future. I suggest that, by placing a burden on law that it is not designed to bear, we risk deforming law and legal principle. We risk creating an edifice that will not be equal to the task of memory, that will trivialize the memory it seeks to establish and fortify and, worst of all, that may betray law itself by subverting it from within.
Elena A. Baylis, University of Pittsburgh
Forthcoming in the Winter 2006 issue of the Yale Journal of International Law.
ABSTRACT:
Even as American attention is focused on Iraq’s struggles to rebuild its political and legal systems in the face of violent sectarian divisions, another fractured society – Kosovo – has just begun negotiations to resolve the question of its political independence. The persistent ethnic divisions that have obstructed Kosovo’s efforts to establish multi-ethnic “rule of law” offer lessons in transitional justice for Iraq and other states.
In Kosovo today, two parallel judicial systems each claim absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over the province. One system is sponsored by the United Nations administration in Kosovo and is mostly, although not exclusively, staffed by Kosovar Albanians. The other system, run primarily by Kosovar Serbians, is essentially a set of courts-in-exile, the remnants of the previous judicial system that existed before the Serbian government was forced out of Kosovo by NATO bombing in 1999. The parallel courts present a transitional justice issue that is as crucial to rebuilding Kosovo’s post-conflict society as convening a truth commission or conducting criminal trials. On one level, the existence of the parallel courts is a manifestation of the ongoing political dispute over sovereignty. For the residents of Kosovo, the lack of any recognition of judgments between these systems has also created legal chaos in their everyday lives. Conflicting judgments have been issued in civil cases, and criminal defendants are subject to prosecution and punishment in both systems. The palpable injustices that result from these conflicting judgments and repeated trials are undermining confidence in the ongoing process of legal and political transition.
This article undertakes an assessment of Kosovo’s parallel systems and of the existing legal models for recognition and enforcement of judgments, with the aim of proposing an appropriate framework for Kosovo to recognize the Serbian parallel judgments. In my survey of the relevant national and international models, I find that each strives to strike a balance between two competing values: (1) certainty in the finality and consistency of legal judgments and (2) ensuring those judgments’ essential fairness. Using these two values as a guide, I assess whether and how the existing models might be adapted to Kosovo’s context, concluding that the proper balance between legal certainty and fairness will permit categorical recognition of most parallel civil judgments, but will require case by case, discretionary review of criminal judgments. Finally, from this analysis, I develop a set of factors for other transitioning states to consider when faced with judgments from ethnic and religious legal institutions or other parallel courts.
viewcontent.cgi (application/pdf Object)
El Equipo Nizkor y Derechos Human Rights han publicado en la web la sentencia a los integrantes de la junta(s) militar(es) que rigió a Argentina de 1976 a 1983.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/arg/causa13/index.html
Amnesty International Neatherlands has published an updated edition of their Guide to Truth Commissions & Transnational Justice. The guide covers truth commissions, tribunals and memorials around the world. You can find it at:
http://http://www.amnesty.nl/bibliotheek_vervolg/thema_berechting_introduction