scholarly journals The Right to Punishment for International Crimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 257-282
Author(s):  
Jens David Ohlin
Keyword(s):  
International Crimes ◽  
The Right

Ius Humanitatis and the Right to Reparation for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Core Element ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Humanitarian Ethics ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.

scholarly journals Victim’s Right of Access to International Criminal Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Fazlollah Foroughi ◽  
Zahra Dastan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.

scholarly journals Sexual Violence beyond Reasonable Doubt: Using Pattern Evidence and Analysis for International Cases

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
XABIER AGIRRE ARANBURU
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Sexual Crimes ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
The Right

AbstractEstablishing the pattern of crime is fundamental for the successful investigation of international crimes (genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). A pattern of crime is the aggregate of multiple incidents that share common features related to the victims, the perpetrators, and the modus operandi. Pattern evidence and analysis have been used successfully, mainly in the investigation of large-scale killings, destruction, and displacement; the use for sexual violence charges has been remarkably more limited. There is a need to overcome this gap by setting proper methods of data collection and analysis. At the level of evidence collection, under-reporting should be addressed through victimization surveys or secondary analysis of data available from different sources. At the level of analysis, the available evidence needs to be subject to impartial examination beyond the pre-conceptions of the conflict parties and advocacy groups, in compliance with scientific standards for quantitative, qualitative, and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) methods. Reviewing the different investigative experiences and jurisprudence will help to set the right methodology and contribute most efficiently to putting an end to the impunity regarding sexual crimes.

Citizenship V. Territory: Explaining the Scope of the Criminal Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-448
Author(s):  
Alejandro Chehtman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The State ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Collective Interest ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Right ◽  
Meaningful Role ◽  
Antony Duff

Antony Duff and his coauthors have influentially argued that citizenship plays a central role in accounting both for the way in which the state makes individuals criminally responsible for certain wrongs and for calling them to answer for their wrongs. This paper takes issue with this citizenship-based understanding of the scope of the criminal law. It argues that Duff's model of civic criminal liability faces difficulties in explaining states' right to punish foreigners for crimes committed on their territory, and sits very uncomfortably with states claiming universal jurisdiction over international crimes. In contrast, it advocates a territorial conception of the criminal law. It suggests that to account for the allocation and scope of the right to punish, we need to look at the (collective) interest of those individuals who actually are in the territory of a particular state, not merely its citizens. Finally, it examines whether the notion of citizenship plays any meaningful role in a convincing account of the authority of the state to try an offender. Contra Duff and others, it argues that this authority rests exclusively on defendants receiving a fair trial and a verdict based on reliable evidence.

scholarly journals Realising the Right to Health for Victims of International Crimes. The Case of Medical Rehabilitation Reparations Ordered by International Courts: Challenges, Possibilities and Ways of Improvement

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Pérez-León Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Medical Rehabilitation ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
The Right

In the last few decades, international crimes, ie, serious human rights violations, have inflicted severe harm on both the physical and mental health of large numbers of victims around the world. In attempting to redress these damages, international courts, within their respective mandates, have issued reparations orders in favour of victims and their communities. Precisely, an important modality of reparations has consisted of rehabilitation which includes measures of a medical nature for victims. This means physical and psychological rehabilitation including treatment, care and support. At three international level courts, namely, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), International Criminal Court (ICC), and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), important developments in the field of medical rehabilitative reparations have taken place. This article critically analyses the practices on medical rehabilitation reparations at those courts, suggests which steps should be taken to improve those practices and proposes which actions States and other international community actors should adopt to better implement and/or contribute towards the implementation of orders on medical rehabilitation reparations. Attention is also given to international human rights law, particularly the obligation to cooperate and the right to health standards and principles.

scholarly journals The Right to Punishment for International Crimes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens David Ohlin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
District Court ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
German Government ◽  
Subtle Change ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

On October 1, 2002, Magnus Gäfgen was taken into custody by the Frankfurt police in connection with the kidnapping of a young boy held for ransom. The police threatened Gäfgen with various forms of torture unless he divulged the location of the boy. Gäfgen quickly relented and led the police to the boy, who was already dead. Gäfgen was convicted of murder and the police were convicted of coercion. However, the district court concluded that the police, though culpable, were not appropriate subjects of punishment. Gäfgen, unhappy that his torturers were not punished, filed a case against Germany at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that Germany's failure to punish his torturers violated his human rights. The ECHR concluded that Gäfgen was right--the German government was obligated to punish perpetrators of torture, and by failing to do so adequately, Germany violated Gäfgen's human rights.The goal of this chapter is to show that the argument in Gäfgen is generalizable to other contexts. Although the case arose from a particular procedural posture, there is little reason to suspect that the arguments in Gäfgen will not hold for other crimes as well. At the very least, these arguments can be extended, without logical disruption, to other international crimes that states are under a legal obligation to criminalize, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Moreover, if the structure of these arguments is conceptually sound, in theory they should apply outside of the European context, unless the argument is based on a particular right that is only protected by the European Convention and not by international law.This subtle change in emphasis -- moving from punishment as a license to punishment as a legal requirement -- has profound consequences for the operation of international criminal justice. States and international tribunals are required to punish perpetrators as a matter of human rights law, and their failure to follow through on this obligation violates not just some vague or inchoate ergo omnes obligation, it also violates an obligation owed directly to the victims of that particular atrocity. This applies not just when the perpetrators are not punished at all but also when the perpetrators, like in Gäfgen's case, are not punished severely enough.

Part III The Right to Justice, A General Principles, Principle 19 Duties of States with Regard to the Administration of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambos Kai
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right

Principle 19 outlines the duties of States with regard to the administration of justice for victims of serious human rights violations and other international crimes. Under this Principle, States must ensure that those responsible for serious crimes under international law are prosecuted, tried and adequately punished. A state’s (criminal) justice obligations have long been recognized by regional human rights courts and international human rights bodies. While the fight against impunity is the explicit aim of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a major goal of the United Nations, the duty to prosecute lies primarily with the domestic justice system with regional or international mechanisms being subsidiary or complementary. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 19 before discussing its theoretical framework and how human rights courts and treaty bodies have interpreted the duty of States to investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations.

Monetary Compensation as a Remedy for Fair Trial Violations under International Criminal Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yahli Shereshevsky
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Monetary Compensation ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right

When international criminal courts face violations of the right to a fair trial, they encounter a dilemma: if they provide a significant remedy, such as a stay of proceedings, the remedy inevitably undermines the ability to punish the perpetrators of international crimes; on the other hand, if they grant a minimal remedy or no remedy at all, the right to a fair trial is undermined. This dilemma has led to the adoption of an interest-balancing approach to remedies. Under this approach, sentence reduction plays a prominent role in remedying fair trial violations that do not undermine the court’s ability to accurately determine the accused’s guilt. This Article argues that sentence reduction is an inadequate remedy, since it inevitably either harms the goals of international criminal sentencing or does not provide an effective remedy for violations of the right to a fair trial. Instead, monetary compensation should be the remedy for such violations. By granting monetary compensation, the court creates a separation between the punishment and the remedy and thus can usually provide an effective remedy for the accused without harming the main goals of international criminal justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document